Action Synopsis: Bat Conservation About Actions

Reinstate bat roosts in felled tree trunks

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

Study locations

Key messages

  • One study evaluated the effects of reinstating a bat roost within a felled tree trunk on bat populations. The study was in the UK.




  • Use (1 study): One before-and-after study in the UK found that a roost reinstated by attaching the felled tree trunk to a nearby tree continued to be used by common noctule bats as a maternity roost.

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 before-and-after study in 2009–2013 in a broadleaf woodland in Milton Keynes, UK (Damant & Dickens 2013) found that a roost reinstated by attaching the felled tree trunk to a nearby tree continued to be used by common noctule bats Nyctalus noctula as a maternity roost. A similar number of bats used the roost before (47–75 bats) and after (37–46 bats) felling and reinstatement of the roost, although no statistical tests were carried out. The roost was in an ash Fraxinus excelsior tree within a 23-ha ancient semi-natural woodland. The tree was accidentally felled in December 2011. The tree trunk was reinstated within five days of felling by attaching it to a nearby tree using 19 mm steel banding and rubber straps. The access points were orientated to recreate their original positions prior to felling. A replacement top was constructed from ash wood to shelter the roost. The reinstated section and top were 3.4 m high x 0.5 m wide. Emergence counts were carried out at the roost twice in 2010 before felling and once/year in 2012 and 2013 after reinstatement.

    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