Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create alternative bat roosts within developments Eleven studies evaluated the effects of creating alternative bat roosts within developments on bat populations. Nine studies were in Europe and two were in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (11 STUDIES)     Use: (11 studies): Two replicated studies in the USA and UK found that bats did not use any of the alternative roosts provided in bat houses or a purpose-built bat wall after exclusion from buildings. Three studies (two replicated) in the USA and UK and one review in the UK found that bat boxes or bat lofts/barns were used by bats at 13–74% of development sites, and bat lofts/barns were used by maternity colonies at one of 19 development sites. Three of five before-and-after studies in Portugal, Ireland, Spain and the UK found that bat colonies used purpose-built roosts in higher or similar numbers after the original roosts were destroyed. The other two studies found that bats used purpose-built roosts in lower numbers than the original roost. One review in the UK found that new bat boxes/lofts built to replace destroyed roosts were four times less likely to be used by returning bats than roosts retained during development. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F949https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F949Fri, 20 Dec 2013 09:21:55 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Change timing of building work One study evaluated the effects of changing the timing of building work on bat populations. The study was in Ireland. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY)      Use (1 study): One before-and-after study in Ireland found that carrying out roofing work outside of the bat maternity season, along with retaining bat access points, resulted in a similar number of brown long-eared bats continuing to use a roost within an attic. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F950https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F950Fri, 20 Dec 2013 09:23:40 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Automatically reduce turbine blade rotation when bat activity is high Two studies evaluated the effects of automatically reducing turbine blade rotation when bat activity is high on bat populations. One study was in Germany, and one in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Survival (2 studies): Two replicated studies (one randomized, controlled and one paired sites study) in Germany and the USA found that automatically reducing the rotation speed of wind turbine blades when bat activity is predicted to be high resulted in fewer bat fatalities for all bat species combined and for five bat species. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F971https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F971Fri, 20 Dec 2013 12:34:12 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Close off potential access points on turbines to prevent roosting bats We found no studies that evaluated the effects of closing off potential access points on turbines to prevent roosting 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%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F972https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F972Fri, 20 Dec 2013 12:35:38 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Control invasive predators One study evaluated the effects of controlling invasive predators on bat populations. The study was in New Zealand. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Survival (1 study): One replicated, before-and-after study in New Zealand found that controlling ship rats resulted in increased survival probabilities for female long-tailed bats. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1007https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1007Fri, 20 Dec 2013 17:37:21 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Control invasive plant species One study evaluated the effects of controlling invasive plant species on bat populations. The study was in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): One site comparison study in the USA found that two of seven forest fragments where invasive plant species had been removed alongside other restoration practices had significantly higher bat activity (relative abundance) than two unrestored forest fragments. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1008https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1008Fri, 20 Dec 2013 17:42:07 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Change effluent treatments of domestic and urban waste water One study evaluated the effects of different sewage treatments on the activity of foraging bats. The study was in the UK. We found no studies that evaluated the effects of changing effluent treatments of domestic and urban waste water discharged into rivers on bat populations. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the UK found higher activity (relative abundance) of foraging bats over filter bed sewage treatment works than over active sludge systems. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1014https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1014Fri, 20 Dec 2013 17:50:17 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Change effluent treatments used in agriculture and forestry We found no studies that evaluated the effects of changing the effluent treatments used in agriculture and forestry 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%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1016https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1016Fri, 20 Dec 2013 17:52:07 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Avoid the use of antiparasitic drugs for livestock We found no studies that evaluated the effects of avoiding the use of antiparasitic drugs for livestock 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%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1948https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1948Tue, 04 Dec 2018 12:16:10 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Apply textured coating to turbines One study evaluated the effects of applying a textured coating to turbines on bat populations. The study was in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): One paired sites study in the USA found that applying a textured coating to a turbine did not reduce the activity of four bat species or the number of bats observed. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1957https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1957Tue, 04 Dec 2018 14:30:07 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Avoid planting fruit trees alongside roads/railways in areas with fruit bats We found no studies that evaluated the effects of avoiding planting fruit trees alongside roads/railways in areas with fruit 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%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1970https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1970Tue, 04 Dec 2018 18:13:59 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Change timing of forestry operations We found no studies that evaluated the effects of changing the timing of forestry operations 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%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1984https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1984Tue, 04 Dec 2018 19:26:55 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Coppice woodland We found no studies that evaluated the effects of coppicing 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%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1987https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1987Wed, 05 Dec 2018 11:04:54 +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%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1999https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.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%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2000https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2000Wed, 05 Dec 2018 15:26:13 +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%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2005https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2005Wed, 05 Dec 2018 15:31:18 +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%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2009https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2009Wed, 05 Dec 2018 15:41:19 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Avoid illumination of bat commuting routes Three studies evaluated the effects of avoiding the illumination of bat commuting routes on bat populations. Two studies were in the UK and one was in the Netherlands. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Abundance (3 studies): One replicated, before-and-after study in the Netherlands found similar numbers of pond bats flying along unlit canals and canals illuminated with lamps. Two replicated, controlled studies in the UK found greater activity (relative abundance) of lesser horseshoe bats and myotis bats along unlit hedges than along hedges illuminated with street lights, but activity was similar for common and soprano pipistrelles and Nyctalus/Eptesicus species along unlit and illuminated hedges. BEHAVIOUR (2 STUDIES)      Behaviour change (2 studies): One replicated, before-and-after study in the Netherlands found that 28–96% of pond bats changed their flight paths along canals to avoid light spill from lamps. One replicated, controlled study in the UK found that lesser horseshoe bats were active earlier along unlit hedges than along those illuminated with street lights. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2017https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2017Wed, 05 Dec 2018 17:50:59 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Avoid illumination of bat foraging, drinking and swarming sites Two studies evaluated the effects of avoiding the illumination of bat drinking sites on bat populations. Both studies were in Italy and one was also in Israel. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Abundance (2 studies): Two replicated before-and-after studies (one randomized) in Italy found that unlit water troughs had greater activity (relative abundance) of five of six bat species/species groups and six of eight bat species/species groups than troughs illuminated with artificial light. One of the studies also found that unlit desert ponds in Israel had greater activity (relative abundance) of three bat species than illuminated ponds. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2018https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2018Wed, 05 Dec 2018 17:52:42 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Adapt bat roost structures to buffer against temperature extremes We found no studies that evaluated the effects of adapting bat roost structures to buffer against temperature extremes 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%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2024https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2024Wed, 05 Dec 2018 18:14:05 +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%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2046https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.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%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2047https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2047Fri, 07 Dec 2018 12:36:39 +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%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2049https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2049Fri, 07 Dec 2018 12:41:38 +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%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2053https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2053Fri, 07 Dec 2018 19:22:37 +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%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2940https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2940Fri, 12 Feb 2021 17:47:15 +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