Roosts and activity areas of Nyctinomops macrotis in northern Arizona

Corbett, R. J. M.; Chambers, Christopher P.; Herder, Michael J.

doi:10.3161/150811008x414890

Cited by 13 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In Colorado, O'Shea et al (2011) counted up to 18 spotted bats emerging from long vertical crevices at two maternity roosts. Female big free-tailed bats (Nyctinomops macrotis (Gray, 1840)), also captured during our study, roosted together at two of the three roosts that we located (~4 bats per roost, East and Central sites; Corbett et al 2008). Roost limitation may sometimes constrain bats to roost together (Kerth 2008); but given the extensive availability of potential cliff roosts in our study area, roosts do not appear to be limiting in northern Arizona.…”

Section: Roostsmentioning

confidence: 95%

“…4). A big free-tailed bat that we tracked in the same area during a concurrent study also used a large home range (296 km 2 ; Corbett et al 2008) and MCPs for serotine bats (Eptesicus serotinus (Schreber, 1774)) ranged from 0.16 to 47.6 km 2 (Robinson and Stebbings 1997). In contrast to the 6-11 km (one-way) travel distance found by Wai-Ping and Fenton (1989) in British Columbia and O'Shea et al (2011) in Colorado, spotted bats in northern Arizona, including lactating females, consistently traveled long distances (>30 km one-way during sequential nights of monitoring (Rabe et al 1998;Siders et al 1999;our study).…”

Section: Home Rangesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Spotted bat (EUMA and EUMA058, this study; Euderma maculatum) had large home ranges relative to most other species (note the logarithmic scale). Other species represented are the northern bat (Eptesicus nilssoni (Keyserling and Blasius, 1839); EPNI; de Jong 1994), little brown bat (Myotis lucifugus (LeConte, 1831); MYLU;Henry et al 2002), lesser horseshoe bat (Rhinolophus hipposideros (Bechstein, 1800); RHHI;Bontadina et al 2002), Virginia big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii virginianus Handley, 1955 = Plecotus townsendii virginianus (Handley, 1955); COTOV; Adam et al 1994), Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis Miller and Allen, 1928; MYSO; Menzel et al 2005), Rafinesque's big-eared bat (Corynorhinus rafinesquii (Lesson, 1827) = Plecotus rafinesquii Lesson, 1827; CORA; Menzel et al 2001), Ozark big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii ingens Handley, 1955 = Plecotus townsendii ingens (Handley, 1955); COTOI; Clark et al 1993), Mediterranean horseshoe bat (Rhinolophus euryale Blasius, 1953; RHEU; Russo et al 2002), New Zealand long-tailed wattled bat (Chalinolobus tuberculatus (Forster, 1844); CHTU; O'Donnell 2001), big free-tailed bat (Nyctinomops macrotis; NYMA;Corbett et al 2008), and serotine bat (Eptesicus serotinus; EPSE;Robinson and Stebbings 1997).…”

mentioning

confidence: 98%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Roosts and home ranges of spotted bats (Euderma maculatum) in northern Arizona

et al. 2011

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Roosting ecology and foraging behavior of spotted bats (Euderma maculatum (J.A. Allen, 1891)) are poorly known. We captured 47 spotted bats at three locations in northern Arizona and attached radio transmitters to 16 bats to identify roosts and home ranges. We identified 14 roosts for 12 bats. Female roosts faced south; males did not select a roost aspect. Bats used a mean of 1.4 roosts during 10 days. Mean distances from capture site and nearest perennial water source to roosts were 15.1 and 5.8 km, respectively. Maximum and minimum distances from capture to roost site were 36.3 and 2.3 km, respectively. Home ranges (95% use, minimum convex polygon method) for bats averaged 297 km 2 , which was much larger than reported for spotted bats elsewhere in their range and other insectivorous bats. Maximum flight speed was 53 km/h. Most foraging locations were in desert scrub vegetation, but bats also used woodlands and forests, perhaps seeking seasonal prey or cooler sites to reduce water stress. Maternity roosts were remote, difficult to access, and within protected areas in northern Arizona. Foraging areas and ponds used for drinking, however, included private and public lands managed for a variety of uses.Résumé : On connaît mal l'écologie de l'utilisation des perchoirs et le comportement de recherche de nourriture chez les chauves-souris tachetées (Euderma maculatum (J.A. Allen, 1891)). Nous avons capturé 47 chauves-souris tachetées à trois sites dans le nord de l'Arizona et fixé des émetteurs radio à 16 des chauves-souris afin d'identifier les sites des perchoirs et les domaines vitaux. Nous avons identifié 14 sites de perchoirs pour 12 chauves-souris. Les perchoirs des femelles font face au sud; les mâles ne choisissent pas d'orientation particulière pour se percher. Sur une période de 10 jours, les chauvessouris utilisent en moyenne 1,4 perchoir. Les distances moyennes du point de capture sont de 15,1 km et du point permanent d'eau le plus proche de 5,8 km. Les distances maximale et minimale entre les points de capture et les sites des perchoirs sont respectivement de 36,3 et 2,3 km. Les aires vitales (95 % d'utilisation, méthode des polygones convexes minimaux) des chauves-souris sont de 297 m 2 , beaucoup plus qu'il n'est signalé chez les chauves-souris tachetées ailleurs dans leur aire de répartition et chez les autres chauves-souris insectivores. La vitesse maximale de vol est de 53 km à l'heure. La plupart des sites d'alimentation sont dans la végétation arbustive de désert; les chauves-souris utilisent aussi les terrains boisés et les forêts, y recherchant peut-être des proies saisonnières ou des sites plus frais pour réduire leur stress hydrique. Les perchoirs de maternité sont éloignés, difficiles d'accès et situés dans des zones protégées dans le nord de l'Arizona. Les zones d'alimentation et les étangs utilisés pour boire se retrouvent sur des terres privées et publiques gérées pour une variété d'utilisations.[Traduit par la Rédaction]

