Advertisement

Mammalian Biology

, Volume 78, Issue 4, pp 283–289 | Cite as

Impact of landscape fragmentation on a specialised woodland bat, Rhinolophus hipposideros

  • Guido ReiterEmail author
  • Elisabeth Pölzer
  • Harald Mixanig
  • Fabio Bontadina
  • Ulrich Hüttmeir
Original Investigation

Abstract

For habitat specialists, fragmentation has major consequences as it means less suitable habitat for the species to live in. In a fragmented landscape, we would expect larger, but spatially more clustered, foraging ranges. We studied the impact of landscape fragmentation on the foraging range and habitat exploitation of a specialised forest bat by radiotracking 16 female lesser horseshoe bats Rhinolophus hipposideros in a landscape with connected woodland structures and in a highly fragmented landscape in Carinthia, Austria.

Contrary to our expectations, spatial foraging behaviour was not influenced by fragmentation. No differences in the behaviour of the bats between the sites were evident for the foraging ranges (minimum convex polygon, MCP), the core foraging areas (50% kernel), nor the mean or the maximum distances from the roost. However, in the highly fragmented landscape, the foraging activity of individuals was spatially more clustered and the overall MCP of all bats of a colony was greater compared to the less fragmented landscape.

Woodland was the most important foraging habitat for the lesser horseshoe bats at both study sites. Habitat selection at the individual MCPs was evident only at the site with low fragmentation. However, in the core foraging areas, woodland was significantly selected over all other habitat types at both study sites.

We conclude that (1) conservation measures for colonies of lesser horseshoe bats should be undertaken within 2.5 km of the nursery roost, (2) woodland is the key foraging habitat particularly in the vicinity of the roost, and (3) any loss of woodland near the colonial roosts are likely to negatively influence the colony, since these bats do not seem to be able to adapt their spatial foraging behaviour in a degraded landscape. The inflexible spatial behaviour of this specialised bat highlights the need to compensate for any habitat loss within the foraging range of a bat colony.

