Assumptions and practical considerations in the design and interpretation of echolocation-monitoring studies

• Autorzy: Hayes J.P.
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

Bat detectors increasingly are used in studies of the ecology and behavior of bats. A number of assumptions are implicit to these studies, although these assumptions rarely are stated explicitly and sometimes are not recognized by researchers. The strength of inference resulting from echolocation-monitoring studies is, in part, a function of the extent to which underlying assumptions are met. Recognition of underlying assumptions is thus an important facet of the design and interpretation of echolocation-monitoring studies. In this paper, I outline and discuss six key assumptions underlying most echolocation-monitoring studies. Accounting for sources of temporal, spatial, and sampling variation is key for designing robust studies and for meeting the assumptions underlying echolocation-monitoring studies. Bat detectors increasingly are used in studies of the ecology and behavior of bats. A number of assumptions are implicit to these studies, although these assumptions rarely are stated explicitly and sometimes are not recognized by researchers. The strength of inference resulting from echolocation-monitoring studies is, in part, a function of the extent to which underlying assumptions are met. Recognition of underlying assumptions is thus an important facet of the design and interpretation of echolocation-monitoring studies. In this paper, I outline and discuss six key assumptions underlying most echolocation-monitoring studies. Accounting for sources of temporal, spatial, and sampling variation is key for designing robust studies and for meeting the assumptions underlying echolocation-monitoring studies.

• Wydawca: -
• Czasopismo: Acta Chiropterologica
• Rocznik: 2000
• Tom: 02
• Numer: 2
• Opis fizyczny: p.225-236,ref.

Twórcy

autor

Hayes J.P.

• Department of Forest Science, 321D Richardson Hall, Oregon state University,Corvallis, OR 97331, USA

