Conservation Evidence: Evidence Data

Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Relocate access points to bat roosts within developments Two studies evaluated the effects of relocating access points to bat roosts within building developments on bat populations. One study was in Ireland and one in the UK. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (2 STUDIES) Use (2 studies): One before-and-after study in Ireland found that fewer brown long-eared bats used a roost after the access points were relocated, and no bats were observed flying through them. One before-and-after study in the UK found that few lesser horseshoe bats used an alternative access point with a ‘bend’ design to re-enter a roost in a building development, but the number of bats using the roost increased after an access point with a ‘straight’ design was installed. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F946https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F946Tue, 10 Dec 2013 13:55:15 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove turbine lighting to reduce bat and insect attraction We found no studies that evaluated the effects of removing turbine lighting to reduce bat and insect attraction on bat populations. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F969https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F969Fri, 20 Dec 2013 12:15:27 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Relocate bats from reclaimed mines to alternative subterranean roost sites We found no studies that evaluated the effects of relocating bats from reclaimed mines to alternative subterranean roost sites on bat populations. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F975https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F975Fri, 20 Dec 2013 12:43:57 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Replace or improve habitat for bats around roads/railways We found no studies that evaluated the effects of replacing or improving habitat around roads/railways on bat populations. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F983https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F983Fri, 20 Dec 2013 14:28:33 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Replant native trees in logged areas We found no studies that evaluated the effects of replanting native trees in logged areas on bat populations. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F994https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F994Fri, 20 Dec 2013 15:37:49 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide training to conservationists, land managers, and the building and development sector on bat ecology and conservation to reduce bat roost disturbance We found no studies that evaluated the effects of providing training to conservationists, land managers, and the building and development sector on bat ecology and conservation to reduce bat roost disturbance. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F997https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F997Fri, 20 Dec 2013 17:00:45 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restore and maintain microclimate in modified caves We found no studies that evaluated the effects of restoring and maintaining the microclimate in modified caves for roosting bats on bat populations. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1001https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1001Fri, 20 Dec 2013 17:14:49 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce field size (or maintain small fields) One study evaluated the effects of maintaining small fields on bat populations. The study was in Canada. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in Canada found that agricultural landscapes with smaller fields had higher activity (relative abundance) of six of seven bat species than landscapes with larger fields. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1939https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1939Mon, 03 Dec 2018 13:19:32 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Replace culling of bats with non-lethal methods of preventing vampire bats from spreading rabies to livestock We found no studies that evaluated the effects of replacing culling of bats with non-lethal methods of preventing vampire bats from spreading rabies to livestock on vampire bat populations. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1950https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1950Tue, 04 Dec 2018 12:18:26 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reopen entrances to closed mines and make suitable for roosting bats We found no studies that evaluated the effects of reopening entrances to closed mines and making them suitable for roosting bats on bat populations. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1965https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1965Tue, 04 Dec 2018 16:54:24 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Replace culling of bats with non-lethal methods of preventing vampire bats from spreading rabies to humans We found no studies that evaluated the effects of replacing culling of bats with non-lethal methods of preventing vampire bats from spreading rabies to humans on vampire bat populations. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1979https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1979Tue, 04 Dec 2018 18:27:49 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Relocate bat colonies roosting inside dams One study evaluated the effects of relocating bat colonies inside dams on bat populations. The study was in Argentina. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): One study in Argentina found that almost two-thirds of a large colony of Brazilian free-tailed bats relocated to a different dam compartment five months after being displaced from six compartments where the colony originally roosted. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1998https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1998Wed, 05 Dec 2018 14:44:59 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce or prevent the use of septic systems near caves We found no studies that evaluated the effects of reducing or preventing the use of septic systems near caves on bat populations. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2011https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2011Wed, 05 Dec 2018 16:28:27 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce pesticide, herbicide or fertiliser use Four studies evaluated the effects of reducing pesticide, herbicide and fertiliser use on bat populations. One study was in each of Mexico, Portugal, Germany and Columbia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Community composition (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in Portugal found that farms using few or no chemicals had different compositions of bat species to farms using high chemical inputs. Richness/diversity (2 studies): One site comparison study in Mexico found that coffee agroforestry plantations using few or no chemicals had a higher diversity of insect-eating bat species than plantations with high chemical inputs, but the diversity of fruit and nectar-eating bat species did not differ. One paired sites study in Germany recorded more bat species over grassland with moderate or no fertiliser applications than grassland with high fertiliser applications. POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Abundance (2 studies): Two site comparison or paired sites studies (one replicated) in Portugal and Germany found that farms or grasslands with few or no chemical inputs had higher overall bat activity (relative abundance) than those using high chemical inputs. Condition (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in Columbia found that great fruit-eating bats captured in ‘silvopastoral’ areas that used no chemicals, along with agroforestry, had higher body weights and body condition scores than those in conventional farming areas that used chemicals. