4.6 Article

Water availability and successful lactation by bats as related to climate change in arid regions of western North America

期刊

JOURNAL OF ANIMAL ECOLOGY
卷 77, 期 6, 页码 1115-1121

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2656.2008.01447.x

关键词

bats; conservation; lactation; Myotis thysanodes; water

资金

  1. Boulder County Parks
  2. Open Space Department
  3. Lois Webster Fund
  4. Boulder County Nature Association
  5. University of Northern Colorado

向作者/读者索取更多资源

1. Climate change in North America is happening at an accelerated rate, reducing availability of water resources for bats and other wildlife that require it for successful reproduction. 2. We test the water-needy lactation hypotheses directly by tracking the drinking habitats of individual lactating and non-reproductive female fringed myotis at an artificial water source located near a maternity roost. 3. We used a submerged passive integrative transponder (PIT) tag reader system designed to track fish to instead record numbers of water source visitations by tagged bats. 4. Of 24 PIT-tagged adult females, 16 (67%) were detected repeatedly by the plate antenna as they passed to drink between 18 July and 28 August 2006. 5. The total number of drinking passes by lactating females (n = 255) were significantly higher than those of non-reproductive adult females (n = 22). Overall, lactating females visited 13 times more often to drink water than did non-reproductive females. On average, lactating females visited six times more often per night. Drinking bouts occurred most frequently just after evening emergence and at dawn. 6. Drinking patterns of non-reproductive females correlated significantly with fluctuating ambient temperature and relative humidity recorded at the water source, whereas lactating females drank extensively regardless of ambient conditions. 7. We provide a mathematical model to predict the rate of decline in bat populations in the arid West in relation to climate change models for the region.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据