Collected 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: Decontaminate clothing and equipment after entering caves to reduce the spread of the white-nose syndrome pathogen We found no studies that evaluated the effects of decontaminating clothing and equipment after entering 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%2F2006https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2006Wed, 05 Dec 2018 15:33:20 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Treat bat hibernacula environments to reduce the white-nose syndrome pathogen reservoir We found no studies that evaluated the effects of treating hibernacula environments to reduce the white-nose syndrome pathogen reservoir 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%2F2007https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2007Wed, 05 Dec 2018 15:37:15 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Treat bats for infection with white-nose syndrome Two studies evaluated the effects of treating bats with a probiotic bacterium to reduce white-nose syndrome infection. One study was in Canada and one in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Survival (2 studies): One randomized, controlled study in Canada found that treating little brown bats with a probiotic bacterium at the time of infection with white-nose syndrome (but not 21 days prior) increased survival within cages in a laboratory. One randomized, controlled study in the USA found that treating little brown bats with a probiotic bacterium within a mine increased survival for free-flying bats, but not caged bats. Condition (2 studies): One randomized, controlled study in Canada found that little brown bats caged in a laboratory and treated with a probiotic bacterium at the time of infection with white-nose syndrome had reduced symptoms of the disease, but bats treated 21 days prior to infection had worse symptoms. One randomized, controlled study in the USA found that little brown bats kept within cages in a mine and treated with a probiotic bacterium had a similar severity of white-nose syndrome to untreated bats. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2008https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2008Wed, 05 Dec 2018 15:40:15 +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: Prevent pollution from sewage treatment facilities from entering watercourses We found no studies that evaluated the effects of preventing pollution from sewage treatment facilities from entering watercourses 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%2F2010https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2010Wed, 05 Dec 2018 16:27:06 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce or prevent the use of septic systems near caves We found no studies that evaluated the effects of reducing or preventing the use of septic systems near 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%2F2011https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2011Wed, 05 Dec 2018 16:28:27 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Introduce or enforce legislation to prevent ponds and streams from being contaminated by toxins We found no studies that evaluated the effects of introducing or enforcing legislation to prevent ponds and streams from being contaminated by toxins 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%2F2012https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2012Wed, 05 Dec 2018 16:29:43 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce pesticide, herbicide or fertiliser use Four studies evaluated the effects of reducing pesticide, herbicide and fertiliser use on bat populations. One study was in each of Mexico, Portugal, Germany and Columbia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Community composition (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in Portugal found that farms using few or no chemicals had different compositions of bat species to farms using high chemical inputs. Richness/diversity (2 studies): One site comparison study in Mexico found that coffee agroforestry plantations using few or no chemicals had a higher diversity of insect-eating bat species than plantations with high chemical inputs, but the diversity of fruit and nectar-eating bat species did not differ. One paired sites study in Germany recorded more bat species over grassland with moderate or no fertiliser applications than grassland with high fertiliser applications. POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Abundance (2 studies): Two site comparison or paired sites studies (one replicated) in Portugal and Germany found that farms or grasslands with few or no chemical inputs had higher overall bat activity (relative abundance) than those using high chemical inputs. Condition (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in Columbia found that great fruit-eating bats captured in ‘silvopastoral’ areas that used no chemicals, along with agroforestry, had higher body weights and body condition scores than those in conventional farming areas that used chemicals. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2013https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2013Wed, 05 Dec 2018 17:38:03 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use organic pest control instead of synthetic pesticides We found no studies that evaluated the effects of using organic pest control instead of synthetic pesticides 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%2F2014https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2014Wed, 05 Dec 2018 17:40:02 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Prevent pollution from agricultural land or forestry from entering watercourses We found no studies that evaluated the effects of preventing pollution from agriculture or forestry from entering watercourses 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%2F2015https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2015Wed, 05 Dec 2018 17:41:40 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Plant riparian buffer strips We found no studies that evaluated the effects of planting riparian buffer strips 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%2F2016https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2016Wed, 05 Dec 2018 17:43:25 +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: Direct lighting away from bat access points or habitats We found no studies that evaluated the effects of directing lighting away from bat access points or habitats 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%2F2019https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2019Wed, 05 Dec 2018 17:53:34 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use 'warm white' rather than 'cool' LED lights We found no studies that evaluated the effects of using ‘warm white’ LED lights rather than ‘cool’ LED lights 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%2F2020https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2020Wed, 05 Dec 2018 18:01:53 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use red lighting rather than other lighting colours Three studies evaluated the effects of red lighting on bat populations. Two studies were in the Netherlands and one was in the UK. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Abundance (2 studies): One replicated, controlled, site comparison study in the Netherlands found that red lighting resulted in higher activity (relative abundance) for one of three bat species groups than white or green lighting. One site comparison study in the Netherlands found that culverts illuminated with red light had similar activity of commuting Daubenton’s bats as culverts illuminated with white or green light. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY)         Behaviour (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in the UK found that more soprano pipistrelles emerged from a roost when lit with red light than when lit with white light, but no difference was found between red and blue lights. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2021https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2021Wed, 05 Dec 2018 18:06:28 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use glazing treatments to reduce light spill from inside lit buildings We found no studies that evaluated the effects of using glazing treatments to prevent light spill from inside lit buildings 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%2F2022https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2022Wed, 05 Dec 2018 18:07:22 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install sound barriers in proximity to bat roosts and habitats We found no studies that evaluated the effects of installing sound barriers in proximity to bat roosts and habitats 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%2F2023https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2023Wed, 05 Dec 2018 18:09:06 +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: Enhance natural habitat features to improve landscape connectivity to allow for range shifts of bats We found no studies that evaluated the effects of enhancing natural habitat features to improve landscape connectivity to allow for range shifts 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%2F2025https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2025Wed, 05 Dec 2018 18:14:50 +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: Manage natural water bodies in arid areas to prevent desiccation We found no studies that evaluated the effects of managing natural water bodies in arid areas to prevent desiccation 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%2F2027https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2027Wed, 05 Dec 2018 18:16:36 +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 +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