Biodiversity and Conservation

, Volume 18, Issue 9, pp 2361–2371 | Cite as

Do wooded streets provide connectivity for bats in an urban landscape?

  • Monik Oprea
  • Poliana Mendes
  • Thiago B. Vieira
  • Albert D. Ditchfield
Original Paper


The effects of urbanization on bats are poorly understood, but published data suggests it might be detrimental to them. Even though urban parks provide refuge to native biota, the nature of the urban landscape exacerbates the insularization process. In order to evaluate if wooded streets in an urban landscape provide connectivity for bats, we compared bat community structure in three different types of habitats: urban parks, wooded streets and non-wooded streets. Sampling occurred monthly from August 2006 to July 2007 in the city of Vitória, southeastern Brazil. Richness, relative abundance and diversity were higher in urban parks and lower in non-wooded streets. Jaccard’s similarity index showed that the wooded streets are more similar to non-wooded streets than to urban parks. Urbanization may benefit generalist species by providing new resources, but for specialist species critical resources may be lost and persistence endangered. There is evidence that wooded streets may provide some degree of connectivity for birds in urban landscapes, but our results suggest that this is not the case, with wooded streets being used by few individuals of a few species. Vegetation cover is important to maintain bat diversity in urban centers. Activities like landscape planning and gardening should include biodiversity data in their outputs in order to better design a landscape that improves the likelihood of persistence of bats.


Chiroptera Corridors Habitat fragmentation Habitat use Urbanization Urban planning 



We would like to thank our collegues Vinicius Pimenta, Márcio Almeida, Sílvia Ramira, Ricardo M. Fonseca, Rafael Z. Coutinho, and Geovana Mendes for all the help on the fieldwork. Daniel Brito for reviewing this manuscript prior to submission. Pedro L. Peloso for helping with the map. We also thank Prefeitura Municipal de Vitória and park managers for fieldwork permission. Instituto Brasileiro do Meio Ambiente e dos Recursos Naturais Renováveis for the research authorization. M. Oprea recieved a scholarship from Bat Conservation International through the Student Research Scholarship.