Keywords

Landscape fragmentation Habitat management Conservation Austria 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aebischer, N.J., Robertson, P.A., 1992. Practical aspects of compositional analysis as applied to pheasant habitat utilization. In: Priede, I.G., Swift, S.M. (Eds.), Wildlife Telemetry. Remote Monitoring and Tracking of Animals. Ellis Horwood, New York, pp. 285–293.Google Scholar
  2. Aebischer, N.J., Robertson, P.A., Kenward, R.E., 1993. Compositional analysis of habitat use from animal radio-tracking data. Ecology 74, 1313–1325.Google Scholar
  3. Bennett, A.F., 1999. Linkages in the landscape. In: The Role of Corridors and Connectivity in Wildlife Conservation. IUCN, Gland/Cambridge.Google Scholar
  4. Bontadina, F., Naef-Daenzer, B., 1996. Analysing spatial data of different accuracy: the case of greater horseshoe bats foraging. In: Le Maho, Y. (Ed.), Wildlife– Biotelemetry. CNRS-CEPE, Strasbourg (online https://doi.org/www.rhinolophus.net/wildtele.pdf
  5. Bontadina, F., Schofield, H., Naef-Daenzer, B., 2002. Radio-tracking reveals that lesser horseshoe bats forage in woodland. J. Zool. (Lond.) 258, 281–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bontadina, F., Hotz, T., Märki, K., 2006. Die Kleine Hufeisennase im Aufwind. Ursachen der Bedrohung, Lebensraumansprüche und Förderung einer Fledermausart. Haupt Verlag, Bern.Google Scholar
  7. Boughey, K.L., Lake, I.R., Haysom, K.A., Dolman, P.M., 2011. Effects of landscape-scale broadleaved woodland configuration and extent on roost location for six bat species across the UK. Biol. Conserv. 144, 2300–2310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Duvergé, P.L., Jones, G., Rydell, J., Ransome, R.D., 2000. Functional significance of emergence timing in bats. Ecography 23, 32–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fraser, G.H., Stuchtbury, B.J.M., 2004. Area-sensitive forest birds move extensively among forest patches. Biol. Conserv. 118, 399–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Frey-Ehrenbold, A., Bontadina, F., Arlettaz, R., Obrist, M.K., 2012. Landscape connectivity, habitat structure and activity of bat guilds in farmland-dominated matrices. J. Appl. Ecol., in press.Google Scholar
  11. Frühstück, K., 2005. Quartierökologie und Populationsdynamik der Kleinen Hufeisennase (Rhinolophus hipposideros) im Sommer. Master Thesis. University of Graz.Google Scholar
  12. Gaisler, J., 1963. The ecology of lesser horseshoe bat (Rhinolophus hipposideros hipposiderosBechstein 1800) in Czechoslovakia, part I. Act. Soc. Zool. Bohem. 27, 211–233.Google Scholar
  13. Hooge, P.N., Eichenlaub, B., 1997. Animal movement extension to ArcView Ver. 1.1. Alaska Biological Science Center, U.S. Geological Survey, Anchorage, AK, USA.Google Scholar
  14. Johnson, D.H., 1980. The comparison of usage and availability measurements for evaluating resource preference. Ecology 61, 65–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jones, G., 1990. Prey selection by the greater horseshoe bat (Rhinolophusferrumequinum): optimal foraging by echolocation? J. Anim. Ecol. 59, 587–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lindenmayer, D.B., Fischer, J., 2006. Habitat fragmentation and landscape change: an ecological and conservation synthesis. Island Press, Washington, Covelo, London.Google Scholar
  17. Otis, D.L., White, G.C., 1999. Autocorrelation of location estimates and the analysis of radiotracking data. J. Wildl. Manag. 63, 1039–1044.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Pope, M.L., Lindenmayer, D.B., Cunningham, R.B., 2004. Patch use by greater glider in a fragmented forest ecosystem. I. Home range size and movements. Wildl. Res. 31, 559–568.Google Scholar
  19. Pullin, A.S., 2002. Conservation biology. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Reiter, G., 2004a. Post-natal growth and reproductive biology of Rhinolophus hipposideros(Chiroptera: Rhinolophidae). J. Zool. (Lond.) 262, 231–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Reiter, G., 2004b. The importance of woodland for lesser horseshoe bats (Rhinolophushipposideros) in Austria. Mammalia 68, 403–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Reiter, G., Hüttmeir, U., Jerabek, M., 2004. Quartiereigenschaften von Wochenstuben Kleiner Hufeisennasen (Rhinolophus hipposideros) in Österreich. Ber. nat.-med. Ver. Salzburg 14, 139–156.Google Scholar
  23. Reiter, G., Hüttmeir, U., Krainer, K., Smole-Wiener, K., Jerabek, M., 2008. Emergence behaviour of lesser horseshoe bats (Rhinolophus hipposideros): intracolony variation in time and space (Carinthia and Salzburg, Austria). Ber. nat.-med. Verein Innsbruck 95, 81–93.Google Scholar
  24. Schofield, H., Messenger, J., Birks, J., Jermyn, D., 2002. Foraging and roosting behaviour of lesser horseshoe bats at the Ciliau, Radnor. The Vincent Wildlife Trust, Ledbury.Google Scholar
  25. Smith, P.G., 2004. Automated log-ratio analysis of compositional data: software suited to analysis of habitat preference from radiotracking data. Bat Res. News 45, 16.Google Scholar
  26. Stone, E.L., Jones, G., Harris, S., 2009. Street lighting disturbs commuting bats. Curr. Biol. 19, 1123–1127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Worton, B.J., 1989. Kernel methods for estimating the utilisation distribution in home range studies. Ecology 70, 164–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Zahn, A., Holzhaider, J., Kriner, E., Maier, A., Kayikcioglu, A., 2008. Foraging activity of Rhinolophus hipposideros on the Island of Herrenchiemsee, Upper Bavaria. Mamm. Biol. 73, 222–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Deutsche Gesellschaft für Säugetierkunde 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Guido Reiter
    • 1
    Email author
  • Elisabeth Pölzer
    • 1
    • 2
  • Harald Mixanig
    • 1
  • Fabio Bontadina
    • 3
    • 4
  • Ulrich Hüttmeir
    • 1
  1. 1.Austrian Coordination Centre for Bat Conservation and Research (KFFOE)LeondingAustria
  2. 2.University of Graz, Institute of ZoologyGrazAustria
  3. 3.SWILD, Urban Ecology & Wildlife ResearchZürichSwitzerland
  4. 4.Swiss Federal Research Institute WSLBiodiversity and Conservation BiologyBirmensdorfSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations