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: Legally protect bat habitats Bat Conservation

Key messages

Read our guidance on Key messages before continuing

  • Three studies evaluated the effects of legally protecting bat habitats on bat populations. One study was in the UK, one was in Spain, and one in Europe.

COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY)

  • Richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, paired sites study in Europe found that the number of bat species did not differ between protected and unprotected forests.

POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES)

  • Abundance (2 studies): One replicated, site comparison study in the UK found that the activity (relative abundance) of Daubenton’s bats was significantly higher over rivers on farms in protected areas than in unprotected areas. One replicated, paired sites study in Europe found that the activity of common noctule bats was higher in protected forests than unprotected forests, but bat activity overall did not differ.

USAGE (1 STUDY)     

  • Use (1 study): One study in Spain found that the distributions of 10 of 11 bat species overlapped with areas designated to protect them significantly more than by chance.

Supporting evidence from individual studies

1 

A replicated, site comparison study in 2009–2012 of 80 rivers on farms in Wales, UK (MacDonald et al 2012) found that rivers in protected areas had higher activity of Daubenton’s bats Myotis daubentonii than rivers in unprotected areas, but the activity of soprano pipistrelles Pipistrellus pygmaeus did not differ between protected and unprotected areas. The average number of bat passes/year for Daubenton’s bats was significantly higher over rivers in protected areas on both agri-environment farms (2.3 bat passes) and conventional farms (3.3 bat passes) than rivers in unprotected areas on agri-environment scheme farms (1.6 bat passes) and conventional farms (2.3 bat passes). A similar number of bat passes/year were recorded over rivers in protected and unprotected areas for soprano pipistrelles (data not reported). Surveys were carried out at 46 protected rivers (26 on agri-environment scheme farms, 20 on conventional farms) and 34 unprotected rivers (14 on agri-environment scheme farms, 20 20 on conventional farms). Protected areas were designated as Sites of Special Scientific Interest. No details are reported about the origin of the rivers; water may have originated from outside the protected area. One transect survey was carried out along each river in August and September in 2009, 2010 and 2011.

2 

A study in 2015 of protected areas in Spain (Lisón et al 2015) found that the distributions of 10 of 11 target bat species and 13 of 18 non-target bat species overlapped with protected ‘Special Conservation Areas’ (SACs) significantly more than expected by chance. The distributions of nine of 11 target bat species and 13 of 18 non-target bat species also overlapped with ‘Special Protection Areas’ (SPAs) designated to protect birds. The amount of overlap between bat species distributions and either of the protected area types did not differ significantly between target and non-target species. Both SPAs and SACs were part of the legally protected European Natura 2000 network. Target species were of highest conservation concern and listed in Annex II of the European Habitats Directive. All other (non-target) bat species were listed in Annex IV. The mean percentage overlap between species distributions (grid cells in which the species occurred) and the protected areas were calculated using an existing bat dataset for mainland Spain and the Balearic Islands.

3 

A replicated, paired sites study in 2011–2012 in 11 managed beech Fagus sylvatica forests in Germany, Austria, France and the UK (Zehetmair et al 2015) found that legally protected forests had higher activity for one of 20 bat species than unprotected forests, but overall bat activity and the number of bat species was similar between protected and unprotected forests. The number of common noctule Nyctalus noctula calls was significantly higher in protected (141 calls) than unprotected forests (18 calls). The number of bat calls recorded overall did not differ significantly between protected (1,223 calls) and unprotected forests (1,995 calls). The same was true for species richness (17 bat species recorded in both protected and unprotected forests). Surveys were conducted in 11 pairs of forest (one protected, one unprotected) managed for timber production. Protected forests were part of the Natura 2000 network.  All stands were >10 ha with trees 80–120 years old and had a similar number of roost trees and volume of snags. Bat activity was recorded with bat detectors at eight locations per stand during one full night in May or July in 2011 or 2012.

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.