  1. Almeida MH, Ditchfield AD, Tokumaru RS (2007) Atividade de morcegos e preferência por habitat na zona urbana da Grande Vitória, ES, Brasil. Rev Bras Zoociencias 9:13–18Google Scholar
  2. Ávila-Flores R, Fenton MB (2005) Use of spatial features by foraging insectivorous bats in a large urban landscape. J Mammal 86:1193–1204. doi: 10.1644/04-MAMM-A-085R1.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bailie JEM, Hilton-Taylor C, Stuart SN (2004) A global species assessment. The IUCN Species Survival Commission, SwitzerlandCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barros RSM, Bisaggio EL, Borges RC (2006) Bats (Mammalia, Chiroptera) in urban forest fragments in Juiz de Fora City, Minas Gerais State, southeastern Brazil. Biota Neotropica 6. Cited 15 May 2008
  5. Bergallo HG, Esbérard CEL, Mello MAR, Lins V, Mangolin R, Melo GGS, Baptista M (2003) Bats species richness in Atlantic Forest: what is the minimum sampling effort? Biotropica 35:278–288Google Scholar
  6. Bredt A, Uieda W (1996) Bats from urban and rural environments of Distrito Federal, Mid-western Brazil. Chiropt Neotropical 2:54–57Google Scholar
  7. Bredt A, Uieda W, Pinto PP (2002) Visitas de morcegos fitófagos a Muntingia calabura L. (Muntingiaceae) em Brasília, Centro-Oeste de Brasil. Rev Bras Zoociencias 3:111–122Google Scholar
  8. Brigham RM, Cebek JE, Hickey MBC (1989) Intraspecific variation in the echolocation calls of two species of insectivorous bats. J Mammal 70:426–428. doi: 10.2307/1381534 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brosset A, Charles-Dominique P, Cockle A, Cosson J, Masson D (1996) Bat communities and deforestation in French Guiana. Can J Zool 74:1974–1982. doi: 10.1139/z96-224 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Czech B, Krausman PR (1997) Distribution and causation of species endangerment in the United States. Science 277:1116–1117. doi: 10.1126/science.277.5329.1116 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Czech B, Krausman PR, Devers PK (2000) Economic associations among causes of species endangerment in the United States. Bioscience 50:593–601. doi: 10.1641/0006-3568(2000)050[0593:EAACOS]2.0.CO;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Denys C, Schmidt H (1998) Insect communities on experimental mugwort plots along an urban gradient. Oecology 113:269–277. doi: 10.1007/s004420050378 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Emmons L, Feer F (1997) Neotropical rainforest mammals: a field guide. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  14. Esbérard CEL (2003) Diversidade de morcegos em área de Mata Atlântica regenerada no Sudeste do Brasil. Rev Bras Zoociencias 5:189–211Google Scholar
  15. Esbérard CEL (2004) Morcegos no estado do Rio de Janeiro. PhD Dissertation. Universidade Estadual do Rio de Janeiro, BrasilGoogle Scholar
  16. Esbérard CEL, Daemon C (1999) Um novo método para marcação de morcegos. Chiropt Neotropical 5:116–117Google Scholar
  17. Everette AL, O’Shea TJ, Ellison LE, Stone LA, McCance JL (2001) Bat use of a high-plains urban wildlife refuge. Wildl Soc Bull 29:967–973Google Scholar
  18. Fahrig L (2003) Effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 34:487–515. doi: 10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.34.011802.132419 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Félix JS, Reis NR, Lima IP, Costa EF, Peracchi AL (2001) Is the area of the Arthur Thomas Park, with its 82.72 ha, sufficient to maintain viable chiropteran populations? Chiropt Neotropical 7:129–133Google Scholar
  20. Fenton MB (1997) Science and the conservation of bats. J Mammal 78:1–14. doi: 10.2307/1382633 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fernández-Juricic E (2000) Avifaunal use of wooded streets in an urban landscape. Conserv Biol 14:513–521. doi: 10.1046/j.1523-1739.2000.98600.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gaisler J, Zukal J, Rehak Z, Homolka M (1998) Habitat preference and flight activity of bats in a city. J Zool (Lond) 244:439–445. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7998.1998.tb00048.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Galetti M, Morellato LPC (1994) Diet of the large fruit-eating bat Artibeus lituratus in a forest fragment in Brasil. Mammalia 58:661–665CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Galindo-Leal C, Câmara IG (2003) The Atlantic Forest of South America: biodiversity status, threats and outlook. Island Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  25. Geggie JF, Fenton MB (1985) A comparison of foraging by Eptesicus fuscus (Chiroptera: Vespertilionidae) in urban and rural environments. Can J Zool 63:263–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gehrt SD, Chelsvig JE (2003) Bat activity in an urban landscape: patterns at the landscape and microhabitat scale. Ecol Appl 13:939–950. doi: 10.1890/02-5188 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gehrt SD, Chelsvig JE (2004) Species-specific patterns of bat activity in an urban landscape. Ecol Appl 14:625–635CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hanski I, Singer MC (2001) Extinction-colonization dynamics and host-plant choice in butterfly metapopulations. Am Nat 158:341–353. doi: 10.1086/321985 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kalko EKV, Handley C, Handley D (1996) Organization, diversity, and long term dynamics of a Neotropical bat community. In: Cody M, Smallwood J (eds) Long term studies in vertebrate communities. Academic Press, Los Angeles, pp 503–553CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kammesheidt L (2002) Perspectives on secondary forest management in tropical humid lowland America. Ambio 31:243–250. doi: 10.1639/0044-7447(2002)031[0243:POSFMI]2.0.CO;2 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Kowarik I (1995) On the role of alien species in urban flora and vegetation. In: Pysek P, Prach K, Rejmánek M, Wade PM (eds) Plant invasions—general aspects and special problems. SPB Academic, Amsterdam, pp 85–103Google Scholar
