-
Pas de résultats
- Navigation
What Works in Conservation 2020
Introduction
1. Amphibian conservation
Note on the book
1.1 Threat: Residential and commercial development
1.2 Threat: Agriculture
1.3 Threat: Energy production and mining
1.4 Threat: Transportation and service corridors
1.5 Threat: Biological resource use
1.6 Threat: Human intrusions and disturbance
1.7 Threat: Natural system modifications
1.8 Threat: Invasive and other problematic species
1.9 Threat: Pollution
1.10 Threat: Climate change and severe weather
1.11 Habitat protection
1.12 Habitat restoration and creation
1.13 Species management
1.14 Education and awareness raising
2. Bat conservation
2.1 Threat: Residential and commercial development
2.2 Threat: Agriculture
2.3 Threat: Energy production
2.4 Threat: Transportation and service corridors
2.5 Threat: Biological resource use
2.6 Threat: Human intrusions and disturbance
2.7 Threat: Natural system modifications
2.8 Threat: Invasive or problematic species and disease
2.9 Threat: Pollution
2.10 Threat: Climate change and severe weather
2.11 Habitat protection
2.12 Habitat restoration and creation
2.13 Species management
2.14 Education and awareness raising
3. Bird conservation
3.1 Habitat protection
3.2 Education and awareness raising
3.3 Threat: Residential and commercial development
3.4 Threat: Agriculture
3.5 Threat: Energy production and mining
3.6 Threat: Transportation and service corridors
3.7 Threat: Biological resource use
3.8 Threat: Human intrusions and disturbance
3.9 Threat: Natural system modifications
3.10 Habitat restoration and creation
3.11 Threat: Invasive alien and other problematic species
3.12 Threat: Pollution
3.13 Threat: Climate change, extreme weather and geological events
3.14 General responses to small/declining populations
3.15 Captive breeding, rearing and releases (ex situ conservation)
4. Farmland conservation
4.1 All farming systems
4.2 Arable farming
4.3 Perennial (non-timber) crops
4.4 Livestock farming
4.5 Threat: Residential and commercial development
4.6 Threat: Agri-chemicals
4.7 Threat: Transport and service corridors
4.8 Threat: Hunting and trapping (for pest control, food or sport)
4.9 Threat: Natural system modification
4.10 Threat: Invasive and other problematic species
4.11 Threat: Education and awareness
5. Forest conservation
5.1 Threat: Residential and commercial development
5.2 Threat: Agriculture
5.3 Threat: Transport and service corridors
5.4 Threat: Biological resource use
5.5 Habitat protection
5.6 Threat: Invasive and other problematic species
5.7 Threat: Pollution
5.8 Threat: Climate change and severe weather
5.9 Habitat protection
5.10 Habitat restoration and creation
5.11 Actions to improve survival and growth rate of planted trees
5.12 Education and awareness raising
6. Peatland conservation
6.1 Threat: Residential and commercial development
6.2 Threat: Agriculture and aquaculture
6.3 Threat: Energy production and mining
6.4 Threat: Transportation and service corridors
6.5 Threat: Biological resource use
6.6 Threat: Human intrusions and disturbance
6.7 Threat: Natural system modifications
6.8 Threat: Invasive and other problematic species
6.9 Threat: Pollution
6.10 Threat: Climate change and severe weather
6.11 Habitat creation and restoration
6.12 Actions to complement planting
6.13 Habitat protection
6.14 Education and awareness
7. Primate conservation
7.1 Threat: Residential and commercial development
7.2 Threat: Agriculture
7.3 Threat: Energy production and mining
7.4 Threat: Transportation and service corridors
7.5 Threat: Biological resource use
7.6 Threat: Human intrusions and disturbance
7.7 Threat: Natural system modifications
7.8 Threat: Invasive and other problematic species and genes
7.9 Threat: Pollution
7.10 Education and Awareness
7.11 Habitat protection
7.12 Species management
7.13 Livelihood; economic and other incentives
8. Shrublandand Heathland conservation
8.1 Threat: Residential and commercial development
8.2 Threat: Agriculture and aquaculture
8.3 Threat: Energy production and mining
8.4 Threat: Biological resource use
8.5 Threat: Transportation and service corridors
8.6 Threat: Human intrusions and disturbance
8.7 Threat: Natural system modifications
8.8 Threat: Invasive and other problematic species
8.9 Threat: Pollution
8.10 Threat: Climate change and severe weather
8.11 Threat: Habitat protection
8.12 Habitat restoration and creation
