What Works in Conservation 2017
| , , ,2. BAT CONSERVATION
2.9 Threat: Invasive species
Volltext
2.9.1 Invasive species
Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the effectiveness of interventions for invasive species?
Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence) |
● Remove invasive plant species |
Likely to be ineffective or harmful |
● Translocate to predator or disease free areas |
No evidence found (no assessment) |
● Control invasive predators |
Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)
Remove invasive plant species
1One site comparison study in North America found higher bat activity in forest preserves where invasive plant species had been removed alongside other restoration practices. Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 20%; certainty 10%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1008
Likely to be ineffective or harmful
Translocate to predator or disease free areas
2Two small unreplicated studies in New Zealand and Switzerland found low numbers of bats remaining at release sites after translocation, and observed homing tendencies, disease and death. Assessment: Likely to be ineffective or harmful (effectiveness 5%; certainty 40%; harms 80%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1009
No evidence found (no assessment)
3We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:
-
Control invasive predators
2.9.2 White-nose syndrome
Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the effectiveness of interventions for white-nose syndrome?
No evidence found (no assessment) |
● Control anthropogenic spread |
No evidence found (no assessment)
4We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:
-
Control anthropogenic spread
-
Cull infected bats
-
Increase population resistance
-
Modify cave environments to increase bat survival
Nur der Text ist unter der Lizenz CC BY 4.0 nutzbar. Alle anderen Elemente (Abbildungen, importierte Anhänge) sind „Alle Rechte vorbehalten“, sofern nicht anders angegeben.