Study

Performance of artificial maternity bat roost structures near Bath, UK

  • Published source details Garland L., Wells M. & Markham S. (2017) Performance of artificial maternity bat roost structures near Bath, UK. Conservation Evidence, 14, 44-51.

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Create alternative bat roosts within developments

Action Link
Bat Conservation

Create alternative bat roosts within developments

Action Link
Bat Conservation

Provide bat boxes for roosting bats

Action Link
Bat Conservation
  1. Create alternative bat roosts within developments

    A before-and-after study in 2010–2017 of one residential building development in the Cotswold Hills, UK (Garland et al 2017) found that a purpose-built bat house was used by a brown long-eared bat Plecotus auritus maternity colony after the original roost in a farmhouse loft was demolished. In 2010 (the year before demolition), the original roost was used by 8–12 bats. In 2013 (two years after construction), 20–22 bats were recorded in the new bat house, although no juveniles were counted, and numbers were lower in 2014–2017 (range 1–11 bats). Small numbers of common pipistrelle bats Pipistrellus pipistrellus were also observed using roost features on the bat house (data not reported). The bat house was constructed in an ‘L-shape’ 30 m from the original roost and included features such as bat tiles, ridge beam access points, wall-integrated bat boxes (Schwegler design 2FR), hanging tiles, and wall mounted climber planting. The original roost was demolished in late winter 2010 and the bat house was completed in early spring 2011. Surveys were carried out every year in 2010–2017 including daytime inspections and evening emergence counts on 1–3 separate occasions/year.

    (Summarised by: Anna Berthinussen)

  2. Create alternative bat roosts within developments

    A before-and-after study in 2010–2017 of one residential building development in the Cotswold Hills, UK (Garland et al 2017) found that a purpose-built bat wall was not used by a common pipistrelle Pipistrellus pipistrellus maternity colony six years after the original roost in a stone cottage wall was demolished. In 2010 (the year before demolition), the original roost was used by >76 bats. During the six years after construction, the new bat wall was used by low numbers of individual bats (0–3 bats/year) and was not used as a maternity roost. The bat wall was constructed on the east-facing gable wall of an existing hay barn 30 m from the original roost. It included multiple stone crevices leading to internal cavities and five wall-integrated bat boxes (Schwegler design 1FR). The original roost was demolished in late winter 2010 and the bat wall was completed in early spring 2011. Surveys were carried out every year in 2010–2017 including daytime inspections and evening emergence counts on 1–3 separate occasions/year.

    (Summarised by: Anna Berthinussen)

  3. Provide bat boxes for roosting bats

    A before-and-after study in 2010–2017 of a residential building development in the Cotswold Hills, UK (Garland et al 2017) found that five wall-integrated bat boxes were not used by a common pipistrelle Pipistrellus pipistrellus maternity colony six years after the original roost in a stone cottage wall was demolished. In 2010 (the year before demolition), the original roost was used by >76 bats. During the six years after construction, the bat boxes were used by low numbers of individual bats (0–3 bats/year) and were not used as a maternity roost. The five bat boxes (Schwegler design 1FR) were integrated within a purpose-built bat wall constructed on the east-facing gable end of an existing hay barn 30 m from the original roost. The bat wall also had multiple stone crevices leading to internal cavities. The original roost was demolished in late winter 2010 and the bat wall was completed in early spring 2011. Surveys were carried out every year in 2010–2017 including daytime inspections and evening emergence counts on 1–3 separate occasions/year.

    (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