Restore or create forest or woodland

Overall effectiveness category Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)
Number of studies: 2
Share Tweet Email

View assessment score

How is the evidence assessed?

Effectiveness

40%
Certainty

15%
Harms

0%

Calculating overall effectiveness category

Background information and definitions

Restoring or creating forest and woodland may provide bats with important habitat in disturbed or fragmented landscapes.

A study that examined the effects of forest restoration in an urban area is described in ‘Create or restore bat foraging habitats in urban areas’.

Study locations

Key messages

Two studies evaluated the effects of restoring forests on bat populations. One study was in Brazil and one in Australia.

COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY)

Richness/diversity (1 study): One site comparison study in Brazil found that a reforested area had significantly lower bat diversity than a native forest fragment.

POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY)

Abundance (1 study): One replicated, controlled, site comparison study in Australia found that forests restored after mining had significantly higher or similar bat activity (relative abundance) as unmined forests for five of seven bat species.

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 site comparison study in 2007–2008 in two native forest fragments in southern Brazil (Gallo et al 2010) found that a reforested area had lower bat diversity than a protected native forest fragment. In the reforested area, 105 bats of six species were captured, and in the protected forest fragment, 397 bats of 14 species were captured (diversity data reported as diversity indices). No comparisons were made before and after restoration, or with unrestored areas. Both forests consisted of native tree species. The protected forest fragment (108 ha) had been selectively logged 20 years previously. The reforested area (12 ha) had previously been cleared for agriculture and cattle grazing, and had been planted with native tree species in 2002. At each of two sites, bats were captured in eight mist nets at ground level for 6 h from sunset on two consecutive nights. Each site was surveyed four times in spring, summer, autumn, and winter in 2007 or 2008.
Study and other actions tested
Referenced paper
Gallo P.H., dos Reis N.R., Andrade F.R. & Almeida I.G. (2010) Bats (Mammalia: Chiroptera) in native and reforested areas in Rancho Alegre, Parana, Brazil. Revista de Biología Tropical, 58, 1311-1322.
A replicated, controlled, site comparison study in 2010–2012 of 64 restored forest sites in southwestern Australia (Burgar et al 2017) found that restored forests had higher or similar bat activity as natural forests for five of seven bat species, and activity varied with the age of restored forest. Four bat species had similar or higher activity in young restored forest (<5 years old; average 0.3–8.3 bat passes/night) and natural unmined forest (average 0.3–15.5 bat passes/night), but lower activity in older restored forest (>10 years old; average 0.1–6.3 bat passes/night). One bat species had similar activity in older restored forest (>15 years old; average 0.6–1.1 bat passes/night) and unmined forest (average 0.9–2.5 bat passes/night), but lower activity in young restored forest (<5 years old; average 0.2–0.3 bat passes/night). Two bat species had consistently lower bat activity in all ages of restored forest (0.2–51 bat passes/night) than in unmined forest (3–68 bat passes/night). See original paper for more detailed results. All 64 sites were northern jarrah Eucalyptus marginata forest fragments. Restored sites had previously been cleared and mined. Surveys were carried out at 8–16 sites in restored forest of four different ages (0–4, 5–9, 9–14 and >15 years since restoration) and in eight natural unmined forest sites. All restored sites were >4 ha in size with at least one edge bordered by unmined forest. A bat detector was deployed for four full nights at each of 64 sites between October and March in 2010/2011 and 2011/2012.
Study and other actions tested
Referenced paper
Burgar J.M., Stokes V.L. & Craig M.D. (2017) Habitat features act as unidirectional and dynamic filters to bat use of production landscapes. Biological Conservation, 209, 280-288.

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
Create artificial hollows and cracks in trees for roosting bats Action Link	Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)	1	Synopsis Link