4.5 Article

Timing and technique impact the effectiveness of road-based, mobile acoustic surveys of bats

期刊

ECOLOGY AND EVOLUTION
卷 8, 期 6, 页码 3152-3160

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ece3.3808

关键词

acoustic surveys; bat monitoring; bats; Chiroptera

资金

  1. Indiana Department of Natural Resources Division of Forestry
  2. Department of Forestry and Natural Resources, Purdue University
  3. McIntire-Stennis Cooperative Forestry Research Program

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Mobile acoustic surveys are a common method of surveying bat communities. However, there is a paucity of empirical studies exploring different methods for conducting mobile road surveys of bats. During 2013, we conducted acoustic mobile surveys on three routes in north-central Indiana, U.S.A., using (1) a standard road survey, (2) a road survey where the vehicle stopped for 1min at every half mile of the survey route (called a start-stop method), and (3) a road survey with an individual using a bicycle. Linear mixed models with multiple comparison procedures revealed that when all bat passes were analyzed, using a bike to conduct mobile surveys detected significantly more bat passes per unit time compared to other methods. However, incorporating genus-level comparisons revealed no advantage to using a bike over vehicle-based methods. We also found that survey method had a significant effect when analyses were limited to those bat passes that could be identified to genus, with the start-stop method generally detecting more identifiable passes than the standard protocol or bike survey. Additionally, we found that significantly more identifiable bat passes (particularly those of the Eptesicus and Lasiurus genera) were detected in surveys conducted immediately following sunset. As governing agencies, particularly in North America, implement vehicle-based bat monitoring programs, it is important for researchers to understand how variations on protocols influence the inference that can be gained from different monitoring schemes.

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

4.5
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