Conservation Evidence: Evidence Data

Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use selective or reduced impact logging instead of conventional logging Four studies evaluated the effects of using selective or reduced impact logging instead of conventional logging on bat populations. Two studies were in the Neotropics, one study was in Italy and one in Germany. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Community composition (1 study): One replicated, controlled, site comparison study in Trinidad found that the composition of bat species differed between selectively logged and conventionally logged forest. Richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in Germany found similar bat diversity in selectively logged and conventionally logged forest. POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Abundance (3 studies): One replicated, site comparison study in Germany found similar overall bat activity (relative abundance) in selectively logged and conventionally logged forest. One review of 41 studies in the Neotropics found that reduced impact logging had a smaller effect on bat abundance than conventional logging. One replicated, site comparison study in Italy found greater bat activity at two of three sites that used selective logging techniques to open up the forest canopy rather than leaving the canopy intact. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F989https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F989Fri, 20 Dec 2013 14:41:00 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use shelterwood cutting instead of clearcutting One study evaluated the effects of using shelterwood cutting instead of ‘gap release’ cutting on bat populations. The study was in Australia. We found no studies that evaluated the effects of shelterwood cutting instead of clearcutting. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Use (1 study): One site comparison study in Australia found more Gould’s long-eared bats roosting in remnant trees within forests that had been shelterwood harvested than in forests harvested using gap release methods. Comparisons were not made with clearcutting. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F990https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F990Fri, 20 Dec 2013 15:27:30 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Thin trees within forest and woodland Eleven studies evaluated the effects of thinning trees within forest and woodland on bat populations. Six studies were in the USA, four were in Australia and one was in Canada. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Richness/diversity (2 studies): One replicated, site comparison study in Australia recorded the same bat species in thinned and unthinned forest, except for the chocolate wattled bat, which was not recorded in forests with unthinned regrowth. One replicated, site comparison study in Australia found that forest thinned up to 20 years previously had higher bat diversity than unthinned forest, but sites thinned more than 20 years previously did not differ. POPULATION RESPONSE (11 STUDIES) Abundance (11 studies): Five of six replicated, site comparison studies (including two paired sites studies and one controlled study) in the USA and Australia found higher overall bat activity (relative abundance) in thinned or thinned and burned forest than unthinned forest. The other study found similar overall bat activity in thinned and unthinned stands. One replicated, randomized, site comparison study in the USA found higher overall bat activity for three of four types of thinning and burning treatments. One replicated, site comparison study in Australia found that forest thinned up to eight years previously or more than 20 years previously had higher bat activity than unthinned forest, but sites thinned 8–20 years previously did not differ. Three replicated, controlled studies (including one site comparison and one before-and-after study) in Canada and Australia found that thinning increased the activity of some bat species but not others. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F991https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F991Fri, 20 Dec 2013 15:31:59 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Maintain forest and woodland edges for foraging bats We found no studies that evaluated the effects of maintaining forest and woodland edges for foraging bats 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%2F992https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F992Fri, 20 Dec 2013 15:33:51 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Replant native trees in logged areas We found no studies that evaluated the effects of replanting native trees in logged areas 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%2F994https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F994Fri, 20 Dec 2013 15:37:49 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Retain residual tree patches in logged areas Three studies evaluated the effects of retaining residual tree patches in logged areas on bat populations. The three studies were in Canada. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Abundance (3 studies): Two replicated, site comparison studies in Canada found no difference in bat activity (relative abundance) along the edges of residual tree patches and the edges of clearcut blocks. One replicated, site comparison study in Canada found that the activity of smaller bat species was higher along the edge of residual tree patches than in the centre of clearcut blocks, but the activity of larger bat species did not differ. One replicated, controlled study in Canada found that residual tree patches had similar activity of little brown bats and northern long-eared bats and lower activity of silver-haired bats compared to clearcut forest patches. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F995https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F995Fri, 20 Dec 2013 15:39:45 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Retain forested corridors in logged areas Three studies evaluated the effects of retaining forested corridors in logged areas on bat populations. The three studies were in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 studies): One replicated, site comparison study in the USA found that bat activity (relative abundance) was significantly higher along the edges of forested corridors than in corridor interiors or in adjacent logged stands, which had similar activity levels. BEHAVIOUR (2 STUDIES) Use (2 studies): One replicated, site comparison study in the USA found more Seminole bats roosting in forested corridors than logged stands or mature forest. One replicated, site comparison study in the USA found more male but fewer female evening bats roosting in forested corridors than logged stands. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F996https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F996Fri, 20 Dec 2013 15:44:57 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Train arborists and forestry operatives to identify potential bat roosts We found no studies that evaluated the effects of training arborists and forestry operatives to identify potential bat roosts 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%2F1981https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1981Tue, 04 Dec 2018 19:23:07 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Protect roost trees during forest operations We found no studies that evaluated the effects of protecting roost trees during forest operations 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%2F1982https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1982Tue, 04 Dec 2018 19:24:09 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Retain buffers around roost trees in logged areas We found no studies that evaluated the effects of retaining buffers around roost trees in logged areas 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%2F1983https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1983Tue, 04 Dec 2018 19:25:39 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Change timing of forestry operations We found no studies that evaluated the effects of changing the timing of forestry operations 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%2F1984https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1984Tue, 04 Dec 2018 19:26:55 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Retain riparian buffers in logged areas We found no studies that evaluated the effects of retaining riparian buffers in logged areas 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%2F1985https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1985Wed, 05 Dec 2018 10:59:37 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Manage forest and woodland to encourage understorey growth One study evaluated the effects of managing forest and woodland to encourage understorey growth on bat populations. The study was in Germany. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Richness/diversity (1 study): One paired sites study in Germany found more bat species and higher bat diversity in a forest managed to encourage understorey growth than in a managed forest without understorey growth. POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): One paired sites study in Germany found higher overall bat activity (relative abundance) in a forest managed to encourage understorey growth than in a managed forest without understorey growth. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1986https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1986Wed, 05 Dec 2018 11:04:01 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Coppice woodland We found no studies that evaluated the effects of coppicing woodland 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%2F1987https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1987Wed, 05 Dec 2018 11:04:54 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Encourage natural regeneration in former plantations We found no studies that evaluated the effects of encouraging natural regeneration in former plantations 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%2F1988https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1988Wed, 05 Dec 2018 11:06:25 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Strengthen cultural traditions such as sacred groves that prevent timber harvesting We found no studies that evaluated the effects of strengthening cultural traditions such as sacred groves that prevent timber harvesting 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%2F1989https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1989Wed, 05 Dec 2018 11:07:12 +0000