Collected 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: 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: Provide supplementary food for a certain period of time only One study in Tanzania found that a chimpanzee population increased after supplementary feeding for two months immediately after reintroduction, alongside other interventions. One before-and-after study in Brazil found that a golden lion tamarin population declined after one year following supplementary feeding, alongside other interventions. One study in Brazil found that an abandoned infant muriqui was retrieved by its mother and rejoined the wild group after supplementary feeding, alongside other interventions. Four studies in Brazil, Madagascar, and South Africa found that only a minority of reintroduced primates survived after supplementary feeding, alongside other interventions. One study in Guinea found that the majority of introduced chimpanzees survived for at least 27 months following supplementary feeding, alongside other interventions.. Three studies in Gabon, South Africa and Vietnam found that a majority of primates survived reintroduction while being supplimentry fed alongside other interventions. Two studies in Gabon and the Republic of Congo found that the majority of lowland gorillas survived for at least nine months to four years after provision of supplementary food, alongside other interventions. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1528https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1528Thu, 19 Oct 2017 10:13:06 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Treat sick/injured animals Two before-and-after studies in Brazil found that most reintroduced golden lion tamarins died despite being treated when sick or injured, alongside other interventions. One study in Brazil found that one out of four reintroduced black lion tamarins died after being release despite receiving treatment, alongside other interventions. One review on reintroduced lar gibbons in Thailand found that their population declined by 6% seventeen months after release despite having medical treatment available when sick or injured, alongside other interventions. One study in Malaysia found that 98% of translocated orangutans, some of which received treatment for injuries along with other interventions, survived capture and subsequent release. One controlled study, also in Malaysia, found that a population of reintroduced orangutans decreased by 33% over 33 years despite receiving treatment when sick or injured, alongside other interventions. Four studies, including two before-and-after studies, in Liberia, the Republic of Congo and The Gambia found that most reintroduced chimpanzees that were treated when sick, alongside other interventions, survived for at least 1-5 years and in one case the population increased. One study in Senegal found that a young chimpanzee was reunited with its mother after being treated for injuries, alongside other interventions. One before-and-after study in Uganda found that treatment for mange, alongside other interventions, cured some infected mountain gorillas. One study in Rwanda, Uganda and the Democratic Republic of Congo and one before-and-after, site comparison study in the Republic of Congo and Gabon found that most western lowland gorillas treated when sick or injured, alongside other interventions, survived over 4–41 years. Two before-and-after studies in South Africa and Indonesia found that most reintroduced or translocated primates that were treated when sick, alongside other interventions, survived over six months. However, two before-and-after studies in Madagascar and Kenya found that most reintroduced or translocated primates did not survived over five years or their population size decreased despite treated when sick, alongside other interventions. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1550https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1550Thu, 19 Oct 2017 18:35:05 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Conduct veterinary screens of animals before reintroducing/translocating them One before-and-after study in Brazil found that most reintroduced golden lion tamarins did not survive over seven years, despite undergoing pre-release veterinary screens, alongside other interventions. One study in Brazil found that most reintroduced black lion tamarins that underwent veterinary screens, alongside other interventions, survived over four months. One before-and-after study in Malaysia found that 90% of reintroduced Müller's Bornean gibbons did not survive despite undergoing veterinary screens, alongside other interventions. One controlled study in Indonesia found that reintroduced Bornean agile gibbons that underwent veterinary screens, alongside other interventions, behaved similarly to wild gibbons. Two studies, including one controlled, in Malaysia and Indonesia found that most translocated orangutans that underwent veterinary screens, along with other interventions, survived translocation and the first three months post-translocation. Four studies, including three before-and-after studies, in Liberia, the Republilc of Congo and Guinea found that most reintroduced chimpanzees that underwent veterinary screens, alongside other interventions, survived over 1-5 years. One before and after study in Uganda found that a reintroduced chimpanzee repeatedly returned to human settlements after undergoing pre-release veterinary screens, alongside other interventions. Five studies, including four before-and-after studies, in Belize, French Guiana, Madagascar, Congo and Gabon found that most reintroduced or translocated primates that underwent veterinary screens, alongside other interventions, survived at least four months or increased in population size. Five studies, including four before-and-after studies, in French Guiana, Madagascar, South Africa and Vietnam found that most reintroduced or translocated primates were assumed to have died post-release despite undergoing pre-release veterinary screens, alongside other interventions. One controlled study in Kenya found that a population of translocated olive baboons were still surviving 16 years after translocation when veterinary screens were applied alongside other interventions. