Action

Action Synopsis: Bat Conservation About Actions

Restore or create wetlands

How is the evidence assessed?
  • Effectiveness
    62%
  • Certainty
    40%
  • Harms
    0%

Source countries

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)

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

  1. 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
Please cite as:

Berthinussen, A., Richardson O.C. and Altringham J.D. (2019) Bat Conservation. Pages 67-140 in: W.J. Sutherland, L.V. Dicks, N. Ockendon, S.O. Petrovan & R.K. Smith (eds) What Works in Conservation 2019. Open Book Publishers, 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 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, terrestrial 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 latest volume: Volume 17

Go to the CE Journal

Subscribe to our newsletter

Please add your details if you are interested in receiving updates from the Conservation Evidence team about new papers, synopses and opportunities.

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