Bibliografia

• Barclay, R. M. R. 1999. Bats are not birds: a cautionary note on using echolocation calls to identify bats. Journal of Mammalogy, 80: 290-296.
• Betts, B. 1998. Effects of interindividual variation in echolocation calls on identification of big brown and silver-haired bats. Journal of Wildlife Management, 62: 1003-1010.
• Boughman, J. W. 1998. Vocal learning by greater spear-nosed bats. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, 265: 227-233.
• Brigham, R. M., J. E. Cebek, and M. B. C. Hickey. 1989. Intraspecific variation in the echolocation calls of two species if insectivorous bats. Journal of Mammalogy, 70: 426-428.
• Brigham, R. M., S. D. Grindal, M. Firman, and J. Morissette. 1997. The influence of structural clutter on activity patterns of insectivorous bats. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 75: 131-136.
• Britton, A. R. C., and G. Jones. 1999. Echolocation behaviour and prey-capture success in foraging bats: laboratory and field experiments on Myotis daubentonii. Journal of Experimental Biology, 202: 1793-1801.
• De Oliveira, M. C. 1998. Anabat system practical guide: survey techniques, collection and characterisation on reference bat echolocation calls, common field problems and problem soling. Department of Natural Resources, Queensland, Australia, 60 pp.
• Downs, N. C., and P. A. Racey. 1999. A computer-downloadable system to monitor bat activity. Bat Research News, 40: 41-43.
• Elliott, P. 1998. Ultrasonic bat detectors: a beginners’ guide. Journal of Biological Education, 32: 41-47.
• Erkert, H. G. 1982. Ecological aspects of bat activity rhythms. Pp. 201-242, in Ecology of bats (T. H. Kunz, ed.). Plenum Publishing Corporation, New York, 425 pp.
• Faure, P. A., and R. M. R. Barclay. 1992. The sensory basis of prey detection by the long-eared bat, Myotis evotis, and the consequences for prey selection. Animal Behaviour, 44: 31-39.
• Fenton, M. B., and G. P. Bell. 1979. Echolocation and feeding behaviour in four species of Myotis (Chiroptera). Canadian Journal of Zoology, 57: 1271-1277.
• Fenton, M. B., and D. R. Griffin. 1997. High-altitude pursuit of insects by echolocating bats. Journal of Mammalogy, 78: 247-250.
• Gaisler, J., J. Zukal, Z. Rehak, and M. Homolka. 1998. Habitat preference and flight activity of bats in a city. Journal of Zoology (London), 244: 439-445.
• Griffin, D. R. 1958. Listening in the dark. Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut, 413 pp.
• Grindal, S. D. 1999. Habitat use by bats, Myotis spp., in western Newfoundland. Canadian Field- Naturalist, 113: 258-263.
• Grindal, S. D., and R. M. Brigham. 1999. Impacts of forest harvesting on habitat use by foraging insectivorous bats at different spatial scales. Ecoscience, 6: 25-34.
• Hall, L. S., P. R. Krausman, and M. L. Morrison. 1997. The habitat concept and a plea for standard terminology. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 25: 173-182.
• Hayes, J. P. 1997. Temporal variation in activity of bats and the design of echolocation-monitoring studies. Journal of Mammalogy, 78: 514-524.
• Hayes, J. P., and J. C. Gruver. 2000. Vertical stratification of activity of bats in an old-growth forest in western Washington. Northwest Science, 74: 102-108.
• Hecker, K. R., and R. M. Brigham. 1999. Does moonlight change vertical stratification of activity by forest-dwelling insectivorous bats? Journal of Mammalogy, 80: 1196-1201.
• Humes, M. L., J. P. Hayes, and M. W. Collopy. 1999. Bat activity in thinned, unthinned, and old-growth forests in western Oregon. Journal of Wildlife Management, 63: 553-561.
• Jones, G., N. Vaughan, and S. Parsons. 2000. Acoustic identification of bats from time-expanded recordings of echolocation calls. In Contributions to the study of bats: field use of acoustic detectors (W. L. Gannon and W. Bogdanowicz, eds.). Acta Chiropterologica, 2: 155-170.
• Jung, T. S., I. D. Thompson, R. D. Titman, and A. P. Applejohn. 1999. Habitat selection by forest bats in relation to mixed-wood stand types and structure in central Ontario. Journal of Wildlife Management, 63: 1306-1319.
• Kalcounis, M. C., K. A. Hobson, R. M. Brigham, and K. R. Hecker. 1999. Bat activity in the boreal forest: importance of stand type and vertical strata. Journal of Mammalogy, 80: 673-682.
• Kalko, E. K. V., and H.-U. Schnitzler. 1993. Plasticity in echolocation signals of European pipistrelle bats in search flight: implications for habitat use and prey detection. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 33: 415-428.
• Krusic, R. A., M. Yamasaki, C. D. Neefus, and P. J. Pekins. 1996. Bat habitat use in White Mountain National Forest. Journal of Wildlife Management, 60: 625-631.
• Kuenzi, A. J., and M. L. Morrison. 1998. Detection of bats by mist-nets and ultrasonic sensors. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 26: 307-311.
