Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create alternative bat roosts within developments Eleven studies evaluated the effects of creating alternative bat roosts within developments on bat populations. Nine studies were in Europe and two were in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (11 STUDIES)     Use: (11 studies): Two replicated studies in the USA and UK found that bats did not use any of the alternative roosts provided in bat houses or a purpose-built bat wall after exclusion from buildings. Three studies (two replicated) in the USA and UK and one review in the UK found that bat boxes or bat lofts/barns were used by bats at 13–74% of development sites, and bat lofts/barns were used by maternity colonies at one of 19 development sites. Three of five before-and-after studies in Portugal, Ireland, Spain and the UK found that bat colonies used purpose-built roosts in higher or similar numbers after the original roosts were destroyed. The other two studies found that bats used purpose-built roosts in lower numbers than the original roost. One review in the UK found that new bat boxes/lofts built to replace destroyed roosts were four times less likely to be used by returning bats than roosts retained during development. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F949https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F949Fri, 20 Dec 2013 09:21:55 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove turbine lighting to reduce bat and insect attraction We found no studies that evaluated the effects of removing turbine lighting to reduce bat and insect attraction 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%2F969https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F969Fri, 20 Dec 2013 12:15:27 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Deter bats from roads/railways using lighting We found no studies that evaluated the effects of deterring bats from roads/railways using lighting 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%2F982https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F982Fri, 20 Dec 2013 14:27:40 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install and maintain cave gates to restrict public access Eleven studies evaluated the effects of installing cave gates on bat populations. Six studies were in the USA and five studies were in Europe. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (7 STUDIES) Abundance (7 studies): Three of four before-and-after studies (including one replicated study and one controlled study) in the Netherlands, the USA, Spain and Turkey found more or similar numbers of bats in caves and a bunker after gates were installed to restrict public access. The other study found fewer bats in caves after gates were installed. Two before-and-after studies in the USA and Spain found more bats within two caves after the size of the gated entrances were increased. One replicated, before-and-after study in the USA found that installing cave gates resulted in population increases or decreased rates of decline for 13 of 20 colonies of Indiana bat. One replicated, site comparison study in Spain found no difference in the population growth rates of bats roosting in caves with and without cave gates. Condition (1 study): One site comparison study in the USA found that bats hibernating in a cave with a wall and gate over the entrance lost more body mass than bats in a nearby unmodified cave. BEHAVIOUR (5 STUDIES)   Use (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in Spain found no difference in the occupancy rates of bats roosting in caves with and without cave gates. Behaviour change (4 studies): One replicated, controlled, before-and-after and site comparison study in the USA found that bats at cave entrances circled more and entered caves less after gates were installed. One replicated study in the USA found that bats flew through gates with a funnel design more frequently than gates with a round bar or angle iron design. One randomized, controlled, before-and-after study in the UK found that fewer bats flew through cave gates when the spacing between horizontal bars was reduced. One before-and-after study in the USA found that significantly fewer bats emerged from a cave with a gate installed compared with a cave with a fence. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F999https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F999Fri, 20 Dec 2013 17:07:52 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Impose restrictions on cave visits Four studies evaluated the effects of imposing restrictions on cave visits on bat populations. One study was in each of the USA, Canada, Madagascar, and Turkey. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Abundance (2 studies): Two before-and-after studies in Canada and Turkey found that bat populations within caves increased after restrictions on cave visitors were imposed. BEHAVIOUR (2 STUDIES) Behaviour change (2 studies): One study in the USA found that reducing the number of people within cave tour groups did not have a significant effect on the number of take-offs, landings or overall activity (bat movements) of a cave myotis colony roosting within the cave. One study in Madagascar found that increasing visitor approach distances, along with avoiding direct illumination of bats, reduced the alertness and number of take-offs of Madagascan rousettes during experimental cave tours. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1002https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1002Fri, 20 Dec 2013 17:17:00 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Leave bat roosts and roost entrances unlit Five studies evaluated the effects of leaving bat roosts and roost entrances unlit on bat populations. Two studies were in the UK, and one study was in each of Canada, Hungary and Sweden. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Abundance (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in Canada found that numbers of big brown bats and little brown bats roosting in buildings increased when roosts were left unlit and decreased when roosts were illuminated with artificial lights. Condition (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in Hungary found that juvenile bats had a higher body mass and greater forearm length at unlit roosts than at roosts with artificial lighting. BEHAVIOUR (4 STUDIES)      Use (1 study): One replicated, before-and-after study in Sweden found that all of 13 unlit churches continued to be used by brown long-eared bat colonies over 25 years, but bat colonies abandoned their roosts at 14 of 23 churches that were either partly or fully lit with floodlights. Behaviour change (3 studies): Three controlled studies (including two replicated studies) in the UK and Hungary found that more bats emerged, and bats emerged earlier and foraged for shorter periods, when roosts were left unlit than when they had artificial lighting. