Retain riparian buffers on agricultural land

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

View assessment score

How is the evidence assessed?

Effectiveness

40%
Certainty

20%
Harms

0%

Calculating overall effectiveness category

Background information and definitions

This intervention involves retaining buffers of woodland, forest or other vegetation along streams and rivers (riparian buffers or corridors) in agricultural areas. This may provide foraging and roosting opportunities for bats and maintain connectivity in disturbed landscapes.

To be included as evidence for this intervention, studies must have monitored a comparison, i.e. compared agricultural areas where riparian buffers have been kept intact with similar/nearby areas where riparian vegetation has been cut down or otherwise degraded. There must have been an active decision (i.e. intervention) to retain the riparian buffer and the study must state when the intervention was carried out.

For a similar intervention relevant to logging, see ‘Retain riparian buffers in logged areas’. For an intervention that involves planting riparian buffers to reduce pollution, see ‘Plant riparian buffer strips’.

Study locations

Key messages

One study evaluated the effects of retaining riparian buffers on agricultural land on bat populations. The study was in the UK.

COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY)

Abundance (1 study): One replicated, paired sites study in the UKfound that pipistrelle activity (relative abundance) did not differ along waterways with buffers of vegetation on agri-environment scheme farms and waterways on conventional farms.

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 replicated, paired sites study in 2008 on 17 pairs of farms in Scotland, UK (Fuentes-Montemayor et al 2011) found that buffer strips along waterways on agri-environment scheme farms had similar activity of Pipistrellus species as the edges of waterways on conventional farms. The activity of common pipistrelles Pipistrellus pipistrellus and soprano pipistrelles Pipistrellus pygmaeus was similar along waterways with buffer strips and conventionally managed waterways (data reported as statistical model results). On agri-environment scheme farms, waterways had buffers with tall, waterside vegetation and restrictions on fertiliser, pesticides, mowing and grazing. Each of 17 waterways with buffers on agri-environment scheme farms was paired with 17 waterways on conventional farms with similar farming activities and surrounding habitats. No details were reported about waterway edges on conventional farms. Each of 13 pairs of farms was sampled once on the same night in June–September 2008. On each of 26 farms, bat activity was recorded continuously from 45 minutes after sunset using bat detectors along transects 2.5–3.7 km in length.
Study and other actions tested
Referenced paper
Fuentes-Montemayor E., Goulson D. & Park K. (2011) Pipistrelle bats and their prey do not benefit from four widely applied agri-environment management prescriptions. Biological Conservation, 144, 2233-2246.

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
Pay farmers to cover the costs of conservation measures (e.g. agri-environment schemes) Action Link	Unlikely to be beneficial	3	Synopsis Link
Plant in-field trees Action Link	No evidence found (no assessment)	0	Synopsis Link
Plant field margins with a diverse mix of plant species Action Link	Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)	1	Synopsis Link