Differences in bat activity in relation to bat detector height: implications for bat surveys at proposed windfarm sites

• Autorzy: Collins J. , Jones G.
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

We recorded bat activity simultaneously at ground level and 30 m height using Anabat II bat detectors and Anabat ZCAIM recording units mounted on masts at seven sites of varying habitat type in eastern England. At the lower detectors 6194 passes were recorded; 90.02% of calls were from Pipistrellus; 6.91 % were from Nyctalus/Eptesicus; 1.70% were Myotis/Plecotus; 0.13% were Barbastella and 1.24% could not be determined to species. At the higher detectors 484 passes were recorded from Pipistrellus (65.08%) and Nyctalus/Eptesicus (34.09%) and 0.83% were not determined to species. Total bat passes and the number of Pipistrellus passes were significantly higher on the lower detectors compared with the upper detectors. The difference between numbers of passes of Nyctalus/Eptesicus at the upper and lower detectors was not significant, despite proportionally more passes of these species being recorded at height. No extra species groups were recorded at height than were recorded at ground level except at one site where closed canopy broadleaved woodland surrounded the mast. Here, Nyctalus/Eptesicus species were recorded only at height. Overall, 28% of Nyctalus/Eptesicus passes and 5% of Pipistrellus passes were recorded exclusively at height, and not at ground level. Assessing bat activity levels from ground level detectors only can therefore be misleading, particularly when surveying high-flying species that are most likely to be at risk from wind turbine developments.

• Wydawca: -
• Czasopismo: Acta Chiropterologica
• Rocznik: 2009
• Tom: 11
• Numer: 2
• Opis fizyczny: p.343-350,fig.,ref.

Twórcy

autor

Collins J.

• School of Biological Sciences, University of Bristol, Woodland Road, Bristol BS8 IUG, United Kingdom
• RSK Carter Ecological Limited, Edmunds House, 40 The Green, South Bar, Banbury, Oxfordshire 0X16 9AE, United Kingdom

autor

Jones G.

• School of Biological Sciences, University of Bristol, Woodland Road, Bristol BS8 IUG, United Kingdom

Bibliografia

• Ahlén, I., L. Bach, H. J. Baagøe, and J. Petersson. 2007. Bats and offshore wind turbines studied in southern Scandinavia. Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, Stockholm, Sweden, 36 pp.
• Arnett, E. B., J. P. Hayes, and M. M. P. Huso. 2006. Patterns of pre-construction bat activity at a proposed wind facility in south-central Pennsylvania. An annual report submitted to the Bats and Wind Energy Co-operative. Bat Conservation International, Austin, Texas, 46 pp.
• Arnett, E. B., K. Brown, W. P. Erickson, J. Fiedler, T. H. Henry, G. D. Johnson, J. Kerns, R. R. KoLford, T. Nicholson, T. O’Connell, M. Piorkowski, and R. Tankersly. 2008. Patterns of fatality of bats at wind energy facilities in North America. Journal of Wildlife Management, 72: 61-78.
• Betts, S. 2006. Are British bats at risk from windfarms? British Wildlife, 17: 339-345.
• Brigham, R. M. R., E. K. V. Kalko, G. Jones, S. Parsons, and H. J. G. A. Limpens (eds.). 2004. Bat echolocation research. Tools, techniques and analysis. Bat Conservation International, Austin, Texas, 167 pp.
• Brinkmann, R., H. Schauer-Weisshahn, and F. Bontadina. 2006. Survey of possible operational impacts on bats by wind facilities in Southern Germany. Administrative District of Freiburg, Department 56 Conservation and Landscape Management, Gundelfingen, 63 pp.
• British Wind Energy Association. 1994. Best practice guidelines for wind energy development. British Wind Energy Association, London, 24 pp.
• Denzinger, A., B. J. Siemers, A. Schaub, and H.-U. Schnitzler. 2001. Echolocation by the barbastelle bat, Barbastella barbastellus. Journal of Comparative Physiology, 187A: 521-528.
• Eurobats. 2006. 5th Session of the Meeting of Parties, Ljubljana, Slovenia, 4-6 September 2006. Resolution 5.6: wind turbines and bat populations. EUROBATS.MoP5.Record. Annex9. http://www.eurobats.org/documents/pdf/MoP5/record_mop5/record mop5_annex9_res5.6_wind_turbines_incl_tables.pdf
• Fenton, M. B., and D. R. Griffin. 1997. High-altitude pursuit of insects by echolocating bats. Journal of Mammalogy, 78: 247-250.
• Hayes, J. P., and J. C. Gruver. 2000. Vertical stratification of bat activity in an old-growth forest in western Washington. Northwest Science, 74: 102-108.
• Holderied, M. W., and O. von Helversen. 2003. Echolocation range and wingbeat period match in aerial-hawking bats. Proceedings of the Royal Society, London, 270B: 2293-2299.
• 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.
• Kunz, T. H., E. B. Arnett, W. P. Erickson, A. R. Hoar, G. D. Johnson, R. P. Larkin, M. D. Strickland, R. W. Thresher, and M. D. Tuttle. 2007. Ecological impacts of wind energy development on bats: questions, research needs and hypotheses. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 5: 315-324.
• Larson, D. J., and J. P. Hayes. 2000. Variability in sensitivity of Anabat II detectors and a method of calibration. Acta Chiropterologica, 2: 209-213.
• Menzel, J. M., M. A. Menzel, J. C. Kilgo, W. M. Ford, J. W. Edwards, and G. F. McCracken. 2005. Effect of habitat and foraging height on bat activity in the coastal plain of South Carolina. Journal of Wildlife Management, 69: 235-245.
• Norberg, U. M., and J. M. V. Rayner. 1987. Ecological morphology and flight in bats (Mammalia; Chiroptera): wing adaptations, flight performance, foraging strategy and echo- location. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 316B: 335-427.
• Parsons, S. 1996. A comparison of the performance of a brand of broad-band and several brands of narrow-band bat detectors in two different habitat types. Bioacoustics, 7: 33—44.
• Parsons, S., and G. Jones. 2000. Acoustic identification of twelve species of echolocating bat by discriminate function analysis and artificial neural networks. The Journal of Experimental Biology, 203: 2641-2656.
• Patriquin, K. J., L. K. Hogberg, B. J. Chruszcz, and R. M. R. Barclay. 2003. The influence of habitat structure on the ability to detect ultrasound using bat detectors. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 31: 475—481.
• Rodrigues, L., L. Bach, M. Dubourg-Savage, J. Goodwin, and C. Harbusch. 2008. Guidelines for consideration of bats in wind farm projects. Eurobats Publication Series, 3: 1-51.
• Russ, J. 1999. The bats of Britain and Ireland. Alana Ecology Ltd., Bishop’s Wood, UK, 103 pp.
• Sattler, T., and F. Bontadina. 2005. Grundlagen zur Ökologischen Bewertung von zwei Windkraftgebieten in Frankreich aufgrund der Diversität und Aktivität von Fledermäusen. SWILD — Municipal Ecology, Wild Animal Research, commissioned by Megawatt Eole Company Ltd., 23 pp.
• Vaughan, N., G. Jones, and S. Harris. 1997. Identification of British bat species by multivariate analysis of echolocation call parameters. Bioacoustics, 7: 189-207.
• 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.
• Williams-Davies, L. 2007. A comparison of the utility and limitations of two models of ultrasonic bat detector: Anabat SD1 and Pettersson D240x. MSc. Thesis, University of Bristol, Bristol, 62 pp.

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.3161/150811009X485576