Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create tree plantations on agricultural land Three studies evaluated the effects of creating tree plantations on agricultural land on bat populations. The three studies were in Australia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Richness/diversity (3 studies): Three replicated, site comparison studies in Australia found no difference in the number of bat species in agricultural areas with and without plantations of native trees. POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Abundance (3 studies): Two of three replicated, site comparison studies in Australia found no difference in bat activity (relative abundance) in agricultural areas with and without plantations of native trees. The other study found higher bat activity in plantations next to remnant native vegetation than in isolated plantations or over grazing land. In all three studies, bat activity was lower in plantations compared to original forest and woodland remnants. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F958https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F958Fri, 20 Dec 2013 10:09:11 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use organic farming instead of conventional farming Twelve studies evaluated the effects of using organic farming instead of conventional farming on bat populations. Eight studies were in Europe, two in the USA, one in Canada and one in Chile. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (7 STUDIES) Community composition (1 study): One replicated, paired sites study in the USA found that the composition of bat species did not differ between organic and non-organic farms. Richness/diversity (7 studies): Five of seven replicated, paired sites or site comparison studies in Europe, the USA, Canada and Chile found that the number of bat species did not differ between organic and non-organic farms. The other two studies found more bat species on organic farms than non-organic farms. POPULATION RESPONSE (12 STUDIES) Abundance (12 studies): Five of nine replicated, paired sites or site comparison studies in Europe, the USA, Canada and Chile found that overall bat activity (relative abundance) and common pipistrelle activity did not differ between organic and non-organic farms. The other four studies found higher overall bat activity, bat feeding activity, Brazilian free-tailed bat activity, and activity of four of seven bat species on organic farms than non-organic farms. Two replicated, paired sites and site comparison studies in the UK found higher activity of Myotis species over water and rivers on organic farms than non-organic farms, but no differences were found for other species or habitats. One replicated, site comparison study in France found higher activity for two of three bat species over organic fields than two of three types of conventionally managed fields. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F961https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F961Fri, 20 Dec 2013 10:21:14 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Pay farmers to cover the costs of conservation measures (e.g. agri-environment schemes) 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)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F962https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F962Fri, 20 Dec 2013 10:25:45 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Retain or plant native trees and shrubs amongst crops (agroforestry) Eight studies evaluated the effects of retaining or planting native trees and shrubs amongst crops on bat populations. Four studies were in Mexico, three were in South America and one was in Tanzania. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (7 STUDIES) Community composition (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in Tanzania found different compositions of bat species in coffee plantations with different amounts and types of shade cover. Richness/diversity (7 studies): Four of six replicated, site comparison studies in Columbia, Mexico and Costa Rica found a similar number of bat species in shaded and unshaded coffee plantations, and in coffee plantations with different amounts and types of shade cover. The two other studies found more bat species and higher bat diversity in coffee, cacao and banana plantations with varied shade cover, than in plantations with a single shade species or no shade. One replicated, site comparison study in Tanzania found more bat species in shaded coffee plantations than in traditional mixed agroforestry systems with natural forest vegetation. POPULATION RESPONSE (6 STUDIES) Abundance (5 studies): Two replicated, site comparison studies in Mexico captured more bats in coffee plantations with varied shade cover than in plantations with a single shade species. One replicated, site comparison study in Mexico found higher activity (relative abundance) of forest bat species in plantations with a varied shade cover than in plantations with a single shade species, but the opposite was true for open habitat bat species. One replicated, site comparison study in Costa Rica found no difference in the number of bats captured between cacao and banana shade plantations and unshaded monocultures. One replicated, site comparison study in Tanzania found greater bat occurrence in shaded coffee plantations than in traditional mixed agroforestry systems with natural forest vegetation. Condition (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in Columbia found that great fruit-eating bats captured in ‘silvopastoral’ areas that used agroforestry, along with no chemicals, had higher body weights and body condition scores than those in conventional farming areas. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F963https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F963Fri, 20 Dec 2013 10:35:13 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Engage farmers and landowners to manage land for bats One study evaluated the effects of engaging farmers and landowners to manage land for bats on bat populations. The study was in the UK. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): One study in the UK found that during a five-year project to engage farmers and landowners to manage land for bats, the overall population of greater horseshoe bats at four maternity roosts in the area increased (but see summary below). BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Change in human behaviour (1 study): One study in the UK found that a landowner engagement project resulted in 77 bat-related management agreements covering approximately 6,536 ha of land. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1936https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1936Mon, 03 Dec 2018 13:15:11 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide or retain set-aside areas in farmland We found no studies that evaluated the effects of providing or retaining set-aside areas in farmland on bat populations. