4.7 Article

Use of foraging habitats by bats in a Mediterranean area determined by acoustic surveys: conservation implications

Journal

ECOGRAPHY
Volume 26, Issue 2, Pages 197-209

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1034/j.1600-0587.2003.03422.x

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We determined habitat use by foraging bats by broad-band acoustic surveys in 10 habitat types from a Mediterranean area (southern Italy). We applied discriminant functions to identify time-expanded echolocation calls from free-flying bats. Moon phase and cloud cover had no effect on bat activity. Only Hypsugo savii was influenced by temperature, and activity of Myotis daubentonii and Myotis capaccinii was reduced at higher wind speeds. Both total numbers of bat passes and feeding buzzes were highest over rivers and lakes. Pipistrellus kuhlii and H. savii were most frequently recorded. Pipistrellus kuhlii, Pipistrellus pipistrellus and Tadarida teniotis proved generalists in using foraging habitats. Water sites and conifer plantations were respectively the most and the least used habitats by H. savii. Rivers were especially important to Myotis bats, Miniopterus schreibersii and Pipistrellus pygmaeus. Unlike P. kuhlii, P. pipistrellus was frequent in beech woodlands; P. pygniaeus made a considerable use of chestnut woodlands and Myotis spp. were moderately active in both these woodland types. A large number of endangered or vulnerable species featured in riparian habitats, broadleaved woodlands and olive groves. Riparian and woodland habitats constitute an important target for conservation. Typical land use forms such as woodlands used for chestnut production and traditionally managed olive groves should be encouraged in conservation plans. The negative impact of urbanisation on bats might be counteracted by fostering trees, gardens and small cultivated patches. Farmland practices should encourage landscape complexity and limit the use of pesticides.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available