Acoustic detection of radiotracked foraging bats in temperate lowland forests
Abstract
During the recent years studies of bat activity are predominantly based on ultrasound detection. However this method suffers from several biases such as different species call ranges, temporal and habitat-related variability. In order to test the bias linked to the detection of whispering gleaning bats in temperate lowland forests, we equipped several individuals of Myotis bechsteinii and Plecotus auritus with transmitters and followed them on their foraging grounds where we simultaneously recorded echolocation calls. Our results highlight the very low detectability of these species whose presence was ascertained at the recording station. On the other hand, we detected the presence of many other species. We suggest methodological recommendations for ultrasound detection whenever gleaning bat species are concerned.
Keywords
Acoustic Detection Habitat Myotis bechsteinii Plecotus auritusPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
- Adams, A.M., Jantzen, M.K., Hamilton, R.M., Fenton, M.B., 2012. Do you hear what I hear? Implications of detector selection for acoustic monitoring of bats. Methods Ecol. Evol. 3, 992–998.Google Scholar
- Albert, C.H., Thuiller, W., 2008. Favourability functions versus probability of presence: advantages and misuses. Ecography 31, 417–422.Google Scholar
- Aldridge, H.D.J.N., Brigham, R.M., 1988. Load carrying and maneuverability in an insectivorous bat: atest ofthe 5% “rule” of radio-telemetry. J. Mammal. 69, 379–382.Google Scholar
- Aldridge, H.D.J.N., Rautenbach, I.L., 1987. Morphology, echolocation and resource partitioning in insectivorous bats. J. Anim. Ecol. 56, 763–778.Google Scholar
- Amelon, S.K., Dalton, D.C., Millspaugh, J.J., Wolf, S.A., 2009. Radiotelemetry. Techniques and analysis. In: Kunz, T.H., Parsons, S. (Eds.), Ecological and Behavioral Methods for the Study of Bats., 2nd ed. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, pp. 57–77.Google Scholar
- Anderson, M.E., Racey, P.A., 1991. Feeding behaviour of captive brown long-eared bats, Plecotus auritus. Anim. Behav. 42, 489–493.Google Scholar
- Anderson, M.E., Racey, P.A., 1993. Discimination between fluttering and non-fluttering moths by brown long-eared bats, Plecotus auritus. Anim. Behav. 46, 1151–1155.Google Scholar
- Archaux, F., Tillon, L, Fauvel, B., Martin, H., 2013. Foraging habitat use by bats in a large temperate oak forest: importance of mature and regeneration stands. Rhinolophe 19, 47–58.Google Scholar
- Ashrafi, S., Beck, A., Rutishauser, M., Arlettaz, R., Bontadina, F., 2011. Trophic niche partitioning of cryptic species of long-eared bats in Switzerland: implications for conservation. Eur.J. Wildl. Res. 57, 843–849.Google Scholar
- Barataud, M., 2005. Acoustic variability, and identification possibilities for seven European bats ofthe genus Myotis. Rhinolophe 17, 43–62.Google Scholar
- Barataud, M., 2012. Ecologie acoustique des Chiroptères d’Europe. Identification des espèces, étude de leurs habitats et comportements de chasse. Biotope - Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Mèze - Paris.Google Scholar
- Britzke, E.R., Gillam, E.H., Murray, K.L., 2013. Current state of understanding of ultrasonic detectors for the study of bat ecology. Acta Theriol. 58, 109–117.Google Scholar
- Brotons, L., Thuiller, W., Araujo, M.B., Hirzel, A.H., 2004. Presence-absence versus presence-only modelling methods for predicting bird habitat suitability. Ecography 27, 437–448.Google Scholar
- Collins, J., Jones, G., 2009. Differences in bat activity in relation to bat detector height: implications for bat surveys at proposed windfarm sites. Acta Chiropt. 11, 343–350.Google Scholar
- Fenton, M.B., 2013. Chapter 3 - evolution of echolocation. In: Adams, R.A., Pedersen, S.C. (Eds.), Bat Evolution, Ecology, and Conservation. Springer Science and Business Media, New York, pp. 47–70.Google Scholar
- Froidevaux, J.S.P., Zellweger, F., Bollmann, K., Obrist, M.K., 2014. Optimizing passive acoustic sampling of bats in forests. Ecol. Evol. 4, 4690–4700.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- Froidevaux, J.S.P., Zellweger, F., Bollmann, K., Jones, G., Obrist, M.K., 2016. From field surveys to LIDAR: shining a light on how bats respond to forest structure. Remote Sens. Environ. 175, 242–250.Google Scholar
- Gooch, M.M., Heupel, A.M., Price, S.J., Dorcas, M.E., 2006. The effects of survey protocol on detection probabilities and site occupancy estimates of summer breeding anurans. Appl. Herpetol. 3, 129–142.Google Scholar
- Gorresen, P.M., Miles, A.C., Todd, C.M., Bonaccorso, F.J., Weller, T.J., 2008. Assessing bat detectability and occupancy with multiple automated echolocation detectors. J. Mammal. 89, 11–17.Google Scholar
- Hayes, J.P., 2000. Assumptions and practical considerations in the design and interpretation of echolocation-monitoring studies. Acta Chiropt. 2, 225–236.Google Scholar
- Hayes, J.P., Ober, H.K., Sherwin, R.E., 2009. Survey and monitoring of bats. In: Kunz, T.H., Parsons, S. (Eds.), Ecological and Behavioral Methods for the Study of bats., 2nd ed. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, pp. 112–129.Google Scholar