8.13 Actions to benefit introduced vegetation
8.14 Education and awareness
9. Management of captive animals
9.1 Ex-situ conservation – breeding amphibians
9.2 Promoting health and welfare in captive carnivores (felids, canids and ursids) through feeding practices
9.3 Promoting natural feeding behaviours in primates in captivity
10. Some aspects of control of freshwater invasive species
10.1 Threat: Invasive plants
10.2 Threat: Invasive molluscs
10.3 Threat: Invasive crustaceans
10.4 Threat: Invasive fish
10.5 Threat: Invasive reptiles
10.6 Threat: Invasive amphibians
11. Some aspects of enhancing natural pest control
11.1 Reducing agricultural pollution
11.2 All farming systems
11.3 Arable farming
11.4 Perennial farming
11.5 Livestock farming and pasture
12. Enhancing soil fertility
12.1 Reducing agricultural pollution
12.2 All farming systems
12.3 Arable farming
12.4 Livestock and pasture farming
13. Subtidal benthic invertebrateconservation
13.1 Threat: Energy production and mining
13.2 Threat: Transportation and service corridors
13.3 Threat: Biological resource use
13.4 Threat: Human intrusions and disturbances
13.5 Threat: Invasive and other problematic species, genes and diseases
13.6 Threat: Pollution
13.7 Threat: Climate change and severe weather
13.8 Habitat protection
13.9 Habitat restoration and creation
13.10 Species management
13.11 Education and awareness
- Table des matières
1. Amphibian conservation
Rebecca K. Smith, Helen Meredith et William J. Sutherland1. Amphibian conservation
2. Bat conservation
Anna Berthinussen, Olivia C. Richardson O.C. et John D. Altringham2. Bat conservation
3. Bird conservation
David R. Williams, Matthew F. Child, Lynn V. Dicks et al.3. Bird conservation
4. Farmland conservation
Lynn V. Dicks, Joscelyne E. Ashpole, Juliana Dänhardt et al.4. Farmland conservation
5. Forest conservation
har’El Agra, Simon Schowanek, Yohay Carmel et al.5. Forest conservation
6. Peatland conservation
Nigel G. Taylor, Patrick Grillas et William J. Sutherland6. Peatland conservation
7. Primate conservation
Jessica Junker, Hjalmar S. Kühl, Lisa Orth et al.7. Primate conservation
8. Shrubland and Heathland conservation
Philip A. Martin, Ricardo Rocha, Rebecca K. Smith et al.8. Shrublandand Heathland conservation
9. Management of captive animals
Coral S. Jonas, Lydia T. Timbrell, Fey Young et al.9. Management of captive animals
10. Some aspects of control of freshwater invasive species
David Aldridge, Nancy Ockendon, Ricardo Rocha et al.10. Some aspects of control of freshwater invasive species
11. Some aspects of enhancing natural pest control
Hugh L. Wright, Joscelyne E. Ashpole, Lynn V. Dicks et al.11. Some aspects of enhancing natural pest control
12. Enhancing soil fertility
Georgina Key, Mike Whitfield, Lynn V. Dicks et al.12. Enhancing soil fertility
13. Subtidal benthic invertebrate conservation
Anaelle J. Lemasson, Laura R. Pettit, Rebecca K. Smith et al.13. Subtidal benthic invertebrateconservation
- imprimer
- Citer
Référence électronique du chapitre
2.6 Threat: Human intrusions and disturbance In : What Works in Conservation 2020 [en ligne]. Cambridge : Open Book Publishers, 2020 (généré le 28 mars 2024). Disponible sur Internet : <https://books.openedition.org/obp/17452>. ISBN : 979-10-365-6992-0.Sutherland, W. J., Dicks, L. V., Petrovan, S. O., & Smith, R. K. (Eds.) 2020. 2.6 Threat: Human intrusions and disturbance. In What Works in Conservation 2020. Open Book Publishers. Tiré de https://books.openedition.org/obp/17452Sutherland, William J, et al., (dir..) “2.6 Threat: Human intrusions and disturbance”. Cambridge : Open Book Publishers, 2020. (pp. 98-102) Web. <https://books.openedition.org/obp/17452>.Référence électronique du livre
SUTHERLAND, William J. (dir.) ; et al. What Works in Conservation 2020. Nouvelle édition [en ligne]. Cambridge : Open Book Publishers, 2020 (généré le 28 mars 2024). Disponible sur Internet : <https://books.openedition.org/obp/17287>. ISBN : 979-10-365-6992-0.Sutherland, W. J., Dicks, L. V., Petrovan, S. O., & Smith, R. K. (Eds.) 2020. What Works in Conservation 2020. Open Book Publishers. Tiré de https://books.openedition.org/obp/17287Sutherland, William J, et al., ed. What Works in Conservation 2020. Cambridge : Open Book Publishers, 2020. Web. <https://books.openedition.org/obp/17287>.Compatible avec Zotero - Partager URL :
- Courriel
Collez le code html suivant pour intégrer ce livre sur votre site.
