What Works in Conservation 2021
| , , ,2. Bat conservation
2.8 Threat: Invasive or problematic species and disease
Texte intégral
2.8.1 Invasive species
Likely to be beneficial
Control invasive predators
1One study evaluated the effects of controlling invasive predators on bat populations. The study was in New Zealand.
2COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)
3POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY)
4Survival (1 study): One replicated, before-and-after study in New Zealand found that controlling ship rats resulted in increased survival probabilities for female long-tailed bats.
5BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)
6Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 80 %; certainty 40 %; harms 0 %).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1007
Unknown effectiveness
Control invasive plant species
7One study evaluated the effects of controlling invasive plant species on bat populations. The study was in the USA.
8COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)
9POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY)
10Abundance (1 study): One site comparison study in the USA found that two of seven forest fragments where invasive plant species had been removed alongside other restoration practices had significantly higher bat activity (relative abundance) than two unrestored forest fragments.
11BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)
12Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 20 %; certainty 10 %; harms 0 %).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1008
No evidence found (no assessment)
13We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:
-
Control harmful invasive bat prey species
-
Control invasive non-predatory competitors
-
Exclude domestic and feral cats from bat roosts and roost entrances
-
Keep domestic cats indoors at night
-
Use collar-mounted devices on cats to reduce predation of bats.
2.8.2 White-nose syndrome
Unknown effectiveness
Modify bat hibernacula environments to increase survival of bats infected with white-nose syndrome
14One study evaluated the effects of modifying hibernacula environments to increase the survival of bats infected with white-nose syndrome. The study was in the USA.
15COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)
16POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY)
17Survival (1 study): One randomized, replicated, controlled study in the USA found that a greater number of little brown bats infected with the white-nose syndrome fungus survived in hibernation chambers at 4°C than at 10° BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY)
18Behaviour change (1 study): One randomized, replicated, controlled study in the USA found that little brown bats infected with the white-nose syndrome fungus stayed in hibernation for longer in hibernation chambers at 4°C than at 10°
19Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 50 %; certainty 30 %; harms 10 %).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1013
Treat bats for infection with white-nose syndrome
20Two studies evaluated the effects of treating bats with a probiotic bacterium to reduce white-nose syndrome infection. One study was in Canada and one in the USA.
21COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)
22POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES)
23Survival (2 studies): One randomized, controlled study in Canada found that treating little brown bats with a probiotic bacterium at the time of infection with white-nose syndrome (but not 21 days prior) increased survival within cages in a laboratory. One randomized, controlled study in the USA found that treating little brown bats with a probiotic bacterium within a mine increased survival for free-flying bats, but not caged bats.
24Condition (2 studies): One randomized, controlled study in Canada found that little brown bats caged in a laboratory and treated with a probiotic bacterium at the time of infection with white-nose syndrome had reduced symptoms of the disease, but bats treated 21 days prior to infection had worse symptoms. One randomized, controlled study in the USA found that little brown bats kept within cages in a mine and treated with a probiotic bacterium had a similar severity of white-nose syndrome to untreated bats. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)
25Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 50 %; certainty 35 %; harms 15 %).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2008
No evidence found (no assessment)
26We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:
-
Breed bats in captivity to supplement wild populations affected by white-nose syndrome
-
Cull bats infected with white-nose syndrome
-
Decontaminate clothing and equipment after entering caves to reduce the spread of the white-nose syndrome pathogen
-
Restrict human access to bat caves to reduce the spread of the white-nose syndrome pathogen
-
Treat bat hibernacula environments to reduce the white-nose syndrome pathogen reservoir
-
Vaccinate bats against the white-nose syndrome pathogen.
2.8.3 Disease
No evidence found (no assessment)
27We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:
28• Carry out surveillance of bats to prevent the spread of disease/ viruses to humans to reduce human-wildlife conflict.
2.8.4 Problematic native species
No evidence found (no assessment)
29We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:
-
Modify bats roosts to reduce negative impacts of one bat species on another
-
Protect bats within roosts from disturbance or predation by native species.
Table des illustrations
![]() | |
---|---|
URL | http://books.openedition.org/obp/docannexe/image/24600/img-1.jpg |
Fichier | image/jpeg, 42k |
![]() | |
URL | http://books.openedition.org/obp/docannexe/image/24600/img-2.jpg |
Fichier | image/jpeg, 27k |
![]() | |
URL | http://books.openedition.org/obp/docannexe/image/24600/img-3.jpg |
Fichier | image/jpeg, 47k |
![]() | |
URL | http://books.openedition.org/obp/docannexe/image/24600/img-4.jpg |
Fichier | image/jpeg, 20k |
![]() | |
URL | http://books.openedition.org/obp/docannexe/image/24600/img-5.jpg |
Fichier | image/jpeg, 24k |
© Open Book Publishers, 2021
Creative Commons - Attribution 4.0 International - CC BY 4.0