Action Synopsis: Bat Conservation About Actions

Create artificial hollows and cracks in trees for roosting bats

How is the evidence assessed?
  • Effectiveness
  • Certainty
  • Harms

Study locations

Key messages

  • One study evaluated the effects of creating artificial hollows and cracks in trees for roosting bats. The study was in Australia.




  • 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.

About key messages

Key messages provide a descriptive index to studies we have found that test this intervention.

Studies are not directly comparable or of equal value. When making decisions based on this evidence, you should consider factors such as study size, study design, reported metrics and relevance of the study to your situation, rather than simply counting the number of studies that support a particular interpretation.

Supporting evidence from individual studies

  1. A replicated study in 2015–2016 of 16 trees within a timber production forest in New South Wales, Australia (Rueegger 2017) found that half of the artificial hollows created in trees were used by long-eared bats Nyctophilus spp., and the design of the entrance did not have a significant effect on use. Eight of 16 artificial hollows were used by long-eared bats, including one of six hollows designed for bats and seven of 10 hollows designed for marsupials and birds, although use of the two designs did not differ significantly. Artificial hollows were created in 16 trees (33–54 mm diameter at breast height) within a forested area of 4 ha. In September 2015, one hollow (35 cm high x 9–20 cm wide and 4 m above the ground) was created in each of 16 trees using a chainsaw. A section of tree (4 cm deep) was reattached to the front of each hollow with an entrance hole either at the base (designed for bats, 38 mm diameter) or the top (designed for marsupials and birds, 38 or 76 mm diameter). Each of 16 hollows was monitored over 12–15 months in 2015–2016 with heat/motion activated cameras.

    Study and other actions tested
Please cite as:

Berthinussen, A., Richardson O.C. and Altringham J.D. (2021) Bat Conservation: Global Evidence for the Effects of Interventions. Conservation Evidence Series Synopses. University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.


Where has this evidence come from?

List of journals searched by synopsis

All the journals searched for all synopses

Bat Conservation

This Action forms part of the Action Synopsis:

Bat Conservation
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