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1017https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1017Fri, 20 Dec 2013 17:54:28 +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: Restrict timing of lighting One study evaluated the effects of restricting the timing of lighting on bat populations. The study was in France. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): One replicated, paired sites study in France found that turning off streetlights for part of the night resulted in mixed results for activity (relative abundance), depending on bat species, when compared with leaving streetlights switched on all night. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1019https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1019Fri, 20 Dec 2013 17:59:19 +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: Provide bat boxes for roosting bats Forty-four studies evaluated the effects of providing bat boxes for roosting bats on bat populations. Twenty-seven studies were in Europe, nine studies were in North America, four studies were in Australia, two studies were in South America, and one study was a worldwide review. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (44 STUDIES) Uptake (9 studies): Nine replicated studies in Europe and the USA found that the number of bats using bat boxes increased by 2–10 times up to 10 years after installation. Use (43 studies): Forty-one of 43 studies (including 34 replicated studies and two reviews) in Europe, the USA, South America, and Australia found that bats used bat boxes installed in forest or woodland, forestry plantations, farmland, pasture, wetlands, urban areas and buildings, bridges, underpasses or unknown habitats. The other two studies in the USA and UK found that bats displaced from buildings did not use any of 43 bat houses of four different designs or 12 heated bat boxes of one design. One review of 109 studies across Europe, North America and Asia found that 72 bat species used bat boxes, although only 18 species commonly used them, and 31 species used them as maternity roosts. Twenty-two studies (including 17 replicated studies, one before-and-after study and two reviews) found bats occupying less than half of bat boxes provided (0–49%). Nine replicated studies found bats occupying more than half of bat boxes provided (54–100%). OTHER (23 STUDIES) Bat box design (16 studies): Three studies in Germany, Portugal and Australia found that bats used black bat boxes more than grey, white or wooden boxes. One of two studies in Spain and the USA found higher occupancy rates in larger bat boxes. One study in the USA found that bats used both resin and wood cylindrical bat boxes, but another study in the USA found that resin bat boxes became occupied more quickly than wood boxes. One study in the UK found higher occupancy rates in concrete than wooden bat boxes. One study in the USA found that Indiana bats used rocket boxes more than wooden bat boxes or bark-mimic roosts. One study in Spain found that more bats occupied bat boxes that had two compartments than one compartment in the breeding season. One study in Lithuania found that bat breeding colonies occupied standard and four/five chamber bat boxes and individuals occupied flat bat boxes. Four studies in the USA, UK, Spain and Australia found bats selecting four of nine, three of five, three of four and one of five bat box designs. One study in the UK found that different bat box designs were used by different species. One study in Costa Rica found that bat boxes simulating tree trunks were used by 100% of bats and in group sizes similar to natural roosts. Bat box position (11 studies): Three studies in Germany, Spain and the USA found that bat box orientation and/or the amount of exposure to sunlight affected bat occupancy, and one study in Spain found that orientation did not have a significant effect on occupancy. Two studies in the UK and Italy found that bat box height affected occupancy, and two studies in Spain and the USA found no effect of height. Two studies in the USA and Spain found higher occupancy of bat boxes on buildings than on trees. One study in Australia found that bat boxes were occupied more often in farm forestry sites than in native forest, one study in Poland found higher occupancy in pine relative to mixed deciduous stands, and one study in Costa Rica found higher occupancy in forest fragments than in pasture. One study in the USA found higher occupancy rates in areas where bats were known to roost prior to installing bat boxes. One review in the UK found that bat boxes were more likely to be occupied when a greater number of bat boxes were installed across a site. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1024https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1024Fri, 20 Dec 2013 18:17:59 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Legally protect bats during development Four studies evaluated the effects of legally protecting bats by issuing licences during development on bat populations. The four studies were in the UK. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (2 STUDIES) Change in human behaviour (2 studies): One review in the UK found that the number of development licences for bats more than doubled over three years in Scotland. One review in the UK found that 81% of licensees did not carry out post-development monitoring to assess whether bats used the roost structures installed. OTHER (3 STUDIES) Impact on bat roost sites (3 studies): One review in the UK found that licenced activities during building developments had a negative impact on bat roosts, with 68% of roosts being destroyed. One replicated, before-and-after study in the UK found that five of 28 compensation roosts provided under licence were used, and two by similar or greater numbers of bats after development. One review in the UK found that 31–67% of compensation roosts provided under licence were used by bats. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1935https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1935Fri, 30 Nov 2018 14:50:33 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Manage livestock water troughs as a drinking resource for bats Two studies evaluated the effects of managing livestock water troughs as a drinking resource for bats. Both studies were in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (2 STUDIES)      Use (2 studies): One replicated, paired sites study in the USA found that removing livestock modifications from water troughs resulted in bats drinking from them more frequently. One paired sites study in the USA found that livestock water tanks that were larger, full of water or surrounded by sparse vegetation had more bats drinking from them than smaller, half full tanks surrounded by no or dense vegetation. Behaviour change (1 study): One replicated, paired sites study in the USA found that when livestock modifications were removed from water troughs, bats approached troughs fewer times before successfully drinking from them. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1951https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1951Tue, 04 Dec 2018 12:19:55 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Deter bats from turbines using low-level ultraviolet light We found no studies that evaluated the effects of deterring bats from turbines using low-level ultraviolet light 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%2F1958https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1958Tue, 04 Dec 2018 15:13:08 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Minimize road lighting to reduce insect attraction We found no studies that evaluated the effects of minimizing road lighting to reduce insect attraction 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%2F1969https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1969Tue, 04 Dec 2018 18:13:16 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restrict artificial lighting in caves and around cave entrances One study evaluated the effects of restricting artificial lighting in caves on bat populations. The study was in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Behaviour change (1 study): One controlled study in the USA found that using low intensity white lights or red lights in caves resulted in fewer bat flights than with full white lighting, but the number of bat movements was similar between all three light treatments. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1994https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1994Wed, 05 Dec 2018 12:50:27 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Minimize noise levels within caves One study evaluated the effects of minimizing noise levels within caves on bat populations. The study was in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Behaviour change (1 study): One controlled study in the USA found that experimental cave tours with groups that did not talk resulted in fewer bat flights than when groups did talk, but talking did not have an effect on the number of bat movements. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1995https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1995Wed, 05 Dec 2018 12:52:09 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Relocate bat colonies roosting inside dams One study evaluated the effects of relocating bat colonies inside dams on bat populations. The study was in Argentina. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): One study in Argentina found that almost two-thirds of a large colony of Brazilian free-tailed bats relocated to a different dam compartment five months after being displaced from six compartments where the colony originally roosted. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1998https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1998Wed, 05 Dec 2018 14:44:59 +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: Avoid illumination of bat commuting routes Three studies evaluated the effects of avoiding the illumination of bat commuting routes on bat populations. Two studies were in the UK and one was in the Netherlands. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Abundance (3 studies): One replicated, before-and-after study in the Netherlands found similar numbers of pond bats flying along unlit canals and canals illuminated with lamps. Two replicated, controlled studies in the UK found greater activity (relative abundance) of lesser horseshoe bats and myotis bats along unlit hedges than along hedges illuminated with street lights, but activity was similar for common and soprano pipistrelles and Nyctalus/Eptesicus species along unlit and illuminated hedges. BEHAVIOUR (2 STUDIES)      Behaviour change (2 studies): One replicated, before-and-after study in the Netherlands found that 28–96% of pond bats changed their flight paths along canals to avoid light spill from lamps. One replicated, controlled study in the UK found that lesser horseshoe bats were active earlier along unlit hedges than along those illuminated with street lights. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2017https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2017Wed, 05 Dec 2018 17:50:59 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Avoid illumination of bat foraging, drinking and swarming sites Two studies evaluated the effects of avoiding the illumination of bat drinking sites on bat populations. Both studies were in Italy and one was also in Israel. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Abundance (2 studies): Two replicated before-and-after studies (one randomized) in Italy found that unlit water troughs had greater activity (relative abundance) of five of six bat species/species groups and six of eight bat species/species groups than troughs illuminated with artificial light. One of the studies also found that unlit desert ponds in Israel had greater activity (relative abundance) of three bat species than illuminated ponds. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2018https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2018Wed, 05 Dec 2018 17:52:42 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Direct lighting away from bat access points or habitats We found no studies that evaluated the effects of directing lighting away from bat access points or habitats 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%2F2019https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2019Wed, 05 Dec 2018 17:53:34 +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: Manage microclimate of artificial bat roosts Three studies evaluated the effects of managing the microclimate of artificial bat roosts on bat populations. Two studies were in the UK and one in Spain. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): One before-and-after study in Spain found more bats in two artificial roosts within buildings after they had been modified to reduce internal roost temperatures. BEHAVIOUR (2 STUDIES) Use (2 studies): One replicated, before-and-after study in the UK found that heated bat boxes were used by common pipistrelle bats at one of seven sites, but none were used by maternity colonies. One replicated study in the UK found that none of the 12 heated bat boxes installed within churches were used by displaced Natterer’s bats. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2052https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2052Fri, 07 Dec 2018 19:21:01 +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