Action

Action Synopsis: Bat Conservation About Actions

Introduce agri-environment schemes

How is the evidence assessed?
  • Effectiveness
    35%
  • Certainty
    30%
  • Harms
    10%

Source countries

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 study in the UK found that total bat activity (relative abundance) and the activity of six bat species did not differ significantly between farms managed under agri-environment schemes and those managed conventionally. The other study found significantly 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 farms in Wales, UK (MacDonald et al 2012) found that there was no significant difference in the activity of six bat species on agri-environment scheme farms and non-participating conventional farms. The average number of bat passes/year was similar on agri-environment scheme farms and conventional farms for common pipistrelles Pipistrellus pipistrellus (agri-environment scheme: 3–7, conventional: 4–6), soprano pipistrelles Pipistrellus pygmaeus (agri-environment scheme: 5–9, conventional: 5–8), common noctules Nyctalus noctula (agri-environment scheme: 0.2–3, conventional: 0.3–4), Daubenton’s bats Myotis daubentonii (agri-environment scheme: 16–27, conventional: 17–20), greater horseshoe bats Rhinolophus ferrumequinum (agri-environment scheme: 3, conventional: 4) and lesser horseshoe bats Rhinolophus hipposideros (agri-environment scheme: 5, conventional: 6). Pairs of agri-environment scheme and conventional farms were 2–20 km apart and matched by size, altitude, soil type, and farming system. Field transects were carried out at 60 pairs of farms, waterway transects at 40 pairs of farms, and static field surveys at 45 pairs of farms. Surveys were carried out once or 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. (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