Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install underpasses or culverts as road/railway crossing structures for bats Eight studies evaluated the effects of installing underpasses or culverts as road crossing structures for bats. Seven studies were in Europe and one in Australia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (8 STUDIES)      Use (8 studies): Eight studies (including six replicated studies) in Germany, Ireland, the UK, Australia and France found that bats used underpasses and culverts below roads, and crossed over the roads above them, in varying proportions. One replicated, site comparison study in Australia found that bat species adapted to cluttered habitats used small culverts and underpasses more than bat species adapted to open or edge habitats. One replicated, site comparison study in France found that the use of underpasses by five bat species was influenced by underpass type and height, road width, and the amount of forest and hedgerows in the surrounding landscape. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F976https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F976Fri, 20 Dec 2013 14:08:31 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install overpasses as road/railway crossing structures for bats Four studies evaluated the effects of installing overpasses as road crossing structures for bats. Three studies were in Europe and one in Australia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Richness/diversity (1 study): One site comparison study in Australia found that the same number of bat species were recorded at an overpass and in nearby forest and bushland. POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (3 STUDIES)      Use (3 studies): Two replicated studies (including one site comparison) in Ireland and France found that two or three bat species/species groups used overpasses but up to three-quarters of bats crossed the road below at traffic height or crossed at other nearby locations. One study in the UK found that an overpass with planters was used by two-thirds of crossing bats, and an unvegetated overpass with a paved road over it was not used by crossing bats. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F977https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F977Fri, 20 Dec 2013 14:10:25 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install bat gantries or bat bridges as road/railway crossing structures for bats Three studies evaluated the effects of installing bat gantries as road crossing structures for bats. Two studies were in the UK and one in France. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (3 STUDIES)      Use (3 studies): Two replicated studies (including one site comparison) in the UK found that fewer bats used bat gantries than crossed the road below at traffic height, and one bat gantry was not used at all. One replicated study in France found that a temporary bat gantry was used by three bat species/species groups, but almost half of crossing bats flew over the road at other locations. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F978https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F978Fri, 20 Dec 2013 14:12:20 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install green bridges as road/railway crossing structures for bats One study evaluated the effects of installing green bridges as road crossing structures for bats. The study was in the UK. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY)      Use (1 study): One study in the UK found that a green bridge was used by 97% of bats crossing a road. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F979https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F979Fri, 20 Dec 2013 14:13:21 +0000Collected 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: 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: 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: 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: Impose noise limits in proximity to bat roosts and habitats We found no studies that evaluated the effects of imposing noise limits 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%2F1021https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1021Fri, 20 Dec 2013 18:01:10 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install sound-proofing insulation between bat roosts and areas occupied by humans within developments We found no studies that evaluated the effects of installing sound-proofing insulation between bat roosts and areas occupied by humans within developments 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%2F1929https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1929Fri, 30 Nov 2018 13:47:18 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Exclude bats from roosts during building work One study evaluated the effects of excluding bats from roosts during building work on bat populations. The study was in the UK. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY)                                                  Behaviour change (1 study): One replicated, before-and-after study in the UK found that excluding bats from roosts within buildings did not change roost switching frequency, core foraging areas or foraging preferences of soprano pipistrelle colonies. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1930https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1930Fri, 30 Nov 2018 14:28:45 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Increase semi-natural habitat within gardens We found no studies that evaluated the effects of increasing the amount of semi-natural habitat within gardens 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%2F1933https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1933Fri, 30 Nov 2018 14:36:32 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Increase the proportion of semi-natural habitat in the farmed landscape We found no studies that evaluated the effects of increasing the proportion of semi-natural habitat in the farmed landscape 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%2F1938https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1938Mon, 03 Dec 2018 13:18:19 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Increase the wind speed at which turbines become operational (‘cut-in speed’) Twelve studies evaluated the effects of increasing the wind speed at which turbines become operational (‘cut-in speed’) on bat populations. Ten studies were in the USA and two were in Canada. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (12 STUDIES) Survival (12 studies): Ten of 12 studies (including 10 replicated, randomized, controlled studies and one before-and-after study) in the USA and Canada found that increasing the wind speed at which turbines become operational (‘cut-in speed’), or increasing the cut-in speed along with preventing turbine blades from turning at low wind speeds (‘feathering’) resulted in fewer bat fatalities than at conventionally operated turbines. The other two studies found that increasing cut-in speeds did not reduce bat fatalities, but sample sizes were small or treatments were applied for short periods only. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1960https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1960Tue, 04 Dec 2018 15:54:57 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Exclude bats from roosts prior to mine reclamation We found no studies that evaluated the effects of excluding bats from roosts prior to mine reclamation 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%2F1961https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1961Tue, 04 Dec 2018 16:21:01 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install and maintain gates at mine entrances to restrict public access Nine studies evaluated the effects of installing gates at mine entrances on bat populations. Eight studies were in the USA and one in Australia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, before-and-after study in the USA found that fewer bat species entered mines after gates were installed. POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Abundance (3 studies): Two replicated, site comparison or before-and-after studies in the USA and Australia found fewer bats in mines or at mine entrances after gates were installed. One replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in the USA found that bat activity (relative abundance) remained stable or increased at five of seven gated mines, and decreased at two gated mines. BEHAVIOUR (6 STUDIES)      Use (2 studies): One before-and-after study in the USA found that 43 of 47 mines continued to be used 12 years after gates were installed, however bats abandoned four mines with ‘ladder’ design gates. One replicated study in the USA found that gate design and time since gate installation had varied effects on the presence of four bat species. Behaviour change (4 studies): Four replicated, before-and-after or site comparison studies in the USA and Australia found that bats at mine entrances circled more and entered mines less after gates were installed. OTHER (2 STUDIES) Collisions with gates (1 study): One replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in the USA found that up to 7% of bats at mine entrances collided with mine gates. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1963https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1963Tue, 04 Dec 2018 16:43:00 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Inform local communities about the negative impacts of bat hunting to reduce killing of bats One study evaluated the effects of informing local communities about the negative impacts of bat hunting to reduce killing of bats on bat populations. The study was in Ghana. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY)         Behaviour change (1 study): One before-and-after study in Ghana found that after providing education about the ecological roles of bats fewer hunters intended to hunt bats in the future. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1973https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1973Tue, 04 Dec 2018 18:22:05 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Inform local communities about disease risks from hunting and eating bat meat to reduce killing of bats One study evaluated the effects of informing local communities about disease risks from hunting and eating bat meat to reduce killing of bats on bat populations. The study was in Ghana. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY)         Behaviour change (1 study): One before-and-after study in Ghana found that fewer hunters intended to hunt bats in future after they were provided with education about the risks of diseases carried by bats. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1974https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1974Tue, 04 Dec 2018 18:23:00 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Introduce alternative treatments to reduce the use of bats in traditional medicine We found no studies that evaluated the effects of introducing alternative treatments to reduce the use of bats in traditional medecine 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%2F1975https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1975Tue, 04 Dec 2018 18:24:01 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install fencing around cave entrances to restrict public access Two studies evaluated the effects of installing fencing around cave entrances on bat populations. One study was in the USA and one study was in Spain. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in Spain found no difference in the population growth rates of bats roosting in caves with and without fencing or gates installed. BEHAVIOUR (2 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 fencing or gates installed. Behaviour change (1 study): One controlled, before-and-after study in the USA found that significantly more southeastern myotis bats and gray myotis bats emerged from a cave after a steel gate was replaced with a fence. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1991https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1991Wed, 05 Dec 2018 12:39:50 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Exclude domestic and feral cats from bat roosts and roost entrances We found no studies that evaluated the effects of excluding domestic and feral cats from bat roosts and roost entrances 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%2F2001https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2001Wed, 05 Dec 2018 15:27:16 +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: 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: Exclude bats from roosts during maintenance work at road/railway bridges and culverts We found no studies that evaluated the effects of excluding bats from roosts during maintenance work at road/railway bridges and culverts 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%2F2941https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2941Fri, 12 Feb 2021 17:48:45 +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