Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install hop-overs as road/railway crossing structures for bats We found no studies that evaluated the effects of hop-overs as road/railway crossing structures for 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%2F980https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F980Fri, 20 Dec 2013 14:14:29 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Divert bats to safe crossing points over or under roads/railways with plantings or fencing One study evaluated the effects of diverting bats using an artificial hedgerow on bat populations. The study was in Switzerland. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY)      Use (1 study): One controlled, before-and-after study in Switzerland found that up to one fifth of lesser horseshoe bats within a colony flew along an artificial hedgerow to commute. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F981https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F981Fri, 20 Dec 2013 14:16:34 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Deter bats from roads/railways using lighting We found no studies that evaluated the effects of deterring bats from roads/railways using lighting 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%2F982https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F982Fri, 20 Dec 2013 14:27:40 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Replace or improve habitat for bats around roads/railways We found no studies that evaluated the effects of replacing or improving habitat around roads/railways 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%2F983https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F983Fri, 20 Dec 2013 14:28:33 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Introduce and enforce legislation to control hunting of bats We found no studies that evaluated the effects of introducing and enforcing legislation to control the hunting 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%2F984https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F984Fri, 20 Dec 2013 14:29:41 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Introduce and enforce legislation to regulate harvesting of bat guano We found no studies that evaluated the effects of introducing and enforcing legislation to regulate the harvesting of bat guano 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%2F987https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F987Fri, 20 Dec 2013 14:32:49 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use selective or reduced impact logging instead of conventional logging Four studies evaluated the effects of using selective or reduced impact logging instead of conventional logging on bat populations. Two studies were in the Neotropics, one study was in Italy and one in Germany. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Community composition (1 study): One replicated, controlled, site comparison study in Trinidad found that the composition of bat species differed between selectively logged and conventionally logged forest. Richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in Germany found similar bat diversity in selectively logged and conventionally logged forest. POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Abundance (3 studies): One replicated, site comparison study in Germany found similar overall bat activity (relative abundance) in selectively logged and conventionally logged forest. One review of 41 studies in the Neotropics found that reduced impact logging had a smaller effect on bat abundance than conventional logging. One replicated, site comparison study in Italy found greater bat activity at two of three sites that used selective logging techniques to open up the forest canopy rather than leaving the canopy intact. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F989https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F989Fri, 20 Dec 2013 14:41:00 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use shelterwood cutting instead of clearcutting One study evaluated the effects of using shelterwood cutting instead of ‘gap release’ cutting on bat populations. The study was in Australia. We found no studies that evaluated the effects of shelterwood cutting instead of clearcutting. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY)      Use (1 study): One site comparison study in Australia found more Gould’s long-eared bats roosting in remnant trees within forests that had been shelterwood harvested than in forests harvested using gap release methods. Comparisons were not made with clearcutting. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F990https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F990Fri, 20 Dec 2013 15:27:30 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Thin trees within forest and woodland Eleven studies evaluated the effects of thinning trees within forest and woodland on bat populations. Six studies were in the USA, four were in Australia and one was in Canada. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Richness/diversity (2 studies): One replicated, site comparison study in Australia recorded the same bat species in thinned and unthinned forest, except for the chocolate wattled bat, which was not recorded in forests with unthinned regrowth. One replicated, site comparison study in Australia found that forest thinned up to 20 years previously had higher bat diversity than unthinned forest, but sites thinned more than 20 years previously did not differ. POPULATION RESPONSE (11 STUDIES) Abundance (11 studies): Five of six replicated, site comparison studies (including two paired sites studies and one controlled study) in the USA and Australia found higher overall bat activity (relative abundance) in thinned or thinned and burned forest than unthinned forest. The other study found similar overall bat activity in thinned and unthinned stands. One replicated, randomized, site comparison study in the USA found higher overall bat activity for three of four types of thinning and burning treatments. One replicated, site comparison study in Australia found that forest thinned up to eight years previously or more than 20 years previously had higher bat activity than unthinned forest, but sites thinned 8–20 years previously did not differ. Three replicated, controlled studies (including one site comparison and one before-and-after study) in Canada and Australia found that thinning increased the activity of some bat species but not others. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F991https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F991Fri, 20 Dec 2013 15:31:59 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Maintain forest and woodland edges for foraging bats We found no studies that evaluated the effects of maintaining forest and woodland edges for foraging 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%2F992https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F992Fri, 20 Dec 2013 15:33:51 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Retain veteran and standing dead trees as roosting sites for bats We found no studies that evaluated the effects of retaining veteran and standing dead trees 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%2F993https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F993Fri, 20 Dec 2013 15:34:57 +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: Retain residual tree patches in logged areas Three studies evaluated the effects of retaining residual tree patches in logged areas on bat populations. The three studies were in Canada. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Abundance (3 studies): Two replicated, site comparison studies in Canada found no difference in bat activity (relative abundance) along the edges of residual tree patches and the edges of clearcut blocks. One replicated, site comparison study in Canada found that the activity of smaller bat species was higher along the edge of residual tree patches than in the centre of clearcut blocks, but the activity of larger bat species did not differ. One replicated, controlled study in Canada found that residual tree patches had similar activity of little brown bats and northern long-eared bats and lower activity of silver-haired bats compared to clearcut forest patches. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F995https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F995Fri, 20 Dec 2013 15:39:45 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Retain forested corridors in logged areas Three studies evaluated the effects of retaining forested corridors in logged areas on bat populations. The three studies were in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 studies): One replicated, site comparison study in the USA found that bat activity (relative abundance) was significantly higher along the edges of forested corridors than in corridor interiors or in adjacent logged stands, which had similar activity levels. BEHAVIOUR (2 STUDIES)   Use (2 studies): One replicated, site comparison study in the USA found more Seminole bats roosting in forested corridors than logged stands or mature forest. One replicated, site comparison study in the USA found more male but fewer female evening bats roosting in forested corridors than logged stands. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F996https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F996Fri, 20 Dec 2013 15:44:57 +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: Install and maintain cave gates to restrict public access Eleven studies evaluated the effects of installing cave gates on bat populations. Six studies were in the USA and five studies were in Europe. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (7 STUDIES) Abundance (7 studies): Three of four before-and-after studies (including one replicated study and one controlled study) in the Netherlands, the USA, Spain and Turkey found more or similar numbers of bats in caves and a bunker after gates were installed to restrict public access. The other study found fewer bats in caves after gates were installed. Two before-and-after studies in the USA and Spain found more bats within two caves after the size of the gated entrances were increased. One replicated, before-and-after study in the USA found that installing cave gates resulted in population increases or decreased rates of decline for 13 of 20 colonies of Indiana bat. One replicated, site comparison study in Spain found no difference in the population growth rates of bats roosting in caves with and without cave gates. Condition (1 study): One site comparison study in the USA found that bats hibernating in a cave with a wall and gate over the entrance lost more body mass than bats in a nearby unmodified cave. BEHAVIOUR (5 STUDIES)   Use (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in Spain found no difference in the occupancy rates of bats roosting in caves with and without cave gates. Behaviour change (4 studies): One replicated, controlled, before-and-after and site comparison study in the USA found that bats at cave entrances circled more and entered caves less after gates were installed. One replicated study in the USA found that bats flew through gates with a funnel design more frequently than gates with a round bar or angle iron design. One randomized, controlled, before-and-after study in the UK found that fewer bats flew through cave gates when the spacing between horizontal bars was reduced. One before-and-after study in the USA found that significantly fewer bats emerged from a cave with a gate installed compared with a cave with a fence. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F999https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F999Fri, 20 Dec 2013 17:07:52 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Educate the public to improve perception of bats to improve behaviour towards bats We found no studies that evaluated the effects of educating the public to improve the perception of bats to improve behaviour towards bats. ‘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%2F1000https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1000Fri, 20 Dec 2013 17:09:30 +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: Impose restrictions on cave visits Four studies evaluated the effects of imposing restrictions on cave visits on bat populations. One study was in each of the USA, Canada, Madagascar, and Turkey. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Abundance (2 studies): Two before-and-after studies in Canada and Turkey found that bat populations within caves increased after restrictions on cave visitors were imposed. BEHAVIOUR (2 STUDIES) Behaviour change (2 studies): One study in the USA found that reducing the number of people within cave tour groups did not have a significant effect on the number of take-offs, landings or overall activity (bat movements) of a cave myotis colony roosting within the cave. One study in Madagascar found that increasing visitor approach distances, along with avoiding direct illumination of bats, reduced the alertness and number of take-offs of Madagascan rousettes during experimental cave tours. