Maintain bat roosts in road/railway bridges and culverts

Overall effectiveness category Likely to be beneficial
Number of studies: 2
Share Tweet Email

View assessment score

How is the evidence assessed?

Effectiveness

70%
Certainty

45%
Harms

0%

Calculating overall effectiveness category

Background information and definitions

Bats can roost in gaps, cracks or between beams within road or railway bridges and culverts (e.g. Feldhamer et al. 2003, Celuch & Sevcík 2008, Geluso & Mink 2009). A study in the USA found over four million bats of 24 species roosting in 211 road bridges and culverts (Keeley & Tuttle 1999). Maintenance, repairs, or bridge/culvert replacement work may result in the loss of potential roost sites, entombment or injury of roosting bats, and abandonment of roosts and/or young.

For a similar intervention see ‘Create spaces for roosting bats in road/railway bridges and culverts’.

Celuch M. & Sevcík M. (2008) Road bridges as roosts for noctules (Nyctalus noctula) and other bat species in Slovakia (Chiroptera: Vespertilionidae). Lynx, 39, 47–54.

Feldhamer G.A., Carter T.C., Morzillo A.T. & Nicholson E.H. (2003) Use of bridges as day roosts by bats in Southern Illinois. Transactions of the Illinois State Academy of Science, 96, 107–112.

Geluso K. & Mink J.N. (2009) Use of bridges by bats (Mammalia: Chiroptera) in the Rio Grande Valley, New Mexico. The Southwestern Naturalist, 54, 421–429.

Keeley B.W. & Tuttle M. (1999) Bats in American bridges. Bat Conservation International, Austin, Texas, USA.

Study locations

Key messages

Two studies evaluated the effects of maintaining bat roosts within road bridges on bat populations. One study was in Ireland and one in the USA.

COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

BEHAVIOUR (2 STUDIES)

Use (2 studies): One before-and-after study in Ireland found that a maternity colony of Daubenton’s bats continued to roost in a road bridge over a river in similar numbers after crevices were retained during repair work. One review in the USA found that when bat roosts were maintained during bridge replacement works, Yuma myotis and Mexican free-tailed bats recolonised most roosts in similar numbers to before the works, but pallid bats did not return.

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

A before-and-after study in 1988–2005 of a road bridge over a river in northwest Ireland (Marnell & Presetnik 2010) found that after crevices were retained during strengthening work and repairs to the bridge, a Daubenton’s bat Myotis daubentonii maternity colony continued to roost in the bridge in similar numbers as before the work. A maternity colony of approximately 25 Daubenton’s bats was first recorded roosting in the bridge in 1988 (no more recent data provided). After the repair work was complete, four bats were recorded in the original roost crevice in 2004, and 25 bats were recorded in 2005. Strengthening works (including laying cement, pointing, and grouting) were carried out on the five-arch masonry bridge in September–October 2003. Roosting crevices were marked and temporarily filled with polystyrene to prevent them from being filled. Bats were counted in the bridge in July 2004 and 2005.
Study and other actions tested
Referenced paper
Marnell F & Presetnik P (2010) Protection of overground roosts for bats (particularly roosts in buildings of cultural heritage importance). EUROBATS report, 4.
A review in 2017–2018 of case studies at five road bridges in California, USA (Harvey & Associates 2019) found that when bat roosts were maintained during bridge replacement works, Yuma myotis bats Myotis yumanensis recolonised two of three roosts and Mexican free-tailed bats Tadarida brasiliensis recolonised three of four roosts in similar numbers to before the works, but pallid bats Antrozous pallidus did not return to either of two roosts. Yuma myotis bats recolonised two roosts in similar numbers to before the works (before: 220, 100; after: 220, 100), whereas numbers declined at a third roost (before: 40; after: 20). Mexican free-tailed bats recolonised three roosts in similar numbers to before the works (before: 200, 3,000, 994; after: 200, 3,000, 1,010), whereas numbers declined at a fourth roost (before: 2,000; after: 600). Pallid bats did not return to either of two roosts used by 18–20 bats. At all of five sites, the original bat roost structures (abutments: one site; hinges and expansion joints: four sites) were retained during bridge replacement works (dates not reported; see original report for details). Bats were temporarily excluded from roosts in hinges and expansion joints. Counts of bats before and after the works were taken from questionnaires completed by the California Department of Transportation. Field surveys (including daytime inspections, colony and emergence counts) were conducted by the authors in spring and summer 2017 and 2018 after bridge works were complete.
Study and other actions tested
Referenced paper
Harvey & Associates H.T. (2019) Caltrans bat mitigation: A guide to developing feasible and effective solutions. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) report.

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

This Action forms part of the Action Synopsis:

Bat Conservation

Related Actions

Actions	Effectiveness	Studies	Category
Deter bats from roads/railways using ultrasound Action Link	No evidence found (no assessment)	0	Synopsis Link
Replace or improve roosting habitat for bats along utility and service line corridors Action Link	No evidence found (no assessment)	0	Synopsis Link
Install bat gantries or bat bridges as road/railway crossing structures for bats Action Link	Unlikely to be beneficial	3	Synopsis Link