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1553https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1553Thu, 19 Oct 2017 20:15:52 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Allow primates to adapt to local habitat conditions for some time before introduction to the wild Two studies in Brazil and Thailand found that reintroduced primate populations were smaller after 12-17 months and one study in Belize found primate populations increased five years after allowing individuals to adapt to local habitat conditions before introduction into the wild, alongside other interventions. One study found that a reintroduced population of black howler monkeys had a birth rate of 20% after they were allowed to adapt to local habitat conditions before introduction into the wild, along with other interventions. Seven studies in Brazil, Madagascar, Malaysia, French Guiana, South Africa found that a minority of primates survived for at least 15 weeks to 12 years after allowing them to adapt to local habitat conditions before introduction into the wild, along with other interventions. Four studies in Belize, Brazil, Gabon, South Africa found that the majority of primates survived for at least four to 12 months. One study in Vietnam found that half of reintroduced pygmy slow lorises survived for at least two months. Two before-and-after studies in Gabon and the Republic of Congo found that a majority of western lowland gorillas survived for nine months to four years after allowing them to adapt to local habitat conditions before introduction into the wild, along with other interventions. Three studies in Liberia and the Congo found that a majority of chimpanzees survived for at least three to five years after allowing them to adapt to local habitat conditions before introduction into the wild, along with other interventions. One before-and-after study in Uganda found that a chimpanzee repeatedly returned to human settlements after allowing it to adapt to local habitat conditions before introduction into the wild, along with other interventions. A study in Indonesia found that Sumatran orangutans that were allowed to adapt to local habitat conditions before introduction performed less well than individuals that were directly released into the forest, alongside other interventions. One controlled study in Indonesia found that after being allowed to adapt to local habitat conditions a pair of introduced Bornean agile gibbons had a similar diet to wild gibbons. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1564https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1564Fri, 20 Oct 2017 10:08:36 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reintroduce primates in groups Two studies in Brazil and Thailand found that populations of introduced primates declined after reintroduction in groups, alongside other interventions, while one study in Belize recorded an increase in populations. Two studies in Madagascar and India found that primate populations persisted 4-55 years after reintroduction in groups, alongside other interventions. Seven studies in Brazil, French Guiana, Madagascar, and South Africa found that a minority of primates survived for at least 15 weeks to seven years after reintroduction in groups, alongside other interventions. Seven studies in Belize, Brazil, French Guiana, Madagascar, and South Africa found that a majority of primates survived after between two and thirty months. One study in Madagascar found that introduced black-and-white ruffed lemurs Varecia variegata had similar diets to individuals in a wild population after reintroduction in groups, alongside other interventions. One study in The Gambia found that a population of introduced chimpanzees increased 25 years after reintroduction in groups, alongside other interventions. Four studies in Guinea, Liberia and the Republic of Congo found that the majority of chimpanzees survived for at least two to five years, after reintroduction in groups, alongside other interventions. Two before-and-after studies in Gabon and the Republic of Congo found that the majority of western gorillas survived for at least nine months to four years, after reintroduction in groups, alongside other interventions. One controlled study in Indonesia found that all Sumatran orangutans survived for at least three months after reintroduction in groups, alongside other interventions. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1567https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1567Fri, 20 Oct 2017 10:46:09 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reintroduce primates as single/multiple individuals One study in Tanzania found that a reintroduced population of chimpanzees increased in size after reintroduction as single/multiple individuals, alongside other interventions. One study in Senegal found that an infant chimpanzee was reunited with its mother after reintroduction, alongside other interventions. Two studies in Brazil and Thailand found that populations of reintroduced primates declined after reintroduction as single/multiple individuals, alongside other interventions. Four studies in French Guiana, Indonesia, Malaysia, and Vietnam found that a minority of primates survived after between two months and one year after reintroduction as single/multiple individuals, alongside other interventions. One study in Vietnam found that half of introduced primates survived after two months. One study in Brazil found that an abandoned infant muriqui was reunited with its mother after reintroduction as single/multiple individuals, alongside other interventions. One study in Indonesia found that Bornean agile gibbons had similar behaviour and diet to wild populations after reintroduction as single/multiple individuals, alongside other interventions. One controlled study in Malaysia found that a reintroduced population of orangutans declined in size after reintroduction, alongside other interventions. One study in Malaysia found that 98% of orangutans survived release after reintroduction, alongside other interventions. