Conservation Evidence: Evidence Data

Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Retain existing bat roosts and access points within developments Three studies evaluated the effects of retaining existing bat roosts and access points within developments on bat populations. Two studies were in the UK and one was in Ireland. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (3 STUDIES) Use (3 studies): One before-and-after study in Ireland found similar numbers of brown long-eared bats roosting within an attic after existing access points were retained during renovations. One replicated, before-and-after study in the UK found that four of nine bat roosts retained within developments were used as maternity colonies, in two cases by similar or greater numbers of bats after development had taken place. One review in the UK found that bats used two-thirds of retained and modified bat roosts after development, and retained roosts were more likely to be used than newly created roosts. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F947https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F947Tue, 10 Dec 2013 14:08:36 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Retain or plant native trees and shrubs amongst crops (agroforestry) Eight studies evaluated the effects of retaining or planting native trees and shrubs amongst crops on bat populations. Four studies were in Mexico, three were in South America and one was in Tanzania. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (7 STUDIES) Community composition (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in Tanzania found different compositions of bat species in coffee plantations with different amounts and types of shade cover. Richness/diversity (7 studies): Four of six replicated, site comparison studies in Columbia, Mexico and Costa Rica found a similar number of bat species in shaded and unshaded coffee plantations, and in coffee plantations with different amounts and types of shade cover. The two other studies found more bat species and higher bat diversity in coffee, cacao and banana plantations with varied shade cover, than in plantations with a single shade species or no shade. One replicated, site comparison study in Tanzania found more bat species in shaded coffee plantations than in traditional mixed agroforestry systems with natural forest vegetation. POPULATION RESPONSE (6 STUDIES) Abundance (5 studies): Two replicated, site comparison studies in Mexico captured more bats in coffee plantations with varied shade cover than in plantations with a single shade species. One replicated, site comparison study in Mexico found higher activity (relative abundance) of forest bat species in plantations with a varied shade cover than in plantations with a single shade species, but the opposite was true for open habitat bat species. One replicated, site comparison study in Costa Rica found no difference in the number of bats captured between cacao and banana shade plantations and unshaded monocultures. One replicated, site comparison study in Tanzania found greater bat occurrence in shaded coffee plantations than in traditional mixed agroforestry systems with natural forest vegetation. Condition (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in Columbia found that great fruit-eating bats captured in ‘silvopastoral’ areas that used agroforestry, along with no chemicals, had higher body weights and body condition scores than those in conventional farming areas. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F963https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F963Fri, 20 Dec 2013 10:35:13 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Retain a buffer between turbines and habitat features used by bats We found no studies that evaluated the effects of retaining a buffer between turbines and habitat features used by 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%2F966https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F966Fri, 20 Dec 2013 11:23:15 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Retain residual tree patches in logged areas Three studies evaluated the effects of retaining residual tree patches in logged areas on bat populations. The three studies were in Canada. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Abundance (3 studies): Two replicated, site comparison studies in Canada found no difference in bat activity (relative abundance) along the edges of residual tree patches and the edges of clearcut blocks. One replicated, site comparison study in Canada found that the activity of smaller bat species was higher along the edge of residual tree patches than in the centre of clearcut blocks, but the activity of larger bat species did not differ. One replicated, controlled study in Canada found that residual tree patches had similar activity of little brown bats and northern long-eared bats and lower activity of silver-haired bats compared to clearcut forest patches. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F995https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F995Fri, 20 Dec 2013 15:39:45 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Retain forested corridors in logged areas Three studies evaluated the effects of retaining forested corridors in logged areas on bat populations. The three studies were in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 studies): One replicated, site comparison study in the USA found that bat activity (relative abundance) was significantly higher along the edges of forested corridors than in corridor interiors or in adjacent logged stands, which had similar activity levels. BEHAVIOUR (2 STUDIES) Use (2 studies): One replicated, site comparison study in the USA found more Seminole bats roosting in forested corridors than logged stands or mature forest. One replicated, site comparison study in the USA found more male but fewer female evening bats roosting in forested corridors than logged stands. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F996https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F996Fri, 20 Dec 2013 15:44:57 +0000Collected 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: 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: 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: Retain unmown field margins One study evaluated the effects of retaining unmown field margins on bats 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 unmown field margins managed for wildlife on agri-environment scheme farms and field margins on conventional farms. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1940https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1940Mon, 03 Dec 2018 13:21:44 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Retain existing in-field trees We found no studies that evaluated the effects of retaining existing in-field trees 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%2F1945https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1945Tue, 04 Dec 2018 10:03:08 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Retain remnant forest or woodland on agricultural land We found no studies that evaluated the effects of retaining remnant forest or woodland on agricultural land 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%2F1947https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1947Tue, 04 Dec 2018 10:55:06 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Retain access points for bats following mine closures We found no studies that evaluated the effects of retaining access points for bats following mine closures 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%2F1962https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1962Tue, 04 Dec 2018 16:24:17 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restrict the collection of bat specimens for research We found no studies that evaluated the effects of restricting the collection of bat specimens for research 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%2F1980https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1980Tue, 04 Dec 2018 18:28:57 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Retain buffers around roost trees in logged areas We found no studies that evaluated the effects of retaining buffers around roost trees in logged areas on bat populations. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1983https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1983Tue, 04 Dec 2018 19:25:39 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Retain riparian buffers in logged areas We found no studies that evaluated the effects of retaining riparian buffers in logged areas 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%2F1985https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1985Wed, 05 Dec 2018 10:59:37 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Retain bat access points to caves We found no studies that evaluated the effects of retaining bat access points to 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%2F1990https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1990Wed, 05 Dec 2018 11:13:33 +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: Retain buffer zones around core habitat We found no studies that evaluated the effects of retaining buffer zones around core habitat 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%2F2028https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2028Wed, 05 Dec 2018 18:18:23 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Retain existing bat commuting routes We found no studies that evaluated the effects of retaining existing bat commuting routes 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%2F2029https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2029Wed, 05 Dec 2018 18:20:44 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Retain remnant habitat patches We found no studies that evaluated the effects of retaining remnant habitat patches 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%2F2030https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2030Wed, 05 Dec 2018 18:21:27 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Retain connectivity between habitat patches We found no studies that evaluated the effects of retaining connectivity between habitat patches 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%2F2031https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2031Wed, 05 Dec 2018 18:22:27 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Retain native forest and woodland We found no studies that evaluated the effects of retaining native forest and woodland 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%2F2033https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2033Wed, 05 Dec 2018 18:24:08 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restore or create linear habitat features/green corridors We found no studies that evaluated the effects of restoring or creating linear habitat features/green 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%2F2035https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2035Wed, 05 Dec 2018 18:27:44 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restore or create wetlands One study evaluated the effects of restoring wetlands on bat populations. The study was in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): One replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in the USA found that restoring wetlands increased overall bat activity (relative abundance), and restored wetlands had similar bat activity to undisturbed wetlands. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2036https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2036Wed, 05 Dec 2018 18:28:28 +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 +0000