Use of Bat Boxes by a Maternity Colony of Indiana Myotis (Myotis sodalis)

Ritzi, Christopher M.; Everson, Brianne L.

doi:10.1656/1092-6194(2005)012[0217:uobbba]2.0.co;2

Cited by 27 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…References: 1, Storer (); 2, Golding (); 3, Boyd and Stebbings (); 4, Neilson and Fenton (); 5, Freer et al (); 6, Park et al (); 7, Keeley and Tuttle (); 8, Benzal (); 9, Gerell and Lundberg (); 10, Irvine and Bender (); 11, Arnett and Hayes (); 12, Brittingham and Williams (); 13, Ward (); 14, Kasprzyk and Ruczynski (); 15, Kerth et al (); 16, Chambers et al (); 17, Smith and Agnew (); 18, Kiser and Kiser (); 19, White (); 20, Lourenço and Palmeirim (); 21, Bender (); 22, Ciechanowski (); 23, Ritzi et al (); 24, Flaquer et al (); 25, Long et al (); 26, Rhodes (); 27, Whitaker et al (); 28, Baranauskas (); 29, Bartonička and Řehák (); 30, Horncastle et al (); 31, Horncastle et al (); 32, Kelm et al (); 33, Matsuoka (); 34, Baranauskas (); 35, Lesinski et al (); 36, Reid et al (); 37, Baranauskas (); 38, Meddings et al (); 39, Mering and Chambers (); 40, Shek et al (); 41, Wilhelm ().…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Thinking outside the box: A review of artificial roosts for bats

Mering

Chambers

2014

Wildl. Soc. Bull.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Artificial roosts designed to attract bats have been used to increase populations, aid seed dispersal, and control insects. More important from a conservation perspective, artificial roosts provide habitat where natural roosts have been lost. Although artificial roosts have been widely used, much of the information on species that use artificial roosts, roost design, and placement is anecdotal and poorly reported. We reviewed the existing literature on artificial roosts to summarize current research and inform research and management decisions. From 47 publications and reports, we identified 48 types of structures used by 59 species. Roosts were constructed from wood (66.7%), concrete (8.3%), or other materials (25.0%) and varied in size and shape from small-volume wood boxes (0.002 m 3 ) to large (6 m tall) free-standing structures. Variables most often considered in the context of attracting bats were aspect, substrate, and mount location; few studies measured height or microclimate. Colonization rates ranged from 7% to 100%. Bats commonly used structures as solitary (21 species) or social (breeding or maternity; 21 species) roosts. Most species documented to use artificial roosts are vespertilionids (73%), have the International Union for Conservation of Nature's designation of least concern (93%), and roost in tree cavities or buildings. Three species are designated as endangered (Myotis sodalis) or near threatened (M. bechsteinii, M. dasycneme). Artificial roosts should be constructed and installed to mimic natural roosts, emphasize requirements of target species, and exclude non-target species. Monitoring species composition and identifying effects of roost density will help determine conservation impacts of artificial roosts. Ó 2014 The Wildlife Society.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Thinking outside the box: A review of artificial roosts for bats

Mering

Chambers

2014

Wildl. Soc. Bull.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Several bat species once common throughout North America have become imperiled due to a number of factors, most notably the disease whitenose syndrome (WNS; Frick et al 2010a, Turner et al 2011). Many of the species threatened by WNS are occasional or frequent inhabitants of artificial roosts and human dwellings, including the little brown myotis (Myotis lucifugus), presenting opportunities for conservation as well as possible human-wildlife conflicts (Kunz and Reynolds 2003, Ritzi et al 2005, Whitaker et al 2006). Buildings provide a number of benefits over alternative habitats, including suitable microclimates and increased permanence in contrast to ephemeral structures such as dead trees (Lewis 1995, Lausen andBarclay 2006).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Buildings provide vital habitat for little brown myotis (Myotis lucifugus) in a high‐elevation landscape

