Action

Action Synopsis: Bat Conservation About Actions

Manage hedges to benefit bats

How is the evidence assessed?
  • Effectiveness
    50%
  • Certainty
    36%
  • Harms
    0%

Source countries

Key messages

  • 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)

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, paired sites study in 2008 on 13 pairs of farms in Scotland, UK (Fuentes-Montemayor et al 2011) found that hedges managed for wildlife on agri-environment scheme farms had similar activity of Pipistrellus species as hedges on conventional farms. The activity of common pipistrelles Pipistrellus pipistrellus and soprano pipistrelles Pipistrellus pygmaeus was similar along hedges managed for wildlife and along conventionally managed hedges (data reported as statistical model results). On agri-environment scheme farms, hedges had gaps filled, hedge bottoms were left unmown, and pesticide use and cutting was restricted (cut once every three years). Each of 13 hedges on agri-environment scheme farms were paired with 13 hedges on conventional farms with similar farming activities and surrounding habitats. No details were reported about the management of hedges on conventional farms. Each of 13 paired sites was sampled once on the same night in June–September 2008. Bat activity was recorded along transects (2.5–3.7 km long) from 45 minutes after sunset using bat detectors.

    Study and other actions tested
  2. A replicated, site comparison study in 2016 on 20 farms in southwest England, UK (Froidevaux et al 2019) found that hedges that had not been trimmed for at least three years had more bat species and greater activity of two of eight bat species/species groups than hedges trimmed during the previous winter. Hedges trimmed ≥3 years prior had more bat species and greater activity of greater horseshoe bats Rhinolophus ferrumequinum and Plecotus spp. than hedges trimmed during the previous winter (data reported as statistical model results). Lesser horseshoe bats Rhinolophus hipposideros were more likely to be recorded along hedges trimmed ≥3 years prior, but activity did not differ significantly. Activity also did not differ significantly for five other bat species/species groups (see original paper for details). There were no significant differences between hedges trimmed two years prior vs. those trimmed during the previous winter. Sixty-four hedges were surveyed on 20 farms (2–4 hedges/farm). Nineteen hedges (under agri-environment scheme management since 2005) had not been trimmed for ≥3 consecutive winters. Twenty-eight hedges were trimmed during the previous winter (four agri-environment scheme, 24 conventionally managed), 17 were trimmed two winters prior (seven agri-environment scheme, 10 conventionally managed). All hedges were mechanically top trimmed. Bats were recorded with a bat detector along each of 64 hedges during one full night in June–August 2016.

    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 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 the latest volume: Volume 18

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 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