• Kunz,T. H. 1973. Resource utilization: temporal and spatial components of bat activity in central Iowa. Journal of Mammalogy, 54:14-32.
• Larson, D. J., and J. P. Hayes. 2000. Variability in sensitivity of Anabat II bat detectors and a method of calibration. In Contributions to the study of bats: field use of acoustic detectors (W. L. Gannon and W. Bogdanowicz, eds.). Acta Chiropterologica, 2: 209-213.
• Maier, C. 1992. Activity patterns of pipistrelle bats (Pipistrellus pipistrellus) in Oxfordshire. Journal of Zoology (London), 228: 69-80.
• McCracken, G. F. 1996. Bats aloft: a study of high- altitude feeding. Bats, 14: 7-10.
• Murray, K. L., E. R. Britzke, B. M. Hadley, and L. W. Robbins. 1999. Surveying bat communities: a comparison between mist nets and the Anabat II bat detector system. Acta Chiropterologica, 1: 105-112.
• Novick, A. 1977. Acoustic orientation. Pp. 73-287, in Biology of bats, Vol. III (W. A. Wimsatt, ed.). Academic Press, New York, xvi + 1-651.
• Obrist, M. K. 1995. Flexible bat echolocation: the influence of individual, habitat and conspecifics on sonar signal design. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 36: 757-770.
• O’Farrell, M. J. 1997. Use of echolocation calls for the identification of free-flying bats. Transactions of the Western Section of the Wildlife Society, 33: 1-8.
• O’Farrell, M. J. 1998. A passive monitoring system for Anabat II using a laptop computer. Bat Research News, 39: 147-150.
• O’Farrell, M. J. 1999. Blind test for ability to discriminate vocal signatures of the little brown bat Myotis lucifugus and the Indiana bat Myotis sodalis. Bat Research News, 40: 44-48.
• O’Farrell, M. J., and W. L. Gannon. 1999. A comparison of acoustic versus capture techniques for the inventory of bats. Journal of Mammalogy, 80: 24-30.
• O’Farrell, M. J., C. Corben, W. L. Gannon, and B. W. Miller. 1999a. Confronting the dogma: a reply. Journal of Mammalogy, 80: 297-302.
• O’Farrell, M. J., B. W. Miller, and W. L. Gannon. 1999b. Qualitative identification of free-flying bats using the Anabat detector. Journal of Mammalogy, 80: 11-23.
• O’Farrell, M. J., C. Corben, and W. L. Gannon. 2000. Geographic variation in the echolocation calls of the hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus). In Contributions to the study of bats: field use of acoustic detectors (W. L. Gannon and W. Bogdanowicz, eds.). Acta Chiropterologica, 2: 185-195.
• Park, K. J., G. Jones, and R. D. Ransome. 1999. Winter activity of a population of greater horseshoe bats (Rhinolophus ferrumequinum). Journal of Zoology (London), 248: 419-427.
• Reith, C. C. 1980. Shifts in time of activity by Lasionycteris noctivagans. Journal of Mammalogy, 61: 104-108.
• Rydell, J. 1990. Behavioural variation in echolocation pulses of the northern bat, Eptesicus nilssoni. Ethology, 85: 103-113.
• Rydell, J. 1993. Variation in the sonar of an aerialhawking bat (Eptesicus nilssonii). Ethology, 93: 275-284.
• Steidl, R. J., J. P. Hayes, and E. Schauber. 1997. Statistical power analysis in wildlife research. Journal of Wildlife Management, 61: 270-279.
• Stephens, D. W., and J. R. Krebs. 1986. Foraging theory. Princeton University Press, Princeton, 247 pp.
• Taylor, R. J., and M. G. O’Neill. 1988. Summer activity patterns of insectivorous bats and their prey in Tasmania. Australian Wildlife Research, 15: 533-539.
• Thomas, D. W., G. P. Bell, and M. B. Fenton. 1987. Variation in echolocation call frequencies recorded from North American vespertilionid bats: a cautionary note. Journal of Mammalogy, 68: 842-847.
• Thompson, W. L., G. C. White, and C. Gowan. 1998. Monitoring vertebrate populations. Academic Press, Inc., San Diego, 365 pp.
• Vaughan, N., G. Jones, and S. Harris. 1997. Habitat use of bats (Chiroptera) assessed by means of a broad-band acoustic method. Journal of Applied Ecology, 34: 716-730.
• Waldien, D. L. 1998. Characteristics and spatial relationships of day-roosts and activity areas of female long-eared myotis (Myotis evotis) in western Oregon. M.Sci. Thesis, Oregon State University, Corvallis, 83 pp.
• Waters, D. A., and G. Jones. 1995. Echolocation call structure and intensity in five species of insectivorous bats. Journal of Experimental Biology, 198: 475-489.
• Waters, D., G. Jones, and M. Furlong. 1999. Foraging ecology of Leisler’s bat (Nyctalus leis- leri) at two sites in southern Britain. Journal of Zoology (London), 249: 173-180.
• Weller, T. J., V. M. Seidman, and C. J. Zabel. 1998. Assessment of foraging activity using Anabat II: a cautionary note. Bat Research News, 39: 61-65.
• Wilkinson, L. C., and R. M. R. Barclay. 1997. Differences in the foraging behaviour of male and female big brown bats (Eptesicus fuscus) during the reproductive period. Ecoscience, 4:279-285.
• Zimmerman, G. S., and W. E. Glanz. 2000. Habitat use by bats in eastern Maine. Journal of Wildlife Management, 64: 1032-1040.