Action

Action Synopsis: Bat Conservation About Actions

Manage livestock water troughs as a drinking resource for bats

How is the evidence assessed?
  • Effectiveness
    67%
  • Certainty
    45%
  • Harms
    0%

Study locations

Key messages

  • 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.

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 2004 of four pairs of water troughs in northern Arizona, USA (Tuttle et al 2006) found that removing livestock modifications from water troughs resulted in bats drinking from them more frequently. More bats reached the water surface at unmodified troughs than modified troughs during both single approaches (unmodified: 71% of bats; modified: 25%) and multiple approaches (unmodified: 97%; modified: 61%). Bats also approached unmodified troughs fewer times before successfully drinking than at modified troughs (unmodified: average 0.3 times; modified: 1.8 times). Three experiments were carried out at a pair of rectangular troughs (surface area 7.5 m2) and one experiment at a pair of circular troughs (surface area 4.7 m2). One trough in each pair had modifications installed with either a 3-strand barbed wire fence across the centre or boards at 100 cm intervals, the other was left unmodified. Troughs were filmed simultaneously for 1–5 nights in May–August 2004. Modifications were then switched to the unmodified trough and filming was repeated.

    Study and other actions tested
  2. A paired sites study in 2008 in a semi-arid area of Texas, USA (Jackrel & Matlack 2010) 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. More bats drank from tanks that were larger (30 bats), full of water (20 bats) or surrounded by sparse vegetation (15 bats) compared to tanks that were smaller (0 bats), half full of water (0 bats) or surrounded by no vegetation (2 bats) or dense vegetation (0 bats). Four pairs of galvanized livestock water tanks (1.2, 1.8 or 3 m diameter, 0.6 m high) were deployed (spaced 80 m apart) for two nights each. Each pair tested one of four treatments: tank size (3-m diameter tank vs 1.2-m diameter tank), water level (full tank vs half full tank), sparse vegetation (one tank with salt cedar Tamarix spp. branches tied around the perimeter with some gaps, the other with no vegetation), dense vegetation (one tank with dense salt cedar branches tied around the perimeter, the other with no vegetation). Treatments were switched within each pair between the two nights. Bat activity was recorded using night-vision video cameras and infra-red lights for 160 minutes/night after sunset at each of the eight tanks in June–August 2008. Bats were not identified to species.

    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 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