Conservation Evidence strives to be as useful to conservationists as possible. Please take our survey to help the team improve our resource.

Providing evidence to improve practice

Individual study: Constructed wetlands support bats in agricultural landscapes

Published source details

Stahlschmidt P., Pätzold A., Ressl L., Schulz R. & Brühl C.A. (2012) Constructed wetlands support bats in agricultural landscapes. Basic and Applied Ecology, 13, 196-203

This study is summarised as evidence for the intervention(s) shown on the right. The icon shows which synopsis it is relevant to.

Create artificial water sources Bat Conservation

A replicated, site comparison study in 2009 at seven ponds within vineyards in Landau, Germany (Stahlschmidt et al. 2012) found that artificial retention ponds had similar or higher bat activity for three species groups than adjacent vineyards. Activity of Pipistrellus spp. and Myotis spp. was higher over retention ponds (Pipistrellus: 1,421 bat passes/night; Myotis: 65 bat passes/night) than in nearby vineyards (Pipistrellus: 8 bat passes/night; Myotis: 3 bat passes/night), but the activity of Eptesicus and Nyctalus spp. did not differ significantly (ponds: 55 bat passes/night; vineyards: 14 bat passes/night). All seven retention ponds (0.1–1.3 ha) had bankside vegetation. At each of seven sites, bat activity was recorded using bat detectors and thermal infrared imaging cameras simultaneously at the pond and at a vineyard site 80 m away for 8–9 full nights in June–August 2009.

(Summarised by Anna Berthinussen)