2012
DOI: 10.3161/150811012x654321
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Do Long-Tailed Bats Alter Their Evening Activity in Response to Aircraft Noise?

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

1
3
0

Year Published

2013
2013
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 10 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 51 publications
1
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…acoustic masking, reduced attention and noise avoidance) resulting in a weaker overall effect but one that may be significant in studies representing larger bat communities or a wider range of habitats. The response of these bats to loud music supports findings by Le Roux and Waas (2012) who found that activity of Chalinolobus tuberculatus did not decline in response to aircraft noise playback during experimental field studies. On the other hand, these results contrast with Finch et al (2020) who found that playback of traffic noise in the sonic range (<20 kHz frequency noises) reduced activity for all functional groups of bats studied including species that have markedly different flight heights, speeds, foraging strategies, and with contrasting echolocation patterns (e.g.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 87%
“…acoustic masking, reduced attention and noise avoidance) resulting in a weaker overall effect but one that may be significant in studies representing larger bat communities or a wider range of habitats. The response of these bats to loud music supports findings by Le Roux and Waas (2012) who found that activity of Chalinolobus tuberculatus did not decline in response to aircraft noise playback during experimental field studies. On the other hand, these results contrast with Finch et al (2020) who found that playback of traffic noise in the sonic range (<20 kHz frequency noises) reduced activity for all functional groups of bats studied including species that have markedly different flight heights, speeds, foraging strategies, and with contrasting echolocation patterns (e.g.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 87%
“…These results suggest that anthropogenic factors in built‐up urban areas may disturb insectivorous bats. Some bat species may be sensitive to artificial light (Threlfall, Law, & Banks, ) and traffic noise (Le Roux & Waas, ), while high densities of structures like roads may pose barriers that restrict bat movement (Berthinussen & Altringham, ). Our results suggest that bats have a high dependence on trees retained in urban greenspace (parklands) and non‐urban habitats (reserves and pasture) where fewer anthropogenic disturbances occur (e.g., street lights; Hale, Fairbrass, Matthews, Davies, & Sadler, ).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For example, human construction can quickly install snags and poles with perch branches (within weeks or months), whereas trees need to grow and experience disturbance events such as lightning or fungal attacks before they can produce useable branches. To estimate the rate at which trees acquire unique shapes and structure, we used annual trunk-growth estimates ranging from 0.37 to 0.51 cm in yellow-box trees (E. melliodora) [23,85,86], one of the historically dominant species of this ecological community. The model also considered the risk of sudden termination of habitat structures by removing 0.01-0.003% of trees each year, as defined by previous modelling [23].…”
Section: Temporal Scalementioning
confidence: 99%