Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Introduce and enforce legislation to regulate harvesting of bat guano We found no studies that evaluated the effects of introducing and enforcing legislation to regulate the harvesting of bat guano 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%2F987https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F987Fri, 20 Dec 2013 14:32:49 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Maintain forest and woodland edges for foraging bats We found no studies that evaluated the effects of maintaining forest and woodland edges for foraging 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%2F992https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F992Fri, 20 Dec 2013 15:33:51 +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: 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: 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: Manage hedges to benefit bats Two studies evaluated the effects of managing hedges to benefit bat populations. Both studies were in the UK. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the UK found that hedges trimmed ≥3 years prior had more bat species recorded along them than hedges trimmed during the previous winter. POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Abundance (2 studies): One replicated, paired sites study in the UK found that pipistrelle activity (relative abundance) did not differ between hedges managed for wildlife on agri-environment scheme farms and hedges on conventional farms. One replicated, site comparison study in the UK found that hedges trimmed ≥3 years prior had higher activity of two of eight bat species/species groups than hedges trimmed during the previous winter. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1943https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1943Tue, 04 Dec 2018 09:54:05 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Manage ditches to benefit bats We found no studies that evaluated the effects of managing ditches to benefit 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%2F1944https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1944Tue, 04 Dec 2018 09:59:42 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Manage grazing regimes to increase invertebrate prey We found no studies that evaluated the effects of managing grazing regimes to increase invertebrate prey 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%2F1949https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1949Tue, 04 Dec 2018 12:17:10 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Manage livestock water troughs as a drinking resource for bats Two studies evaluated the effects of managing livestock water troughs as a drinking resource for bats. Both studies were in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (2 STUDIES)      Use (2 studies): One replicated, paired sites study in the USA found that removing livestock modifications from water troughs resulted in bats drinking from them more frequently. One paired sites study in the USA found that livestock water tanks that were larger, full of water or surrounded by sparse vegetation had more bats drinking from them than smaller, half full tanks surrounded by no or dense vegetation. Behaviour change (1 study): One replicated, paired sites study in the USA found that when livestock modifications were removed from water troughs, bats approached troughs fewer times before successfully drinking from them. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1951https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1951Tue, 04 Dec 2018 12:19:55 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Introduce certification for bat-friendly crop harvesting regimes We found no studies that evaluated the effects of introducing certification for bat-friendly crop harvesting regimes 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%2F1954https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1954Tue, 04 Dec 2018 12:23:48 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Maintain microclimate in closed/abandoned mines One study evaluated the effects of maintaining the microclimate in an abandoned mine on bat populations. The study was in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): One before-and-after study in the USA found that modifying the microclimate of an abandoned mine by closing a man-made entrance resulted in a greater number of bats hibernating within the mine. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1964https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1964Tue, 04 Dec 2018 16:52:58 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Maintain bat roosts in road/railway bridges and culverts Two studies evaluated the effects of maintaining bat roosts within road bridges on bat populations. One study was in Ireland and one in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (2 STUDIES)      Use (2 studies): One before-and-after study in Ireland found that a maternity colony of Daubenton’s bats continued to roost in a road bridge over a river in similar numbers after crevices were retained during repair work. One review in the USA found that when bat roosts were maintained during bridge replacement works, Yuma myotis and Mexican free-tailed bats recolonised most roosts in similar numbers to before the works, but pallid bats did not return. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1966https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1966Tue, 04 Dec 2018 18:03:09 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Introduce other food sources to replace bat meat We found no studies that evaluated the effects of introducing other food sources to replace bat meat 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%2F1976https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1976Tue, 04 Dec 2018 18:24:57 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Introduce other income sources to replace bat trade We found no studies that evaluated the effects of introducing other income sources to replace bat trade 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%2F1977https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1977Tue, 04 Dec 2018 18:25:46 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Manage forest and woodland to encourage understorey growth One study evaluated the effects of managing forest and woodland to encourage understorey growth on bat populations. The study was in Germany. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Richness/diversity (1 study): One paired sites study in Germany found more bat species and higher bat diversity in a forest managed to encourage understorey growth than in a managed forest without understorey growth. POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): One paired sites study in Germany found higher overall bat activity (relative abundance) in a forest managed to encourage understorey growth than in a managed forest without understorey growth. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1986https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1986Wed, 05 Dec 2018 11:04:01 +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: 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: 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: 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: Manage natural water bodies in arid areas to prevent desiccation We found no studies that evaluated the effects of managing natural water bodies in arid areas to prevent desiccation 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%2F2027https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2027Wed, 05 Dec 2018 18:16:36 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Legally protect bat species We found no studies that evaluated the effects of legally protecting bat 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%2F2037https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2037Wed, 05 Dec 2018 18:29:39 +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: 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: 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 +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