show abstract

Section: Roostsmentioning

confidence: 95%

Section: Home Rangesmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 98%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Roosts and home ranges of spotted bats (Euderma maculatum) in northern Arizona

et al. 2011

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The 5 uncommon species are a mixed group and include species that can be categorized as (1) bats of more arid lowlands (California myotis and canyon bat; Armstrong et al 1994, Fitzgerald et al 1994, (2) bats typical of the zones in which we sampled but migratory (e.g., hoary bat) and not commonly captured in Colorado except during migration (Armstrong et al 1994, Fitzgerald et al 1994, or (3) bats typical but uncommon in Colorado and in some areas of other Four Corners states (fringed myotis; Table 4; Armstrong et al 1994, Fitzgerald et al 1994, except perhaps in areas near buildings used as roosts (e.g., occult myotis; Davis and Barbour 1970). Colonies of big free-tailed bats are generally limited to areas of the southwestern U.S. with deep canyons and cliff walls (Bogan et al 1998, Corbett et al 2008.…”

Section: ]mentioning

confidence: 99%

Bats of Mesa Verde National Park, Colorado: Composition, Reproduction, and Roosting Habits

O’Shea

Cryan

Snider

et al. 2011

Monographs of the Western North American Naturalist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We determined the bat fauna at Mesa Verde National Park (Mesa Verde) in 2006 and 2007, characterized bat elevational distribution and reproduction, and investigated roosting habits of selected species. We captured 1996 bats of 15 species in mist nets set over water during 120 nights of sampling and recorded echolocation calls of an additional species. The bat fauna at Mesa Verde included every species of bat known west of the Great Plains in Colorado, except the little brown bat (Myotis lucifugus). Some species showed skewed sex ratios, primarily due to a preponderance of males. Thirteen species of bats reproduced at Mesa Verde. Major differences in spring precipitation between the 2 years of our study were associated with differences in reproductive rates and, in some species, with numbers of juveniles captured. Reduced reproductive effort during spring drought will have a greater impact on bat populations with the forecasted increase in aridity in much of western North America by models of global climate change. We radiotracked 46 bats of 5 species to roosts and describe the first-known maternity colonies of spotted bats (Euderma maculatum) in Colorado. All 5 species that we tracked to diurnal roosts relied almost exclusively on rock crevices rather than trees or snags, despite the presence of mature forests at Mesa Verde and the use of trees for roosts in similar forests elsewhere by some of these species. Comparisons with past bat surveys at Mesa Verde and in surrounding areas suggest no dramatic evidence for effects of recent stand-replacing fires on the composition of the bat community.

show abstract

“…Nevertheless, radiotelemetry presents challenges because the life of micro‐transmitters is generally <2 weeks (depending on the size of the transmitter, which is conditioned by the mass of the bat; Aldridge and Brigham ), and the task of locating telemetered bats is labor‐intensive and therefore expensive. Moreover, bats can roost substantial distances from their original points of capture (e.g., Corbett et al , Chambers et al ), so roosts located through radiotelemetry are often outside specific areas targeted for management. In these situations, it is difficult to justify the telemetry costs when there are no obvious benefits to management.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Efficacy of scent-detection dogs for locating bat roosts in trees and snags

et al. 2015

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Conservation efforts for tree-and snag-roosting bats are challenging because roost sites are difficult and costly to locate. We assessed the ability of scent detection dogs to locate bat roosts using controlled field experiments conducted at 2 sites in northern Arizona, USA, during July and August of 2007, with small bags of bat guano and known bat roosts. Scent detection dogs correctly detected 79% of guano bags and 29% of known bat roosts; but, when searching during shorter time periods for roosts only, dogs correctly detected 77% of known roosts. Factors affecting detection of guano bags included bag height and mass. Factors affecting detection of roosts included height, size of the bat colony, and air temperature. Rest breaks and competition between dogs apparently increased their success rate in finding roosts. Using a scent detection dog to locate roosts was similar in cost to radiotelemetry; however, the use of a scent detection dog was less invasive because the use of dogs precluded the need to capture and radiotag bats. Important considerations influencing the efficacy of using scent detection dogs include training and transportation costs, and skill level of dog handlers. Although some factors limit the ability of scent detection dogs to accurately locate roosts, dogs in our study approximated the roost location to within a 30-m radius, which may be sufficient to protect these areas during management activities. If managers have the ability within an area to retain all large-diameter snags that have bat roost characteristics, then scent detection dogs will likely not provide adequate added value to warrant their survey costs. However, scent dogs could be important for locating roosts of species that are imperiled or of conservation concern. Ó 2015 The Wildlife Society.

show abstract

Roosts and activity areas of Nyctinomops macrotis in northern Arizona

Cited by 13 publications

References 26 publications

Roosts and home ranges of spotted bats (Euderma maculatum) in northern Arizona

Roosts and home ranges of spotted bats (Euderma maculatum) in northern Arizona

Bats of Mesa Verde National Park, Colorado: Composition, Reproduction, and Roosting Habits

Efficacy of scent-detection dogs for locating bat roosts in trees and snags

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About