Roost selection by male and female northern long-eared bats in a pine-dominated landscape

Perry, Roger W.; Thill, Ronald E.

doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2007.04.041

Cited by 70 publications

(61 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Under our best supported model, as we predicted, and consistent with previous studies (Garroway and Broders, 2008;Johnson et al, 2009;Lacki and Schwierjohann, 2001;Perry and Thill, 2007), day-roosts used by female northern long-eared bats in both years of our study generally were larger, in later stages of decay, and in relatively more open canopies than randomly selected non-roosts. The effect sizes that we observed for canopy openness and overall difference in tree size between day-roosts and non-roosts were greater than the individual effect sizes of dbh and height reported in Kalcounis-Rüppell et al's (2005) review for cavity roosting bats in North America.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

“…Selection typically is assessed through comparisons of day-roosts to other trees (hereafter ''non-roosts'') on the landscape, either by random selection or examination of potentially available day-roosts assumed to be unoccupied. Non-roosts used for comparison historically have been those measured in radius plots (Lacki and Schwierjohann, 2001), belt transects (Ford et al, 2006;Silvis et al, 2012) or are paired randomly selected trees (Johnson et al, 2009;Miles et al, 2006;Perry and Thill, 2007). Statistical analysis of selection generally is conducted using a set of candidate models representing combinations of measured tree and/or landscape characteristics that may distinguish day-roosts from non-roosts.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The roosting ecology of the northern long-eared bats has been extensively studied (Ford et al, 2006;Menzel et al, 2002;Perry and Thill, 2007;Silvis et al, 2012). Range-wide, a minimum of understanding of northern long-eared bat dayroost selection criteria is now available that can be used to guide coarse-scale habitat management.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Day-roost tree selection by northern long-eared bats—What do non-roost tree comparisons and one year of data really tell us?

Silvis

Ford

Britzke

2015

Global Ecology and Conservation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a b s t r a c tBat day-roost selection often is described through comparisons of day-roosts with randomly selected, and assumed unused, trees. Relatively few studies, however, look at patterns of multi-year selection or compare day-roosts used across years. We explored day-roost selection using 2 years of roost selection data for female northern long-eared bats (Myotis septentrionalis) on the Fort Knox Military Reservation, Kentucky, USA. We compared characteristics of randomly selected non-roost trees and day-roosts using a multinomial logistic model and day-roost species selection using chi-squared tests. We found that factors differentiating day-roosts from non-roosts and day-roosts between years varied. Day-roosts differed from non-roosts in the first year of data in all measured factors, but only in size and decay stage in the second year. Between years, day-roosts differed in size and canopy position, but not decay stage. Day-roost species selection was non-random and did not differ between years. Although bats used multiple trees, our results suggest that there were additional unused trees that were suitable as roosts at any time. Day-roost selection pattern descriptions will be inadequate if based only on a single year of data, and inferences of roost selection based only on comparisons of roost to non-roosts should be limited.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Day-roost tree selection by northern long-eared bats—What do non-roost tree comparisons and one year of data really tell us?

Silvis

Ford

Britzke

2015

Global Ecology and Conservation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We found differences in roost selection between males and females. Likewise, Elmore et al (2004) found differences in roost sites between juvenile and adult red bats and between males and females, and other studies have found differences in roost selection between sexes of other species, such as northern long-eared bats (Broders and Forbes, 2004;Perry and Thill, 2007a). Thus, future studies should strive to separate sex and age status, or concentrate on one gender/age status and temper conclusions accordingly.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 82%

Sex-specific roost selection by adult red bats in a diverse forested landscape

Perry

Thill

Carter

2007

Forest Ecology and Management

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Indeed, most studies comparing, for instance, roost selection between male and female bats were based on observations within short time period (e.g., Broders & Forbes 2004;Encarnacao et al 2005;Perry & Thill 2007). However, our study clearly demonstrated that the same roost may be more or less preferred by particular sex in one period and avoided in others.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 41%

Population structure of Daubenton’s bats is responding to microclimate of anthropogenic roosts

Lučan

Hanák

2011

Biologia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Roost microclimate plays an important role in the survival, growth and reproduction in microbats. Entering torpor is one of the main energy saving mechanisms commonly used by microbats. The use of torpor is affected by roost microclimate and seasonally differs between the two sexes in relation to their reproductive condition. Consequently, thermal properties of male and female roosts should differ. To test this hypothesis, we compared temperature parameters of two anthropogenic day roosts of Daubenton's bats with a different structure of the population inhabiting them. In accordance with our predictions, the roost occupied by a male-dominated colony was colder and more fluctuant than the maternity roost with a female-dominated population. However, using of the two roosts changed during the season in response to changing energetic demands of the two sexes. While males were almost absent in the warmer maternity roost during pregnancy and lactation, they appeared in this roost during the post-lactation when mating starts. In contrast, females did not use the colder (male) roost until the time of weaning of juveniles, i.e., the time when their thermoregulatory needs change and they may benefit from using colder roost. Our study provides the evidence that the same roost may be used by individuals of different sex and reproductive state in different periods of the year. Generalizations about roost selection without knowledge of temporal variation in roost use and microclimatic conditions should be taken with caution. Anthropogenic roosts may be advantageous to Daubenton's bats as these can provide a variety of suitable microclimates and/or more space for roosting than tree cavities.

show abstract

Roost selection by male and female northern long-eared bats in a pine-dominated landscape

Cited by 70 publications

References 20 publications

Day-roost tree selection by northern long-eared bats—What do non-roost tree comparisons and one year of data really tell us?

Day-roost tree selection by northern long-eared bats—What do non-roost tree comparisons and one year of data really tell us?

Sex-specific roost selection by adult red bats in a diverse forested landscape

Population structure of Daubenton’s bats is responding to microclimate of anthropogenic roosts

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About