Study

Bat response to woodland restoration within urban forest fragments

  • Published source details Smith D.A. & Gehrt S.D. (2010) Bat response to woodland restoration within urban forest fragments. Restoration Ecology, 18, 914-923.

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Control invasive plant species

Action Link
Bat Conservation

Create or restore bat foraging habitat in urban areas

Action Link
Bat Conservation

Use prescribed burning

Action Link
Bat Conservation
  1. Control invasive plant species

    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.

    (Summarised by: Anna Berthinussen)

  2. Create or restore bat foraging habitat in urban areas

    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 restored forest fragments had higher bat activity than two unrestored forest fragments. Bat activity was higher in two forest fragments that had been restored with multiple prescribed burns, invasive plant species removal 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 multiple prescribed burns and various combinations of invasive species removal, 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). 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.

    (Summarised by: Anna Berthinussen)

  3. Use prescribed burning

    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 restortation, including prescribed burning, had higher bat activity than two unrestored forest fragments. Bat activity was higher in two forest fragments that had been restored with multiple prescribed burns, invasive plant species removal 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 multiple prescribed burns and various combinations of invasive species removal, 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 prescribed burning 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 up 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.

    (Summarised by: Anna Berthinussen)

Output references
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