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1002https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1002Fri, 20 Dec 2013 17:17:00 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Inform the public of ways to reduce disturbance to bats in caves We found no studies that evaluated the effects of informing the public of ways to reduce disturbance to bats in 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%2F1003https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1003Fri, 20 Dec 2013 17:18:13 +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: Use prescribed burning Fifteen studies evaluated the effects of prescribed burning on bat populations. Thirteen studies were in the USA and two were in Australia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Community composition (2 studies): One of two replicated studies (one before-and-after with paired sites, one site comparison) in Australia found that the composition of bat species differed between burned and unburned woodland sites. The other study found that the composition of bat species was similar between unlogged forest blocks burned every two or four years and unburned blocks. Richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, randomized, site comparison study in Australia found more bat species in unlogged forest blocks burned every four years than in blocks burned every two years or unburned blocks. POPULATION RESPONSE (9 STUDIES) Abundance (9 studies): Two replicated, site comparison studies (including one controlled study) in the USA found that the activity (relative abundance) of open habitat bat species and evening bats increased with the number of prescribed fires, but there was no effect on other bat species, including cluttered habitat bat species. Four replicated, before-and-after or site comparison studies (including two controlled studies) in the USA and Australia found that prescribed burning, prescribed burning along with thinning or prescribed burning every four years resulted in higher overall bat activity or activity of Florida bonneted bats. One site comparison study in the USA found that two of seven sites that had been burned alongside other restoration practices had higher bat activity than unrestored sites. One replicated, randomized, site comparison study in the USA found that three of four burning and thinning treatments resulted in higher overall bat activity. One replicated, controlled, site comparison study in the USA found similar activity of three bat species in burned and unburned tree stands. BEHAVIOUR (6 STUDIES)      Use (5 studies): One replicated, controlled before-and-after study in the USA found that more female northern myotis bats roosted in burned than unburned forest. Two replicated, controlled, site comparison studies in the USA found that fewer female northern myotis bats and male Indiana bats roosted in burned than unburned forest. One replicated study in the USA found that evening bats roosted in burned but not unburned forest. One replicated, paired sites study in the USA found that burned sites had a higher occupancy of five bat species/species groups than unburned sites, and burn severity had a negative effect on the occupancy of two bat species/species groups. Behaviour change (4 studies): Two replicated, controlled, site comparison studies in the USA found no difference in roost switching frequency or the distance between roost trees for female northern myotis bats and male Indiana bats in burned and unburned forests. One replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in the USA found that female northern myotis home ranges and core areas did not differ in size between burned and unburned forests, but home ranges were closer to burned forest than unburned forest. One replicated, site comparison study in the USA found that home ranges of female Rafinesque’s big-eared bats were located similar distances to burned and unburned forest, and male home ranges were closer to unburned forest. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1006https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1006Fri, 20 Dec 2013 17:26:46 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Control invasive predators One study evaluated the effects of controlling invasive predators on bat populations. The study was in New Zealand. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Survival (1 study): One replicated, before-and-after study in New Zealand found that controlling ship rats resulted in increased survival probabilities for female long-tailed bats. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1007https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1007Fri, 20 Dec 2013 17:37:21 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Control invasive plant species One study evaluated the effects of controlling invasive plant species on bat populations. The study was in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): One site comparison study in the USA found that two of seven forest fragments where invasive plant species had been removed alongside other restoration practices had significantly higher bat activity (relative abundance) than two unrestored forest fragments. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1008https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1008Fri, 20 Dec 2013 17:42:07 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Translocate bats Two studies evaluated the effects of translocating bats on bat populations. One study was in New Zealand and one study was in Switzerland. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Reproductive success (1 study): One study in Switzerland found that a female greater horseshoe bat that settled at a release site after translocation had a failed pregnancy. Survival (1 study): One study in Switzerland found that four of 18 bats died after translocation. Condition (1 study): One study in New Zealand found that lesser short-tailed bats captured at release sites eight months after translocation were balding and had damaged, infected ears. BEHAVIOUR (2 STUDIES)   Uptake (2 studies): Two studies in New Zealand and Switzerland found that low numbers of bats remained at release sites after translocation. Behaviour change (1 study): One study in Switzerland found that bats homed after release at translocation sites less than 20 km from their original roosts. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1009https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1009Fri, 20 Dec 2013 17:44:38 +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