Action

Action Synopsis: Bat Conservation About Actions

Reduce pesticide, herbicide or fertiliser use

How is the evidence assessed?
  • Effectiveness
    60%
  • Certainty
    40%
  • Harms
    0%

Source countries

Key messages

  • Two studies evaluated the effects of reducing pesticide, herbicide and fertiliser use on bat populations. One study was in Mexico and one study was in Portugal.

COMMUNITY RESPONSE (2 STUDIES)

  • Community composition (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in Portugal found that farms using few or no chemicals had different compositions of bat species to farms using high chemical inputs.
  • Richness/diversity (1 study): One site comparison study in Mexico found that coffee agroforestry plantations using few or no chemicals had a higher diversity of insect-eating bat species than plantations with high chemical inputs, but the diversity of fruit and nectar-eating bat species did not differ.

POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY)

  • Abundance (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in Portugal found that farms using few or no chemicals had higher bat activity (relative abundance) than farms using high chemical inputs.

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 site comparison study in 2004–2005 in five agroforestry plantations and one montane rainforest in southeastern Chiapas, Mexico (Estrada et al 2006) found that coffee agroforestry plantations using few or no chemicals had a higher diversity of insect-eating bat species than coffee agroforestry plantations with high chemical inputs, but the diversity of fruit and nectar-eating bat species did not differ. A higher diversity of insect-eating bat species was captured in plantations with low chemical use than in plantations with high chemical inputs (data reported as diversity index). The number of fruit and nectar-eating bat species was similar in plantations with low and high chemical use. More bat species were recorded in native rainforest (37 species) than in any of the five coffee agroforestry plantations (23–26 species). One site of native rainforest was sampled, and five sites on coffee agroforestry plantations with different amounts of chemical use (either none, organic compost, or different combinations of Thiodan, herbicide and fertilizer). Plantations with the highest chemical input used all three chemical types. At each of six sites, bats were captured with six mist nets placed along a 150 m transect for six hours from sunset on two nights. Surveys were repeated every 50 days from March 2004 to June 2005.

    Study and other actions tested
  2. A replicated, site comparison study in 2010 of 36 Mediterranean olive farms in southwestern Portugal (Herrera et al 2015) found that traditional farms using few or no chemicals had greater bat activity and different compositions of bat species than intensive farms using high chemical inputs, but they did not differ significantly from semi-intensive farms. Bat activity overall was significantly higher in traditional farms (average 6 bat passes/night) than intensive farms (1 bat pass/night). Species composition also differed (data reported as Sørenson’s index). No significant differences in bat activity or species composition were found between traditional and semi-intensive farms (average 3 bat passes/night). At least eight bat species were recorded (see original reference for data for individual species). Thirty-six olive farms (13 traditional, 12 semi-intensive and 11 intensive) were surveyed. Traditional farms used few or no chemicals, semi-intensive farms used a moderate chemical input and intensive farms used high and frequent chemical inputs (dimethoate and deltamethrin). Tree density and the use of mechanical methods varied between farms. Three olive farms (one per management type) were simultaneously surveyed every night for one week between July and September 2010 with a bat detector deployed in the centre of each farm.

    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