Action Synopsis: Bat Conservation About Actions

Maintain microclimate in closed/abandoned mines

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

Study locations

Key messages

  • One study evaluated the effects of maintaining the microclimate in an abandoned mine on bat populations. The study was in the USA.



  • Abundance (1 study): One before-and-after study in the USA found that modifying the microclimate of an abandoned mine by closing a man-made entrance resulted in a greater number of bats hibernating within the mine.


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 before-and-after study in 2004–2007 at one mine in Southern Illinois, USA (Carter & Steffen 2010) found that modifying the microclimate within an abandoned mine by closing a human-made entrance resulted in an increase in the number of hibernating bats, including Indiana bats Myotis sodalis. Before the entrance was closed, <500 bats were counted hibernating in the mine and internal temperatures varied widely during the hibernation period (-2–18°C). After the entrance was closed, internal temperatures were more stable (11-13°C), and more bats hibernated within the mine (one year after: 1,500 bats; two years after: 2,500 bats). In summer 2005, a culvert with a door (1.2 m wide) was built into the horizontal human-made entrance shaft and the rest of the entrance was filled in. Three other entrances to the mine were left open. Hibernating bats were counted within the mine in 2004 before the entrance was closed, and in 2006 and 2007 after the entrance was closed.

    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