Study

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Legally protect bat habitats

Action Link
Bat Conservation

Introduce agri-environment schemes

Action Link
Bat Conservation

Use organic farming instead of conventional farming

Action Link
Bat Conservation
  1. Legally protect bat habitats

    A replicated, site comparison study in 2009–2012 of 80 rivers on farms in Wales, UK (MacDonald et al 2012) found that rivers in protected areas had higher activity of Daubenton’s bats Myotis daubentonii than rivers in unprotected areas, but the activity of soprano pipistrelles Pipistrellus pygmaeus did not differ between protected and unprotected areas. The average number of bat passes/year for Daubenton’s bats was significantly higher over rivers in protected areas on both agri-environment farms (2.3 bat passes) and conventional farms (3.3 bat passes) than rivers in unprotected areas on agri-environment scheme farms (1.6 bat passes) and conventional farms (2.3 bat passes). A similar number of bat passes/year were recorded over rivers in protected and unprotected areas for soprano pipistrelles (data not reported). Surveys were carried out at 46 protected rivers (26 on agri-environment scheme farms, 20 on conventional farms) and 34 unprotected rivers (14 on agri-environment scheme farms, 20 20 on conventional farms). Protected areas were designated as Sites of Special Scientific Interest. No details are reported about the origin of the rivers; water may have originated from outside the protected area. One transect survey was carried out along each river in August and September in 2009, 2010 and 2011.

  2. Introduce agri-environment schemes

    A replicated, paired sites study in 2009–2011 of 40–60 pairs of farms in Wales, UK (MacDonald et al 2012) found that there was no significant difference in the activity of six bat species on agri-environment scheme farms and non-participating conventional farms. The average number of bat passes/year was similar on agri-environment scheme farms and conventional farms for common pipistrelles Pipistrellus pipistrellus (agri-environment scheme: 3–7, conventional: 4–6), soprano pipistrelles Pipistrellus pygmaeus (agri-environment scheme: 5–9,  conventional: 5–8), common noctules Nyctalus noctula (agri-environment scheme: 0.2–3, conventional: 0.3–4), Daubenton’s bats Myotis daubentonii (agri-environment scheme: 16–27, conventional: 17–20), greater horseshoe bats Rhinolophus ferrumequinum (agri-environment scheme: 3, conventional: 4) and lesser horseshoe bats Rhinolophus hipposideros (agri-environment scheme: 5, conventional: 6). Pairs of agri-environment scheme and conventional farms were 2–20 km apart and matched by size, altitude, soil type, and farming system. Field transects were carried out at 60 pairs of farms, waterway transects at 40 pairs of farms, and static field surveys at 45 pairs of farms. Surveys were carried out once or twice/year between June and September in 2009, 2010 and 2011.

  3. Use organic farming instead of conventional farming

    A replicated, site comparison study in 2009–2011 of 5–13 organic and 10–30 non-organic farms in Wales, UK (MacDonald et al 2012) found that rivers on organic farms had significantly higher activity of Daubenton’s bats Myotis daubentonii than rivers on non-organic farms, but the activity of five other bat species in fields and along hedgerows did not differ between organic and non-organic farms. The average number of bat passes for Daubenton’s bats was significantly higher over rivers on organic farms than non-organic farms (data reported as statistical model results). However, a similar number of bat passes/year were recorded on organic and non-organic farms for common pipistrelles Pipistrellus pipistrellus, soprano pipistrelles Pipistrellus pygmaeus, common noctules Nyctalus noctula, greater horseshoe bats Rhinolophus ferrumequinum and lesser horseshoe bats Rhinolophus hipposideros (data reported as statistical model results). Organic farms were part of an organic farming scheme. The number of farms included in the analysis varied for each bat species from 5–13 for organic and 10–30 for non-organic farms. Some farms (organic and non-organic) were also part of agri-environment schemes. No details are reported about the origin of the rivers; water may have originated from outside of the farms. Transects or static detector surveys were carried out at each farm once or twice/year between June and September in 2009, 2010 and 2011.

Output references
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