Conservation Evidence: Evidence Data

Collected 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: Retain buffer zones around core habitat We found no studies that evaluated the effects of retaining buffer zones around core habitat 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%2F2028https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2028Wed, 05 Dec 2018 18:18:23 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Retain existing bat commuting routes We found no studies that evaluated the effects of retaining existing bat commuting routes 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%2F2029https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2029Wed, 05 Dec 2018 18:20:44 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Retain remnant habitat patches We found no studies that evaluated the effects of retaining remnant habitat patches 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%2F2030https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2030Wed, 05 Dec 2018 18:21:27 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Retain connectivity between habitat patches We found no studies that evaluated the effects of retaining connectivity between habitat patches 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%2F2031https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2031Wed, 05 Dec 2018 18:22:27 +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: Retain native forest and woodland We found no studies that evaluated the effects of retaining native forest and 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%2F2033https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2033Wed, 05 Dec 2018 18:24:08 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Legally protect bat habitats Five studies evaluated the effects of legally protecting bat habitats on bat populations. Four studies were in Europe and one was in India. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Community composition (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in India found that the composition of bat species was similar in protected forest and unprotected forest fragments. Richness/diversity (2 studies): Two replicated, site comparison or paired sites studies in Europe and India found that the number of bat species did not differ between protected and unprotected forests or forest fragments. One replicated, site comparison study in France found that protected sites had a greater number of bat species than unprotected sites. POPULATION RESPONSE (4 STUDIES) Abundance (4 studies): One replicated, site comparison study in the UK found that the activity (relative abundance) of Daubenton’s bats was higher over rivers on farms in protected areas than in unprotected areas. One replicated, paired sites study in Europe found that the activity of common noctule bats was higher in protected forests than unprotected forests, but bat activity overall did not differ. Two replicated, site comparison studies in France and India found higher overall bat activity, higher activity of three of six bat species/species groups and a greater number of bats in protected sites and forests than unprotected sites and forests. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Use (1 study): One study in Spain found that the distributions of 10 of 11 bat species overlapped with areas designated to protect them significantly more than by chance. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2045https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2045Thu, 06 Dec 2018 15:34:12 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Conserve roosting sites for bats in old structures or buildings Three studies evaluated the effects of conserving roosting sites for bats in old structures or buildings on bat populations. Two studies were in the UK and one was in Germany. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): One before-and-after study in the UK found that a greater number of bats hibernated in a railway tunnel after walls with access grilles were installed at the tunnel entrances and wood was attached to the tunnel walls. BEHAVIOUR (2 STUDIES) Uptake (1 study): One before-and-after study in Germany found that numbers of bats hibernating in a disused cellar after it was emptied of rubbish increased over 11 years. Use (2 studies): One before-and-after study in Germany found that a disused cellar that was emptied of rubbish was used by hibernating bats of four species. One before-and-after study in the UK found that Natterer’s bats used a roost that was ‘boxed-in’ within a church, but the number of bats using the roost was reduced by half. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2046https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2046Fri, 07 Dec 2018 10:43:53 +0000