Likely to be beneficial

Create artificial caves or hibernacula for bats

1Four studies evaluated the effects of creating artificial caves or hibernacula for bats on bat populations. Two studies were in the UK and two were in Germany.

2COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

3POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

4BEHAVIOUR (4 STUDIES)

5Uptake (1 study): One study in the UK found that the number of bats using an artificial hibernaculum increased in each of nine years after it was built. Use (4 studies): One study in the UK found that an artificial cave was used by a small number of brown long-eared bats. Three studies in Germany and the UK found that artificial hibernacula were used by up to four bat species. Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 72 %; certainty 60 %; harms 0 %).

https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2049

Create artificial water sources

6Five studies evaluated the effects of creating artificial water sources for bats on bat populations. One study was in each of the USA, Germany, South Africa, Israel and Mexico.

7COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY)

8Richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, paired sites study in South Africa found a similar number of bat species over farm ponds and in grassland/ crops, trees, vineyards or orchards.

9POPULATION RESPONSE (5 STUDIES)

10Abundance (5 studies): Five replicated studies (including four site comparisons and one paired sites study) in Israel, the USA, Germany, South Africa and Mexico found that bat activity (relative abundance) was similar or higher over reservoirs and waste water treatment pools, heliponds and drainage ditches, retention ponds and farm/cattle ponds compared to over natural wetlands, nearby vineyards, surrounding forest or grassland/crops, trees and orchards.

11BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)

12Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 70 %; certainty 55 %; harms 0 %).

https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/959

Restore or create wetlands

13One study evaluated the effects of restoring wetlands on bat populations. The study was in the USA.

14COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

15POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY)

16Abundance (1 study): One replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in the USA found that restoring wetlands increased overall bat activity (relative abundance), and restored wetlands had similar bat activity to undisturbed wetlands.

17BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)

18Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 62 %; certainty 40 %; harms 0 %).

https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2036

Unknown effectiveness

Create artificial hollows and cracks in trees for roosting bats

19One study evaluated the effects of creating artificial hollows and cracks in trees for roosting bats. The study was in Australia.

20COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

21POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

22BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY)

23Use (1 study): One replicated study in Australia found that eight of 16 artificial hollows cut into trees for bats, birds and marsupials with two different entrance designs were used by roosting long-eared bats.

24Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 50 %; certainty 23 %; harms 0 %).

https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2047

Reinstate bat roosts in felled tree trunks

25One study evaluated the effects of reinstating a bat roost within a felled tree trunk on bat populations. The study was in the UK.

26COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

27POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

28BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY)

29Use (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.

30Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 35 %; certainty 10 %; harms 0 %).

https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2048

Restore or create forest or woodland

31Two studies evaluated the effects of restoring forests on bat populations. One study was in Brazil and one in Australia.

32COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY)

33Richness/diversity (1 study): One site comparison study in Brazil found that a reforested area had significantly lower bat diversity than a native forest fragment.

34POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY)

35Abundance (1 study): One replicated, controlled, site comparison study in Australia found that forests restored after mining had significantly higher or similar bat activity (relative abundance) as unmined forests for five of seven bat species.

36BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)

37Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 40 %; certainty 15 %; harms 0 %).

https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2050

Restore or create grassland

38One study evaluated the effects of creating grassland on bat populations. The study was in the UK.

39COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

40POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY)

41Abundance (1 study): One replicated, paired sites study in the UK found that pipistrelle activity (relative abundance) did not differ between species-rich grassland created on agri-environment scheme farms and improved pasture or crop fields on conventional farms.

42BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)

43Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 2 %; certainty 10 %; harms 0 %).

https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2051

No evidence found (no assessment)

44We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

• Create new unlit commuting routes using planting

• Restore or create linear habitat features/green corridors.