Action Synopsis: Bat Conservation About Actions

Restrict timing of timber treatment application

How is the evidence assessed?
  • Effectiveness
  • Certainty
  • Harms

Source countries

Key messages

  • One study evaluated the effects of restricting the timing of timber treatment application on bat populations. The study was in the UK.



  • Survival (1 study): One replicated, controlled laboratory study in the UK found that treating timber with lindane and pentachlorophenol 14 months prior to exposure by bats increased survival but did not prevent death.


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

  1. A replicated, controlled study in 1982–1984 in a laboratory in northeast Scotland, UK (Racey & Swift 1986) found that treating cages with a commercial remedial timber treatment 14 months prior to exposure by common pipistrelle bats Pipistrellus pipistrellus resulted in bats surviving for longer than when cages were treated six weeks before exposure, but all bats still died.  Bats survived longer in cages that had been treated 14 months previously (average 15 days) than cages treated six weeks previously (average four days), but all bats still died within 23 days of exposure. Female common pipistrelle bats were caught at nursery roosts and 10–14 bats were used in each of two trials. Experimental and control cages (40 x 20 x 20 cm) were made from steel or zinc and lined with plywood. Experimental cages were treated with timber treatment (1% w/v lindane and 5% w/v pentachlorophenol in an organic solvent) either 14 months or six weeks before the experiments. Control cages were left untreated. All cages were kept in unheated rooms with constant conditions, and bats were inspected daily for 113–120 days during summer in 1982–1984.

    Study and other actions tested
Please cite as:

Berthinussen, A., Richardson O.C. and Altringham J.D. (2019) Bat Conservation: Global Evidence for the Effects of Interventions. Synopses of Conservation Evidence Series. University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.


Where has this evidence come from?

List of journals searched by synopsis

All the journals searched for all synopses

Bat Conservation

This Action forms part of the Action Synopsis:

Bat Conservation
What Works in Conservation

What Works in Conservation

What Works in Conservation assesses the research looking at whether interventions are beneficial or not. It is based on summarised evidence in synopses, on topics such as amphibians, bats, biodiversity in European farmland, and control of freshwater invasive species. More are available and in progress.

More about What Works in Conservation

Download free PDF or purchase
Our Journal: Conservation Evidence

Our Journal:
Conservation Evidence

A unique, free to publish open-access journal publishing research and case studies that measure the effects of conservation actions.

Read latest volume: Volume 16

Special issues: Amphibian special issue

Go to the Journal

Subscribe to our newsletter

Please add your details if you are interested in receiving updates from the Conservation Evidence team about new papers, synopses and opportunities.

Who uses Conservation Evidence?

Meet the evidence champions

Endangered Landscape Programme Red List Champion - Arc Kent Wildlife Trust The Rufford Foundation Save the Frogs - Ghana Bern wood Supporting Conservation Leaders National Biodiversity Network Sustainability Dashboard Frog Life The international journey of Conservation - Oryx British trust for ornithology Cool Farm Alliance UNEP AWFA Butterfly Conservation People trust for endangered species Vincet Wildlife Trust