Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Relocate access points to bat roosts within developments Two studies evaluated the effects of relocating access points to bat roosts within building developments on bat populations. One study was in Ireland and one in the UK. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (2 STUDIES)      Use (2 studies): One before-and-after study in Ireland found that fewer brown long-eared bats used a roost after the access points were relocated, and no bats were observed flying through them. One before-and-after study in the UK found that few lesser horseshoe bats used an alternative access point with a ‘bend’ design to re-enter a roost in a building development, but the number of bats using the roost increased after an access point with a ‘straight’ design was installed. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F946https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F946Tue, 10 Dec 2013 13:55:15 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create artificial water sources Five studies evaluated the effects of creating artificial water sources for bats on bat populations. One study was in each of the USA, Germany, South Africa, Israel and Mexico. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, paired sites study in South Africa found a similar number of bat species over farm ponds and in grassland/crops, trees, vineyards or orchards. POPULATION RESPONSE (5 STUDIES) Abundance (5 studies): Five replicated studies (including four site comparisons and one paired sites study) in Israel, the USA, Germany, South Africa and Mexico found that bat activity (relative abundance) was similar or higher over reservoirs and waste water treatment pools, heliponds and drainage ditches, retention ponds and farm/cattle ponds compared to over natural wetlands, nearby vineyards, surrounding forest or grassland/crops, trees and orchards. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F959https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F959Fri, 20 Dec 2013 10:14:31 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Deter bats from turbines using ultrasound Four studies evaluated the effects of deterring bats from wind turbines using ultrasound on bat populations. The four studies were in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Survival (3 studies): Three replicated, randomized, controlled studies (one with a before-and-after trial in the second year) in the USA found mixed results. In the first year of one study, 21-51% fewer bats were killed at turbines with an ultrasonic deterrent fitted than at control turbines, but in the second year, from 2% more to 64% fewer bats were killed at turbines with ultrasonic deterrents fitted. One study found that using an ultrasonic deterrent emitting a constant or pulsed signal had mixed effects on the fatality rates of three bat species. One study found that using ultrasonic deterrents resulted in fewer fatalities for two of three bat species. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Behaviour change (1 study): One paired sites study in the USA found fewer bats flying near one of two wind turbines with an ultrasonic deterrent compared to turbines without, but the effect of the deterrent overall was not significant. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F968https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F968Fri, 20 Dec 2013 11:30:12 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Prevent turbine blades from turning at low wind speeds ('feathering') Six studies evaluated the effects of preventing turbine blades from turning at low wind speeds on bat populations. Five studies were in the USA and one was in Canada. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (6 STUDIES) Survival (6 studies): Five of six studies (including five replicated, controlled studies and one before-and-after study) in the USA and Canada found that preventing turbine blades from turning at low wind speeds (‘feathering’), or feathering along with increasing the wind speed at which turbines become operational (‘cut-in speed’) resulted in fewer bat fatalities than at conventionally operated turbines. The other study found that automatically feathering turbine blades at low wind speeds did not reduce bat fatalities. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F970https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F970Fri, 20 Dec 2013 12:19:55 +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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restrict timing of lighting One study evaluated the effects of restricting the timing of lighting on bat populations. The study was in France. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): One replicated, paired sites study in France found that turning off streetlights for part of the night resulted in mixed results for activity (relative abundance), depending on bat species, when compared with leaving streetlights switched on all night. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1019https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1019Fri, 20 Dec 2013 17:59:19 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: 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: 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: 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: Protect roost trees during forest operations We found no studies that evaluated the effects of protecting roost trees during forest operations 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%2F1982https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1982Tue, 04 Dec 2018 19:24:09 +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: 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: 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: 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: Retain native forest and woodland We found no studies that evaluated the effects of retaining native forest and woodland 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%2F2033https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2033Wed, 05 Dec 2018 18:24:08 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restore or create wetlands One study evaluated the effects of restoring wetlands on bat populations. The study was in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): One replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in the USA found that restoring wetlands increased overall bat activity (relative abundance), and restored wetlands had similar bat activity to undisturbed wetlands. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2036https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2036Wed, 05 Dec 2018 18:28:28 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create artificial hollows and cracks in trees for roosting bats One study evaluated the effects of creating artificial hollows and cracks in trees for roosting bats. The study was in Australia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY)      Use (1 study): One replicated study in Australia found that eight of 16 artificial hollows cut into trees for bats, birds and marsupials with two different entrance designs were used by roosting long-eared bats. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2047https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2047Fri, 07 Dec 2018 12:36:39 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reinstate bat roosts in felled tree trunks One study evaluated the effects of reinstating a bat roost within a felled tree trunk on bat populations. The study was in the UK. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY)      Use (1 study): One before-and-after study in the UK found that a roost reinstated by attaching the felled tree trunk to a nearby tree continued to be used by common noctule bats as a maternity roost. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2048https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2048Fri, 07 Dec 2018 12:38:25 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create artificial caves or hibernacula for bats Four studies evaluated the effects of creating artificial caves or hibernacula for bats on bat populations. Two studies were in the UK and two were in Germany. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (4 STUDIES) Uptake (1 study): One study in the UK found that the number of bats using an artificial hibernaculum increased in each of nine years after it was built. Use (4 studies): One study in the UK found that an artificial cave was used by a small number of brown long-eared bats. Three studies in Germany and the UK found that artificial hibernacula were used by up to four bat species. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2049https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2049Fri, 07 Dec 2018 12:41:38 +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