Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install underpasses or culverts as road/railway crossing structures for bats Eight studies evaluated the effects of installing underpasses or culverts as road crossing structures for bats. Seven studies were in Europe and one in Australia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (8 STUDIES)      Use (8 studies): Eight studies (including six replicated studies) in Germany, Ireland, the UK, Australia and France found that bats used underpasses and culverts below roads, and crossed over the roads above them, in varying proportions. One replicated, site comparison study in Australia found that bat species adapted to cluttered habitats used small culverts and underpasses more than bat species adapted to open or edge habitats. One replicated, site comparison study in France found that the use of underpasses by five bat species was influenced by underpass type and height, road width, and the amount of forest and hedgerows in the surrounding landscape. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F976https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F976Fri, 20 Dec 2013 14:08:31 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install overpasses as road/railway crossing structures for bats Four studies evaluated the effects of installing overpasses as road crossing structures for bats. Three studies were in Europe and one in Australia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Richness/diversity (1 study): One site comparison study in Australia found that the same number of bat species were recorded at an overpass and in nearby forest and bushland. POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (3 STUDIES)      Use (3 studies): Two replicated studies (including one site comparison) in Ireland and France found that two or three bat species/species groups used overpasses but up to three-quarters of bats crossed the road below at traffic height or crossed at other nearby locations. One study in the UK found that an overpass with planters was used by two-thirds of crossing bats, and an unvegetated overpass with a paved road over it was not used by crossing bats. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F977https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F977Fri, 20 Dec 2013 14:10:25 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install bat gantries or bat bridges as road/railway crossing structures for bats Three studies evaluated the effects of installing bat gantries as road crossing structures for bats. Two studies were in the UK and one in France. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (3 STUDIES)      Use (3 studies): Two replicated studies (including one site comparison) in the UK found that fewer bats used bat gantries than crossed the road below at traffic height, and one bat gantry was not used at all. One replicated study in France found that a temporary bat gantry was used by three bat species/species groups, but almost half of crossing bats flew over the road at other locations. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F978https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F978Fri, 20 Dec 2013 14:12:20 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install green bridges as road/railway crossing structures for bats One study evaluated the effects of installing green bridges as road crossing structures for bats. The study was in the UK. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY)      Use (1 study): One study in the UK found that a green bridge was used by 97% of bats crossing a road. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F979https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F979Fri, 20 Dec 2013 14:13:21 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install hop-overs as road/railway crossing structures for bats We found no studies that evaluated the effects of hop-overs as road/railway crossing structures for bats 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%2F980https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F980Fri, 20 Dec 2013 14:14:29 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Divert bats to safe crossing points over or under roads/railways with plantings or fencing One study evaluated the effects of diverting bats using an artificial hedgerow on bat populations. The study was in Switzerland. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY)      Use (1 study): One controlled, before-and-after study in Switzerland found that up to one fifth of lesser horseshoe bats within a colony flew along an artificial hedgerow to commute. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F981https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F981Fri, 20 Dec 2013 14:16:34 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Deter bats from roads/railways using lighting We found no studies that evaluated the effects of deterring bats from roads/railways using lighting 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%2F982https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F982Fri, 20 Dec 2013 14:27:40 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Replace or improve habitat for bats around roads/railways We found no studies that evaluated the effects of replacing or improving habitat around roads/railways 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%2F983https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F983Fri, 20 Dec 2013 14:28:33 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Maintain bat roosts in road/railway bridges and culverts Two studies evaluated the effects of maintaining bat roosts within road bridges on bat populations. One study was in Ireland and one in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (2 STUDIES)      Use (2 studies): One before-and-after study in Ireland found that a maternity colony of Daubenton’s bats continued to roost in a road bridge over a river in similar numbers after crevices were retained during repair work. One review in the USA found that when bat roosts were maintained during bridge replacement works, Yuma myotis and Mexican free-tailed bats recolonised most roosts in similar numbers to before the works, but pallid bats did not return. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1966https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1966Tue, 04 Dec 2018 18:03:09 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create spaces for roosting bats in road/railway bridges and culverts One study evaluated the effects of creating spaces for roosting bats in road bridges. The study was in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY)         Use (1 study): One review in the USA found that spaces created in road bridges for roosting bats to replace those lost during bridge works were recolonized by bats in similar or greater numbers to the original roosts at four of eight sites. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1967https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1967Tue, 04 Dec 2018 18:07:53 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Deter bats from roads/railways using ultrasound We found no studies that evaluated the effects of deterring bats from roads/railways using ultrasound 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%2F1968https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1968Tue, 04 Dec 2018 18:10:24 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Minimize road lighting to reduce insect attraction We found no studies that evaluated the effects of minimizing road lighting to reduce insect attraction 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%2F1969https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1969Tue, 04 Dec 2018 18:13:16 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Avoid planting fruit trees alongside roads/railways in areas with fruit bats We found no studies that evaluated the effects of avoiding planting fruit trees alongside roads/railways in areas with fruit bats 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%2F1970https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1970Tue, 04 Dec 2018 18:13:59 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Change timing of maintenance work at road/railway bridges and culverts We found no studies that evaluated the effects of changing the timing of maintenance work at road/railway bridges and culverts 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%2F2940https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2940Fri, 12 Feb 2021 17:47:15 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Exclude bats from roosts during maintenance work at road/railway bridges and culverts We found no studies that evaluated the effects of excluding bats from roosts during maintenance work at road/railway bridges and culverts 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%2F2941https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2941Fri, 12 Feb 2021 17:48:45 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide alternative bat roosts during maintenance work at road/railway bridges and culverts One study evaluated the effects of providing alternative bat roosts during maintenance work at road bridges. The study was in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY)         Use (1 study): One review in the USA found that bat houses provided as alternative roosts during bridge replacement works were used by fewer Mexican free-tailed bats than the original roost at one site and were not used by bats at all at three sites. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2942https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2942Fri, 12 Feb 2021 17:51:31 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Replace or improve roosting habitat for bats along utility and service line corridors We found no studies that evaluated the effects of replacing or improving roosting habitat for bats along utility and service line corridors 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%2F2943https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2943Fri, 12 Feb 2021 17:56:27 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Manage vegetation along utility and service line corridors to increase foraging habitat for bats We found no studies that evaluated the effects of managing vegetation along utility and service line corridors to increase forgaing habitat for bats 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%2F2944https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2944Fri, 12 Feb 2021 17:57:07 +0000
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 21

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 ProgrammeRed List Champion - Arc Kent Wildlife Trust The Rufford Foundation Save the Frogs - Ghana Mauritian Wildlife Supporting Conservation Leaders
Sustainability Dashboard National Biodiversity Network Frog Life The international journey of Conservation - Oryx Cool Farm Alliance UNEP AWFA Bat Conservation InternationalPeople trust for endangered species Vincet Wildlife Trust
For a full list of, and information about, our champions:
All Evidence Champions
About our champions, why and how to become one:
Become an Evidence Champion

This website uses Cookies

We use limited Cookies to run the site and to analyse our traffic (none for site vendors). By using this site, you will be providing your consent to our use of Cookies.

Accept & continue