Association, roost use and simulated disruption of Myotis septentrionalis maternity colonies

Silvis, Alexander; Ford, W. Mark; Britzke, Eric R.; Johnson, Joshua B.

doi:10.1016/j.beproc.2014.01.016

Cited by 34 publications

(56 citation statements)

References 56 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We captured 58 female northern long-eared bats in 2011 and 71 in 2012 representing 4 separate colonies (Silvis et al, 2014). We obtained relocation data for 54 individuals (16 gestating, 29 lactating, 3 post-lactation, 6 non-reproductive) in 2011 and 67 (5 gestating, 48 lactating, 10 post-lactation, 4 non-reproductive) in 2012.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We recorded these same measurements for one randomly located non-roost tree for each day-roost located during the first year of our study. Non-roost tree locations were identified using randomly generated points within roosting areas used by bats with the nearest tree to the point location selected as the measurement tree; roosting areas previously were identified in Silvis et al (2014).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Day-roost tree selection by northern long-eared bats—What do non-roost tree comparisons and one year of data really tell us?

Silvis

Ford

Britzke

2015

Global Ecology and Conservation

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a b s t r a c tBat day-roost selection often is described through comparisons of day-roosts with randomly selected, and assumed unused, trees. Relatively few studies, however, look at patterns of multi-year selection or compare day-roosts used across years. We explored day-roost selection using 2 years of roost selection data for female northern long-eared bats (Myotis septentrionalis) on the Fort Knox Military Reservation, Kentucky, USA. We compared characteristics of randomly selected non-roost trees and day-roosts using a multinomial logistic model and day-roost species selection using chi-squared tests. We found that factors differentiating day-roosts from non-roosts and day-roosts between years varied. Day-roosts differed from non-roosts in the first year of data in all measured factors, but only in size and decay stage in the second year. Between years, day-roosts differed in size and canopy position, but not decay stage. Day-roost species selection was non-random and did not differ between years. Although bats used multiple trees, our results suggest that there were additional unused trees that were suitable as roosts at any time. Day-roost selection pattern descriptions will be inadequate if based only on a single year of data, and inferences of roost selection based only on comparisons of roost to non-roosts should be limited.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Day-roost tree selection by northern long-eared bats—What do non-roost tree comparisons and one year of data really tell us?

Silvis

Ford

Britzke

2015

Global Ecology and Conservation

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The greater number of connections allowed bats to maintain contact if a separate, shared roost was lost. In 2010, the level of colony social robustness to simulated random roost loss was greater than that of the northern bat [69] a species whose roosting ecology is frequently compared to that of the Indiana bat [26], [29], [82]. Conversely, in 2009 the Indiana bat colony was less robust to random roost loss than northern bat maternity colonies.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…Flexibility in roosting social behavior may be a useful adaptation given snag ephemerality [72]–[74] and has been documented in other species. For example, Silvis et al [69] documented similar differences among the roosting and social networks of the northern bat ( Myotis septentrionalis ) and Johnson et al [15] documented differences among network characteristics of Rafinesque's big-eared bat ( Corynorhinus rafinesquii ) in forested habitats.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Roosting and Foraging Social Structure of the Endangered Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis)

et al. 2014

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Social dynamics are an important but poorly understood aspect of bat ecology. Herein we use a combination of graph theoretic and spatial approaches to describe the roost and social network characteristics and foraging associations of an Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) maternity colony in an agricultural landscape in Ohio, USA. We tracked 46 bats to 50 roosts (423 total relocations) and collected 2,306 foraging locations for 40 bats during the summers of 2009 and 2010. We found the colony roosting network was highly centralized in both years and that roost and social networks differed significantly from random networks. Roost and social network structure also differed substantially between years. Social network structure appeared to be unrelated to segregation of roosts between age classes. For bats whose individual foraging ranges were calculated, many shared foraging space with at least one other bat. Compared across all possible bat dyads, 47% and 43% of the dyads showed more than expected overlap of foraging areas in 2009 and 2010 respectively. Colony roosting area differed between years, but the roosting area centroid shifted only 332 m. In contrast, whole colony foraging area use was similar between years. Random roost removal simulations suggest that Indiana bat colonies may be robust to loss of a limited number of roosts but may respond differently from year to year. Our study emphasizes the utility of graphic theoretic and spatial approaches for examining the sociality and roosting behavior of bats. Detailed knowledge of the relationships between social and spatial aspects of bat ecology could greatly increase conservation effectiveness by allowing more structured approaches to roost and habitat retention for tree-roosting, socially-aggregating bat species.

show abstract

Tree roosts of northern long‐eared bats following white‐nose syndrome

Thalken

Lacki

2017

J Wildl Manag

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Spring emergence and summer maternity seasons are critical to long‐term survival of cave‐hibernating bats inhabiting geographic regions affected by white‐nose syndrome (WNS). White‐nose syndrome reached cave‐hibernating populations of bats in Mammoth Cave National Park (MCNP), Kentucky, USA, in 2013, with significant declines in several species of bats that hibernate in MCNP during winter 2014–2015, including the northern long‐eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis). To assess behavior and roost selection of individuals surviving to spring emergence and the summer maternity season, we radio‐tracked 26 northern long‐eared bats captured at various locations with differing habitat conditions in MCNP during 2015 and 2016. We tracked bats daily to identify roosting sites and patterns in use of roosts, describe habitat conditions associated with roosting sites, and quantify variation in size of colonies occupying roost trees. The average number of bats emerging from roost trees (3.58 ± 0.57 [SE]) was low compared with estimates for the species in studies completed pre‐WNS. Adult female bats selected trees within 6 roost areas with no overlap in use of roost areas between non‐reproductive females in spring and pregnant and lactating females in summer. Variation in roost tree and surrounding forest characteristics occurred across sex and reproductive condition classes, with males and pregnant and lactating females roosting at higher landscape positions than non‐reproductive females. Comparisons of roosting habitat models demonstrated the torpor model (decay class, stem diameter, canopy cover) to be parsimonious, regardless of sex and reproductive condition class, suggesting importance for choosing roost trees that facilitate use of daytime torpor. Such a strategy would promote energy savings and be consistent with behaviors anticipated for bats vulnerable to WNS effects during winter hibernation because these bats are potentially compromised in health and physiologic condition upon emergence from hibernation in spring. We encourage land managers responsible for roost trees of northern long‐eared bats to consider seasonal and landscape‐level variation in roosting habitat needs of these bats. © 2017 The Wildlife Society.

show abstract

Association, roost use and simulated disruption of Myotis septentrionalis maternity colonies

Cited by 34 publications

References 56 publications

Day-roost tree selection by northern long-eared bats—What do non-roost tree comparisons and one year of data really tell us?

Day-roost tree selection by northern long-eared bats—What do non-roost tree comparisons and one year of data really tell us?

Roosting and Foraging Social Structure of the Endangered Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis)

Tree roosts of northern long‐eared bats following white‐nose syndrome

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About