4.7 Article

Effects of wastewater treatment plant effluent on bat foraging ecology in an urban stream system

期刊

BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION
卷 138, 期 1-2, 页码 120-130

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2007.04.009

关键词

riparian areas; water quality; insectivorous bats; feeding insects; echolocation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) effluent in the Cape Fear River Basin headwaters in North Carolina, USA, has influenced stream water quality and aquatic components of the stream food web. To examine effects of WWTP effluent on terrestrial predators in this system we determined prey availability, bat community structure, and bat foraging and commuting behavior at sites above and below WWTPs. We predicted an effect of effluent in the riparian habitat specialist Perimyotis subflavus but not the habitat generalists Eptesicus fuscus, Lasiurus borealis, or Nycticeius humeralis. Nocturnal insect abundance was higher upstream of the WWTPs. There were more Diptera, Coleoptera, and Lepidoptera upstream of the VvWTPs whereas there were more Odonata downstream of the WWTPs. There were more E. fuscus upstream of the WWTPs and more P. subflavus downstream of the WWTPs. Despite the difference in bat community structure up-and downstream of the WWTPs, bat commuting and foraging activity levels were the same; there was no difference in the total number of echolocation sequences we recorded per night up- and downstream of the WWTPs nor was there a difference in the proportion of those sequences that contained a feeding buzz. Our results suggest the effect of anthropogenic nutrients in the stream persists through higher food web trophic levels as we found impacts on nocturnal flying insects as well as two common species of insectivorous bats. Perimyotis subflavus and E. fuscus may serve as easily tractable terrestrial bioindicators of water quality as influenced by WWTP effluent in this, and other, urban watersheds. (c) 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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