Conservation Evidence strives to be as useful to conservationists as possible. Please take our survey to help the team improve our resource.

Providing evidence to improve practice

Action: Avoid illumination of key bat habitats Bat Conservation

Key messages

Read our guidance on Key messages before continuing

  • One study evaluated the effects of avoiding the illumination of key bat habitats on bat populations. The study was in Italy.




Supporting evidence from individual studies


A replicated, randomized, before-and-after study in 2015 of four cattle troughs at forest sites in central Italy (Russo et al 2017) found that unlit troughs had higher drinking activity for five of six bat species/species groups than troughs illuminated with artificial light. More drinking buzzes were recorded for five bat species/species groups when troughs were unlit than when they were illuminated with artificial light: barbastelle bat Barbastella barbastellus (unlit: 584; lit: 306), brown long-eared bat Plecotus auritus (unlit: 78; lit: 0), Myotis spp. (unlit: 599; lit: 134), Kuhl’s pipistrelle Pipistrellus kuhlii (unlit: 116; lit: 64) and Savi’s pipistrelle Hypsugo savii (unlit: 39; lit: 10). For the common pipistrelle Pipistrellus pipistrellus, the difference was not significant when troughs were unlit (240 drinking buzzes) or illuminated (165 drinking buzzes). Each of four cattle troughs consisted of two troughs (6 x 1.5 m) joined together. Troughs were illuminated with a portable LED (light-emitting diode) white light (average 49 lux). Each of four sites was surveyed using bat detectors on two nights with five randomized lit and unlit 10 minute intervals/night in July–August 2015.

Referenced papers

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.