4.7 Article

The role of complex vegetation structures in determining hawking bat activity in temperate forests

期刊

FOREST ECOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT
卷 448, 期 -, 页码 559-571

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.foreco.2019.04.053

关键词

Chiroptera; Activity; Vegetation volume; Tree basal area; Deadwood; Silviculture; Conservation implications

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Forests constitute one of the most important feeding and foraging habitats for bats. Because bat populations are declining, most likely due to habitat loss or fragmentation, it is imperative to understand the issues concerned with timber exploitation on bat conservation. We investigated the foraging activity of edge- and open-space foragers in relation to stand and vegetation structure, characteristics that are commonly affected by forestry. Acoustic surveys, culminating to 713 point count sites were undertaken covering 46 different forest massifs across mainland France over 6 years. We used generalized linear mixed models to analyse the activity of ten species: 6 edge-habitat and 4 open-habitat foragers. Pipistrellus pipistrellus was the most detected edge-habitat forager, while Nyctalus leisleri was the most recorded of the open-habitat foragers. Eptesicus serotinus and P. pipistrellus responded positively to heterogeneous vertical vegetation volume. In addition, P. kuhlii and P. nathusii responded negatively to tree basal area. Barbastella barbastellus, Hypsugo savii, and P. nathusii were associated with either ground deadwood and/or logging tracks and minor-traffic roads, confirming the importance of edge space. Finally, B. barbastellus, E. serotinus, and P. nathusii were positively linked to the presence of tree microhabitats. This study demonstrates that bat use in forests is complex and multifaceted. Maintaining ground deadwood and heterogeneity of vegetation, at the forest plot scale, should ensure the ecological functioning of exploited forest systems and the conservation of edge- and open-habitat foraging bats.

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

4.7
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