Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce field size (or maintain small fields) One study evaluated the effects of maintaining small fields on bat populations. The study was in Canada. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in Canada found that agricultural landscapes with smaller fields had higher activity (relative abundance) of six of seven bat species than landscapes with larger fields. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1939https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1939Mon, 03 Dec 2018 13:19:32 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Retain unmown field margins One study evaluated the effects of retaining unmown field margins on bats 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 unmown field margins managed for wildlife on agri-environment scheme farms and field margins on conventional farms. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1940https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1940Mon, 03 Dec 2018 13:21:44 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Plant field margins with a diverse mix of plant species One study evaluated the effects of planting field margins with a diverse mix of plant species on bats populations. The study was in the UK. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the UK found that the activity (relative abundance) of soprano pipistrelles and barbastelle bats increased with a greater diversity of plant species within field margins, but there was no effect on common pipistrelle activity nor on the occurrence of any of the six bat species studied. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1941https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1941Tue, 04 Dec 2018 09:50:30 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Plant new hedges We found no studies that evaluated the effects of planting new hedges 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%2F1942https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1942Tue, 04 Dec 2018 09:51:33 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Manage hedges to benefit bats Two studies evaluated the effects of managing hedges to benefit bat populations. Both studies were in the UK. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the UK found that hedges trimmed ≥3 years prior had more bat species recorded along them than hedges trimmed during the previous winter. POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Abundance (2 studies): One replicated, paired sites study in the UK found that pipistrelle activity (relative abundance) did not differ between hedges managed for wildlife on agri-environment scheme farms and hedges on conventional farms. One replicated, site comparison study in the UK found that hedges trimmed ≥3 years prior had higher activity of two of eight bat species/species groups than hedges trimmed during the previous winter. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1943https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1943Tue, 04 Dec 2018 09:54:05 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Manage ditches to benefit bats We found no studies that evaluated the effects of managing ditches to benefit 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%2F1944https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1944Tue, 04 Dec 2018 09:59:42 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Retain existing in-field trees We found no studies that evaluated the effects of retaining existing in-field trees 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%2F1945https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1945Tue, 04 Dec 2018 10:03:08 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Plant in-field trees We found no studies that evaluated the effects of planting in-field 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%2F1946https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1946Tue, 04 Dec 2018 10:04:30 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Retain remnant forest or woodland on agricultural land We found no studies that evaluated the effects of retaining remnant forest or woodland on agricultural land 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%2F1947https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1947Tue, 04 Dec 2018 10:55:06 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Avoid the use of antiparasitic drugs for livestock We found no studies that evaluated the effects of avoiding the use of antiparasitic drugs for livestock on bat populations. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1948https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1948Tue, 04 Dec 2018 12:16:10 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Manage grazing regimes to increase invertebrate prey We found no studies that evaluated the effects of managing grazing regimes to increase invertebrate prey 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%2F1949https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1949Tue, 04 Dec 2018 12:17:10 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Replace culling of bats with non-lethal methods of preventing vampire bats from spreading rabies to livestock We found no studies that evaluated the effects of replacing culling of bats with non-lethal methods of preventing vampire bats from spreading rabies to livestock on vampire 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%2F1950https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1950Tue, 04 Dec 2018 12:18:26 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Manage livestock water troughs as a drinking resource for bats Two studies evaluated the effects of managing livestock water troughs as a drinking resource for bats. Both studies were in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (2 STUDIES)      Use (2 studies): One replicated, paired sites study in the USA found that removing livestock modifications from water troughs resulted in bats drinking from them more frequently. One paired sites study in the USA found that livestock water tanks that were larger, full of water or surrounded by sparse vegetation had more bats drinking from them than smaller, half full tanks surrounded by no or dense vegetation. Behaviour change (1 study): One replicated, paired sites study in the USA found that when livestock modifications were removed from water troughs, bats approached troughs fewer times before successfully drinking from them. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1951https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1951Tue, 04 Dec 2018 12:19:55 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Prevent culling of bats around fruit orchards We found no studies that evaluated the effects of preventing culling of bats around fruit orchards 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%2F1952https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1952Tue, 04 Dec 2018 12:21:55 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use non-lethal measures to prevent bats from accessing fruit in orchards to reduce human-wildlife conflict Two studies evaluated the effects of using non-lethal measures to prevent bats from accessing fruit in orchards to reduce human-wildlife conflict. The studies were in Madagascar and Mauritius. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (2 STUDIES)    Human-wildlife conflict (2 studies): Two replicated, controlled studies (including one randomized study) in Madagascar and Mauritius found that using an organic deterrent spray, hanging plastic flags in trees, or covering individual tree branches with nylon net bags reduced damage to lychees caused by Madagascan flying foxes or Mauritius fruit bats. One of the studies found that ringing bells in lychee trees deterred most Madagascan flying foxes. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1953https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1953Tue, 04 Dec 2018 12:22:55 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Introduce certification for bat-friendly crop harvesting regimes We found no studies that evaluated the effects of introducing certification for bat-friendly crop harvesting regimes 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%2F1954https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1954Tue, 04 Dec 2018 12:23:48 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Apply textured coating to turbines One study evaluated the effects of applying a textured coating to turbines on bat populations. The study was in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): One paired sites study in the USA found that applying a textured coating to a turbine did not reduce the activity of four bat species or the number of bats observed. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1957https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1957Tue, 04 Dec 2018 14:30:07 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Deter bats from turbines using low-level ultraviolet light We found no studies that evaluated the effects of deterring bats from turbines using low-level ultraviolet light 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%2F1958https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1958Tue, 04 Dec 2018 15:13:08 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Paint turbines to reduce insect attraction We found no studies that evaluated the effects of painting turbines to reduce insect attraction 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%2F1959https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1959Tue, 04 Dec 2018 15:21:05 +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: 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: 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: Maintain microclimate in closed/abandoned mines One study evaluated the effects of maintaining the microclimate in an abandoned mine on bat populations. The study was in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): One before-and-after study in the USA found that modifying the microclimate of an abandoned mine by closing a man-made entrance resulted in a greater number of bats hibernating within the mine. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1964https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1964Tue, 04 Dec 2018 16:52:58 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reopen entrances to closed mines and make suitable for roosting bats We found no studies that evaluated the effects of reopening entrances to closed mines and making them suitable 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%2F1965https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1965Tue, 04 Dec 2018 16:54:24 +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