Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Protect brownfield or ex-industrial sites One study evaluated the effects of protecting brownfield or ex-industrial sites on bat populations. The study as in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Richness/diversity (1 study): One study in the USA found that five bat species were recorded within a protected urban wildlife refuge on an abandoned manufacturing site. POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F953https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F953Fri, 20 Dec 2013 09:36:12 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Pay farmers to cover the costs of conservation measures (e.g. agri-environment schemes) Three studies evaluated the effects of agri-environment schemes on bat populations. The three studies were in the UK. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Abundance (3 studies): Two of three replicated, paired sites studies in the UK found that overall bat activity (relative abundance) or the occurrence of six bat species did not differ significantly between farms managed under agri-environment schemes and those managed conventionally. One of the studies found that agri-environment scheme farms had similar activity of five bat species, and lower activity of one bat species, compared to conventional farms. The other study found lower overall bat activity and activity of pipistrelle species on agri-environment scheme farms than conventional farms. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F962https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F962Fri, 20 Dec 2013 10:25:45 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Modify turbine placement to reduce bat fatalities We found no studies that evaluated the effects of modifying turbine placement to reduce bat fatalities. ‘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%2F965https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F965Fri, 20 Dec 2013 11:22:00 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Prevent turbine blades from turning at low wind speeds ('feathering') Six studies evaluated the effects of preventing turbine blades from turning at low wind speeds on bat populations. Five studies were in the USA and one was in Canada. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (6 STUDIES) Survival (6 studies): Five of six studies (including five replicated, controlled studies and one before-and-after study) in the USA and Canada found that preventing turbine blades from turning at low wind speeds (‘feathering’), or feathering along with increasing the wind speed at which turbines become operational (‘cut-in speed’) resulted in fewer bat fatalities than at conventionally operated turbines. The other study found that automatically feathering turbine blades at low wind speeds did not reduce bat fatalities. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F970https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F970Fri, 20 Dec 2013 12:19:55 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide artificial subterranean bat roosts to replace roosts in reclaimed mines We found no studies that evaluated the effects of providing artificial subterranean bat roosts to replace roosts in reclaimed mines 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%2F974https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F974Fri, 20 Dec 2013 12:43:16 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide artificial subterranean bat roosts to replace roosts in disturbed caves We found no studies that evaluated the effects of providing artificial subterranean bat roosts to replace roosts in disturbed 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%2F1005https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1005Fri, 20 Dec 2013 17:19:47 +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: 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: 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: 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: 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: Plant field margins with a diverse mix of plant species One study evaluated the effects of planting field margins with a diverse mix of plant species on bats populations. The study was in the UK. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the UK found that the activity (relative abundance) of soprano pipistrelles and barbastelle bats increased with a greater diversity of plant species within field margins, but there was no effect on common pipistrelle activity nor on the occurrence of any of the six bat species studied. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1941https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1941Tue, 04 Dec 2018 09:50:30 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Plant new hedges We found no studies that evaluated the effects of planting new hedges 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%2F1942https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1942Tue, 04 Dec 2018 09:51:33 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Plant in-field trees We found no studies that evaluated the effects of planting in-field trees 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%2F1946https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1946Tue, 04 Dec 2018 10:04:30 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Prevent culling of bats around fruit orchards We found no studies that evaluated the effects of preventing culling of bats around fruit orchards 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%2F1952https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1952Tue, 04 Dec 2018 12:21:55 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Paint turbines to reduce insect attraction We found no studies that evaluated the effects of painting turbines to reduce 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%2F1959https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1959Tue, 04 Dec 2018 15:21:05 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Minimize road lighting to reduce insect attraction We found no studies that evaluated the effects of minimizing road lighting to reduce 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%2F1969https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1969Tue, 04 Dec 2018 18:13:16 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Protect roost trees during forest operations We found no studies that evaluated the effects of protecting roost trees during forest operations 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%2F1982https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1982Tue, 04 Dec 2018 19:24:09 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Prevent pollution from sewage treatment facilities from entering watercourses We found no studies that evaluated the effects of preventing pollution from sewage treatment facilities from entering watercourses 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%2F2010https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2010Wed, 05 Dec 2018 16:27:06 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Prevent pollution from agricultural land or forestry from entering watercourses We found no studies that evaluated the effects of preventing pollution from agriculture or forestry from entering watercourses 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%2F2015https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2015Wed, 05 Dec 2018 17:41:40 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Plant riparian buffer strips We found no studies that evaluated the effects of planting riparian buffer strips 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%2F2016https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2016Wed, 05 Dec 2018 17:43:25 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Promote careful bat-related eco-tourism to improve behaviour towards bats We found no studies that evaluated the effects of promoting careful bat-related eco-tourism to improve behaviour towards bats. ‘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%2F2042https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2042Wed, 05 Dec 2018 18:39:25 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Protect bats within roosts from disturbance or predation by native species We found no studies that evaluated the effects of protecting bat roosts from disturbance or predation by native species 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%2F2287https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2287Wed, 20 Nov 2019 16:35:02 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Modify bats roosts to reduce negative impacts of one bat species on another We found no studies that evaluated the effects of modifying bat roosts to reduce negative impacts of one bat species on another 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%2F2288https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2288Wed, 20 Nov 2019 16:36:13 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide alternative bat roosts during maintenance work at road/railway bridges and culverts One study evaluated the effects of providing alternative bat roosts during maintenance work at road bridges. The study was in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY)         Use (1 study): One review in the USA found that bat houses provided as alternative roosts during bridge replacement works were used by fewer Mexican free-tailed bats than the original roost at one site and were not used by bats at all at three sites. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2942https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2942Fri, 12 Feb 2021 17:51:31 +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