Conservation Evidence: Evidence Data

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: Change timing of building work One study evaluated the effects of changing the timing of building work on bat populations. The study was in Ireland. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Use (1 study): One before-and-after study in Ireland found that carrying out roofing work outside of the bat maternity season, along with retaining bat access points, resulted in a similar number of brown long-eared bats continuing to use a roost within an attic. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F950https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F950Fri, 20 Dec 2013 09:23:40 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create artificial water sources Five studies evaluated the effects of creating artificial water sources for bats on bat populations. One study was in each of the USA, Germany, South Africa, Israel and Mexico. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, paired sites study in South Africa found a similar number of bat species over farm ponds and in grassland/crops, trees, vineyards or orchards. POPULATION RESPONSE (5 STUDIES) Abundance (5 studies): Five replicated studies (including four site comparisons and one paired sites study) in Israel, the USA, Germany, South Africa and Mexico found that bat activity (relative abundance) was similar or higher over reservoirs and waste water treatment pools, heliponds and drainage ditches, retention ponds and farm/cattle ponds compared to over natural wetlands, nearby vineyards, surrounding forest or grassland/crops, trees and orchards. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F959https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F959Fri, 20 Dec 2013 10:14:31 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Close off potential access points on turbines to prevent roosting bats We found no studies that evaluated the effects of closing off potential access points on turbines to prevent roosting bats on bat populations. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F972https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F972Fri, 20 Dec 2013 12:35:38 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Control invasive predators One study evaluated the effects of controlling invasive predators on bat populations. The study was in New Zealand. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Survival (1 study): One replicated, before-and-after study in New Zealand found that controlling ship rats resulted in increased survival probabilities for female long-tailed bats. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1007https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1007Fri, 20 Dec 2013 17:37:21 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Control invasive plant species One study evaluated the effects of controlling invasive plant species on bat populations. The study was in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): One site comparison study in the USA found that two of seven forest fragments where invasive plant species had been removed alongside other restoration practices had significantly higher bat activity (relative abundance) than two unrestored forest fragments. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1008https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1008Fri, 20 Dec 2013 17:42:07 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Compensate farmers for produce loss caused by primates We found no evidence for the effects of compensating farmers for produce loss caused by 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%2F1428https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1428Tue, 17 Oct 2017 09:49:47 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Chase crop raiding primates using dogs We found no evidence for the effects of using dogs to chase crop raiding primates away 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%2F1444https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1444Tue, 17 Oct 2017 11:19:39 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Conduct regular anti-poaching patrols Two studies in Rwanda found that gorilla populations increased after implementing regular anti-poaching patrols, alongside other interventions. One study in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Rwanda, and Uganda found that gorilla populations declined after conducting regular anti-poaching patrols. A review on gorillas in Uganda found that no gorillas were killed over a 21 month period when the number of guards carrying out anti-poaching patrols increased, alongside other interventions. One study in Ghana found a reduction in illegal primate hunting activities following conducting regular anti-poaching patrols, alongside other interventions. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1471https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1471Tue, 17 Oct 2017 14:33:00 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Clear open patches in the forest We found no evidence for the effects of clearing open patches in the forest 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%2F1490https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1490Tue, 17 Oct 2017 19:37:34 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Close non-essential roads as soon as logging operations are complete We found no evidence for the effects of closing non-essential roads as soon as logging operations are complete 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%2F1496https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1496Tue, 17 Oct 2017 19:48:39 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Coppice trees We found no evidence for the effects of coppicing trees 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%2F1513https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1513Thu, 19 Oct 2017 09:08:54 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Control inter-specific competition for food through exclusion (e.g. fences) or translocation We found no evidence for the effects of controlling inter-specific competition for food through exclusion or translocation 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%2F1520https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1520Thu, 19 Oct 2017 09:31:23 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Control habitat-altering mammals (e.g. elephants) through exclusion (e.g. fences) or translocation We found no evidence for the effects of controlling habitat-altering mammals through exclusion or translocation 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%2F1532https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1532Thu, 19 Oct 2017 13:29:13 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Control 'reservoir' species to reduce parasite burdens/pathogen sources We found no evidence for the effects of controlling ‘reservoir’ species to reduce parasite burdens/pathogen sources 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%2F1552https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1552Thu, 19 Oct 2017 20:12:24 +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: Create buffer zones around protected primate habitat We found no evidence for the effects of creating buffer zones around protected primate habitat 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%2F1577https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1577Fri, 20 Oct 2017 12:45:06 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Change timing of forestry operations We found no studies that evaluated the effects of changing the timing of forestry operations 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%2F1984https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1984Tue, 04 Dec 2018 19:26:55 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Coppice woodland We found no studies that evaluated the effects of coppicing 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%2F1987https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1987Wed, 05 Dec 2018 11:04:54 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Control invasive non-predatory competitors We found no studies that evaluated the effects of controlling invasive non-predatory competitors of bats on bat populations. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1999https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1999Wed, 05 Dec 2018 15:25:23 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Control harmful invasive bat prey species We found no studies that evaluated the effects of controlling harmful invasive bat prey species 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%2F2000https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2000Wed, 05 Dec 2018 15:26:13 +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 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create artificial hollows and cracks in trees for roosting bats One study evaluated the effects of creating artificial hollows and cracks in trees for roosting bats. The study was in Australia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Use (1 study): One replicated study in Australia found that eight of 16 artificial hollows cut into trees for bats, birds and marsupials with two different entrance designs were used by roosting long-eared bats. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2047https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2047Fri, 07 Dec 2018 12:36:39 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create artificial caves or hibernacula for bats Four studies evaluated the effects of creating artificial caves or hibernacula for bats on bat populations. Two studies were in the UK and two were in Germany. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (4 STUDIES) Uptake (1 study): One study in the UK found that the number of bats using an artificial hibernaculum increased in each of nine years after it was built. Use (4 studies): One study in the UK found that an artificial cave was used by a small number of brown long-eared bats. Three studies in Germany and the UK found that artificial hibernacula were used by up to four bat species. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2049https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2049Fri, 07 Dec 2018 12:41:38 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Change timing of maintenance work at road/railway bridges and culverts We found no studies that evaluated the effects of changing the timing of maintenance work at road/railway bridges and culverts 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%2F2940https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2940Fri, 12 Feb 2021 17:47:15 +0000