Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33288979›Full record

ArticleAnimal conservation2020

Evaluating survey methods for bat roost detection in ecological impact assessment.

J S P Froidevaux, K L Boughey, C L Hawkins, G Jones, J Collins

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Animal conservation, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

J S P FroidevauxSchool of Biological Sciences University of Bristol Bristol UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6850-4879
K L BougheyBat Conservation Trust London UK.
C L HawkinsBat Conservation Trust London UK.
G JonesSchool of Biological Sciences University of Bristol Bristol UK.
J CollinsBat Conservation Trust London UK.
Bat Conservation Trust · GBUniversité Fédérale de Toulouse Midi-Pyrénées · FRUniversity of Bristol · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The disturbance, damage and destruction of roosts are key drivers of bat population declines worldwide. In countries where bats are protected by law, bat roost surveys are often required to inform ecological impact assessments. Yet, evidence-based information on survey methodology to detect bat roosts is crucially lacking, and failing to detect a roost can lead to serious errors during decision-making processes. Here, we assess the efficacy of bat roost surveys in buildings as implemented in the UK. These consist of a daytime inspection of buildings, followed by a series of acoustic surveys at dusk/dawn if during the daytime inspection evidence of bats is found, or if the absence of bats cannot be verified. We reviewed 155 ecological consultants' reports to (1) compare survey outcome between daytime inspection and acoustic surveys and (2) determine the minimum sampling effort required during acoustic surveys to be confident that no bats are roosting within a building. We focused on two genera of bats most frequently found in buildings in Europe -

Indexed as

bat roostChiropteraday‐roostdetection probabilityenvironmental impact assessmentsampling effortsurvey methodssynanthropic species

Identifiers

PMID33288979
PMCPMC7687239
OpenAlexW3014617930

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.