Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restrict human access to bat caves to reduce the spread of the white-nose syndrome pathogen We found no studies that evaluated the effects of restricting human access to bat caves to reduce the spread of the white-nose syndrome pathogen 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%2F1010https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1010Fri, 20 Dec 2013 17:45:48 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Vaccinate bats against the white-nose syndrome pathogen We found no studies that evaluated the effects of vaccinating bats against the white-nose syndrome pathogen 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%2F1011https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1011Fri, 20 Dec 2013 17:46:43 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Cull bats infected with white-nose syndrome We found no studies that evaluated the effects of culling bats infected with white-nose syndrome 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%2F1012https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1012Fri, 20 Dec 2013 17:47:23 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Modify bat hibernacula environments to increase survival of bats infected with white-nose syndrome One study evaluated the effects of modifying hibernacula environments to increase the survival of bats infected with white-nose syndrome. The study was in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Survival (1 study): One randomized, replicated, controlled study in the USA found that a greater number of little brown bats infected with the white-nose syndrome fungus survived in hibernation chambers at 4°C than at 10° BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Behaviour change (1 study): One randomized, replicated, controlled study in the USA found that little brown bats infected with the white-nose syndrome fungus stayed in hibernation for longer in hibernation chambers at 4°C than at 10° Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1013https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1013Fri, 20 Dec 2013 17:48:20 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Change effluent treatments of domestic and urban waste water One study evaluated the effects of different sewage treatments on the activity of foraging bats. The study was in the UK. We found no studies that evaluated the effects of changing effluent treatments of domestic and urban waste water discharged into rivers on bat populations. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the UK found higher activity (relative abundance) of foraging bats over filter bed sewage treatment works than over active sludge systems. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1014https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1014Fri, 20 Dec 2013 17:50:17 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Introduce legislation to control the use of hazardous substances We found no studies that evaluated the effects of introducing legislation to control the use of hazardous substances 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%2F1015https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1015Fri, 20 Dec 2013 17:51:23 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Change effluent treatments used in agriculture and forestry We found no studies that evaluated the effects of changing the effluent treatments used in agriculture and forestry 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%2F1016https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1016Fri, 20 Dec 2013 17:52:07 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Leave bat roosts and roost entrances unlit Five studies evaluated the effects of leaving bat roosts and roost entrances unlit on bat populations. Two studies were in the UK, and one study was in each of Canada, Hungary and Sweden. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Abundance (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in Canada found that numbers of big brown bats and little brown bats roosting in buildings increased when roosts were left unlit and decreased when roosts were illuminated with artificial lights. Condition (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in Hungary found that juvenile bats had a higher body mass and greater forearm length at unlit roosts than at roosts with artificial lighting. BEHAVIOUR (4 STUDIES)      Use (1 study): One replicated, before-and-after study in Sweden found that all of 13 unlit churches continued to be used by brown long-eared bat colonies over 25 years, but bat colonies abandoned their roosts at 14 of 23 churches that were either partly or fully lit with floodlights. Behaviour change (3 studies): Three controlled studies (including two replicated studies) in the UK and Hungary found that more bats emerged, and bats emerged earlier and foraged for shorter periods, when roosts were left unlit than when they had artificial lighting. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1017https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1017Fri, 20 Dec 2013 17:54:28 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use low intensity lighting Three studies evaluated the effects of using low intensity lighting on bat populations. The three studies were in the UK. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Abundance (2 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in the UK found that activity (relative abundance) of lesser horseshoe bats, but not myotis bats, was higher along hedges with medium or low intensity lighting than hedges with high intensity lighting. One replicated, randomized, controlled study in the UK found that activity of myotis bats, but not common pipistrelles, was higher along treelined roads with street lights dimmed to an intensity of 25% than roads with streetlights dimmed to 50% or left undimmed. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY)         Behaviour change (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in the UK found that more soprano pipistrelles emerged from two roosts when the intensity of red lights was reduced by placing filters over them. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1018https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1018Fri, 20 Dec 2013 17:58:34 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restrict timing of lighting One study evaluated the effects of restricting the timing of lighting on bat populations. The study was in France. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): One replicated, paired sites study in France found that turning off streetlights for part of the night resulted in mixed results for activity (relative abundance), depending on bat species, when compared with leaving streetlights switched on all night. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1019https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1019Fri, 20 Dec 2013 17:59:19 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use ultraviolet filters on lights One study evaluated the effects of using ultraviolet filters on lights on bat populations. The study was in the UK. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): One randomized, replicated, controlled study in the UK found that hedges lit with ultraviolet filtered lights had higher soprano pipistrelle, but not common pipistrelle activity (relative abundance) than hedges lit with unfiltered light. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1020https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1020Fri, 20 Dec 2013 18:00:18 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Impose noise limits in proximity to bat roosts and habitats We found no studies that evaluated the effects of imposing noise limits in proximity to bat roosts and habitats 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%2F1021https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1021Fri, 20 Dec 2013 18:01:10 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use mammal-safe timber treatments in roof spaces We found no studies that evaluated the effects of using mammal-safe timber treatments in roof spaces 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%2F1022https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1022Fri, 20 Dec 2013 18:04:01 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restrict timing of timber treatment application One study evaluated the effects of restricting the timing of timber treatment application on bat populations. The study was in the UK. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Survival (1 study): One replicated, controlled laboratory study in the UK found that treating timber with lindane and pentachlorophenol 14 months prior to exposure by bats increased survival but did not prevent death. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1023https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1023Fri, 20 Dec 2013 18:05:39 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide bat boxes for roosting bats Forty-four studies evaluated the effects of providing bat boxes for roosting bats on bat populations. Twenty-seven studies were in Europe, nine studies were in North America, four studies were in Australia, two studies were in South America, and one study was a worldwide review. