Action Synopsis: Bat Conservation About Actions

Restore or create wetlands

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

Study locations

Key messages

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




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. (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