Collected 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: 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: Retain veteran and standing dead trees as roosting sites for bats We found no studies that evaluated the effects of retaining veteran and standing dead 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%2F993https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F993Fri, 20 Dec 2013 15:34:57 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use prescribed burning Fifteen studies evaluated the effects of prescribed burning on bat populations. Thirteen studies were in the USA and two were in Australia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Community composition (2 studies): One of two replicated studies (one before-and-after with paired sites, one site comparison) in Australia found that the composition of bat species differed between burned and unburned woodland sites. The other study found that the composition of bat species was similar between unlogged forest blocks burned every two or four years and unburned blocks. Richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, randomized, site comparison study in Australia found more bat species in unlogged forest blocks burned every four years than in blocks burned every two years or unburned blocks. POPULATION RESPONSE (9 STUDIES) Abundance (9 studies): Two replicated, site comparison studies (including one controlled study) in the USA found that the activity (relative abundance) of open habitat bat species and evening bats increased with the number of prescribed fires, but there was no effect on other bat species, including cluttered habitat bat species. Four replicated, before-and-after or site comparison studies (including two controlled studies) in the USA and Australia found that prescribed burning, prescribed burning along with thinning or prescribed burning every four years resulted in higher overall bat activity or activity of Florida bonneted bats. One site comparison study in the USA found that two of seven sites that had been burned alongside other restoration practices had higher bat activity than unrestored sites. One replicated, randomized, site comparison study in the USA found that three of four burning and thinning treatments resulted in higher overall bat activity. One replicated, controlled, site comparison study in the USA found similar activity of three bat species in burned and unburned tree stands. BEHAVIOUR (6 STUDIES)      Use (5 studies): One replicated, controlled before-and-after study in the USA found that more female northern myotis bats roosted in burned than unburned forest. Two replicated, controlled, site comparison studies in the USA found that fewer female northern myotis bats and male Indiana bats roosted in burned than unburned forest. One replicated study in the USA found that evening bats roosted in burned but not unburned forest. One replicated, paired sites study in the USA found that burned sites had a higher occupancy of five bat species/species groups than unburned sites, and burn severity had a negative effect on the occupancy of two bat species/species groups. Behaviour change (4 studies): Two replicated, controlled, site comparison studies in the USA found no difference in roost switching frequency or the distance between roost trees for female northern myotis bats and male Indiana bats in burned and unburned forests. One replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in the USA found that female northern myotis home ranges and core areas did not differ in size between burned and unburned forests, but home ranges were closer to burned forest than unburned forest. One replicated, site comparison study in the USA found that home ranges of female Rafinesque’s big-eared bats were located similar distances to burned and unburned forest, and male home ranges were closer to unburned forest. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1006https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1006Fri, 20 Dec 2013 17:26:46 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Translocate bats Two studies evaluated the effects of translocating bats on bat populations. One study was in New Zealand and one study was in Switzerland. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Reproductive success (1 study): One study in Switzerland found that a female greater horseshoe bat that settled at a release site after translocation had a failed pregnancy. Survival (1 study): One study in Switzerland found that four of 18 bats died after translocation. Condition (1 study): One study in New Zealand found that lesser short-tailed bats captured at release sites eight months after translocation were balding and had damaged, infected ears. BEHAVIOUR (2 STUDIES)   Uptake (2 studies): Two studies in New Zealand and Switzerland found that low numbers of bats remained at release sites after translocation. Behaviour change (1 study): One study in Switzerland found that bats homed after release at translocation sites less than 20 km from their original roosts. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1009https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1009Fri, 20 Dec 2013 17:44:38 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Vaccinate bats against the white-nose syndrome pathogen We found no studies that evaluated the effects of vaccinating bats against the white-nose syndrome pathogen 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%2F1011https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1011Fri, 20 Dec 2013 17:46:43 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use low intensity lighting Three studies evaluated the effects of using low intensity lighting on bat populations. The three studies were in the UK. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Abundance (2 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in the UK found that activity (relative abundance) of lesser horseshoe bats, but not myotis bats, was higher along hedges with medium or low intensity lighting than hedges with high intensity lighting. One replicated, randomized, controlled study in the UK found that activity of myotis bats, but not common pipistrelles, was higher along treelined roads with street lights dimmed to an intensity of 25% than roads with streetlights dimmed to 50% or left undimmed. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY)         Behaviour change (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in the UK found that more soprano pipistrelles emerged from two roosts when the intensity of red lights was reduced by placing filters over them. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1018https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1018Fri, 20 Dec 2013 17:58:34 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use ultraviolet filters on lights One study evaluated the effects of using ultraviolet filters on lights on bat populations. The study was in the UK. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): One randomized, replicated, controlled study in the UK found that hedges lit with ultraviolet filtered lights had higher soprano pipistrelle, but not common pipistrelle activity (relative abundance) than hedges lit with unfiltered light. