Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36054527›Full record

SynthesisBiological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society2023

Bat responses to climate change: a systematic review.

Francesca Festa, Leonardo Ancillotto, Luca Santini, Michela Pacifici, Ricardo Rocha, Nia Toshkova, Francisco Amorim, Ana Benítez-López, Adi Domer, Daniela Hamidović and 9 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 53 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
53citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
42.1field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

53 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 113 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Impacts of bat use of anthropogenic structures on bats and humans.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Summer and Autumn Activity ofAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2026
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

19 authors at 13 institutions in 10 countries.

Francesca FestaLaboratory of Emerging Viral Zoonoses, Research and Innovation Department, Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale delle Venezie, 35020, Legnaro, Italy.
Leonardo AncillottoWildlife Research Unit, Dipartimento di Agraria, Università degli Studi di Napoli Federico II, via Università, 100, 80055, Portici, Napoli, Italy.
Luca SantiniDepartment of Biology and Biotechnologies "Charles Darwin", Sapienza University of Rome, Viale dell'Università, 32, Rome, 00185, Italy.
Michela PacificiDepartment of Biology and Biotechnologies "Charles Darwin", Sapienza University of Rome, Viale dell'Università, 32, Rome, 00185, Italy.
Ricardo RochaCIBIO, Centro de Investigação em Biodiversidade e Recursos Genéticos, InBIO Laboratório Associado, Universidade do Porto, 4485-661, Vairão, Portugal.
Nia ToshkovaInstitute of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Research, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, 1 Tsar Osvoboditel Blvd, 1000, Sofia, Bulgaria.
Francisco AmorimCIBIO, Centro de Investigação em Biodiversidade e Recursos Genéticos, InBIO Laboratório Associado, Universidade do Porto, 4485-661, Vairão, Portugal.
Ana Benítez-LópezIntegrative Ecology Group, Estación Biológica de Doñana, Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, Cartuja TA-10, Edificio I, C. Américo Vespucio, s/n, 41092, Sevilla, Spain.
Adi DomerDepartment of Life Sciences, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, P.O. Box 653, Beer-Sheva, 8410501, Israel.
Daniela HamidovićMinistry of Economy and Sustainable Development, Institute for Environment and Nature, Radnička cesta 80, HR-10000, Zagreb, Croatia.
Stephanie Kramer-SchadtDepartment of Ecological Dynamics, Leibniz Institute for Zoo and Wildlife Research, Alfred-Kowalke-Straße 17, 10315, Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-9269-4446
Fiona MathewsUniversity of Sussex, John Maynard Smith Building, Falmer, Brighton, BN1 9RH, UK.
Viktoriia RadchukDepartment of Ecological Dynamics, Leibniz Institute for Zoo and Wildlife Research, Alfred-Kowalke-Straße 17, 10315, Berlin, Germany.
Hugo RebeloCIBIO, Centro de Investigação em Biodiversidade e Recursos Genéticos, InBIO Laboratório Associado, Universidade do Porto, 4485-661, Vairão, Portugal.
Ireneusz RuczynskiMammal Research Institute Polish Academy of Sciences, Stoczek 1, 17-230, Białowieża, Poland.
Estelle SolemDepartment of Ecological Dynamics, Leibniz Institute for Zoo and Wildlife Research, Alfred-Kowalke-Straße 17, 10315, Berlin, Germany.
Asaf TsoarIsrael Nature and Parks Authority, Southern District Omer Industrial Park, P.O. Box 302, Omer, Israel.
Danilo RussoWildlife Research Unit, Dipartimento di Agraria, Università degli Studi di Napoli Federico II, via Università, 100, 80055, Portici, Napoli, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-1934-7130
Orly RazgourBiosciences, University of Exeter, Streatham Campus, Hatherly Laboratories, Prince of Wales Road, Exeter, EX4 4PS, UK.
Leibniz Institute for Zoo and Wildlife Research · DEUniversity of Lisbon · PTSapienza University of Rome · ITUniversity of Naples Federico II · ITBen-Gurion University of the Negev · ILBulgarian Academy of Sciences · BGConsejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas · ESIsrael Antiquities Authority · ILIstituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale delle Venezie · ITMammal Research Institute · PLMinistry of Economy · MKUniversity of Exeter · GBUniversity of Sussex · GB

Funding

Bulgarian National Science Fund CP-06-COST/15EMERGIA grant EMERGIA20_00252European Cooperation in Science and Technology COST Action CA18107Juan de la Cierva-Incorporación grant IJCI-2017-31419Junta de AndalucíaMUR Rita Levi Montalcini programNatural Environment Research Council NE/M018660/20Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology 2020.01129.CEECIND/CP1601/CT0004Spanish Ministry of Science, Innovation and Universities
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Understanding how species respond to climate change is key to informing vulnerability assessments and designing effective conservation strategies, yet research efforts on wildlife responses to climate change fail to deliver a representative overview due to inherent biases. Bats are a species-rich, globally distributed group of organisms that are thought to be particularly sensitive to the effects of climate change because of their high surface-to-volume ratios and low reproductive rates. We systematically reviewed the literature on bat responses to climate change to provide an overview of the current state of knowledge, identify research gaps and biases and highlight future research needs. We found that studies are geographically biased towards Europe, North America and Australia, and temperate and Mediterranean biomes, thus missing a substantial proportion of bat diversity and thermal responses. Less than half of the published studies provide concrete evidence for bat responses to climate change. For over a third of studied bat species, response evidence is only based on predictive species distribution models. Consequently, the most frequently reported responses involve range shifts (57% of species) and changes in patterns of species diversity (26%). Bats showed a variety of responses, including both positive (e.g. range expansion and population increase) and negative responses (range contraction and population decrease), although responses to extreme events were always negative or neutral. Spatial responses varied in their outcome and across families, with almost all taxonomic groups featuring both range expansions and contractions, while demographic responses were strongly biased towards negative outcomes, particularly among Pteropodidae and Molossidae. The commonly used correlative modelling approaches can be applied to many species, but do not provide mechanistic insight into behavioural, physiological, phenological or genetic responses. There was a paucity of experimental studies (26%), and only a small proportion of the 396 bat species covered in the examined studies were studied using long-term and/or experimental approaches (11%), even though they are more informative about the effects of climate change. We emphasise the need for more empirical studies to unravel the multifaceted nature of bats' responses to climate change and the need for standardised study designs that will enable synthesis and meta-analysis of the literature. Finally, we stress the importance of overcoming geographic and taxonomic disparities through strengthening research capacity in the Global South to provide a more comprehensive view of terrestrial biodiversity responses to climate change.

Indexed as

ChiropteraAnimalsBiodiversityClimate ChangeEcosystemPopulation Dynamicsbatsclimate changeconservationlife traitsphysiologyspecies range

Identifiers

PMID36054527
PMCPMC10087939
OpenAlexW4292553243

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.