Action

Action Synopsis: Bat Conservation About Actions

Use non-lethal measures to prevent bats from accessing fruit in orchards to reduce human-wildlife conflict

How is the evidence assessed?
  • Effectiveness
    70%
  • Certainty
    50%
  • Harms
    0%

Source countries

Key messages

  • Two studies evaluated the effects of using non-lethal measures to prevent bats from accessing fruit in orchards to reduce human-wildlife conflict. The studies were in Madagascar and Mauritius.

COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)

OTHER (2 STUDIES)   

  • Human-wildlife conflict (2 studies): Two replicated, controlled studies (including one randomized study) in Madagascar and Mauritius found that using an organic deterrent spray, hanging plastic flags in trees, or covering individual tree branches with nylon net bags reduced damage to lychees caused by Madagascan flying foxes or Mauritius fruit bats. One of the studies found that ringing bells in lychee trees deterred most Madagascan flying foxes.

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, randomized, controlled study in 2012–2013 at two lychee Litchi chinensis growing sites in Madagascar (Raharimihaja et al 2016) found that using an organic deterrent or plastic flags reduced lychee damage caused by Madagascan flying foxes Pteropus rufus, and ringing bells caused most bats to fly away. At both sites, the average proportion or number of lychees damaged by flying foxes/fruit cluster was lower with an organic deterrent (Site 1 = 5%; Site 2: two fruit/fruit cluster) or plastic flags (Site 1 = 32%; Site 2 = 0.5 fruit/fruit cluster) than with no deterrent (Site 1 = 62%; Site 2 = 11 fruit/fruit cluster). Across both sites, ringing bells resulted in 35 of 44 (80%) flying foxes flying away. Three deterrents were tested at two sites in 2012 and 2013. An organic deterrent (‘Plantskydd’) made from dried blood and vegetable oil was mixed with water and sprayed onto 19–27 lychee clusters/site (each with 60–125 fruit), 15 days before lychees ripened. Bright pink plastic flags (1 x 0.5 m) were hung 1 m from 18–20 randomly selected lychee clusters/site (each with 100–150 fruit). Controls were 21–32 lychee clusters/site with no deterrents. On three occasions, six bells (12-cm diameter) were hung in two lychee trees for four consecutive nights. Bells were rung using a string between 18:00 and 22:00 h when flying foxes attempted to feed on lychees. Lychee damage caused by flying foxes (identified from teeth marks) was monitored daily until lychees were collected by farmers.

    Study and other actions tested
  2. A replicated, controlled study in 2016–2017 of 18 lychee Litchi chinensis trees in three towns in central Mauritius (Tollington et al 2019) found that covering individual branches with nylon net bags reduced damage to lychees, mostly caused by Mauritius fruit bats Pteropus niger. Lychee yield from panicles that were covered with net bags was 33% greater than that from uncovered panicles (data reported as statistical model results) due to reduced damage by Mauritius fruit bats, birds, or other causes. Bats were estimated to damage 42% of lychees, birds 13% and unknown causes or splitting 21%. Up to six individual panicles on each of 18 ‘backyard’ lychee trees were covered with nylon net bags and six were left uncovered (total 75 covered, 81 uncovered). The number of lychees on each panicle and damaged/fallen lychees were counted every 2–3 days over an average of 18 days in November–January 2016/2017. Damage by bats was identified from bite marks or discarded seeds.

    Study and other actions tested
Please cite as:

Berthinussen, A., Richardson O.C. and Altringham J.D. (2021) Bat Conservation: Global Evidence for the Effects of Interventions. Conservation Evidence Series Synopses. 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 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 the latest volume: Volume 18

Go to the CE Journal

Discover more on our blog

Our blog contains the latest news and updates from the Conservation Evidence team, the Conservation Evidence Journal, and our global partners in evidence-based conservation.


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