Action

Action Synopsis: Bat Conservation About Actions

Create or maintain small dams to provide foraging and drinking habitat for bats

How is the evidence assessed?
  • Effectiveness
    51%
  • Certainty
    20%
  • Harms
    0%

Source countries

Key messages

  • One study evaluated the effects of maintaining small dams as foraging and drinking habitat for bats on bat populations. The study was in Portugal.

COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY)

  • Abundance (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in Portugal found that reservoirs created using small dams had greater activity (relative abundance) of four bat species than the streams feeding into them.

BEHAVIOUR (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, site comparison study in 2011 at five dams in northeast Portugal (Hintze et al. 2016) found that dam reservoirs had greater foraging and drinking activity of four bat species than the streams feeding into them. The bat species were common pipistrelle Pipistrellus pipistrellus, Kuhl’s pipistrelle Pipistrellus kuhlii, Daubenton’s bat Myotis daubentonii and European free-tailed bat Tadarida teniotis (data reported as statistical model results). Mixed results were reported for six other bat species but numbers were too low for statistical analysis. Dam reservoirs varied in size from 50,000 to 280,000 m2. All streams had annual average flow rates of 100–300 mm and similar riparian vegetation. At each of five dams, bat activity was recorded using bat detectors at four sampling points (the upstream and downstream sides of both the dam and stream). Each point was randomly sampled on three nights (for 3 h from sunset) between July and October 2011 with one stream and one dam point sampled simultaneously.

    Study and other actions tested
Please cite as:

Berthinussen, A., Richardson O.C. and Altringham J.D. (2019) Bat Conservation. Pages 67-140 in: W.J. Sutherland, L.V. Dicks, N. Ockendon, S.O. Petrovan & R.K. Smith (eds) What Works in Conservation 2019. Open Book Publishers, 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 provides expert assessments of the effectiveness of actions, based on summarised evidence in synopses. Subjects covered so far include amphibians, birds, terrestrial 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 latest volume: Volume 17

Go to the CE 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 some of 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