2.6 Threat: Human intrusions and disturbance
2.6.1 Caving and tourism
Likely to be beneficial
Impose restrictions on cave visits
1Three studies evaluated the effects of imposing restrictions on cave visits on bat populations. One study was in the USA, one in Canada and one in Turkey.
2COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)
3POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES)
4Abundance (2 studies): Two before-and-after studies in Canada and Turkey found that bat populations within caves increased after restrictions on cave visitors were imposed.
5BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY)
6Behaviour change (1 study): One study in the USA found that reducing the number of people within cave tour groups did not have a significant effect on the number of take-offs, landings or overall activity (bat movements) of a cave myotis colony roosting within the cave.
7Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 64 %; certainty 45 %; harms 0 %).
8https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1002
Trade-off between benefit and harms
Install and maintain cave gates to restrict public access
9Eleven studies evaluated the effects of installing cave gates on bat populations. Five studies were in Europe and six studies were in the USA.
10COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)
11POPULATION RESPONSE (7 STUDIES)
12Abundance (7 studies): Three of four before-and-after studies (including one replicated study and one controlled study) in the Netherlands, the USA, Spain and Turkey found more or similar numbers of bats in caves and a bunker after gates were installed to restrict public access. The other study found fewer bats in caves after gates were installed. Two before-and-after studies in the USA and Spain found more bats within two caves after the size of the gated entrances were increased. One replicated, before-and-after study in the USA found that installing cave gates resulted in population increases or decreased rates of decline for 13 of 20 colonies of Indiana bat. One replicated, site comparison study in Spain found no difference in the population growth rates of bats roosting in caves with and without cave gates.
13Condition (1 study): One site comparison study in the USA found that bats hibernating in a cave with a wall and gate over the entrance lost more body mass than bats in a nearby unmodified cave.
14BEHAVIOUR (5 STUDIES)
15Use (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in Spain found no difference in the occupancy rates of bats roosting in caves with and without cave gates.
16Behaviour change (4 studies): One replicated, controlled, before-and-after and site comparison study in the USA found that bats at cave entrances circled more and entered caves less after gates were installed. One replicated study in the USA found that bats flew through gates with a funnel design more frequently than gates with a round bar or angle iron design. One randomized, controlled, before-and-after study in the UK found that fewer bats flew through cave gates when the spacing between horizontal bars was reduced. One before-and-after study in the USA4 found that significantly fewer bats emerged from a cave with a gate installed compared with a cave with a fence.
17Assessment: trade-off between benefit and harms (effectiveness 70 %; certainty 50 %; harms 20 %).
18https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/999
Unknown effectiveness
Install fencing around cave entrances to restrict public access
19Two studies evaluated the effects of installing fencing around cave entrances on bat populations. One study was in the USA and one study was in Spain. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)
20POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY)
21Abundance (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in Spain found no difference in the population growth rates of bats roosting in caves with and without fencing or gates installed.
22BEHAVIOUR (2 STUDIES)
23Use (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in Spain found no difference in the occupancy rates of bats roosting in caves with and without fencing or gates installed.
24Behaviour change (1 study): One controlled, before-and-after study in the USA found that significantly more southeastern myotis bats and gray myotis bats emerged from a cave after a steel gate was replaced with a fence.
25Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 40 %; certainty 20 %; harms 0 %).
26https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1991
Minimize noise levels within caves
27One study evaluated the effects of minimizing noise levels within caves on bat populations. The study was in the USA.
28COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)
29POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)
30BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY)
31Behaviour change (1 study): One controlled study in the USA found that experimental cave tours with groups that did not talk resulted in fewer bat flights than when groups did talk, but talking did not have an effect on the number of bat movements.
32Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 40 %; certainty 21 %; harms 0 %).
33https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1995
Restrict artificial lighting in caves and around cave entrances
34One study evaluated the effects of restricting artificial lighting in caves on bat populations. The study was in the USA.
35COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)
36POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)
37BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY)
38Behaviour change (1 study): One controlled study in the USA found that using low intensity white lights or red lights in caves resulted in fewer bat flights than with full white lighting, but the number of bat movements was similar between all three light treatments.
39Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 15 %; certainty 12 %; harms 0 %).
40https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1994
No evidence found (no assessment)
41We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:
- Inform the public of ways to reduce disturbance to bats in caves
- Introduce guidelines for sustainable cave development and use
- Minimize alterations to caves for tourism
- Provide artificial subterranean bat roosts to replace roosts in disturbed caves
- Restore and maintain microclimate in modified caves
- Retain bat access points to caves
- Train tourist guides to minimize disturbance and promote bat conservation.