1996
DOI: 10.2307/1382778
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Conservation of Bats in Managed Forests: Use of Roosts by Lasionycteris noctivagans

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

7
46
0

Year Published

1998
1998
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
5
3
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 90 publications
(53 citation statements)
references
References 21 publications
7
46
0
Order By: Relevance
“…These findings are consistent with other studies that found bats prefer to roost at sites with relatively lower tree density (e.g., Hutchinson and Lacki, 2000;Boyles and Aubrey, 2006;Psyllakis and Brigham, 2006), lower canopy coverage (e.g., Kalcounis-Rüppell et al, 2005), and little understory vegetation (e.g., Campbell et al, 1996;Boyles and Aubrey, 2006). For example, Campbell et al (1996) found that roost sites had less canopy closure, lower understory density, and lower understory height compared with random areas, and Boyles and Aubrey (2006) found all evening bat roosts in stands that were subjected to controlled burning; these stands had greater canopy light penetration than unburned stands. Prior to European settlement of North America, oak and pine woodlands maintained by periodic fire were once abundant throughout the southeastern U.S. (including the Ozark and Ouachita Mountain physiographic region); these ecosystems had open overstories, relatively low BA, and primarily herbaceous understories (Masters et al, 1995;Lorimer, 2001).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 92%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…These findings are consistent with other studies that found bats prefer to roost at sites with relatively lower tree density (e.g., Hutchinson and Lacki, 2000;Boyles and Aubrey, 2006;Psyllakis and Brigham, 2006), lower canopy coverage (e.g., Kalcounis-Rüppell et al, 2005), and little understory vegetation (e.g., Campbell et al, 1996;Boyles and Aubrey, 2006). For example, Campbell et al (1996) found that roost sites had less canopy closure, lower understory density, and lower understory height compared with random areas, and Boyles and Aubrey (2006) found all evening bat roosts in stands that were subjected to controlled burning; these stands had greater canopy light penetration than unburned stands. Prior to European settlement of North America, oak and pine woodlands maintained by periodic fire were once abundant throughout the southeastern U.S. (including the Ozark and Ouachita Mountain physiographic region); these ecosystems had open overstories, relatively low BA, and primarily herbaceous understories (Masters et al, 1995;Lorimer, 2001).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 92%
“…Based on published literature, we developed the following predictions regarding how bats respond to different habitats: (1) bats prefer to roost in stands that contain mature, relatively large pines and hardwoods (e.g., Kalcounis, 1995;Vonhof, 1996); (2) bats prefer to roost in relatively open stands with less canopy cover (Kalcounis-Rüppell et al, 2005), lower tree density (Hutchinson and Lacki, 2000;Boyles and Aubrey, 2006;Psyllakis and Brigham, 2006), or little midstory clutter (e.g., Campbell et al, 1996); (3) bats roost in proximity to open areas where they prefer to forage (Mackey and Barclay, 1989;Burford and Lacki, 1995;Grindal and Brigham, 1998;Menzel et al, 2002).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In Oregon, Ormsbee and McComb (1998) reported that despite much higher activity by long-legged bats (Myotis volans) in old-growth stands (Thomas, 1988), they did not regularly roost close to these stands. A similar finding was reported for silver-haired bats by Campbell et al (1996). Limited roosting in old-growth white pine stands (i.e., proportional to availability), lends support to our hypothesis (Jung et al, 1999) that old-growth forests are important to the bats because their structure enhances foraging success, rather than only providing snags for roosting.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 88%
“…Finally, we identified 25 published studies that met desired habitat comparison requirements, and were used in calculating power analyses. These include (in alphabetical order): Barclay et al (1988), Betts (1996Betts ( , 1998, Boonman (2000), Brigham et al (1997), Callahan et al (1997), Campbell et al (1996), Crampton and Barclay (1998), Cryan et al (2001), Foster and Kurta (1999), Grindal (1999), Hutchinson and Lacki (2000), Lacki and Schwierjohann (2001), Lunney et al (1995), Mattson et al (1996), Menzel et al (1998), Ormsbee and McComb (1998), Rabe et al (1998), Sasse and Pekins (1996), O'Donnell (1999a, 1999b), Vonhof (1996), Vonhof and Barclay (1996), Waldien et al (2000), and Weller and Zabel (2001). For each paper we determined the number of habitat characteristics quantified, number of habitat characteristics found to be significant, whether nominal (i.e., categorical) habitat characteristics were examined, and whether habitat characteristics were tested using a multivariate approach, tested separately, or both.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%