Study

The effects of illuminating the roost entrance on the emergence behaviour of Pipistrellus pygmaeus

  • Published source details Downs N.C., Beaton V., Guest J., Polanski J., Robinson S.L. & Racey P.A. (2003) The effects of illuminating the roost entrance on the emergence behaviour of Pipistrellus pygmaeus. Biological Conservation, 111, 247-252.

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Use low intensity lighting

Action Link
Bat Conservation

Use red lighting rather than other lighting colours

Action Link
Bat Conservation

Leave bat roosts and roost entrances unlit

Action Link
Bat Conservation
  1. Use low intensity lighting

    A replicated, controlled study in 2000 at two bat roosts within buildings in Aberdeenshire, UK (Downs et al 2003) found that reducing the intensity of red light by adding 2–3 filters resulted in more soprano pipistrelles Pipistrellus pygmaeus emerging from the roosts than when only one filter was used. More soprano pipistrelles emerged from both roosts when red lights had two (73 and 72 bats) or three filters (76 and 127 bats) placed over them than when only one filter was used (35 and 26 bats). Over four nights in July–August 2000, each of two roosts were surveyed for one night with no lighting and for one night with red light of different intensities. A hand-held halogen light with 1–3 red filters was placed within 3–5 m of each of the two roosts. The number of filters (1–3) used on the red lights were rotated in a random order and changed every 30 seconds. On each of four nights, the number of bats emerging per 30 second interval was counted at dusk.

    (Summarised by: Anna Berthinussen)

  2. Use red lighting rather than other lighting colours

    A replicated, controlled study in 2000 at two bat roosts within buildings in Aberdeenshire, UK (Downs et al 2003) found that when roosts were illuminated with red light more soprano pipistrelles Pipistrellus pygmaeus emerged than when roosts were illuminated with white light, but no difference was found between red and blue lights. At both roosts, more bats emerged when the roost entrance was illuminated with red light (13 and 72 bats) than when it was illuminated with white light (2 and 24 bats). No difference was found between red and blue light (6 and 62 bats emerging) at either roost. A hand-held halogen light with coloured filters was placed within 3–5 m of each of the two roosts. Over 20 nights in July–August 2000, nights with roosts unlit and nights with lighting were alternated. On nights with lighting, white, blue, and red lights were rotated in a random order and changed every 30 seconds. On each of 20 nights, the number of bats emerging per 30 second interval was counted at dusk.

    (Summarised by: Anna Berthinussen)

  3. Leave bat roosts and roost entrances unlit

    A replicated, controlled study in 2000 at two bat roosts within buildings in Aberdeenshire, UK (Downs et al 2003) found that when roosts were left unlit more soprano pipistrelles Pipistrellus pygmaeus emerged than when roosts were illuminated with white or blue lights at both roosts, or red lights at one of two roosts. More soprano pipistrelles emerged when both roosts were left unlit (average 40 and 90 bats) than when roosts were illuminated with white light (2 and 24 bats) or blue light (6 and 62 bats). Red light only had an effect at one of two roosts. More bats emerged at one roost when it was unlit (40 bats) than when it was illuminated with red light (13 bats), but at the second roost similar numbers emerged with (72 bats) and without red light (90 bats). A hand-held halogen light with coloured filters was placed within 3–5 m of each of the two roosts. Over 20 nights in July–August 2000, nights with roosts unlit and nights with lighting were alternated. On nights with lighting, white, blue, and red lights were rotated in a random order and changed every 30 seconds. On each of 20 nights, the number of bats emerging per 30 second interval was counted at dusk.

    (Summarised by: Anna Berthinussen)

Output references
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 18

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 Programme Red List Champion - Arc Kent Wildlife Trust The Rufford Foundation Save the Frogs - Ghana Bern wood Supporting Conservation Leaders National Biodiversity Network Sustainability Dashboard Frog Life The international journey of Conservation - Oryx British trust for ornithology Cool Farm Alliance UNEP AWFA Butterfly Conservation People trust for endangered species Vincet Wildlife Trust