Action

Action Synopsis: Bat Conservation About Actions

Retain riparian buffers in logged areas

How is the evidence assessed?
  • Effectiveness
    35%
  • Certainty
    24%
  • Harms
    0%

Source countries

Key messages

  • Two studies evaluated the effects of retaining riparian buffers in logged areas on bat populations. The two studies were in Australia.

COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY)

  • Richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in Australia found a similar number of bat species in riparian buffers within logged forest, regrowth forest and mature forest.

POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY)

USAGE (1 STUDY)     

  • Use (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in Australia found that southern forest bats roosted less often in riparian buffers in logged forest than in unlogged forest, but Gould’s long-eared bats had a similar number of roosts in riparian buffers in logged forest, remnant trees in logged areas and unlogged forest.

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, site comparison study in 2003 of 60 forest sites in New South Wales, Australia (Lloyd et al 2006) found that riparian buffers in logged forest had similar overall bat activity and number of bat species as riparian buffers in regrowth forest and mature forest, but one bat species was three times more active in riparian corridors than in mature forest. There was no significant difference in total bat activity or the number of bat species recorded in riparian buffers in logged forest (average 1.9 bat passes/hour, 0.3 species/hour), riparian buffers in regrowth forest (1.5 bat passes/hour, 0.3 species/hour) or mature forest (1.4 bat passes/hour and 0.4 species/hour). One bat species, the eastern forest bat Vespadelus pumilus, was three times more active in riparian buffers in logged forest than in mature forest (data not reported). Five replicates of four sizes of stream () were sampled for three treatments: riparian buffers (10–50 m minimum width) in logged areas (thinned and/or selectively logged in the last six years), riparian buffers in regrowth forest (logged 15–30 years ago), and mature forest (undisturbed for >50 years). At each of 60 sites, bat activity was recorded for two consecutive nights in January–April 2003.

    Study and other actions tested
  2. A replicated, site comparison study in 2009 of 21 radiotracked bats in jarrah Eucalyptus marginata forest in south western Australia (Webala et al 2010), found that riparian buffers in logged areas had more roosts of southern forest bats Vespadelus regulus than shelterwood or gap release logged forest, but Gould’s long-eared bats Nyctophilus gouldi had a similar number of roosts in riparian buffers and shelterwood logged forest and fewer roosts in gap release logged forest. More southern forest bat roosts were in riparian buffers (five roosts, 24%) than in shelterwood or gap release logged forest (one roost, 5% in shelterwood; no roosts in gap release). A similar number of Gould’s long-eared bat roosts were in riparian buffers (eight roosts, 30%) and shelterwood logged forest (10 roosts, 37%), but fewer roosts were in gap release logged forest (one roost, 4%). Riparian buffers had been undisturbed for >30 years. Shelterwood forest had retention levels of 40–60%. Gap release forest had 95% of the mature overstory removed. Eleven Gould’s long-eared bats and 10 southern forest bats were caught with harp traps at two water holes and radiotracked for 3–8 days in February–March 2009.

    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