4.7 Article

Site-occupancy of bats in relation to forested corridors

Journal

FOREST ECOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT
Volume 257, Issue 4, Pages 1200-1207

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.foreco.2008.09.054

Keywords

Bats; Bat activity; Corridors; Forest management; Occupancy; Pine plantation; South Carolina

Categories

Funding

  1. MeadWestvaco Corporation
  2. National Council for Air
  3. Stream Improvement, Inc.
  4. University of Georgia, International Paper, Nemours
  5. Wildlife Foundation
  6. Bat Conservation International

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Although use of corridors by some wildlife species has been extensively examined, use by bats is poorly understood. From I June to 31 August (2004-2005), we used Anabat II detectors to examine bat activity and species occupancy relative to forested corridors on an intensively managed forest landscape in southern South Carolina, USA. We compared bat activity among corridor interiors, corridor edges, and stands adjacent to corridors. We also compared models relating occupancy of bat species to site-level characteristics using an information theoretic approach. We identified 16,235 call sequences of 8 species and detected bat presence at 89% (n = 320) of sites sampled. Our results indicate higher occupancy rates for bats along corridor edges compared to interior corridor or adjacent stands. Although we found few differences among species with respect to site-level characteristics, occupancy of all bat species was positively associated with corridor overstory height and negatively associated with adjacent stand age. The presence of roads adjacent to corridors positively influenced occupancy of Eptesicus fuscus, Lasiurus seminolus, and Perlmyotis subflavus. Our results suggest management practices designed to create and enhance corridors may represent an ecologically sound method for maintaining important bat habitat features (i.e., edge) across managed forest landscapes. (C) 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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