Control invasive plant species

Overall effectiveness category Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)
Number of studies: 1
Share Tweet Email

View assessment score

How is the evidence assessed?

Effectiveness

20%
Certainty

10%
Harms

0%

Calculating overall effectiveness category

Background information and definitions

Invasive plant species can threaten native biodiversity and alter bat foraging habitats such as forest and woodland. For example, invasive tree and vine species have caused the deterioration of foraging habitat of the Seychelles sheath-tailed bat Coleura seychellensis and have been found to obstruct roost entrances (Gerlach 2009).

Gerlach, J. (2009) Conservation of the Seychelles sheath-tailed bat Coleura seychellensis on Silhouette Island, Seychelles. Endangered Species Research, 8, 5–13.

Study locations

Key messages

One study evaluated the effects of controlling invasive plant species on bat populations. The study was in the USA.

COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY)

Abundance (1 study): One site comparison study in the USA found that two of seven forest fragments where invasive plant species had been removed alongside other restoration practices had significantly higher bat activity (relative abundance) than two unrestored forest fragments.

BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)

About key messages

Key messages provide a descriptive index to studies we have found that test this intervention.

Studies are not directly comparable or of equal value. When making decisions based on this evidence, you should consider factors such as study size, study design, reported metrics and relevance of the study to your situation, rather than simply counting the number of studies that support a particular interpretation.

Supporting evidence from individual studies

A site comparison study in 2004–2005 in nine forest fragments within the Chicago metropolitan area, USA (Smith & Gehrt 2010) found that two of seven forest fragments that had undergone restoration, including invasive plant species removal, had higher bat activity than two unrestored forest fragments. Bat activity was higher in two forest fragments that had been restored with invasive plant species removal, multiple prescribed burns, and snag recruitment (average 7–19 bat passes/survey) than in two control sites with no restoration (average 1–4 bat passes/survey). Bat activity was similar between control sites and five other forest fragments that had been restored with various combinations of invasive plant species removal, multiple prescribed burns, snag recruitment and deer population control (1–6 bat passes/survey). Six bat species were recorded in total (see original paper for data for individual species). The study does not distinguish between the effects of invasive plant species removal and the other interventions carried out. Fire suppression over the last 100 years had altered the structure of the nine forest fragments (10–260 ha in size). Seven of the nine forest fragments were being restored to open the canopy, reduce tree density and remove invasive plant species. At each of nine sites, four bat detectors recorded bat activity for 4 h from sunset for five nights/year in June–September 2004 and May–August 2005.
Study and other actions tested
Referenced paper
Smith D.A. & Gehrt S.D. (2010) Bat response to woodland restoration within urban forest fragments. Restoration Ecology, 18, 914-923.

Please cite as:

Berthinussen, A., Richardson O.C. and Altringham J.D. (2021) Bat Conservation: Global Evidence for the Effects of Interventions. Conservation Evidence Series Synopses. University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.

Where has this evidence come from?

List of journals searched by synopsis

All the journals searched for all synopses

This Action forms part of the Action Synopsis:

Bat Conservation

Related Actions

Actions	Effectiveness	Studies	Category
Control invasive plant species Action Link	Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)	1	Synopsis Link
Control invasive predators Action Link	Likely to be beneficial	1	Synopsis Link
Control invasive non-predatory competitors Action Link	No evidence found (no assessment)	0	Synopsis Link