Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Automatically reduce turbine blade rotation when bat activity is high Two studies evaluated the effects of automatically reducing turbine blade rotation when bat activity is high on bat populations. One study was in Germany, and one in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Survival (2 studies): Two replicated studies (one randomized, controlled and one paired sites study) in Germany and the USA found that automatically reducing the rotation speed of wind turbine blades when bat activity is predicted to be high resulted in fewer bat fatalities for all bat species combined and for five bat species. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F971https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F971Fri, 20 Dec 2013 12:34:12 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Change effluent treatments of domestic and urban waste water One study evaluated the effects of different sewage treatments on the activity of foraging bats. The study was in the UK. We found no studies that evaluated the effects of changing effluent treatments of domestic and urban waste water discharged into rivers on bat populations. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the UK found higher activity (relative abundance) of foraging bats over filter bed sewage treatment works than over active sludge systems. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1014https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1014Fri, 20 Dec 2013 17:50:17 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Change effluent treatments used in agriculture and forestry We found no studies that evaluated the effects of changing the effluent treatments used in agriculture and forestry 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%2F1016https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1016Fri, 20 Dec 2013 17:52:07 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Certify farms and market their products as ‘primate friendly’ We found no evidence for the effects of certifying farms and marketing their products as ‘primate friendly’ to sell at a premium 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%2F1434https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1434Tue, 17 Oct 2017 10:19:12 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Change of crop (i.e. to a crop less palatable to primates) We found no evidence for the effects of changing the crop to a less palatable crop 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%2F1439https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1439Tue, 17 Oct 2017 10:47:53 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Certify mines and market their products as ‘primate friendly’ (e.g. ape-friendly cellular phones) We found no evidence for the effects of certifying mines and marketing their products as ‘primate friendly’ 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%2F1454https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1454Tue, 17 Oct 2017 13:00:53 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Avoid building roads in key habitat or migration routes We found no evidence for the effects of avoiding building roads in key habitat or migration routes 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%2F1461https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1461Tue, 17 Oct 2017 13:38:37 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Avoid slashing climbers/lianas, trees housing them, hemi-epiphytic figs, and ground vegetation We found no evidence for the effects of avoiding slashing climbers/lianas, trees housing them, hemi-epiphytic figs, and ground vegetation 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%2F1493https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1493Tue, 17 Oct 2017 19:42:38 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Avoid/minimize logging of important food tree species for primates One before-and-after study in Belize found that a black howler monkey population increased over 13 years after trees important for food for the species were preserved, alongside other interventions. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1494https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1494Tue, 17 Oct 2017 19:45:17 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Certify forest concessions and market their products as ‘primate friendly’ We found no evidence for the effects of certifying forest concessions and marketing their products as ‘primate friendly’ 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%2F1500https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1500Tue, 17 Oct 2017 19:55:00 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Build fences to keep humans out We found no evidence for the effects of building fences to keep humans out 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%2F1503https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1503Tue, 17 Oct 2017 20:01:26 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Avoid contact between wild primates and human-raised primates We found no evidence for the effects of avoiding contact between wild primates and human-raised 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%2F1555https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1555Thu, 19 Oct 2017 20:55:18 +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: Captive breeding and reintroduction of primates into the wild: born and reared in cages One before-and-after study in Brazil found that most reintroduced golden lion tamarins that were born and reared in cages, alongside other interventions, did not survive over seven years or had a higher mortality than wild-born tamarins. One controlled study in French Guiana found that more squirrel monkeys which were born and reared in cages, alongside other interventions, died or were returned to captivity post-reintroduction compared to wild-born monkeys. One controlled study in Madagascar found that the diet of reintroduced black-and-white ruffed lemurs which were born and reared in cages, alongside other interventions, did not overlap with that of wild lemurs. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1594https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1594Fri, 20 Oct 2017 14:33:22 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Captive breeding and reintroduction of primates into the wild: limited free-ranging experience One controlled study in Madagascar found that the diet of reintroduced black-and-white ruffed lemurs with limited free-ranging experience, alongside other interventions, overlapped with that of wild lemurs. One before-and-after study in Madagascar found that most reintroduced black-and-white ruffed lemurs with limited free-ranging experience, alongside other interventions, died over five years. One before-and-after and site comparison and one before-and-after study in the Republic of Congo and Gabon found that most reintroduced western lowland gorillas with limited free-ranging experience, alongside other interventions, survived over a period of between nine months and four years. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1595https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1595Fri, 20 Oct 2017 14:36:52 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Captive breeding and reintroduction of primates into the wild: born and raised in a free-ranging environment One before-and-after study in Brazil found that only two out of three reintroduced black lion tamarins survived over four months, despite being raised in a free-ranging environment, alongside other interventions. One controlled study in Madagascar found that the diet of reintroduced black-and-white ruffed lemurs that were born and raised in a free-ranging environment alongside other interventions, overlapped with that of wild lemurs. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1596https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1596Fri, 20 Oct 2017 14:44:59 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Avoid the use of antiparasitic drugs for livestock We found no studies that evaluated the effects of avoiding the use of antiparasitic drugs for livestock 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%2F1948https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1948Tue, 04 Dec 2018 12:16:10 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Apply textured coating to turbines One study evaluated the effects of applying a textured coating to turbines on bat populations. The study was in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): One paired sites study in the USA found that applying a textured coating to a turbine did not reduce the activity of four bat species or the number of bats observed. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1957https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1957Tue, 04 Dec 2018 14:30:07 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Avoid planting fruit trees alongside roads/railways in areas with fruit bats We found no studies that evaluated the effects of avoiding planting fruit trees alongside roads/railways in areas with fruit 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%2F1970https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1970Tue, 04 Dec 2018 18:13:59 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Carry out surveillance of bats to prevent the spread of disease/viruses to humans to reduce human-wildlife conflict We found no studies that evaluated the effects of carrying out surveillance of bats to prevent the spread of disease/viruses to humans to reduce human-wildlife conflict. ‘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%2F2005https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2005Wed, 05 Dec 2018 15:31:18 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Breed bats in captivity to supplement wild populations affected by white-nose syndrome We found no studies that evaluated the effects of breeding bats in captivity to supplement wild populations affected by white-nose syndrome. ‘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%2F2009https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2009Wed, 05 Dec 2018 15:41:19 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Avoid illumination of bat commuting routes Three studies evaluated the effects of avoiding the illumination of bat commuting routes on bat populations. Two studies were in the UK and one was in the Netherlands. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Abundance (3 studies): One replicated, before-and-after study in the Netherlands found similar numbers of pond bats flying along unlit canals and canals illuminated with lamps. Two replicated, controlled studies in the UK found greater activity (relative abundance) of lesser horseshoe bats and myotis bats along unlit hedges than along hedges illuminated with street lights, but activity was similar for common and soprano pipistrelles and Nyctalus/Eptesicus species along unlit and illuminated hedges. BEHAVIOUR (2 STUDIES)      Behaviour change (2 studies): One replicated, before-and-after study in the Netherlands found that 28–96% of pond bats changed their flight paths along canals to avoid light spill from lamps. One replicated, controlled study in the UK found that lesser horseshoe bats were active earlier along unlit hedges than along those illuminated with street lights. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2017https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2017Wed, 05 Dec 2018 17:50:59 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Avoid illumination of bat foraging, drinking and swarming sites Two studies evaluated the effects of avoiding the illumination of bat drinking sites on bat populations. Both studies were in Italy and one was also in Israel. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Abundance (2 studies): Two replicated before-and-after studies (one randomized) in Italy found that unlit water troughs had greater activity (relative abundance) of five of six bat species/species groups and six of eight bat species/species groups than troughs illuminated with artificial light. One of the studies also found that unlit desert ponds in Israel had greater activity (relative abundance) of three bat species than illuminated ponds. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2018https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2018Wed, 05 Dec 2018 17:52:42 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Adapt bat roost structures to buffer against temperature extremes We found no studies that evaluated the effects of adapting bat roost structures to buffer against temperature extremes 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%2F2024https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2024Wed, 05 Dec 2018 18:14:05 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Breed bats in captivity Eight studies evaluated the effects of breeding bats in captivity on bat populations. Three studies were in the USA, two in the UK, and one in each of Italy, Brazil and New Zealand. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (8 STUDIES) Reproductive success (6 studies): Six studies in the USA, UK, Italy and Brazil found that 6–100% of female bats captured in the wild successfully conceived, gave birth and reared young in captivity. Two studies in the UK and Brazil found that two of five and two of three bats born in captivity successfully gave birth to live young. Survival (8 studies): Seven studies in the USA, UK, Italy and Brazil found that 20–100% of bat pups born in captivity survived from between 10 days to adulthood. One study in New Zealand found that two of five New Zealand lesser short-tailed bat pups born in captivity survived, both of which were hand-reared. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2053https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2053Fri, 07 Dec 2018 19:22:37 +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