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1020https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1020Fri, 20 Dec 2013 18:00:18 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use mammal-safe timber treatments in roof spaces We found no studies that evaluated the effects of using mammal-safe timber treatments in roof spaces 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%2F1022https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1022Fri, 20 Dec 2013 18:04:01 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use non-lethal measures to prevent bats from accessing fruit in orchards to reduce human-wildlife conflict Two studies evaluated the effects of using non-lethal measures to prevent bats from accessing fruit in orchards to reduce human-wildlife conflict. The studies were in Madagascar and Mauritius. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (2 STUDIES)    Human-wildlife conflict (2 studies): Two replicated, controlled studies (including one randomized study) in Madagascar and Mauritius found that using an organic deterrent spray, hanging plastic flags in trees, or covering individual tree branches with nylon net bags reduced damage to lychees caused by Madagascan flying foxes or Mauritius fruit bats. One of the studies found that ringing bells in lychee trees deterred most Madagascan flying foxes. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1953https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1953Tue, 04 Dec 2018 12:22:55 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Strengthen cultural traditions that discourage bat harvesting We found no studies that evaluated the effects of strengthening cultural traditions that discourage bat 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%2F1972https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1972Tue, 04 Dec 2018 18:20:50 +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: 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 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Train tourist guides to minimize disturbance and promote bat conservation We found no studies that evaluated the effects of training tourist guides to minimize disturbance and promote bat conservation 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%2F1992https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1992Wed, 05 Dec 2018 12:47:31 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use collar-mounted devices on cats to reduce predation of bats We found no studies that evaluated the effects of using collar-mounted devices on cats to reduce predation of 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%2F2004https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2004Wed, 05 Dec 2018 15:30:20 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Treat bat hibernacula environments to reduce the white-nose syndrome pathogen reservoir We found no studies that evaluated the effects of treating hibernacula environments to reduce the white-nose syndrome pathogen reservoir 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%2F2007https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2007Wed, 05 Dec 2018 15:37:15 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Treat bats for infection with white-nose syndrome Two studies evaluated the effects of treating bats with a probiotic bacterium to reduce white-nose syndrome infection. One study was in Canada and one in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Survival (2 studies): One randomized, controlled study in Canada found that treating little brown bats with a probiotic bacterium at the time of infection with white-nose syndrome (but not 21 days prior) increased survival within cages in a laboratory. One randomized, controlled study in the USA found that treating little brown bats with a probiotic bacterium within a mine increased survival for free-flying bats, but not caged bats. Condition (2 studies): One randomized, controlled study in Canada found that little brown bats caged in a laboratory and treated with a probiotic bacterium at the time of infection with white-nose syndrome had reduced symptoms of the disease, but bats treated 21 days prior to infection had worse symptoms. One randomized, controlled study in the USA found that little brown bats kept within cages in a mine and treated with a probiotic bacterium had a similar severity of white-nose syndrome to untreated bats. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2008https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2008Wed, 05 Dec 2018 15:40:15 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use organic pest control instead of synthetic pesticides We found no studies that evaluated the effects of using organic pest control instead of synthetic pesticides 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%2F2014https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2014Wed, 05 Dec 2018 17:40:02 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use 'warm white' rather than 'cool' LED lights We found no studies that evaluated the effects of using ‘warm white’ LED lights rather than ‘cool’ LED lights 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%2F2020https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2020Wed, 05 Dec 2018 18:01:53 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use red lighting rather than other lighting colours Three studies evaluated the effects of red lighting on bat populations. Two studies were in the Netherlands and one was in the UK. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Abundance (2 studies): One replicated, controlled, site comparison study in the Netherlands found that red lighting resulted in higher activity (relative abundance) for one of three bat species groups than white or green lighting. One site comparison study in the Netherlands found that culverts illuminated with red light had similar activity of commuting Daubenton’s bats as culverts illuminated with white or green light. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY)         Behaviour (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in the UK found that more soprano pipistrelles emerged from a roost when lit with red light than when lit with white light, but no difference was found between red and blue lights. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2021https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2021Wed, 05 Dec 2018 18:06:28 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use glazing treatments to reduce light spill from inside lit buildings We found no studies that evaluated the effects of using glazing treatments to prevent light spill from inside lit buildings 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%2F2022https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2022Wed, 05 Dec 2018 18:07:22 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Retain wetlands We found no studies that evaluated the effects of retaining wetlands 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%2F2032https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2032Wed, 05 Dec 2018 18:23:21 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Slow rotation of turbine blades at low wind speeds One study evaluated the effects of slowing the rotation of turbine blades at low wind speeds on bat populations. The study was in Canada. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Survival (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in Canada found that bat fatalities were reduced when turbine blades were slowed at low wind speeds. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2939https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2939Fri, 12 Feb 2021 16:16:13 +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