Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install fencing around cave entrances to restrict public access Two studies evaluated the effects of installing fencing around cave entrances on bat populations. One study was in the USA and one study was in Spain. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in Spain found no difference in the population growth rates of bats roosting in caves with and without fencing or gates installed. BEHAVIOUR (2 STUDIES)   Use (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in Spain found no difference in the occupancy rates of bats roosting in caves with and without fencing or gates installed. Behaviour change (1 study): One controlled, before-and-after study in the USA found that significantly more southeastern myotis bats and gray myotis bats emerged from a cave after a steel gate was replaced with a fence. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1991https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1991Wed, 05 Dec 2018 12:39:50 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Train tourist guides to minimize disturbance and promote bat conservation We found no studies that evaluated the effects of training tourist guides to minimize disturbance and promote bat conservation 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%2F1992https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1992Wed, 05 Dec 2018 12:47:31 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Minimize alterations to caves for tourism We found no studies that evaluated the effects of minimizing alterations to caves for tourism 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%2F1993https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1993Wed, 05 Dec 2018 12:48:48 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restrict artificial lighting in caves and around cave entrances One study evaluated the effects of restricting artificial lighting in caves on bat populations. The study was in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Behaviour change (1 study): One controlled study in the USA found that using low intensity white lights or red lights in caves resulted in fewer bat flights than with full white lighting, but the number of bat movements was similar between all three light treatments. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1994https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1994Wed, 05 Dec 2018 12:50:27 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Minimize noise levels within caves One study evaluated the effects of minimizing noise levels within caves on bat populations. The study was in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Behaviour change (1 study): One controlled study in the USA found that experimental cave tours with groups that did not talk resulted in fewer bat flights than when groups did talk, but talking did not have an effect on the number of bat movements. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1995https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1995Wed, 05 Dec 2018 12:52:09 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Introduce guidelines for sustainable cave development and use We found no studies that evaluated the effects of introducing guidelines for sustainable cave development and use 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%2F1996https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1996Wed, 05 Dec 2018 12:54:19 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create or maintain small dams to provide foraging and drinking habitat for bats One study evaluated the effects of maintaining small dams as foraging and drinking habitat for bats on bat populations. The study was in Portugal. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in Portugal found that reservoirs created using small dams had greater activity (relative abundance) of four bat species than the streams feeding into them. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1997https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1997Wed, 05 Dec 2018 14:43:11 +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: Control invasive non-predatory competitors We found no studies that evaluated the effects of controlling invasive non-predatory competitors of 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%2F1999https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1999Wed, 05 Dec 2018 15:25:23 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Control harmful invasive bat prey species We found no studies that evaluated the effects of controlling harmful invasive bat prey species 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%2F2000https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2000Wed, 05 Dec 2018 15:26:13 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Exclude domestic and feral cats from bat roosts and roost entrances We found no studies that evaluated the effects of excluding domestic and feral cats from bat roosts and roost entrances 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%2F2001https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2001Wed, 05 Dec 2018 15:27:16 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Keep domestic cats indoors at night We found no studies that evaluated the effects of keeping domestic cats indoors at night 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%2F2003https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2003Wed, 05 Dec 2018 15:28:13 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use collar-mounted devices on cats to reduce predation of bats We found no studies that evaluated the effects of using collar-mounted devices on cats to reduce predation of 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%2F2004https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2004Wed, 05 Dec 2018 15:30:20 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Carry out surveillance of bats to prevent the spread of disease/viruses to humans to reduce human-wildlife conflict We found no studies that evaluated the effects of carrying out surveillance of bats to prevent the spread of disease/viruses to humans to reduce human-wildlife conflict. ‘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%2F2005https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2005Wed, 05 Dec 2018 15:31:18 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Decontaminate clothing and equipment after entering caves to reduce the spread of the white-nose syndrome pathogen We found no studies that evaluated the effects of decontaminating clothing and equipment after entering 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%2F2006https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2006Wed, 05 Dec 2018 15:33:20 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Treat bat hibernacula environments to reduce the white-nose syndrome pathogen reservoir We found no studies that evaluated the effects of treating hibernacula environments to reduce the white-nose syndrome pathogen reservoir 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%2F2007https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2007Wed, 05 Dec 2018 15:37:15 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Treat bats for infection with white-nose syndrome Two studies evaluated the effects of treating bats with a probiotic bacterium to reduce white-nose syndrome infection. One study was in Canada and one in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Survival (2 studies): One randomized, controlled study in Canada found that treating little brown bats with a probiotic bacterium at the time of infection with white-nose syndrome (but not 21 days prior) increased survival within cages in a laboratory. One randomized, controlled study in the USA found that treating little brown bats with a probiotic bacterium within a mine increased survival for free-flying bats, but not caged bats. Condition (2 studies): One randomized, controlled study in Canada found that little brown bats caged in a laboratory and treated with a probiotic bacterium at the time of infection with white-nose syndrome had reduced symptoms of the disease, but bats treated 21 days prior to infection had worse symptoms. One randomized, controlled study in the USA found that little brown bats kept within cages in a mine and treated with a probiotic bacterium had a similar severity of white-nose syndrome to untreated bats. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2008https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2008Wed, 05 Dec 2018 15:40:15 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Breed bats in captivity to supplement wild populations affected by white-nose syndrome We found no studies that evaluated the effects of breeding bats in captivity to supplement wild populations affected by white-nose syndrome. ‘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%2F2009https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2009Wed, 05 Dec 2018 15:41:19 +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: 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: Introduce or enforce legislation to prevent ponds and streams from being contaminated by toxins We found no studies that evaluated the effects of introducing or enforcing legislation to prevent ponds and streams from being contaminated by toxins 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%2F2012https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2012Wed, 05 Dec 2018 16:29:43 +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: Use organic pest control instead of synthetic pesticides We found no studies that evaluated the effects of using organic pest control instead of synthetic pesticides 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%2F2014https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2014Wed, 05 Dec 2018 17:40:02 +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 +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