Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Retain or plant native trees and shrubs amongst crops (agroforestry) Eight studies evaluated the effects of retaining or planting native trees and shrubs amongst crops on bat populations. Four studies were in Mexico, three were in South America and one was in Tanzania. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (7 STUDIES) Community composition (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in Tanzania found different compositions of bat species in coffee plantations with different amounts and types of shade cover. Richness/diversity (7 studies): Four of six replicated, site comparison studies in Columbia, Mexico and Costa Rica found a similar number of bat species in shaded and unshaded coffee plantations, and in coffee plantations with different amounts and types of shade cover. The two other studies found more bat species and higher bat diversity in coffee, cacao and banana plantations with varied shade cover, than in plantations with a single shade species or no shade. One replicated, site comparison study in Tanzania found more bat species in shaded coffee plantations than in traditional mixed agroforestry systems with natural forest vegetation. POPULATION RESPONSE (6 STUDIES) Abundance (5 studies): Two replicated, site comparison studies in Mexico captured more bats in coffee plantations with varied shade cover than in plantations with a single shade species. One replicated, site comparison study in Mexico found higher activity (relative abundance) of forest bat species in plantations with a varied shade cover than in plantations with a single shade species, but the opposite was true for open habitat bat species. One replicated, site comparison study in Costa Rica found no difference in the number of bats captured between cacao and banana shade plantations and unshaded monocultures. One replicated, site comparison study in Tanzania found greater bat occurrence in shaded coffee plantations than in traditional mixed agroforestry systems with natural forest vegetation. Condition (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in Columbia found that great fruit-eating bats captured in ‘silvopastoral’ areas that used agroforestry, along with no chemicals, had higher body weights and body condition scores than those in conventional farming areas. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F963https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F963Fri, 20 Dec 2013 10:35:13 +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: Retain residual tree patches in logged areas Three studies evaluated the effects of retaining residual tree patches in logged areas on bat populations. The three studies were in Canada. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Abundance (3 studies): Two replicated, site comparison studies in Canada found no difference in bat activity (relative abundance) along the edges of residual tree patches and the edges of clearcut blocks. One replicated, site comparison study in Canada found that the activity of smaller bat species was higher along the edge of residual tree patches than in the centre of clearcut blocks, but the activity of larger bat species did not differ. One replicated, controlled study in Canada found that residual tree patches had similar activity of little brown bats and northern long-eared bats and lower activity of silver-haired bats compared to clearcut forest patches. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F995https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F995Fri, 20 Dec 2013 15:39:45 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Retain forested corridors in logged areas Three studies evaluated the effects of retaining forested corridors in logged areas on bat populations. The three studies were in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 studies): One replicated, site comparison study in the USA found that bat activity (relative abundance) was significantly higher along the edges of forested corridors than in corridor interiors or in adjacent logged stands, which had similar activity levels. BEHAVIOUR (2 STUDIES)   Use (2 studies): One replicated, site comparison study in the USA found more Seminole bats roosting in forested corridors than logged stands or mature forest. One replicated, site comparison study in the USA found more male but fewer female evening bats roosting in forested corridors than logged stands. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F996https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F996Fri, 20 Dec 2013 15:44:57 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Retain nesting trees/shelter for primates within agricultural fields We found no evidence for the effects of retaining nesting trees/shelter for primates within agricultural fields on primate populations. 'No evidence' for an action means we have not yet found any studies that directly and quantitatively tested 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%2F1430https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1430Tue, 17 Oct 2017 09:53:02 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Train langur monkeys to deter rhesus macaques We found no evidence for the effects of training langurs to deter rhesus macaques on primate populations. 'No evidence' for an action means we have not yet found any studies that directly and quantitatively tested 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%2F1445https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1445Tue, 17 Oct 2017 11:20:57 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Strategically lay out the scent of a primate predator (e.g. leopard, lion) We found no evidence for the effects of strategically laying out scent of predators to deter crop-raiding primates on primate populations. 'No evidence' for an action means we have not yet found any studies that directly and quantitatively tested 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%2F1448https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1448Tue, 17 Oct 2017 11:50:37 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Strengthen/support/re-install traditions/taboos that forbid the killing of primates One site comparison in Laos found that Laotian black crested gibbons occurred at higher densities in areas where they were protected by a local hunting taboo than at sites were there was no taboo. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1479https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1479Tue, 17 Oct 2017 18:52:43 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Thin trees within forests We found no evidence for the effects of thinning trees within forests on primate populations. 