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (44 STUDIES) Uptake (9 studies): Nine replicated studies in Europe and the USA found that the number of bats using bat boxes increased by 2–10 times up to 10 years after installation. Use (43 studies): Forty-one of 43 studies (including 34 replicated studies and two reviews) in Europe, the USA, South America, and Australia found that bats used bat boxes installed in forest or woodland, forestry plantations, farmland, pasture, wetlands, urban areas and buildings, bridges, underpasses or unknown habitats. The other two studies in the USA and UK found that bats displaced from buildings did not use any of 43 bat houses of four different designs or 12 heated bat boxes of one design. One review of 109 studies across Europe, North America and Asia found that 72 bat species used bat boxes, although only 18 species commonly used them, and 31 species used them as maternity roosts. Twenty-two studies (including 17 replicated studies, one before-and-after study and two reviews) found bats occupying less than half of bat boxes provided (0–49%). Nine replicated studies found bats occupying more than half of bat boxes provided (54–100%). OTHER (23 STUDIES) Bat box design (16 studies): Three studies in Germany, Portugal and Australia found that bats used black bat boxes more than grey, white or wooden boxes. One of two studies in Spain and the USA found higher occupancy rates in larger bat boxes. One study in the USA found that bats used both resin and wood cylindrical bat boxes, but another study in the USA found that resin bat boxes became occupied more quickly than wood boxes. One study in the UK found higher occupancy rates in concrete than wooden bat boxes. One study in the USA found that Indiana bats used rocket boxes more than wooden bat boxes or bark-mimic roosts. One study in Spain found that more bats occupied bat boxes that had two compartments than one compartment in the breeding season. One study in Lithuania found that bat breeding colonies occupied standard and four/five chamber bat boxes and individuals occupied flat bat boxes. Four studies in the USA, UK, Spain and Australia found bats selecting four of nine, three of five, three of four and one of five bat box designs. One study in the UK found that different bat box designs were used by different species. One study in Costa Rica found that bat boxes simulating tree trunks were used by 100% of bats and in group sizes similar to natural roosts. Bat box position (11 studies): Three studies in Germany, Spain and the USA found that bat box orientation and/or the amount of exposure to sunlight affected bat occupancy, and one study in Spain found that orientation did not have a significant effect on occupancy. Two studies in the UK and Italy found that bat box height affected occupancy, and two studies in Spain and the USA found no effect of height. Two studies in the USA and Spain found higher occupancy of bat boxes on buildings than on trees. One study in Australia found that bat boxes were occupied more often in farm forestry sites than in native forest, one study in Poland found higher occupancy in pine relative to mixed deciduous stands, and one study in Costa Rica found higher occupancy in forest fragments than in pasture. One study in the USA found higher occupancy rates in areas where bats were known to roost prior to installing bat boxes. One review in the UK found that bat boxes were more likely to be occupied when a greater number of bat boxes were installed across a site. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1024https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1024Fri, 20 Dec 2013 18:17:59 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install sound-proofing insulation between bat roosts and areas occupied by humans within developments We found no studies that evaluated the effects of installing sound-proofing insulation between bat roosts and areas occupied by humans within developments 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%2F1929https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1929Fri, 30 Nov 2018 13:47:18 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Exclude bats from roosts during building work One study evaluated the effects of excluding bats from roosts during building work on bat populations. The study was in the UK. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY)                                                  Behaviour change (1 study): One replicated, before-and-after study in the UK found that excluding bats from roosts within buildings did not change roost switching frequency, core foraging areas or foraging preferences of soprano pipistrelle colonies. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1930https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1930Fri, 30 Nov 2018 14:28:45 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Educate homeowners about building and planning laws relating to bats to reduce disturbance to bat roosts We found no studies that evaluated the effects of educating homeowners and planning authorities about building and planning laws relating to bats to reduce disturbance to bat 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%2F1931https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1931Fri, 30 Nov 2018 14:34:44 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Plant gardens with night-scented flowers We found no studies that evaluated the effects of planting gardens with night-scented flowers 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%2F1932https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1932Fri, 30 Nov 2018 14:35:41 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Increase semi-natural habitat within gardens We found no studies that evaluated the effects of increasing the amount of semi-natural habitat within gardens 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%2F1933https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1933Fri, 30 Nov 2018 14:36:32 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Protect greenfield sites or undeveloped land in urban areas We found no studies that evaluated the effects of protecting greenfield sites or undeveloped land in urban 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%2F1934https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1934Fri, 30 Nov 2018 14:43:33 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Legally protect bats during development Four studies evaluated the effects of legally protecting bats by issuing licences during development on bat populations. The four studies were in the UK. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (2 STUDIES) Change in human behaviour (2 studies): One review in the UK found that the number of development licences for bats more than doubled over three years in Scotland. One review in the UK found that 81% of licensees did not carry out post-development monitoring to assess whether bats used the roost structures installed. OTHER (3 STUDIES) Impact on bat roost sites (3 studies): One review in the UK found that licenced activities during building developments had a negative impact on bat roosts, with 68% of roosts being destroyed. One replicated, before-and-after study in the UK found that five of 28 compensation roosts provided under licence were used, and two by similar or greater numbers of bats after development. One review in the UK found that 31–67% of compensation roosts provided under licence were used by bats. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1935https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1935Fri, 30 Nov 2018 14:50:33 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Engage farmers and landowners to manage land for bats One study evaluated the effects of engaging farmers and landowners to manage land for bats on bat populations. The study was in the UK. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): One study in the UK found that during a five-year project to engage farmers and landowners to manage land for bats, the overall population of greater horseshoe bats at four maternity roosts in the area increased (but see summary below). BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Change in human behaviour (1 study): One study in the UK found that a landowner engagement project resulted in 77 bat-related management agreements covering approximately 6,536 ha of land. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1936https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1936Mon, 03 Dec 2018 13:15:11 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide or retain set-aside areas in farmland We found no studies that evaluated the effects of providing or retaining set-aside areas in farmland 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%2F1937https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1937Mon, 03 Dec 2018 13:17:14 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Increase the proportion of semi-natural habitat in the farmed landscape We found no studies that evaluated the effects of increasing the proportion of semi-natural habitat in the farmed landscape 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%2F1938https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1938Mon, 03 Dec 2018 13:18:19 +0000
What Works 2021 cover

