Conservation Evidence strives to be as useful to conservationists as possible. Please take our survey to help the team improve our resource.

Providing evidence to improve practice

Action: Avoid illumination of bat commuting routes Bat Conservation

Key messages

Read our guidance on Key messages before continuing

  • Two studies evaluated the effects of avoiding the illumination of bat commuting routes on bat populations. One study was in the Netherlands and one in the UK.

COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES)

  • Abundance (2 studies): One replicated, before-and-after study in the Netherlands found similar numbers of pond bats flying along unlit canals and canals illuminated with lamps. One replicated, controlled study in the UK found greater activity (relative abundance) of lesser horseshoe bats along unlit hedges than along hedges illuminated with streetlights.

USAGE (2 STUDIES)  

  • Behaviour change (2 studies): One replicated, before-and-after study in the Netherlands found that 28–96% of pond bats changed their flight paths along canals to avoid light spill from lamps. One replicated, controlled study in the UK found that lesser horseshoe bats were active earlier along unlit hedges than along those illuminated with streetlights.

Supporting evidence from individual studies

1 

A replicated, before-and-after study in 2005 at four canals in the Netherlands (Kuijper et al 2008) found that unlit canals and canals illuminated with lamps had similar numbers of pond bats Myotis dasycneme flying along them at all of four sites, but bats were observed avoiding the lights. At all of four sites the number of bats flying along canals did not differ when they were unlit (122–493 bats) or illuminated with lamps (114–413 bats). However, at all of three sites where observations were made, bats changed their flight paths to fly around the light, with more bats doing so when lamps were facing along canals (96% of bats) than across them (28–42% of bats). At each of four sites, the canal was lit with a 1,000 W halogen lamp (1–30 lux with a 10 m range) either along the canal (three sites) or across the canal (one site). In July–August 2005, bats were surveyed during 2–4 unlit nights immediately before and after 1–4 nights with the lamps switched on. Two surveyors/site counted passing bats (at all of four sites) and made observations of behaviour (at three of four sites).

2 

A replicated, controlled study in 2008 along eight hedgerows in the south of the UK (Stone et al 2009) found that unlit hedges had higher activity of lesser horseshoe bats Rhinolophus hipposideros, and bats were active earlier in the evening, than along hedges illuminated with streetlights. Unlit hedges had significantly higher lesser horseshoe bat activity (average 79 bat passes) than hedges illuminated with streetlights (average 7–10 bat passes). Lesser horseshoe bats were also active significantly earlier on nights when hedges were unlit (average 30 minutes after sunset) than on nights when they were illuminated with streetlights (79 minutes after sunset). Each of eight hedges was illuminated with two portable high pressure sodium streetlights (average 53 lux). In April–July 2008, observations and bat detector recordings were made for seven nights at each of eight sites with a silent unlit control treatment for one night, a noise treatment on the second night (with the generator powering the lights), four nights with the lit treatment and a final night with a repeat of the noise treatment.

Referenced papers

Please cite as:

Berthinussen, A., Richardson O.C. and Altringham J.D. (2019) Bat Conservation: Global Evidence for the Effects of Interventions. Synopses of Conservation Evidence Series. University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.