Action

Action Synopsis: Bat Conservation About Actions

Translocate bats

How is the evidence assessed?
  • Effectiveness
    5%
  • Certainty
    40%
  • Harms
    80%

Source countries

Key messages

  • Two studies evaluated the effects of translocating bats on bat populations. One study was in New Zealand and one study was in Switzerland.

COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES)

  • Reproductive success (1 study): One study in Switzerland found that a female greater horseshoe bat that settled at a release site after translocation had a failed pregnancy.
  • Survival (1 study): One study in Switzerland found that four of 18 bats died after translocation.
  • Condition (1 study): One study in New Zealand found that lesser short-tailed bats captured at release sites eight months after translocation were balding and had damaged, infected ears.

BEHAVIOUR (2 STUDIES)  

  • Uptake (2 studies): Two studies in New Zealand and Switzerland found that low numbers of bats remained at release sites after translocation.
  • Behaviour change (1 study): One study in Switzerland found that bats homed after release at translocation sites less than 20 km from their original roosts.

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 study in 2005 on Kapiti Island, New Zealand (Ruffell & Parsons 2009) found that nine of 20 translocated lesser short-tailed bats Mystacina tuberculata were recorded at the release site 232 days after release, and all were in poor condition. After eight months, captured bats were balding and had damaged infected ears and were subsequently returned to captivity. Four male and 16 female captive bred juveniles were released on the Island in April 2005 and provided with roosts and supplementary food (consistently for 55 days after release and irregularly for 156 days after release). Kapiti Island is a 1,965 ha nature reserve of forest and scrub located 40 km south west of the source bat population on mainland New Zealand. Bats were monitored using infrared video cameras, and caught in harp traps during three study periods after release in 2005 (eight weeks in April–June, five weeks in August–September, one week in November–December).

    Study and other actions tested
  2. A study in 2006–2008 of four sites in alpine villages in Switzerland (Weinberger et al. 2009) found that two of 11 greater horseshoe bats Rhinolophus ferrumequinum and none of seven lesser horseshoe bats Rhinolophus hipposideros remained at release sites in the long term after translocation, 10 bats homed after release and four died with three days of release. Two greater horseshoe bats (one male, one female) translocated 149 km settled in the release area and the female was regularly observed in a new roost in 2007 and 2008, but had an unsuccessful pregnancy in 2007. Two female lesser horseshoe bats remained at release sites 54–57 km away during 10 days of radio-tracking, but were not recorded beyond this period. Eight greater horseshoe bats and two lesser horseshoe bats homed after release at sites <20 km from their original roosts. One greater horseshoe bat and three lesser horseshoe bats died of shock or predation within three days of release. Male and female greater horseshoe bats (11) and lesser horseshoe bats (7) of three age classes (adult, 1–2 years and yearlings) were captured from large colonies and translocated to small relict colonies in similar habitats 11–149 km away in May–August 2006. Released bats were monitored with infrared video and radio-tracked for up to 10 days after release. Roosts at release sites were regularly checked in 2007 and 2008.

    Study and other actions tested
Please cite as:

Berthinussen, A., Richardson O.C. and Altringham J.D. (2019) Bat Conservation. Pages 67-140 in: W.J. Sutherland, L.V. Dicks, N. Ockendon, S.O. Petrovan & R.K. Smith (eds) What Works in Conservation 2019. Open Book Publishers, 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 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, terrestrial 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 latest volume: Volume 17

Go to the CE Journal

Subscribe to our newsletter

Please add your details if you are interested in receiving updates from the Conservation Evidence team about new papers, synopses and opportunities.

Who uses Conservation Evidence?

Meet some of the evidence champions

Endangered Landscape Programme Red List Champion - Arc Kent Wildlife Trust The Rufford Foundation Save the Frogs - Ghana Bern wood Supporting Conservation Leaders National Biodiversity Network Sustainability Dashboard Frog Life The international journey of Conservation - Oryx British trust for ornithology Cool Farm Alliance UNEP AWFA Butterfly Conservation People trust for endangered species Vincet Wildlife Trust