Collected 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: Educate pest controllers and homeowners/tenants to reduce the illegal use of pesticides in bat roosts We found no studies that evaluated the effects of educating pest controllers and homeowners/tenants to reduce the illegal use of pesticides in bat roosts 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%2F2043https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2043Wed, 05 Dec 2018 18:40:13 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Educate farmers, local communities and pest controllers to reduce indiscriminate culling of vampire bats We found no studies that evaluated the effects of educating farmers, local communities and pest controllers to reduce indiscriminate culling of vampire 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%2F2044https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2044Wed, 05 Dec 2018 18:41:06 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Legally protect bat habitats Five studies evaluated the effects of legally protecting bat habitats on bat populations. Four studies were in Europe and one was in India. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Community composition (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in India found that the composition of bat species was similar in protected forest and unprotected forest fragments. Richness/diversity (2 studies): Two replicated, site comparison or paired sites studies in Europe and India found that the number of bat species did not differ between protected and unprotected forests or forest fragments. One replicated, site comparison study in France found that protected sites had a greater number of bat species than unprotected sites. POPULATION RESPONSE (4 STUDIES) Abundance (4 studies): One replicated, site comparison study in the UK found that the activity (relative abundance) of Daubenton’s bats was higher over rivers on farms in protected areas than in unprotected areas. One replicated, paired sites study in Europe found that the activity of common noctule bats was higher in protected forests than unprotected forests, but bat activity overall did not differ. Two replicated, site comparison studies in France and India found higher overall bat activity, higher activity of three of six bat species/species groups and a greater number of bats in protected sites and forests than unprotected sites and forests. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY)         Use (1 study): One study in Spain found that the distributions of 10 of 11 bat species overlapped with areas designated to protect them significantly more than by chance. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2045https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2045Thu, 06 Dec 2018 15:34:12 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Conserve roosting sites for bats in old structures or buildings Three studies evaluated the effects of conserving roosting sites for bats in old structures or buildings on bat populations. Two studies were in the UK and one was in Germany. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): One before-and-after study in the UK found that a greater number of bats hibernated in a railway tunnel after walls with access grilles were installed at the tunnel entrances and wood was attached to the tunnel walls. BEHAVIOUR (2 STUDIES)      Uptake (1 study): One before-and-after study in Germany found that numbers of bats hibernating in a disused cellar after it was emptied of rubbish increased over 11 years. Use (2 studies): One before-and-after study in Germany found that a disused cellar that was emptied of rubbish was used by hibernating bats of four species. One before-and-after study in the UK found that Natterer’s bats used a roost that was ‘boxed-in’ within a church, but the number of bats using the roost was reduced by half. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2046https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2046Fri, 07 Dec 2018 10:43:53 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create artificial hollows and cracks in trees for roosting bats One study evaluated the effects of creating artificial hollows and cracks in trees for roosting bats. The study was in Australia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY)      Use (1 study): One replicated study in Australia found that eight of 16 artificial hollows cut into trees for bats, birds and marsupials with two different entrance designs were used by roosting long-eared bats. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2047https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2047Fri, 07 Dec 2018 12:36:39 +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: Create artificial caves or hibernacula for bats Four studies evaluated the effects of creating artificial caves or hibernacula for bats on bat populations. Two studies were in the UK and two were in Germany. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (4 STUDIES) Uptake (1 study): One study in the UK found that the number of bats using an artificial hibernaculum increased in each of nine years after it was built. Use (4 studies): One study in the UK found that an artificial cave was used by a small number of brown long-eared bats. Three studies in Germany and the UK found that artificial hibernacula were used by up to four bat species. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2049https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2049Fri, 07 Dec 2018 12:41:38 +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: Manage microclimate of artificial bat roosts Three studies evaluated the effects of managing the microclimate of artificial bat roosts on bat populations. Two studies were in the UK and one in Spain. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): One before-and-after study in Spain found more bats in two artificial roosts within buildings after they had been modified to reduce internal roost temperatures. BEHAVIOUR (2 STUDIES) Use (2 studies): One replicated, before-and-after study in the UK found that heated bat boxes were used by common pipistrelle bats at one of seven sites, but none were used by maternity colonies. One replicated study in the UK found that none of the 12 heated bat boxes installed within churches were used by displaced Natterer’s bats. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2052https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2052Fri, 07 Dec 2018 19:21:01 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Breed bats in captivity Eight studies evaluated the effects of breeding bats in captivity on bat populations. Three studies were in the USA, two in the UK, and one in each of Italy, Brazil and New Zealand. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (8 STUDIES) Reproductive success (6 studies): Six studies in the USA, UK, Italy and Brazil found that 6–100% of female bats captured in the wild successfully conceived, gave birth and reared young in captivity. Two studies in the UK and Brazil found that two of five and two of three bats born in captivity successfully gave birth to live young. Survival (8 studies): Seven studies in the USA, UK, Italy and Brazil found that 20–100% of bat pups born in captivity survived from between 10 days to adulthood. One study in New Zealand found that two of five New Zealand lesser short-tailed bat pups born in captivity survived, both of which were hand-reared. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2053https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2053Fri, 07 Dec 2018 19:22:37 +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: Retain riparian buffers on agricultural land One study evaluated the effects of retaining riparian buffers on agricultural land 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 along waterways with buffers of vegetation on agri-environment scheme farms and waterways on conventional farms. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2284https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2284Tue, 19 Nov 2019 18:05:49 +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: 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: Slow rotation of turbine blades at low wind speeds One study evaluated the effects of slowing the rotation of turbine blades at low wind speeds on bat populations. The study was in Canada. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Survival (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in Canada found that bat fatalities were reduced when turbine blades were slowed at low wind speeds. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2939https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2939Fri, 12 Feb 2021 16:16:13 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Change timing of maintenance work at road/railway bridges and culverts We found no studies that evaluated the effects of changing the timing of maintenance work at road/railway bridges and culverts 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%2F2940https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2940Fri, 12 Feb 2021 17:47:15 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Exclude bats from roosts during maintenance work at road/railway bridges and culverts We found no studies that evaluated the effects of excluding bats from roosts during maintenance work at road/railway bridges and culverts 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%2F2941https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2941Fri, 12 Feb 2021 17:48:45 +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 +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: Manage vegetation along utility and service line corridors to increase foraging habitat for bats We found no studies that evaluated the effects of managing vegetation along utility and service line corridors to increase forgaing habitat for 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%2F2944https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2944Fri, 12 Feb 2021 17:57:07 +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
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