Restore or create wetlands

Overall effectiveness category Likely to be beneficial
Number of studies: 1
Share Tweet Email

View assessment score

How is the evidence assessed?

Effectiveness

62%
Certainty

40%
Harms

0%

Calculating overall effectiveness category

Background information and definitions

Wetlands can support high numbers of aquatic insects and provide important foraging and drinking habitats for bats. Wetlands may be created in proximity to existing habitats or habitat corridors. Restoration of wetlands may involve a combination of interventions, such as removing invasive and emergent plants and maintaining bankside vegetation and trees.

A study that involves the restoration of wetlands alongside other habitats at ex-quarry sites is described in ‘Restore bat foraging habitat at ex-quarry sites’.

For evidence relating to managing water bodies in arid areas, see ‘Manage natural water bodies in arid areas to prevent desiccation’.

Study locations

Key messages

One study evaluated the effects of restoring wetlands on bat populations. The study was in the USA.

COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY)

Abundance (1 study): One replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in the USAfound that restoring wetlands increased overall bat activity (relative abundance), and restored wetlands had similar bat activity to undisturbed wetlands.

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

A replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in 2000–2001 of six restored and six undisturbed wetlands in South Carolina, USA (Menzel et al 2005) found that restoring wetlands increased overall bat activity, and restored wetlands had similar bat activity to undisturbed wetlands. Overall bat activity was higher over wetlands after restoration (average 7 bat passes/30 minutes) than before (2 bat passes/30 minutes). Before restoration, overall bat activity was lower at drained wetlands (average 2 bat passes/30 minutes) than undisturbed wetlands (17 bat passes/30 minutes). However, after restoration there was no significant difference (restored: 15 bat passes/30 minutes; undisturbed: 9 bat passes/30 minutes). Seven bat species were recorded in total (see original paper for data for individual species). Wetlands were Carolina bays (0.5–1.5 ha) that were either undisturbed (three sites) or had been drained >50 years previously and restored in 2000 (drainage and forest removed; three sites). At each of 12 sites, bat activity was recorded during a random 30-minute time interval between dusk and midnight with 1–2 bat detectors before restoration (in 2000) and after (in 2001).
Study and other actions tested
Referenced paper
Menzel J.M., Menzel M.A., Kilgo J.C., Ford W.M. & Edwards J.W. (2005) Bat response to Carolina bays and wetland restoration in the southeastern U.S. Coastal Plain. Wetlands, 25, 542-550.

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
Reinstate bat roosts in felled tree trunks Action Link	Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)	1	Synopsis Link
Restore or create forest or woodland Action Link	Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)	2	Synopsis Link
Restore or create wetlands Action Link	Likely to be beneficial	1	Synopsis Link