Action

Action Synopsis: Bat Conservation About Actions

Restore or create forest or woodland

How is the evidence assessed?
  • Effectiveness
    40%
  • Certainty
    15%
  • Harms
    0%

Source countries

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

  1. 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
  2. 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
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