Version classiqueVersion mobile

What Works in Conservation 2017

 | 
William J. Sutherland
, 
Lynn V. Dicks
, 
Nancy Ockendon
, 
et al.

2. BAT CONSERVATION

2.6 Threat: Biological resource use

Texte intégral

2.6.1 Hunting

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the effectiveness of interventions for hunting?

No evidence found (no assessment)

● Educate local communities about bats and hunting
● Introduce and enforce legislation to control hunting of bats
● Introduce sustainable harvesting of bats

No evidence found (no assessment)

1We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

  • Educate local communities about bats and hunting

  • Introduce and enforce legislation to control hunting of bats

  • Introduce sustainable harvesting of bats

2.6.2 Guano harvesting

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the effectiveness of interventions for guano harvesting?

No evidence found (no assessment)

● Introduce and enforce legislation to regulate the harvesting of bat guano
● Introduce sustainable harvesting of bat guano

No evidence found (no assessment)

2We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

  • Introduce and enforce legislation to regulate the harvesting of bat guano

  • Introduce sustainable harvesting of bat guano

2.6.3 Logging and wood harvesting

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the effectiveness of interventions for logging and wood harvesting?

Likely to be beneficial

● Incorporate forested corridors or buffers into logged areas
● Use selective harvesting/reduced impact logging instead of clearcutting
● Use shelterwood cutting instead of clearcutting

Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)

● Retain residual tree patches in logged areas
● Thin trees within forests

No evidence found (no assessment)

● Manage woodland or forest edges for bats
● Replant native trees
● Retain deadwood/snags within forests for roosting bats

Likely to be beneficial

Incorporate forested corridors or buffers into logged areas

3One replicated, site comparison study in Australia found no difference in the activity and number of bat species between riparian buffers in logged, regrowth or mature forest. One replicated, site comparison study in North America found higher bat activity along the edges of forested corridors than in corridor interiors or adjacent logged stands. Three replicated, site comparison studies in Australia and North America found four bat species roosting in forested corridors and riparian buffers. Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 50%; certainty 50%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/​actions/​996

Use selective harvesting/reduced impact logging instead of clearcutting

4Nine replicated, controlled, site comparison studies provide evidence for the effects of selective or reduced impact logging on bats with mixed results. One study in the USA found that bat activity was higher in selectively logged forest than in unharvested forest. One study in Italy caught fewer barbastelle bats in selectively logged forest than in unmanaged forest. Three studies in Brazil and two in Trinidad found no difference in bat abundance or species diversity between undisturbed control forest and selectively logged or reduced impact logged forest, but found differences in species composition. Two studies in Brazil found no effect of reduced impact logging on the activity of the majority of bat species, but mixed effects on the activity of four species. Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 60%; certainty 50%; harms 10%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/​actions/​989

Use shelterwood cutting instead of clearcutting

5One site comparison study in North America found higher or equal activity of at least five bat species in shelterwood harvests compared to unharvested control sites. One replicated, site comparison study in Australia found Gould’s long eared bats selectively roosting in shelterwood harvests, but southern forest bats roosting more often in mature unlogged forest. A replicated, site comparison study in Italy found barbastelle bats favoured unmanaged woodland for roosting and used shelterwood harvested woodland in proportion to availability. Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 50%; certainty 48%; harms 18%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/​actions/​990

Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)

Retain residual tree patches in logged areas

6Two replicated, site comparison studies in Canada found no difference in bat activity between residual tree patch edges in clearcut blocks and edges of the remaining forest. One of the studies found higher activity of smaller bat species at residual tree patch edges than in the centre of open clearcut blocks. Bat activity was not compared to unlogged areas. Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 20%; certainty 25%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/​actions/​995

Thin trees within forests

7Two replicated, site comparison studies (one paired) in North America found that bat activity was higher in thinned forest stands than in unthinned stands, and similar to that in mature forest. One replicated, site comparison study in North America found higher bat activity in thinned than in unthinned forest stands in one of the two years of the study. One replicated, site comparison study in Canada found the silver-haired bat more often in clearcut patches than unthinned forest, but found no difference in the activity of Myotis species. Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 45%; certainty 38%; harms 10%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/​actions/​991

No evidence found (no assessment)

8We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

  • Manage woodland or forest edges for bats

  • Replant native trees

  • Retain deadwood/snags within forests for roosting bats

Lire

Open access

Acheter

Rechercher dans OpenEdition Search

Vous allez être redirigé vers OpenEdition Search