Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Retain existing bat roosts and access points within developments Three studies evaluated the effects of retaining existing bat roosts and access points within developments on bat populations. Two studies were in the UK and one was in Ireland. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (3 STUDIES) Use (3 studies): One before-and-after study in Ireland found similar numbers of brown long-eared bats roosting within an attic after existing access points were retained during renovations. One replicated, before-and-after study in the UK found that four of nine bat roosts retained within developments were used as maternity colonies, in two cases by similar or greater numbers of bats after development had taken place. One review in the UK found that bats used two-thirds of retained and modified bat roosts after development, and retained roosts were more likely to be used than newly created roosts. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F947https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F947Tue, 10 Dec 2013 14:08:36 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Retain a buffer between turbines and habitat features used by bats We found no studies that evaluated the effects of retaining a buffer between turbines and habitat features used by 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%2F966https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F966Fri, 20 Dec 2013 11:23:15 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Replant native trees in logged areas We found no studies that evaluated the effects of replanting native trees in logged areas 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%2F994https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F994Fri, 20 Dec 2013 15:37:49 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restore and maintain microclimate in modified caves We found no studies that evaluated the effects of restoring and maintaining the microclimate in modified caves for 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%2F1001https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1001Fri, 20 Dec 2013 17:14:49 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restrict human access to bat caves to reduce the spread of the white-nose syndrome pathogen We found no studies that evaluated the effects of restricting human access to bat caves to reduce the spread of the white-nose syndrome pathogen 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%2F1010https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1010Fri, 20 Dec 2013 17:45:48 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restrict timing of lighting One study evaluated the effects of restricting the timing of lighting on bat populations. The study was in France. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): One replicated, paired sites study in France found that turning off streetlights for part of the night resulted in mixed results for activity (relative abundance), depending on bat species, when compared with leaving streetlights switched on all night. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1019https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1019Fri, 20 Dec 2013 17:59:19 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restrict timing of timber treatment application One study evaluated the effects of restricting the timing of timber treatment application on bat populations. The study was in the UK. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Survival (1 study): One replicated, controlled laboratory study in the UK found that treating timber with lindane and pentachlorophenol 14 months prior to exposure by bats increased survival but did not prevent death. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1023https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1023Fri, 20 Dec 2013 18:05:39 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restrict the number of people that are allowed access to site We found no evidence for the effects of restricting the number of people that are allowed access to the site 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%2F1504https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1504Tue, 17 Oct 2017 20:04:02 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Resettle illegal human communities (i.e. in a protected area) to another location One review on mountain gorillas in Uganda found that no more gorillas were killed after illegal settlers were relocated from the area, alongside other interventions. One before-and-after study in the Republic of Congo found that most reintroduced chimpanzees survived over five years after human communities were resettled, from the protected area alongside other interventions. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1515https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1515Thu, 19 Oct 2017 09:12:23 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restore habitat corridors We found no evidence for the effects of restoring habitat corridors 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%2F1583https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1583Fri, 20 Oct 2017 13:06:15 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Retain access points for bats following mine closures We found no studies that evaluated the effects of retaining access points for bats following mine closures 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%2F1962https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1962Tue, 04 Dec 2018 16:24:17 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restrict the collection of bat specimens for research We found no studies that evaluated the effects of restricting the collection of bat specimens for research 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%2F1980https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1980Tue, 04 Dec 2018 18:28:57 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Retain buffers around roost trees in logged areas We found no studies that evaluated the effects of retaining buffers around roost trees in logged areas 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%2F1983https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1983Tue, 04 Dec 2018 19:25:39 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Retain bat access points to caves We found no studies that evaluated the effects of retaining bat access points to 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%2F1990https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1990Wed, 05 Dec 2018 11:13:33 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restrict artificial lighting in caves and around cave entrances One study evaluated the effects of restricting artificial lighting in caves on bat populations. The study was in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Behaviour change (1 study): One controlled study in the USA found that using low intensity white lights or red lights in caves resulted in fewer bat flights than with full white lighting, but the number of bat movements was similar between all three light treatments. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1994https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1994Wed, 05 Dec 2018 12:50:27 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Retain buffer zones around core habitat We found no studies that evaluated the effects of retaining buffer zones around core habitat 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%2F2028https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2028Wed, 05 Dec 2018 18:18:23 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Retain existing bat commuting routes We found no studies that evaluated the effects of retaining existing bat commuting routes 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%2F2029https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2029Wed, 05 Dec 2018 18:20:44 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Retain connectivity between habitat patches We found no studies that evaluated the effects of retaining connectivity between 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%2F2031https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2031Wed, 05 Dec 2018 18:22:27 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restore or create linear habitat features/green corridors We found no studies that evaluated the effects of restoring or creating linear habitat features/green corridors 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%2F2035https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2035Wed, 05 Dec 2018 18:27:44 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restore or create wetlands One study evaluated the effects of restoring wetlands on bat populations. The study was in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): One replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in the USA found that restoring wetlands increased overall bat activity (relative abundance), and restored wetlands had similar bat activity to undisturbed wetlands. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2036https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2036Wed, 05 Dec 2018 18:28:28 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restore or create forest or woodland Two studies evaluated the effects of restoring forests on bat populations. One study was in Brazil and one in Australia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Richness/diversity (1 study): One site comparison study in Brazil found that a reforested area had significantly lower bat diversity than a native forest fragment. POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): One replicated, controlled, site comparison study in Australia found that forests restored after mining had significantly higher or similar bat activity (relative abundance) as unmined forests for five of seven bat species. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)      Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2050https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2050Fri, 07 Dec 2018 12:43:26 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restore or create grassland One study evaluated the effects of creating grassland 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 between species-rich grassland created on agri-environment scheme farms and improved pasture or crop fields on conventional farms. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2051https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2051Fri, 07 Dec 2018 12:47:28 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restore and manage abandoned orchards for bats We found no studies that evaluated the effects of restoring and managing abandoned orchards for bats 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%2F2285https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2285Tue, 19 Nov 2019 18:23:58 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restore bat foraging habitat at ex-quarry sites One study evaluated the effects of restoring bat foraging habitat at ex-quarry sites on bat populations. The study was in France. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in France found that gravel-sand pits had higher overall bat activity (relative abundance) 10 years after restoration than gravel-sand pit sites before or during quarrying. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2286https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2286Wed, 20 Nov 2019 11:35:38 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Replace or improve roosting habitat for bats along utility and service line corridors We found no studies that evaluated the effects of replacing or improving roosting habitat for bats along utility and service line corridors 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%2F2943https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2943Fri, 12 Feb 2021 17:56:27 +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