Conservation Evidence: Evidence Data

Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Relocate access points to bat roosts within developments Two studies evaluated the effects of relocating access points to bat roosts within building developments on bat populations. One study was in Ireland and one in the UK. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (2 STUDIES) Use (2 studies): One before-and-after study in Ireland found that fewer brown long-eared bats used a roost after the access points were relocated, and no bats were observed flying through them. One before-and-after study in the UK found that few lesser horseshoe bats used an alternative access point with a ‘bend’ design to re-enter a roost in a building development, but the number of bats using the roost increased after an access point with a ‘straight’ design was installed. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F946https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F946Tue, 10 Dec 2013 13:55:15 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Retain existing bat roosts and access points within developments Three studies evaluated the effects of retaining existing bat roosts and access points within developments on bat populations. Two studies were in the UK and one was in Ireland. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (3 STUDIES) Use (3 studies): One before-and-after study in Ireland found similar numbers of brown long-eared bats roosting within an attic after existing access points were retained during renovations. One replicated, before-and-after study in the UK found that four of nine bat roosts retained within developments were used as maternity colonies, in two cases by similar or greater numbers of bats after development had taken place. One review in the UK found that bats used two-thirds of retained and modified bat roosts after development, and retained roosts were more likely to be used than newly created roosts. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F947https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F947Tue, 10 Dec 2013 14:08:36 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create alternative bat roosts within developments Eleven studies evaluated the effects of creating alternative bat roosts within developments on bat populations. Nine studies were in Europe and two were in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (11 STUDIES) Use: (11 studies): Two replicated studies in the USA and UK found that bats did not use any of the alternative roosts provided in bat houses or a purpose-built bat wall after exclusion from buildings. Three studies (two replicated) in the USA and UK and one review in the UK found that bat boxes or bat lofts/barns were used by bats at 13–74% of development sites, and bat lofts/barns were used by maternity colonies at one of 19 development sites. Three of five before-and-after studies in Portugal, Ireland, Spain and the UK found that bat colonies used purpose-built roosts in higher or similar numbers after the original roosts were destroyed. The other two studies found that bats used purpose-built roosts in lower numbers than the original roost. One review in the UK found that new bat boxes/lofts built to replace destroyed roosts were four times less likely to be used by returning bats than roosts retained during development. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F949https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F949Fri, 20 Dec 2013 09:21:55 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Change timing of building work One study evaluated the effects of changing the timing of building work on bat populations. The study was in Ireland. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Use (1 study): One before-and-after study in Ireland found that carrying out roofing work outside of the bat maternity season, along with retaining bat access points, resulted in a similar number of brown long-eared bats continuing to use a roost within an attic. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F950https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F950Fri, 20 Dec 2013 09:23:40 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Protect brownfield or ex-industrial sites One study evaluated the effects of protecting brownfield or ex-industrial sites on bat populations. The study as in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Richness/diversity (1 study): One study in the USA found that five bat species were recorded within a protected urban wildlife refuge on an abandoned manufacturing site. POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F953https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F953Fri, 20 Dec 2013 09:36:12 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create or restore bat foraging habitat in urban areas Three studies evaluated the effects of creating or restoring bat foraging habitat in urban areas on bat populations. One study in each of the UK and USA evaluated green roofs and one study in the USA evaluated restored forest fragments. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, controlled, site comparison study in the USA found no difference in species richness over green roofs and conventional unvegetated roofs. POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Abundance (3 studies): One site comparison study in the USA found higher bat activity (relative abundance) in two of seven restored forest fragments in urban areas than in two unrestored forest fragments. One replicated, controlled, site comparison study in the UK found greater bat activity over ‘biodiverse’ green roofs than conventional unvegetated roofs, but not over ‘sedum’ green roofs. One replicated, controlled, site comparison study in the USA found greater bat activity for three of five bat species over green roofs than over conventional unvegetated roofs. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F954https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F954Fri, 20 Dec 2013 09:44:25 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install sound-proofing insulation between bat roosts and areas occupied by humans within developments We found no studies that evaluated the effects of installing sound-proofing insulation between bat roosts and areas occupied by humans within developments on bat populations. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1929https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1929Fri, 30 Nov 2018 13:47:18 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Exclude bats from roosts during building work One study evaluated the effects of excluding bats from roosts during building work on bat populations. The study was in the UK. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Behaviour change (1 study): One replicated, before-and-after study in the UK found that excluding bats from roosts within buildings did not change roost switching frequency, core foraging areas or foraging preferences of soprano pipistrelle colonies. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1930https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1930Fri, 30 Nov 2018 14:28:45 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Educate homeowners about building and planning laws relating to bats to reduce disturbance to bat roosts We found no studies that evaluated the effects of educating homeowners and planning authorities about building and planning laws relating to bats to reduce disturbance to bat roosts. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1931https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1931Fri, 30 Nov 2018 14:34:44 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Plant gardens with night-scented flowers We found no studies that evaluated the effects of planting gardens with night-scented flowers on bat populations. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1932https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1932Fri, 30 Nov 2018 14:35:41 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Increase semi-natural habitat within gardens We found no studies that evaluated the effects of increasing the amount of semi-natural habitat within gardens on bat populations. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1933https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1933Fri, 30 Nov 2018 14:36:32 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Protect greenfield sites or undeveloped land in urban areas We found no studies that evaluated the effects of protecting greenfield sites or undeveloped land in urban areas on bat populations. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1934https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1934Fri, 30 Nov 2018 14:43:33 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Legally protect bats during development Four studies evaluated the effects of legally protecting bats by issuing licences during development on bat populations. The four studies were in the UK. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (2 STUDIES) Change in human behaviour (2 studies): One review in the UK found that the number of development licences for bats more than doubled over three years in Scotland. One review in the UK found that 81% of licensees did not carry out post-development monitoring to assess whether bats used the roost structures installed. OTHER (3 STUDIES) Impact on bat roost sites (3 studies): One review in the UK found that licenced activities during building developments had a negative impact on bat roosts, with 68% of roosts being destroyed. One replicated, before-and-after study in the UK found that five of 28 compensation roosts provided under licence were used, and two by similar or greater numbers of bats after development. One review in the UK found that 31–67% of compensation roosts provided under licence were used by bats. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1935https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1935Fri, 30 Nov 2018 14:50:33 +0000