- Kennedy, J.P., Sillett, S.C, Szewczak, J.M., 2014. Bat activity across the vertical gradient of an old-growth Sequoia sempervirens forest. Acta Chiropt. 16, 53–63.Google Scholar
- Kéry, M., Schmid, H., 2004. Monitoring programs need to take into account imperfect species detectability. Basic. Appl. Ecol. 5, 65–73.Google Scholar
- Kubista, C.E., Bruckner, A., 2017. Within-site variability of field recordings from stationary, passively working detectors. Acta Chiropt. 19, 189–197.Google Scholar
- Lobo, J.M., Jiménez-Valverde, A., Hortal, J., 2010. The uncertain nature of absences and their importance in species distribution modelling. Ecography 33, 103–114.Google Scholar
- Luszcz, T.M.J., Barclay, R.M.R., 2016. Influence of forest composition and age on habitat use by bats in southwestern British Columbia. Can. J. Zool. 94, 145–153.Google Scholar
- Mackenzie, D.I., 2005. Was it there? Dealing with imperfect detection for species presence/absence data. Aust. N. Zeal. J. Stat. 47, 65–74.Google Scholar
- Mackenzie, D.I., Royle, J.A., 2005. Designing occupancy studies: general advice and allocating survey effort. J. Appl. Ecol. 42, 1105–1114.Google Scholar
- Meschede, A., Heller, K.G., 2003. Ecologie et protection des chauves-souris en milieu forestier. Rhinolophe 16, 1–248.Google Scholar
- Müller, J., Mehr, M., Bässler, C., Fenton, M.B., Hothorn, T., Pretzsch, H., Klemmt, H.J., Brandl, R., 2012. Aggregative response in bats: prey abundance versus habitat. Oecologia 169, 673–684.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Nichols, J.D., Hines, J.E., Sauer, J.R., Fallon, F.W., Fallon, J.E., Heglund, P.J., 2000. A double-observer approach for estimating detection probability and abundance from point counts. Auk 117, 393–408.Google Scholar
- Parsons, S., Szewczak, J.M., 2009. Detecting, recording, and analysis the vocalizations of bats. In: Kunz, T.H., Parsons, S. (Eds.), Ecological and Behavioral Methods for the Study of Bats., 2nd ed. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, pp. 91–111.Google Scholar
- Patriquin, K.J., Hogberg, L.K., Chruszcz, B.J., Barclay, R.M.R., 2003. The influence of habitat structure on the ability to detect ultrasound using bat detectors. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 31, 475–481.Google Scholar
- Pauli, B.P., Zollner, P.A., Haulton, G.S., 2017. Nocturnal habitat selection of bats using occupancy models. J. Wildl. Manage. 81, 878–891.Google Scholar
- Pellet, J., Schmidt, B.R., 2005. Monitoring distributions using call surveys: estimating site occupancy, detection probabilities and inferring absence. Biol. Conserv. 123, 27–35.Google Scholar
- Plank, M., Fiedler, K., Reiter, G., 2012. Use of forest strata by bats in temperate forests. J. Zool. 286, 154–162.Google Scholar
- Rieger, I., Nagel, P., 2007. Vertical stratification of bat activity in a deciduous forest. In: Unterseher, M., Morawetz, W., Klotz, S., Arndt, E. (Eds.), The Canopy of a Temperate Floodplain Forest - Results from Five Years of Research at the Leipzig Canopy Crane. Universität Leipzig, The Leipzig Canopy Crane Project Leipzig, pp. 141–149.Google Scholar
- Robinson, M.F., 1990. Prey selection by the brown long-eared bat (Plecotus auritus). Myotis 28, 5–18.Google Scholar
- Royle, JA, Nichols, J.D., Kery, M., 2005. Modelling occurrence and abundance of species when detection is imperfect. Oikos 110, 353–359.Google Scholar
- Shiel, C.B., McAney, CM., Fairley, J.S., 1991. Analysis ofthe diet of Natterer’s bat Myotis nattereri and the common long-eared bat Plecotus auritus in the West of Ireland. J. Zool. 223, 299–305.Google Scholar
- Siemers, B.M., Swift, S.M., 2006. Differences in sensory ecology contribute to resource partitioning in the bats Myotis bechsteinii and Myotis nattereri (Chiroptera: Vespertilionidae). Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 59, 373–380.Google Scholar
- Skalak, S.L., Sherwin, R.E., Brigham, R.M., 2012. Sampling period, size and duration influence measures of bat species richness from acoustic surveys. Methods Ecol. Evol. 3, 490–502.Google Scholar
- Skiba, R., 2009. Europäische Fledermäuse: Kennzeichen, Echoortung und Detektoranwendung. Die Neue Brem-Bücherei Band 648, Westarp Wissenschaften-Verlagsgesellschaft GmbH, Horenwersleben.Google Scholar
- Stahlschmidt, P., Brühl, C.A., 2012. Bats as bioindicators - the need of a standardized method for acoustic bat activity surveys. Methods Ecol. Evol. 3, 503–508.Google Scholar
- Swift, S.M., 1998. Long-eared bats. In: {iePoyser Natural History}. T and AD Poyser Ltd., London.Google Scholar
- Tanadini, L.G., Schmidt, B.R., 2011. Population size influences amphibian detection probability: implications for biodiversity monitoring programs. PLoS One 6, e28244.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- Tyre, A.J., Tenhumberg, B., Field, S.A., Niejalke, D., Parris, K., Possingham, H.P., 2003. Improving precision and reducing bias in biological surveys: estimating false-negative error rates. Ecol. Appl. 13, 1790–1801.Google Scholar
- Weller, T.J., 2008. Using occupancy estimation to assess the effectiveness of a regional multiple-species conservation plan: bats in the Pacific Northwest. Biol. Conserv. 141, 2279–2289.Google Scholar