Action

Action Synopsis: Bat Conservation About Actions

Reinstate bat roosts in felled tree trunks

How is the evidence assessed?
  • Effectiveness
    35%
  • Certainty
    10%
  • Harms
    0%

Source countries

Key messages

  • One study evaluated the effects of reinstating a bat roost within a felled tree trunk on bat populations. The study was in the UK.

COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

USAGE (1 STUDY)     

  • Use (1 study): One before-and-after study in the UK found that a roost reinstated by attaching the felled tree trunk to a nearby tree continued to be used by common noctule bats as a maternity roost.

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 before-and-after study in 2009–2013 in a broadleaf woodland in Milton Keynes, UK (Damant & Dickens 2013) found that a roost reinstated by attaching the felled tree trunk to a nearby tree continued to be used by common noctule bats Nyctalus noctula as a maternity roost. A similar number of bats used the roost before (47–75 bats) and after (37–46 bats) felling and reinstatement of the roost, although no statistical tests were carried out. The roost was located in an ash Fraxinus excelsior tree within a 23 ha ancient semi-natural woodland. The tree was accidentally felled in December 2011. The tree trunk was reinstated within five days of felling by attaching it to a nearby tree using 19 mm steel banding and rubber straps. The access points were orientated to recreate their original positions prior to felling. A replacement top was constructed from ash wood to shelter the roost. The reinstated section and top was 3.4 m high x 0.5 m wide. Emergence counts were carried out at the roost twice in 2010 before felling and once/year in 2012 and 2013 after reinstatement.

    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