Recovery of southern bent-winged bats (Miniopterus orianae bassanii) after PIT-tagging and the use of surgical adhesive

Harten, Emmi van; Reardon, Terry; Holz, Peter; Lawrence, Ruth E.; Prowse, Thomas A. A.; Lumsden, Linda F.

doi:10.1071/am19024

Cited by 7 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…were involved in our study (i.e., having prior experience of PIT-tagging hundreds or thousands of individuals). Surgical adhesive can cause localized, temporary fur loss at the PIT-tag injection sites of southern bent-winged bats when the patch of glue is shed during healing (van Harten et al 2020). We also commonly observed fur loss in our study 1 month after tagging, demonstrating that this is a temporary marking effect across multiple species.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 61%

“…To determine rates of tag loss in recaptured individuals, we double-tagged Gould's wattled bats with flanged metalalloy bat bands (size 2; Australian Bird and Bat Banding Scheme, Canberra, ACT, Australia) and PIT tags (preloaded trays; Biomark APT12, Boise, ID, USA). We sterilized all PIT tags and injected them subcutaneously following the procedure outlined in van Harten et al (2020). This included inserting tags from the distal edge of the shoulder scruff (and massaging the tag away from the injection site if necessary) so that the tag rested between the scapulae, and applying a drop of Vetbond surgical adhesive (3 M, St. Paul, MN, USA).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This included inserting tags from the distal edge of the shoulder scruff (and massaging the tag away from the injection site if necessary) so that the tag rested between the scapulae, and applying a drop of Vetbond surgical adhesive (3 M, St. Paul, MN, USA). We applied the smallest possible amount of Vetbond to the site to seal it while minimizing temporary, localized fur loss associated with this technique (van Harten et al 2020). Only experienced personnel performed tagging procedures and all bat banders were licensed under the Australian Bird and Bat Banding Scheme.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…One means of obtaining estimates of tag loss is to doublemark individuals using a second marking method; however, this is not always possible or justifiable because physical recapture rates of bats can be very low. For example, in a study where 2,966 southern bent-winged bats (Miniopterus orianae bassanii) were PIT-tagged and passively re-detected, just 52 bats were physically recaptured (van Harten et al 2020). Additionally, ongoing trapping to examine tag loss may cause unacceptable disturbance at key locations or to vulnerable populations, particularly when undertaking monitoring of threatened species.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Low Rates of PIT‐Tag Loss in an Insectivorous Bat Species

et al. 2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The rate of loss of tags used to mark individuals is an important consideration in wildlife research and monitoring. Passive integrated transponder (PIT) tags (or microchips) generally have high retention rates; however, tag loss rates for small mammals such as insectivorous bats are poorly understood. We double-marked a population of Gould's wattled bats (Chalinolobus gouldii) with forearm bands and PIT tags (with the injection site sealed with surgical adhesive) in January and February 2020 to determine rates of subsequent tag loss over the short-(1-2 months) and medium-(13-14 months) term. Loss of PIT tags occurred in 4 (2.7%) of 146 recaptured individuals, all within 2 months of microchipping. We also recorded 1 occurrence of band loss 11 months after banding. Our study supports assertions that PIT-tag retention rates in small mammals are high, and suggests that rates of tag loss in small bat species are low when surgical adhesive is applied. Quantifying the rate of tag loss enables this variable to be incorporated into mark-recapture models.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 61%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Low Rates of PIT‐Tag Loss in an Insectivorous Bat Species

et al. 2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A total of 2,966 southern bent‐winged bats were tagged over the course of the study (approximately 1,000 per year). During the handling and tagging, the bats typically remained calm and were released minutes after the procedure (van Harten et al, ). All trapping, handling, tagging, and data collection procedures were approved by the La Trobe Animal Ethics Committee (AEC15‐67) and the South Australian Department of Environment and Water (U26453).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

High detectability with low impact: Optimizing large PIT tracking systems for cave‐dwelling bats

Harten

Reardon

Lumsden

et al. 2019

Ecology and Evolution

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Passive integrated transponder (PIT) tag technology permits the “resighting” of animals tagged for ecological research without the need for physical re‐trapping. Whilst this is effective if animals pass within centimeters of tag readers, short‐distance detection capabilities have prevented the use of this technology with many species. To address this problem, we optimized a large (15 m long) flexible antenna system to provide a c. 8 m2 vertical detection plane for detecting animals in flight. We installed antennas at two roosting caves, including the primary maternity cave, of the critically endangered southern bent‐winged bat (Miniopterus orianae bassanii) in south‐eastern Australia. Testing of these systems indicated PIT‐tags could be detected up to 105 cm either side of the antenna plane. Over the course of a three‐year study, we subcutaneously PIT‐tagged 2,966 bats and logged over 1.4 million unique detections, with 97% of tagged bats detected at least once. The probability of encountering a tagged bat decreased with increasing environmental “noise” (unwanted signal) perceived by the system. During the study, we mitigated initial high noise levels by earthing both systems, which contributed to an increase in daily detection probability (based on the proportion of individuals known to be alive that were detected each day) from <0.2 (noise level ≥30%) to 0.7–0.8 (noise level 5%–15%). Conditional on a low (5%) noise level, model‐based estimates of daily encounter probability were highest (>0.8) during peak breeding season when both female and male southern bent‐winged bats congregate at the maternity cave. In this paper, we detail the methods employed and make methodological recommendations for future wildlife research using large antennas, including earthing systems as standard protocol and quantifying noise metrics as a covariate influencing the probability of detection in subsequent analyses. Our results demonstrate that large PIT antennas can be used successfully to detect small volant species, extending the scope of PIT technology and enabling a much broader range of wildlife species to be studied using this approach.

show abstract