Action

Action Synopsis: Bat Conservation About Actions

Retain existing in-field trees

How is the evidence assessed?
  • Effectiveness
    50%
  • Certainty
    30%
  • Harms
    0%

Source countries

Key messages

  • Two studies evaluated the effects of retaining existing in-field trees on bat populations. Both studies were in Australia.

COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY)

POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES)

USAGE (0 STUDIES)

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 study in 2002 of 24 agricultural sites in southeastern Australia (Lumsden & Bennett 2005) found that paddocks with scattered trees had higher activity for four bat species than paddocks without trees, but no difference was found for six other bat species/species groups. Average bat activity was significantly higher in paddocks with high, moderate and low densities of scattered trees than treeless paddocks for Gould’s wattled bat Chalinolobus gouldii (scattered trees: 6–7 bat passes; treeless paddocks: 1 bat pass), chocolate wattled bat Chalinolobus morio (scattered trees: 2–4 bat passes; treeless paddocks: 0.3 bat passes), and little forest bat Vespadelus vulturnus (scattered trees: 14–36 bat passes; treeless paddocks: 2 bat passes). For the western broad-nosed bat Scotorepens balstoni, the difference was only significant between paddocks with a high density of scattered trees (average 1 bat pass) and treeless paddocks (average 0.1 bat passes). There was no significant difference between paddocks with scattered trees and treeless paddocks for the activity of six other bat species or species groups (see the original reference for detailed results for each species). Two sites were sampled in three different study areas for treeless paddocks and for each of three densities of scattered trees (high: 10–34 trees/ha; moderate: 1–9 trees/ha; low: <1 tree/ha). Each of 24 sites was sampled with a bat detector for four nights in January–April 2002.

    Study and other actions tested
  2. A replicated, site comparison study in 2007–2008 at 63 agricultural sites in New South Wales, Australia (Fischer et al 2010) found that grazed pasture with scattered trees had higher bat activity and more bat species than grazed pasture without trees. Overall bat activity was higher at sites with 1–2 trees (average 40 bat passes/night), 3–5 trees (average 330 bat passes/night) and >6 trees (average 95–380 bat passes/night) than at treeless sites (average 2 bat passes/night). More bat species were recorded at sites with 1–2 trees (5 species), 3–5 trees (7 species) and >6 trees (6–8 species) than at treeless sites (2 species). All of 63 sites (2 ha) were in grazed pasture with no trees or scattered trees (either 1–2, 3–5 or >6 trees/site). The number of sites for each treatment are not reported. Each of 63 sites was surveyed with two bat detectors on four nights in November–December 2007/2008 and in February–March 2008.

    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