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2013https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2013Wed, 05 Dec 2018 17:38:03 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide suitable bat foraging and roosting habitat at expanding range fronts We found no studies that evaluated the effects of providing suitable bat foraging and roosting habitat at expanding range fronts on bat populations. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2026https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2026Wed, 05 Dec 2018 18:15:42 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Regularly clean bat boxes to increase occupancy We found no studies that evaluated the effects of regularly cleaning artificial bat roosts to increase occupancy on bat populations. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2038https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2038Wed, 05 Dec 2018 18:31:05 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Release captive-bred bats We found no studies that evaluated the effects of releasing captive-bred bats on bat populations. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2039https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2039Wed, 05 Dec 2018 18:32:17 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reinstate bat roosts in felled tree trunks One study evaluated the effects of reinstating a bat roost within a felled tree trunk on bat populations. The study was in the UK. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Use (1 study): One before-and-after study in the UK found that a roost reinstated by attaching the felled tree trunk to a nearby tree continued to be used by common noctule bats as a maternity roost. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2048https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2048Fri, 07 Dec 2018 12:38:25 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restore or create forest or woodland Two studies evaluated the effects of restoring forests on bat populations. One study was in Brazil and one in Australia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Richness/diversity (1 study): One site comparison study in Brazil found that a reforested area had significantly lower bat diversity than a native forest fragment. POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): One replicated, controlled, site comparison study in Australia found that forests restored after mining had significantly higher or similar bat activity (relative abundance) as unmined forests for five of seven bat species. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2050https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2050Fri, 07 Dec 2018 12:43:26 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restore or create grassland One study evaluated the effects of creating grassland on bat populations. The study was in the UK. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): One replicated, paired sites study in the UK found that pipistrelle activity (relative abundance) did not differ between species-rich grassland created on agri-environment scheme farms and improved pasture or crop fields on conventional farms. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2051https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2051Fri, 07 Dec 2018 12:47:28 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Rehabilitate injured/orphaned bats to maintain wild bat populations Four studies evaluated the effects of rehabilitating injured/orphaned bats on bat populations. Two studies were in the UK, one was in Italy and one in Brazil. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (4 STUDIES) Survival (4 studies): One study in Brazil found that two hand-reared orphaned greater spear-nosed bats survived for over three months in captivity. Two studies in the UK and Italy found that 70–90% of hand-reared pipistrelle bats survived for at least 4–14 days after release into the wild, and six of 21 bats joined wild bat colonies. One study in the UK found that pipistrelle bats that flew in a large flight cage for long periods before release survived for longer and were more active than bats that flew for short periods or in a small enclosure. One study in the UK found that 13% of ringed hand-reared pipstrelle bats were found alive in bat boxes 38 days to almost four years after release into the wild. Condition (1 study): One study in Brazil found that two orphaned greater spear-nosed bats increased in body weight and size after being hand-reared, and reached a normal size for the species after 60 days. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2054https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2054Fri, 07 Dec 2018 19:33:05 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restore and manage abandoned orchards for bats We found no studies that evaluated the effects of restoring and managing abandoned orchards for bats on bat populations. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this intervention during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have no evidence to indicate whether or not the intervention has any desirable or harmful effects.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2285https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2285Tue, 19 Nov 2019 18:23:58 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restore bat foraging habitat at ex-quarry sites One study evaluated the effects of restoring bat foraging habitat at ex-quarry sites on bat populations. The study was in France. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in France found that gravel-sand pits had higher overall bat activity (relative abundance) 10 years after restoration than gravel-sand pit sites before or during quarrying. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2286https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2286Wed, 20 Nov 2019 11:35:38 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Replace or improve roosting habitat for bats along utility and service line corridors We found no studies that evaluated the effects of replacing or improving roosting habitat for bats along utility and service line corridors on bat populations. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2943https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2943Fri, 12 Feb 2021 17:56:27 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide training to wildlife control operators on least harmful ways of removing bats from their roosts We found no studies that evaluated the effects of providing training to wildlife control operators on the least harmful ways of removing bats from their roosts. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2945https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2945Sun, 14 Feb 2021 16:57:04 +0000