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1589https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1589Fri, 20 Oct 2017 13:18:43 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reintroduce primates into habitat where the species is present Four before-and-after studies in Guinea and the Republic of Congo found that the majority of reintroduced chimpanzees survived for at least one to five years after reintroduction into habitat where the species was present, alongside other interventions. One study in Uganda found that a reintroduced chimpanzee repeatedly returned to human settlements after reintroduction intro habitat where the species was present, alongside other interventions, while a study in Senegal found that a reintroduced chimpanzee was reunited with its mother. One study in Malaysia found that a majority of reintroduced orangutans survived reintroduction intro habitat where the species was present, alongside other interventions. One controlled study in Malaysia found that a reintroduced population of orangutans had declined 33 years after reintroduction into habitat where the species was present, alongside other interventions. One study in Belize found that primate population increased five years after reintroduction into habitat where the species was present, alongside other interventions, while one study in Thailand found that primate population declined post-reintroduction. Six studies in Brazil, French Guiana, Indonesia, Madagascar, and South Africa found that a minority of primates survived for at least fifteen weeks to seven years after reintroduction into habitat where the species was present, alongside other interventions. Five studies in Brazil, French Guiana, Gabon, and South Africa found that a majority of primates survived for at least two months to one year. Two controlled studies in Madagascar and Indonesia found that reintroduced primates had similar diets to individuals in wild populations after reintroduction into habitat where the species was present, alongside other interventions. One controlled study in Indonesia found that reintroduced primates showed similar behaviour to wild individuals after reintroduction into habitat where the species was present, alongside other interventions. One study in Brazil found that a reintroduced muriqui rejoined a wild group after reintroduction into habitat where the species was present, alongside other interventions. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1591https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1591Fri, 20 Oct 2017 13:46:00 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reintroduce primates into habitat with predators Two before-and-after studies in Brazil found that most golden lion tamarins reintroduced into habitat with predators, alongside other interventions, did not survive over one to seven years but reproduced succesfully. Three studies, including two before-and-after studies, in the Congo, The Gambia and Guinea, found that most chimpanzees reintroduced into habitat with predators, alongside other interventions, survived over one to five years or increased population numbers. One before-and-after study in Gabon found that most western lowland gorillas reintroduced into habitat with predators, alongside other interventions, survived over nine months. One before-and-after study in Madagascar found that most black-and-white ruffed lemurs reintroduced into habitat with predators did not survive over five years. One study in Madagascar found that all reintroduced lemurs survived over 30 months after being released into habitat with predators, along with other interventions. One study in Gabon found that most mandrills reintroduced into habitat with predators, alongside other interventions, survived over 30 years. Two before-and-after studies in South Africa found that most vervet monkeys reintroduced into habitat with predators, alongside other interventions, survived over six months. Two studies, including one before-and-after study, in Vietnam and Indonesia found that most lorises reintroduced into habitat with predators, alongside other interventions, were assumed dead within approximately one year after being released. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1593https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1593Fri, 20 Oct 2017 14:16:39 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Rehabilitate injured/orphaned primates One before-and-after study in Brazil found that most reintroduced golden lion tamarins did not survive over seven years, despite being rehabilitated, alongside other interventions. Two before-and-after studies in South Africa found that most reintroduced vervet monkeys survived over six months after being rehabilitated before release, alongside other interventions. Two before-and-after studies in the Republic of Congo found that most reintroduced chimpanzees survived over 3.5–5 years after undergoing pre-release rehabilitation, alongside other interventions. One study in The Gambia found that numbers of reintroduced chimpanzees that underwent pre-release rehabilitation, alongside other interventions, increased by 38% over 25 years. One review on bonobos, chimpanzees and gorillas in 13 African countries found that rehabilitated bonobos living in sanctuaries did not reproduce but the reproductive rate of chimpanzees was 14% and of gorillas was 2%. One controlled study in Indonesia found that Bornean agile gibbons that were rehabilitated before release, alongside other interventions, behaved similarly to wild gibbons. One controlled study in Malaysia found that numbers of reintroduced orangutans decreased by 33% over 33 years, despite orangutans being rehabilitated before release. One controlled study in Indonesia found that most translocated orangutans that were rehabilitated before release, along with other interventions, survived over three months. One before-and-after, site comparison study in the Congo and Gabon found that most western lowland gorillas that were rehabilitated before release, alongside other interventions, survived over four years. One before-and-after study in Gabon found that one out of two western lowland gorillas that were reintroduced died despite being rehabilitated, alongside other interventions. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1597https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1597Fri, 20 Oct 2017 14:47:02 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Increase the wind speed at which turbines become operational (‘cut-in speed’) Twelve studies evaluated the effects of increasing the wind speed at which turbines become operational (‘cut-in speed’) on bat populations. Ten studies were in the USA and two were in Canada. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (12 STUDIES) Survival (12 studies): Ten of 12 studies (including 10 replicated, randomized, controlled studies and one before-and-after study) in the USA and Canada found that increasing the wind speed at which turbines become operational (‘cut-in speed’), or increasing the cut-in speed along with preventing turbine blades from turning at low wind speeds (‘feathering’) resulted in fewer bat fatalities than at conventionally operated turbines. The other two studies found that increasing cut-in speeds did not reduce bat fatalities, but sample sizes were small or treatments were applied for short periods only. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1960https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1960Tue, 04 Dec 2018 15:54:57 +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