'No evidence' for an action means we have not yet found any studies that directly and quantitatively tested 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%2F1491https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1491Tue, 17 Oct 2017 19:39:16 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Run research project and ensure permanent human presence at site Two before-and-after studies in Rwanda, Uganda and Congo found that numbers of mountain gorillas increased over 5-41 years while gorillas were continuously monitored by researchers, alongside other interventions. One review on mountain gorillas in Uganda found that no gorilla was killed over one year while gorillas were continuously monitored by researchers, alongside other interventions. One before-and-after study in Brazil found that most reintroduced golden lion tamarins did not survive over seven years post-release despite being permanently monitored by researchers, alongside other interventions, yet tamarins reproduced succesfully. One before-and-after study in Belize found that numbers of black howler monkeys increased by 138% over 13 years after being permanently monitored by researchers, alongside other interventions. One before-and-after study in the Republic of Congo found that most reintroduced chimpanzees permanently monitored by researchers, alongside other interventions, survived over 3.5 years. One before-and-after study in Kenya found ‘problem’ olive baboon troops still survived over 17 years post-translocation while being permanently monitored by researchers, alongside other interventions. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1511https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1511Wed, 18 Oct 2017 15:51:12 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Run tourist projects and ensure permanent human presence at site Three studies, including two before-and-after studies and one controlled study in Rwanda, Uganda and the Republic of Congo found that numbers of mountain gorillas increased after touristic projects were initiated, alongside other interventions. One before-and-after and site comparison study in Rwanda found that the number of immature mountain gorillas increased by 22% and the number of snares declined by 30% after a tourism project was initiated, alongside other interventions. One before-and-after study in Kenya found that numbers of Tana River red colobus and crested mangabeys decreased despite implementing a tourism project, alongside other interventions. One before-and-after study in Belize found that numbers of black howler monkeys increased by 138% over 13 years after a tourism project was implemented, alongside other interventions. One before-and-after, replicated study in China found that implementing an intensive tourism project for Tibetan macaques that included food provisioning and range restrictions, increased their stress levels compared to previous periods, with infant mortality reaching 100% in some years. One before-and-after study in Madagascar found that after implementing a tourism project the population size and/or body size and group size declined for two lemur species but the number of individuals increased for one other lemur species.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1512https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1512Wed, 18 Oct 2017 15:55:18 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Retain unmown field margins One study evaluated the effects of retaining unmown field margins on bats populations. The study was in the UK. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): One replicated, paired sites study in the UK found that pipistrelle activity (relative abundance) did not differ between unmown field margins managed for wildlife on agri-environment scheme farms and field margins on conventional farms. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1940https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1940Mon, 03 Dec 2018 13:21:44 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Retain existing in-field trees We found no studies that evaluated the effects of retaining existing in-field trees on bat populations. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this intervention during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have no evidence to indicate whether or not the intervention has any desirable or harmful effects.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1945https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1945Tue, 04 Dec 2018 10:03:08 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Retain remnant forest or woodland on agricultural land We found no studies that evaluated the effects of retaining remnant forest or woodland on agricultural land on bat populations. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this intervention during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have no evidence to indicate whether or not the intervention has any desirable or harmful effects.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1947https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1947Tue, 04 Dec 2018 10:55:06 +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: Retain riparian buffers in logged areas We found no studies that evaluated the effects of retaining riparian buffers in logged areas on bat populations. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this intervention during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have no evidence to indicate whether or not the intervention has any desirable or harmful effects.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1985https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1985Wed, 05 Dec 2018 10:59:37 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: 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: 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 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: Retain riparian buffers on agricultural land One study evaluated the effects of retaining riparian buffers on agricultural land on bat populations. The study was in the UK. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): One replicated, paired sites study in the UK found that pipistrelle activity (relative abundance) did not differ along waterways with buffers of vegetation on agri-environment scheme farms and waterways on conventional farms. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2284https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2284Tue, 19 Nov 2019 18:05:49 +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