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Bats in North America are currently experiencing dramatic population declines due to the disease white-nose syndrome. The long-term viability of vulnerable species requires recognition of critical habitats, including those also occupied by humans. Our study aimed to quantify the importance of buildings to little brown myotis (Myotis lucifugus) in Yellowstone National Park, a high-elevation landscape with relatively few human structures and abundant alternative roosting habitat. We measured roost preferences and thermoregulation in adult male and female bats roosting in buildings, trees, and rocks using temperature-sensitive radio-transmitters. We also studied microclimates within each roost type for comparison to roost preferences. We found reproductive females roosting in building attics on 84% of all possible days, while males roosted exclusively in rock crevices or in trees. This dichotomous roosting pattern reflected differences in roost microclimates. All roost types buffered bats from daily minimum ambient temperatures; however, buildings were more insulated from low ambient temperatures during the middle of the maternity season. Male bats roosting in rocks and trees predominantly thermoconformed to roost temperatures, while females roosting in buildings sustained higher body temperatures than males throughout the day. Pregnant and lactating females also used torpor frequently, with skin temperatures reaching <10°C, and a gestation period lasting 49-89 d. These results show that cool summer temperatures at high elevations present an energetic challenge to little brown myotis. Buildings provide critical habitat for reproductive females and likely allow for larger populations than would be possible in their absence, making these roosts a priority for long-term conservation of this declining species.

show abstract

“…Although we can control bat presence and other factors in artificial roosts, there are relatively few studies comparing microhabitats in various artificial roost styles (see review, [ 27 ]). Despite our limited knowledge, resource managers are deploying a variety of artificial structures to provide bat habitat and evaluating success based solely on use by bats (e.g., [ 22 , 28 , 29 ]). Artificial roosts are often deployed without comparative evaluations of features that may contribute to selection (but see, [ 23 , 30 , 31 ]).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

In artificial roost comparison, bats show preference for rocket box style

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Understanding microhabitat preferences of animals is critical for effective conservation, especially for temperate-zone bats, which receive fitness benefits from selecting optimal roost microhabitats. Artificial roost structures are increasingly being used in conservation efforts for at-risk bat species. To evaluate microhabitat differences in common artificial roost structures and determine if roost selection occurs based on structure type, we installed artificial roosts of three different styles (bat box, rocket box, and bark mimic) in six clusters. We compared size and measured temperature parameters (12 points/roost) while bats were excluded from one cluster. We simultaneously conducted census counts during the active season at five more clusters open to bats for 1–2 years. The rocket box style provided larger entrance area, surface area, and volume versus other roost types. Microclimate varied with roost design. More positions inside the bat box and rocket box stayed within critical temperature limits for bats (0–45°C)—i.e., were usable. The bark-mimic provided less usable space than the rocket box and, often, large proportions of the roost were > 45°C. The rocket box provided the widest temperature availability in a given hour (max range available 7°C) and was more stable than the bark mimic. A maternity colony of Indiana bats (Myotis sodalis) selected the rocket box style; four of five available rocket boxes became primary maternity roosts, with 2–210 bats emerging per night. Future work should aim to manipulate roost size, temperature availability, and temperature stability in isolation to identify which features drive roost microhabitat selection by bats. Comparative studies of artificial roosts account for some inherent irregularity in natural systems, allowing us to study the dynamics of roost microhabitats. We recommend season-long monitoring of microhabitat in novel artificial refuges and comparative studies of artificial and natural roosts, and urge managers to consider potential positive and negative effects when substituting artificial roosts for natural habitat.

show abstract

Use of Bat Boxes by a Maternity Colony of Indiana Myotis (Myotis sodalis)

Cited by 27 publications

References 0 publications

Thinking outside the box: A review of artificial roosts for bats

Thinking outside the box: A review of artificial roosts for bats

Buildings provide vital habitat for little brown myotis (Myotis lucifugus) in a high‐elevation landscape

In artificial roost comparison, bats show preference for rocket box style

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About