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1937https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1937Mon, 03 Dec 2018 13:17:14 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Increase the proportion of semi-natural habitat in the farmed landscape We found no studies that evaluated the effects of increasing the proportion of semi-natural habitat in the farmed landscape on bat populations. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1938https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1938Mon, 03 Dec 2018 13:18:19 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce field size (or maintain small fields) One study evaluated the effects of maintaining small fields on bat populations. The study was in Canada. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in Canada found that agricultural landscapes with smaller fields had higher activity (relative abundance) of six of seven bat species than landscapes with larger fields. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1939https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1939Mon, 03 Dec 2018 13:19:32 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Retain unmown field margins One study evaluated the effects of retaining unmown field margins on bats populations. The study was in the UK. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): One replicated, paired sites study in the UK found that pipistrelle activity (relative abundance) did not differ between unmown field margins managed for wildlife on agri-environment scheme farms and field margins on conventional farms. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1940https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1940Mon, 03 Dec 2018 13:21:44 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Plant field margins with a diverse mix of plant species One study evaluated the effects of planting field margins with a diverse mix of plant species on bats populations. The study was in the UK. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the UK found that the activity (relative abundance) of soprano pipistrelles and barbastelle bats increased with a greater diversity of plant species within field margins, but there was no effect on common pipistrelle activity nor on the occurrence of any of the six bat species studied. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1941https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1941Tue, 04 Dec 2018 09:50:30 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Plant new hedges We found no studies that evaluated the effects of planting new hedges on bat populations. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1942https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1942Tue, 04 Dec 2018 09:51:33 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Manage hedges to benefit bats Two studies evaluated the effects of managing hedges to benefit bat populations. Both studies were in the UK. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the UK found that hedges trimmed ≥3 years prior had more bat species recorded along them than hedges trimmed during the previous winter. POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Abundance (2 studies): One replicated, paired sites study in the UK found that pipistrelle activity (relative abundance) did not differ between hedges managed for wildlife on agri-environment scheme farms and hedges on conventional farms. One replicated, site comparison study in the UK found that hedges trimmed ≥3 years prior had higher activity of two of eight bat species/species groups than hedges trimmed during the previous winter. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1943https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1943Tue, 04 Dec 2018 09:54:05 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Manage ditches to benefit bats We found no studies that evaluated the effects of managing ditches to benefit bat populations. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1944https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1944Tue, 04 Dec 2018 09:59:42 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Retain existing in-field trees We found no studies that evaluated the effects of retaining existing in-field trees on bat populations. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this intervention during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have no evidence to indicate whether or not the intervention has any desirable or harmful effects.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1945https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1945Tue, 04 Dec 2018 10:03:08 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Plant in-field trees We found no studies that evaluated the effects of planting in-field trees on bat populations. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1946https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1946Tue, 04 Dec 2018 10:04:30 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Retain remnant forest or woodland on agricultural land We found no studies that evaluated the effects of retaining remnant forest or woodland on agricultural land on bat populations. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this intervention during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have no evidence to indicate whether or not the intervention has any desirable or harmful effects.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1947https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1947Tue, 04 Dec 2018 10:55:06 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Retain riparian buffers on agricultural land One study evaluated the effects of retaining riparian buffers on agricultural land on bat populations. The study was in the UK. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): One replicated, paired sites study in the UK found that pipistrelle activity (relative abundance) did not differ along waterways with buffers of vegetation on agri-environment scheme farms and waterways on conventional farms. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2284https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2284Tue, 19 Nov 2019 18:05:49 +0000
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
For a full list of, and information about, our champions:
All Evidence Champions
About our champions, why and how to become one:
Become an Evidence Champion

This website uses Cookies

We use limited Cookies to run the site and to analyse our traffic (none for site vendors). By using this site, you will be providing your consent to our use of Cookies.

Accept & continue