This seemed like a good idea at the time: building metal bridges over busy roads, it was argued, would cause bats to mistake them for trees. They would then attempt to fly over the poles and avoid being hit by trucks and buses traveling on the road below as they were tricked into flying higher than normal. A widespread wildlife problem for the UK could be solved in one fell swoop.
It was a compelling vision and a total of £2 million was spent building 15 bat bridges across Britain, from Cumbria to Cornwall, to realize it. “But there was a problem,” said Professor William Sutherland, of the University of Cambridge’s Conservation Science Group. “The bridges didn’t work.”
Conservation researchers found that bats (from tiny pipes to common nocturnal) were unimpressed by the metal bridges they had to blend in with the trees. As a result, they continued to fly at low, unsafe altitudes over busy roads. “The problem was that the plan was based on faith, not science,” Sutherland added.
He argues that this is still a very common issue in conservation today. Evidence is either collected too rarely or used ineffectively; This is a process that leads to wrong decisions and waste of resources. His group was founded to halt this trend and ensure that scientific evidence is used appropriately before attempting to increase biodiversity or protect an endangered species. It is argued that good ideas need to be supported by good evidence before they can be widely adopted.
They point to the story of the big blue butterfly as an example of sound, evidence-based approaches to conservation. Phengaris arion This species, which was almost extinct in the UK towards the end of the last century, has been successfully reintroduced using a painstaking effort to assess the true causes of extinction.
The big blue relies on red ants to raise its young. Its larva is parasitic and feeds on red ant maggots. “The most important discovery made by Oxford ecologist Jeremy Thomas was that great blues seek out only one type of red ant; Myrmica sabuletiand their numbers were decreasing.
“However, by changing grazing practices on grasslands M sabuleti lived, their fortunes and numbers were restored, and so were those of the big blues. This was achieved by understanding the threat, testing solutions, and acting on the results.”
Sutherland noted the strict rules used in medicine, the aviation industry and building design to gather evidence before taking action. “In these areas, strict procedures are followed before any action is taken, either at the start of the operation or at take-off. This is what we need to do in terms of conservation before we start a project or take action. “We must ensure that our actions are effective.”
This last point was made by a Finnish study that examined the 10 most common actions taken in recent years to protect European birds of prey such as the Montagu’s wild dog and the white-tailed eagle. Six of these actions were found to be very effective. Two of these had no effect. Two of these are actually harmful, Sutherland said.
For example, moving nests to fenced areas has proven to be very successful in protecting young birds of prey. In contrast, marking nests to alert bird watchers and others to the presence of fledglings in these nests was considered harmful because studies have shown that they lead to high rates of chick loss from nests. “The fact that birds of prey have been harmed in the name of protecting them clearly demonstrates the need for action that is evidence-based and based on strong background research.”
To provide such a service, the Cambridge team operates by collecting all evidence relevant to conservation projects from journals to create a database of over 3,000 review articles. “If you want to know what to do about a conservation problem, you can research it and get an answer.
“If you did this for bats and road crossings, for example, you would come up with a much more promising set of solutions, including the construction of underpasses and culverts.”
Sutherland added that it is crucial that conservation projects are seen as effective. “People support prevention just as they fund cancer research; in the latter case, they know cancer apps are good and getting better, but they still want scientists and doctors to find more and improve treatments.
“The same goes for conservation. They want things to get better. But we need to make sure we have decision-making processes that get the best results we can in terms of increasing biodiversity. Some organisations, like the Woodland Trust, do this well, but often it’s not done properly by others.” “
Future projects
Conservation scientists have identified a number of challenges that will require careful evidence-based interventions in the coming years.
• worms It plays an important role in soil fertility and nutrient recycling. Research suggests that the numbers of this species have declined dramatically in the UK and populations need to be restored.
• Numerous plans for use have been put forward oceans Absorption of increasing amounts of carbon dioxide, including plans to intensify algae growth using fertiliser. However, their global impact needs to be assessed accurately.
• Events forest fires and biomass burning These events are expected to become more frequent as the world warms. Combating the release of harmful aerosols will require careful planning.
• We are returning hydrogen Using it as an alternative to burning fossil fuels will make a significant contribution to the fight against climate change. However, leakage from hydrogen production facilities can have harmful effects.