Action

Action Synopsis: Bat Conservation About Actions

Pay farmers to cover the costs of conservation measures (e.g. agri-environment schemes)

How is the evidence assessed?
  • Effectiveness
    27%
  • Certainty
    42%
  • Harms
    0%

Study locations

Key messages

  • Three studies evaluated the effects of agri-environment schemes on bat populations. The three studies were in the UK.

COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES)

  • Abundance (3 studies): Two of three replicated, paired sites studies in the UK found that overall bat activity (relative abundance) or the occurrence of six bat species did not differ significantly between farms managed under agri-environment schemes and those managed conventionally. One of the studies found that agri-environment scheme farms had similar activity of five bat species, and lower activity of one bat species, compared to conventional farms. The other study found lower overall bat activity and activity of pipistrelle species on agri-environment scheme farms than conventional farms.

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 replicated, paired sites study in 2008 on 18 pairs of farms in Scotland, UK (Fuentes-Montemayor et al 2011) found that agri-environment scheme farms had lower overall bat activity and foraging activity than non-participating conventional farms. Overall bat activity and foraging activity were lower on agri-environment scheme farms (total 790 bat passes, 37 feeding buzzes) than conventional farms (total 1,175 bat passes, 85 feeding buzzes). The same was true for activity of the two most frequently recorded bat species: common pipistrelle Pipistrellus pipistrellus (agri-environment scheme farms: 159 bat passes; conventional farms: 312 bat passes) and soprano pipistrelle Pipistrellus pygmaeus (agri-environment scheme farms: 537 bat passes; conventional farms: 734 bat passes). Eighteen farms participating in the Scottish Rural Stewardship Scheme since 2004 were paired with nearby conventionally managed farms of a similar size and with similar farming activities. Each of 18 pairs of farms was sampled once on the same night in June–September 2008. Bat activity was recorded along transects (2.5–3.7 km long) from 45 minutes after sunset using bat detectors.

    Study and other actions tested
  2. A replicated, site comparison study in 2008 of 18 paired pasture fields in Devon, UK (MacDonald et al 2012) found that fields under agri-environment scheme management had similar bat activity as fields under conventional management. There was no significant difference in the overall number of bat passes recorded over agri-environment scheme fields (average 3 passes/night) and conventionally managed fields (1 pass/night). Seven bat species were recorded in total (see original paper for data for individual species). Paired agri-environment scheme fields and conventionally managed fields were matched where possible by topography, size and landscape context. Agri-environment scheme fields were managed with no pesticide or fertiliser inputs. Conventionally managed fields had no management restrictions. Bat activity was recorded using bat detectors at each pair of fields for 1–2 full nights in May, July, or August 2008.

    Study and other actions tested
  3. A replicated, paired sites study in 2009–2011 of 40–60 pairs of commercial farms in south Wales, UK (Angell et al 2019) found that agri-environment scheme farms had a similar occurrence and similar or lower activity of six bat species compared to conventional farms. Overall occurrence (proportion of transect sections with species present) and echolocation activity (counts of bat passes) did not differ significantly between agri-environment scheme farms and conventional farms for five of six bat species: common pipistrelles Pipistrellus pipistrellus, soprano pipistrelles Pipistrellus pygmaeus, Daubenton’s bats Myotis daubentonii, greater horseshoe bats Rhinolophus ferrumequinum  and lesser horseshoe bats Rhinolophus hipposideros (data reported as statistical model results). For common noctules Nyctalus noctula, occurrence was similar on agri-environment scheme and conventional farms, but echolocation activity was 33% lower on agri-environment scheme farms. Pairs of agri-environment scheme farms (under scheme management for 3–11 years) and conventional farms were 2–26 km apart and matched by area, altitude, farm type and proximity to towns. Field transects were carried out at 60 pairs of farms, waterway transects at 40 pairs of farms, and static hedgerow surveys at 45 pairs of farms. Surveys were carried out twice/year between June and September in 2009, 2010 and 2011.

    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 18

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 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