Change effluent treatments of domestic and urban waste water

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

View assessment score

How is the evidence assessed?

Effectiveness

25%
Certainty

20%
Harms

0%

Calculating overall effectiveness category

Background information and definitions

Organic pollution occurs when treated sewage effluents containing organic compounds are discharged into rivers affecting plant growth and the number and diversity of insects. Riparian habitats are important for foraging bats and changes in water quality may have positive effects on foraging activity for some species, and negative effects for others (Vaughan et al. 1996, Kalcounis-Rüppell et al. 2007, Abbott et al. 2009).

We found evidence that filter sewage bed treatment works can provide foraging habitat for bats. However, the results should be treated with caution as a subsequent study found that insects above these filter beds were contaminated with endocrine disrupting chemicals that may have adverse effects on bats feeding on them (Park et al. 2009).

Abbott I.M., Sleeman D.P. & Harrison S. (2009) Bat activity affected by sewage effluent in Irish rivers. Biological Conservation, 142, 2904–2914.

Kalcounis-Rüppell M.C., Payne V., Huff S.R. & Boyko A. (2007) Effects of wastewater treatment plant effluent on bat foraging ecology in an urban stream system. Biological Conservation, 138, 120–130.

Park K.J., Müller C.T., Markman S., Swinscow-Hall O., Pascoe D. & Buchanan K.L. (2009) Detection of endocrine disrupting chemicals in aerial invertebrates at sewage treatment works. Chemosphere, 77, 1459–1464.

Vaughan N., Jones G. & Harris S. (1996) Effects of sewage effluent on the activity of bats (Chiroptera: Vespertilionidae) foraging along rivers. Biological Conservation, 78, 337–343.

Study locations

Key messages

One study evaluated the effects of different sewage treatments on the activity of foraging bats. The study was in the UK. We found no studies that evaluated the effects of changing effluent treatments of domestic and urban waste water discharged into rivers on bat populations.

COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY)

Abundance (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the UK found higher activity (relative abundance) of foraging bats over filter bed sewage treatment works than over active sludge systems.

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, site comparison study in 2003 at 30 sewage treatment works and in central and southern Scotland, UK (Park & Cristinacce 2006) found that percolating filter beds had higher activity of Pipistrellus spp. over them than activated sludge systems, and activity over filter beds was similar to that along nearby river banks. The number of Pipistrellus spp. bat passes recorded over percolating filter beds (54) was higher than over activated sludge systems (9). Activity of Pipistrellus spp. over filter beds (average 15 bat passes/site) was also similar to that along nearby river banks (23 bat passes/site), whereas activity over activated sludge sites (3 bat passes/site) was lower than along nearby river banks (18 bat passes/site). At filter beds, waste water is sprayed over inert filter material creating a microbial film which supports high insect numbers. In activated sludge systems, sewage and bacterial sludge are mixed creating an unfavourable habitat for insects. At each of 30 sites (18 filter bed, 12 activated sludge), bat activity was recorded with bat detectors at three points/site for 15 minutes each after dusk in June–August 2003. At each of 23 sites (15 filter bed, 8 activated sludge), recordings were also made at two points on the river bank 50 and 75 m upstream from the sewage treatment works.
Study and other actions tested
Referenced paper
Park K.J. & Cristinacce A. (2006) Use of sewage treatment works as foraging sites by insectivorous bats. Animal Conservation, 9, 259-268.

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
Prevent pollution from sewage treatment facilities from entering watercourses Action Link	No evidence found (no assessment)	0	Synopsis Link
Reduce or prevent the use of septic systems near caves Action Link	No evidence found (no assessment)	0	Synopsis Link
Change effluent treatments of domestic and urban waste water Action Link	Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)	1	Synopsis Link