Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide artificial subterranean bat roosts to replace roosts in reclaimed mines We found no studies that evaluated the effects of providing artificial subterranean bat roosts to replace roosts in reclaimed mines 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%2F974https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F974Fri, 20 Dec 2013 12:43:16 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide training to conservationists, land managers, and the building and development sector on bat ecology and conservation to reduce bat roost disturbance We found no studies that evaluated the effects of providing training to conservationists, land managers, and the building and development sector on bat ecology and conservation to reduce bat roost disturbance. ‘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%2F997https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F997Fri, 20 Dec 2013 17:00:45 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide artificial subterranean bat roosts to replace roosts in disturbed caves We found no studies that evaluated the effects of providing artificial subterranean bat roosts to replace roosts in disturbed caves 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%2F1005https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1005Fri, 20 Dec 2013 17:19:47 +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 sacrificial rows of crops on outer side of fields We found no evidence for the effects of providing sacrificial rows of crops on the outer side of 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%2F1427https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1427Tue, 17 Oct 2017 09:48:21 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Re-use old roads rather than building new roads We found no evidence for the effects of re-using old roads rather than building new roads 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%2F1463https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1463Tue, 17 Oct 2017 13:55:46 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Re-route vehicles around protected areas We found no evidence for the effects of re-routing vehicles containing invasive species around protected areas 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%2F1464https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1464Tue, 17 Oct 2017 14:01:59 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide adequate signage of presence of primates on or near roads We found no evidence for the effects of providing adequate signage of presence of primates on or near roads 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%2F1466https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1466Tue, 17 Oct 2017 14:13:19 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide medicine to local communities to control killing of primates for medicinal purposes We found no evidence for the effects of providing medicine to local communities to control the killing of primates for medicinal purposes 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%2F1472https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1472Tue, 17 Oct 2017 14:33:00 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide better equipment (e.g. guns) to anti-poaching ranger patrols One before-and-after study in the Democratic Republic of Congo and Rwanda found that gorilla populations increased after anti-poaching guard were provided with better equipment, alongside other interventions. One study in Uganda found that no gorillas were killed for 21 months after game guards were provided with better equipment, alongside other interventions. One before-and-after study in Rwanda found that the number of immature gorillas increased and the number of snares decreased after anti-poaching patrols were supplied with better equipment, alongside other interventions. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1476https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1476Tue, 17 Oct 2017 17:22:29 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide training to anti-poaching ranger patrols One study in Uganda found that no gorillas were killed over 21 months after game guards received training, alongside other interventions. One before-and-after study in Rwanda found that the number of immature gorillas increased in areas where game guards received training, alongside other interventions. One before-and-after study in India found that a population of hoolock gibbons increased after sanctuary staff received training, alongside other interventions. One before-and-after study in Cameroon found that no incidents of primate poaching occurred over a three year period after anti-poaching rangers were trained, alongside other interventions. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1477https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1477Tue, 17 Oct 2017 17:30:03 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide sustainable alternative livelihoods; establish fish- or domestic meat farms We found no evidence for the effects of providing sustainable alternative livelihoods; establish fish- or domestic meat farms 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%2F1483https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1483Tue, 17 Oct 2017 19:16:14 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide domestic meat to workers of the logging company to reduce hunting We found no evidence for the effects of providing domestic meat to workers of the logging company to reduce hunting 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%2F1501https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1501Tue, 17 Oct 2017 19:56:33 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Put up signs to warn people about not feeding primates One review in Japan found that aggressive interactions between Japanese macaques and humans declined after prohibiting tourists from feeding of monkeys. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1507https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1507Wed, 18 Oct 2017 14:47:59 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide monetary benefits to local communities for sustainably managing their forest and its wildlife (e.g. REDD, employment) One before-and-after study in Belize found that numbers of black howler monkeys increased by 138% over 13 years after local communities received monetary benefits, alongside other interventions. One before-and-after study in the Republic of Congo found that most central chimpanzees reintroduced to an area where local communities received monetary benefits, alongside other interventions, survived over five years. One before-and-after study in Rwanda, Uganda and the Democratic Republic of Congo found that numbers of mountain gorillas declined by 28% over 41 years despite the implementation of development projects in nearby communities, alongside other interventions. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1509https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1509Wed, 18 Oct 2017 15:15:52 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide non-monetary benefits to local communities for sustainably managing their forest and its wildlife (e.g. better education, infrastructure development) One before-and-after study in the Republic of Congo found that 70% of the central chimpanzees reintroduced to an area where local people were provided non-monetary benefits, alongside other interventions, survived over seven years. One before-and-after study in India found that numbers of hoolock gibbons increased by 66% over five years after providing local communities with alternative income, alongside other interventions. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1510https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1510Wed, 18 Oct 2017 15:39:00 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide salt licks for primates We found no evidence for the effects of providing salt licks for 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%2F1525https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1525Thu, 19 Oct 2017 09:40:46 +0100Collected 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: Provide supplementary food to primates through the establishment of prey populations We found no evidence for the effects of providing supplementary food to primates through the establishment of prey populations 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%2F1529https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1529Thu, 19 Oct 2017 10:17:33 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide artificial water sources One before-and-after trial in Brazil found that a minority of reintroduced golden lion tamarins survived over seven years when provided with supplementary water, alongside other interventions. One before-and-after study in Madagascar found that a minority of reintroduced black-and-white ruffed lemurs survived for five years despite being provided with supplementary water, alongside other interventions. A before-and-after study in South Africa found that a minority of vervet monkeys had survived for 10 months when provided with supplementary water, alongside other interventions. A before-and-after study in Gabon found that a majority of western lowland gorillas survived for at least nine months while being provided with supplementary water, alongside other interventions. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1531https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1531Thu, 19 Oct 2017 10:26:56 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide or retain set-aside areas in farmland We found no studies that evaluated the effects of providing or retaining set-aside areas in farmland 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%2F1937https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1937Mon, 03 Dec 2018 13:17:14 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce field size (or maintain small fields) One study evaluated the effects of maintaining small fields on bat populations. The study was in Canada. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in Canada found that agricultural landscapes with smaller fields had higher activity (relative abundance) of six of seven bat species than landscapes with larger fields. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1939https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1939Mon, 03 Dec 2018 13:19:32 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide suitable bat foraging and roosting habitat at expanding range fronts We found no studies that evaluated the effects of providing suitable bat foraging and roosting habitat at expanding range fronts 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%2F2026https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2026Wed, 05 Dec 2018 18:15:42 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide alternative bat roosts during maintenance work at road/railway bridges and culverts One study evaluated the effects of providing alternative bat roosts during maintenance work at road bridges. The study was in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY)         Use (1 study): One review in the USA found that bat houses provided as alternative roosts during bridge replacement works were used by fewer Mexican free-tailed bats than the original roost at one site and were not used by bats at all at three sites. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2942https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2942Fri, 12 Feb 2021 17:51:31 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide training to wildlife control operators on least harmful ways of removing bats from their roosts We found no studies that evaluated the effects of providing training to wildlife control operators on the least harmful ways of removing bats from their roosts. ‘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%2F2945https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2945Sun, 14 Feb 2021 16:57:04 +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