Study

Welsh assembly government contract 183/2007/08 to undertake agri-environment monitoring and services. Lot 2 – species monitoring. Final report: October 2012

  • Published source details MacDonald M.A., Morris A.J., Dodd S., Johnstone I., Beresford A., Angell R., Haysom K., Langton S., Tordoff G., Brereton T., Hobson R., Shellswell C., Hutchinson N., Dines T., Wilberforce E.M., Parry R. & Matthews V. (2012) Welsh assembly government contract 183/2007/08 to undertake agri-environment monitoring and services. Lot 2 – species monitoring. Final report: October 2012.

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Legally protect bat habitats

Action Link
Bat Conservation

Use organic farming instead of conventional farming

Action Link
Bat Conservation
  1. Legally protect bat habitats

    A replicated, site comparison study in 2009–2012 of 80 rivers on farms in Wales, UK (MacDonald et al 2012) found that rivers in protected areas had higher activity of Daubenton’s bats Myotis daubentonii than rivers in unprotected areas, but the activity of soprano pipistrelles Pipistrellus pygmaeus did not differ between protected and unprotected areas. The average number of bat passes/year for Daubenton’s bats was higher over rivers in protected areas on both agri-environment farms (2.3 bat passes) and conventional farms (3.3 bat passes) than rivers in unprotected areas on agri-environment scheme farms (1.6 bat passes) and conventional farms (2.3 bat passes). A similar number of bat passes/year were recorded over rivers in protected and unprotected areas for soprano pipistrelles (data not reported). Surveys were carried out at 46 protected rivers (26 on agri-environment scheme farms, 20 on conventional farms) and 34 unprotected rivers (14 on agri-environment scheme farms, 20 20 on conventional farms). Protected areas were designated as Sites of Special Scientific Interest. No details were reported about the origin of the rivers; water may have originated from outside the protected area. One transect was carried out along each river in August and September in 2009, 2010 and 2011.

    (Summarised by: Anna Berthinussen)

  2. Use organic farming instead of conventional farming

    A replicated, site comparison study in 2009–2011 of 5–13 organic and 10–30 non-organic farms in Wales, UK (MacDonald et al 2012) found that rivers on organic farms had higher activity of Daubenton’s bats Myotis daubentonii than rivers on non-organic farms, but the activity of five other bat species in fields and along hedgerows did not differ between organic and non-organic farms. The average number of bat passes for Daubenton’s bats was higher over rivers on organic farms than non-organic farms (data reported as statistical model results). However, a similar number of bat passes/year were recorded on organic and non-organic farms for common pipistrelles Pipistrellus pipistrellus, soprano pipistrelles Pipistrellus pygmaeus, common noctules Nyctalus noctula, greater horseshoe bats Rhinolophus ferrumequinum and lesser horseshoe bats Rhinolophus hipposideros (data reported as statistical model results). Organic farms were part of an organic farming scheme. The number of farms included in the analysis varied for each bat species from 5–13 for organic and 10–30 for non-organic farms. Some farms (organic and non-organic) were also part of agri-environment schemes. No details were reported about the origin of the rivers; water may have originated from outside of the farms. Transects or static detector surveys were carried out at each farm once or twice/year between June and September in 2009, 2010 and 2011.

    (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