What Works in Conservation

What Works in Conservation provides expert assessments of the effectiveness of actions, based on summarised evidence, in synopses. Subjects covered so far include amphibians, birds, mammals, forests, peatland and control of freshwater invasive species. More are in progress.

More about What Works in Conservation

Download free PDF or purchase
The Conservation Evidence Journal

The Conservation Evidence Journal

An online, free to publish in, open-access journal publishing results from research and projects that test the effectiveness of conservation actions.

Read the latest volume: Volume 21

Go to the CE Journal

Discover more on our blog

Our blog contains the latest news and updates from the Conservation Evidence team, the Conservation Evidence Journal, and our global partners in evidence-based conservation.

Who uses Conservation Evidence?

Meet some of the evidence champions

Endangered Landscape ProgrammeRed List Champion - Arc Kent Wildlife Trust The Rufford Foundation Save the Frogs - Ghana Mauritian Wildlife Supporting Conservation Leaders
Sustainability Dashboard National Biodiversity Network Frog Life The international journey of Conservation - Oryx Cool Farm Alliance UNEP AWFA Bat Conservation InternationalPeople trust for endangered species Vincet Wildlife Trust
For a full list of, and information about, our champions:
All Evidence Champions
About our champions, why and how to become one:
Become an Evidence Champion

This website uses Cookies

We use limited Cookies to run the site and to analyse our traffic (none for site vendors). By using this site, you will be providing your consent to our use of Cookies.

Accept & continue