What Works in Conservation 2017
| , , ,2. BAT CONSERVATION
2.10 Threat: Pollution
Volltext
2.10.1 Domestic and urban waste water
Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the effectiveness of interventions for domestic and urban waste water?
Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence) |
● Change effluent treatments of domestic and urban waste water |
Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)
Change effluent treatments of domestic and urban waste water
1We found no evidence for the effects on bats of changing effluent treatments of domestic and urban waste water discharged into rivers. One replicated, site comparison study in the UK found that foraging activity over filter bed sewage treatment works was higher than activity over active sludge systems. Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 40%; certainty 30%; harms 30%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1014
2.10.2 Agricultural and forestry effluents
Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the effectiveness of interventions for agricultural and forestry effluents?
No evidence found (no assessment) |
● Introduce legislation to control use of fertilizers, insecticides and pesticides |
No evidence found (no assessment)
2We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:
-
Introduce legislation to control use of fertilizers, insecticides and pesticides
-
Change effluent treatments used in agriculture and forestry
2.10.3 Light and noise pollution
Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the effectiveness of interventions for light and noise pollution?
Likely to be beneficial |
● Leave bat roosts, roost entrances and commuting routes unlit |
No evidence found (no assessment) |
● Restrict timing of lighting |
Likely to be beneficial
Leave bat roosts, roost entrances and commuting routes unlit
3Two replicated studies in the UK found more bats emerging from roosts or flying along hedgerows when left unlit than when illuminated with white lights or streetlamps. Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 80%; certainty 50%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1017
Minimize excess light pollution
4One replicated, randomized, controlled study in the UK found that bats avoided flying along hedgerows with dimmed lighting, and activity levels were lower than along unlit hedges. We found no evidence for the effects of reducing light spill using directional lighting or hoods on bats. Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 65%; certainty 50%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1018
No evidence found (no assessment)
5We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:
-
Restrict timing of lighting
-
Use low pressure sodium lamps or use UV filters
-
Impose noise limits in proximity to roosts and bat habitats
2.10.4 Timber treatments
Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the effectiveness of interventions for timber treatments?
Beneficial |
● Use mammal safe timber treatments in roof spaces |
Likely to be ineffective or harmful |
● Restrict timing of treatment |
Beneficial
Use mammal safe timber treatments in roof spaces
6Two controlled laboratory studies in the UK found commercial timber treatments (containing lindane and pentachlorophenol) to be lethal to bats, but found alternative artificial insecticides (including permethrin) and three other fungicides did not increase bat mortality. Sealants over timber treatments had varying success. Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 90%; certainty 80%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1022
Likely to be ineffective or harmful
Restrict timing of treatment
7One controlled laboratory experiment in the UK found that treating timber with lindane and pentachlorophenol 14 months prior to exposure by bats increased survival time but did not prevent death. Bats in cages treated with permethrin survived just as long when treatments were applied two months or 14 months prior to exposure. Assessment: Likely to be ineffective or harmful (effectiveness 5%; certainty 55%; harms 50%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1023
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.