  32. Kurta A, Teramino JA (1992) Bat community structure in an urban park. Ecography 15:257–261. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0587.1992.tb00032.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ludwig JA, Reynolds JF (1988) Nonlinear ordination. In: Ludwig JA, Reynolds JF (eds) Statistical ecology: a primer on methods and computing. Wiley, New York, pp 257–273Google Scholar
  34. Luniak M (1994) The development of bird communities in new housing estates in Warsaw. Memorabilia Zool 49:257–267Google Scholar
  35. IPEMA (2005) Conservação da Mata Atlântica no estado do Espírito Santo: cobertura florestal e unidades de conservação. Conservação Internacional do Brasil/IPEMA, VitóriaGoogle Scholar
  36. Mackin-Rogalska R, Pinowski J, Solon J, Wojcik Z (1988) Changes in vegetation, avifauna, and small mammals in a suburban habitat. Pol Ecol Stud 14:293–330Google Scholar
  37. McDonnell MJ, Pickett STA (1990) Ecosystem structure and function along urban–rural gradients: an unexploited opportunity for ecology. Ecology 71:1232–1237. doi: 10.2307/1938259 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. McIntyre NE (2000) Ecology of urban arthropods: a review and a call to action. Ann Entomol Soc Am 93:825–835. doi: 10.1603/0013-8746(2000)093[0825:EOUAAR]2.0.CO;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. McKinney ML (2002) Urbanization, biodiversity and conservation. Bioscience 52:883–890. doi: 10.1641/0006-3568(2002)052[0883:UBAC]2.0.CO;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. McKinney ML (2006) Urbanization as a major cause of biotic homogenization. Biol Conserv 127:247–260. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2005.09.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Mittermeier RA, Gil PR, Hoffmann M, Pilgrim J, Brooks T, Mittermeier CG, Lamoreux J, Fonseca GAB (2005) Hotspots revisited. CEMEX, Cid, MéxicoGoogle Scholar
  42. Myers N, Mittermeier RA, Mittermeier CG, Fonseca GAB, Kent J (2000) Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 403:853–858. doi: 10.1038/35002501 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Nogueira MR, Tavares VC, Peracchi AL (2003) New records of Uroderma magnirostrum Davis (Mammalia, Chiroptera) from southeastern Brazil, with comments on its natural history. Rev Bras Zool 20:691–697. doi: 10.1590/S0101-81752003000400023 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Oprea M (2006) Aspectos ecológicos de morcegos de restinga. MSc. Dissertation. Universidade Federal do Espírito Santo, BrasilGoogle Scholar
  45. Oprea M, Brito D, Vieira TB, Mendes P, Lopes SR, Fonseca RM, Coutinho RZ, Ditchfield AD (2007) A note on the diet and foraging behavior of Artibeus lituratus (Chiroptera, Phyllostomidae) in an urban park in southeastern Brazil. Biota Neotropica 7. Cited 15 May 2008
  46. Passos JG, Passamani M (2003) Artibeus lituratus (Chiroptera, Phillostomidae): Biologia e dispersão de sementes no Parque do Museu de Biologia Prof. Mello Leitão, Santa Teresa (ES). Natureza OnLine 1:1–6Google Scholar
  47. Pedro WA, Taddei VA (1997) Taxonomic assemblage of bats from Panga Reserve, southeastern Brazil: abundance patterns and trophic relations in the Phyllostomidae (Chiroptera). Bol Mus Biol Mello Leitão (N Sér) 6:3–21Google Scholar
  48. Pedro WA, Geraldes MP, Lopez GG, Alho CJR (1995) Fragmentação de Hábitat e a Estrutura de uma Taxocenose de Morcegos em São Paulo (Brasil). Chiropt Neotropical 1:4–6Google Scholar
  49. Pierson ED (1998) Tall trees, deep holes, and scarred landscapes: conservation biology of North American bats. In: Kunz TH, Racey PA (eds) Bat biology and conservation. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC, pp 309–325Google Scholar
  50. Reis NR, Muller MF, Estriker ES (1993) Lista e Chave de Quiropteros do Parque Estadual Mata do Godoy e Arredores. Londrina—Paraná. Rev Semina 14:120–126Google Scholar
  51. Reis NR, Peracchi AL, Pedro WA, Lima IP (2007) Morcegos do Brasil. Universidade Estadual de Londrina, ParanáGoogle Scholar
  52. Rydell J, Bushby A, Cosgrove C, Racey PA (1994) Habitat use by bats along rivers in NE Scotland. Fol Zool 43:417–424Google Scholar
  53. Sazima I, Fischer WA, Sazima M, Fischer EA (1994) The fruit bat Artibeus lituratus as a forest and city dweller. Cienc Cult 46:164–168Google Scholar
  54. Silva MMS, Harmani NMS, Gonçalves EFB, Uieda W (1996) Bats from the metropolitan region of São Paulo, southeastern Brazil. Chiropt Neotropical 2:39–41Google Scholar
  55. Straube FC, Bianconi GV (2002) Sobre a grandeza e a unidade utilizada para estimar esforço de captura com utilização de redes de neblina. Chiropt Neotropical 8:150–152Google Scholar
  56. Tabarelli M, Gascon C (2005) Lessons from fragmentation research: improving management and policy guidelines for biodiversity conservation. Conserv Biol 19:734–739. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2005.00698.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Vale TR, Vale GR (1976) Suburban bird populations in west-central California. J Biogeogr 3:157–165. doi: 10.2307/3038144 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Vaughan N, Jones G, Harris S (1997) Habitat use by bats (Chiroptera) assessed by means of a broadband acoustic method. J Appl Ecol 34:716–730. doi: 10.2307/2404918 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Walsh AL, Harris S (1996) Foraging habitat preferences of vespertilionid bats in Britain. J Appl Ecol 33:508–518. doi: 10.2307/2404980 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Walsh AL, Harris S, Hutson AM (1995) Abundance and habitat selection of foraging vespertilionid bats in Britain: a landscape scale approach. Symp Zool Soc Lond 67:325–344Google Scholar
  61. Zortéa M, Chiarello AG (1994) Observations on the big fruit-eating bat, Artibeus lituratus, in a urban reserve of south-east Brazil. Mammalia 58:665–670Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Monik Oprea
    • 1
    • 2
  • Poliana Mendes
    • 1
  • Thiago B. Vieira
    • 1
  • Albert D. Ditchfield
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Biological, Laboratory of Chiroptera StudiesFederal University of Espírito SantoVitóriaBrazil
  2. 2.Division of Mammals, MRC 108National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian InstitutionWashingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations