Sampling period, size and duration influence measures of bat species richness from acoustic surveys

Abstract

Summary1. Understanding animal ecology depends on an ability to accurately inventory species. However, there are few quantitative data available, which allow for an assessment of the effectiveness of acoustic sampling methods for determining bat species richness. 2. We assessed inventory efficiency, defined as the percentage of species detected per survey effort, using data from 7 to 9 Anabat bat detectors deployed concurrently between June 2008 and August 2009 at fixed locations. We examined sampling period and time of night to calculate the minimum duration of sampling effort required to detect the greatest percentage of species. 3. In all cases, multiple survey nights at multiple sampling locations were necessary to detect higher levels of species richness using acoustic detectors. Additionally, continuous sampling throughout the night was important for detecting more species, especially during summer, fall and spring months. 4. Species accumulation curves indicated that relatively few nights were needed to detect 'common' species at various sampling locations (2-5 nights on average); however, longer sample periods (>45 nights) were necessary to detect 'rare' species at some sampling locations. Accumulation curves indicated that the number of detector locations positively influenced the number of species detected during surveys periods. 5. A priori knowledge of sampling effort is fundamental for designing biologically robust inventories. We make recommendations for improving the efficiency of acoustic surveys using analytical methods that are broadly applicable to a range of survey methods and taxa.

Part‐night lighting: implications for bat conservation

“…Examples of other insectivorous bats that have been documented with similar bimodal patterns include Myotis spp. at two riparian sites in Oregon (Hayes, 1997); however, there can be variations in nocturnal patterns exhibited among and within species (Skalak, Sherwin & Brigham, 2012). These variations are likely to be linked to the stages of the breeding cycle, with a more bimodal activity pattern seen in mid-pregnancy.…”

Patterns of Bat Distribution and Foraging Activity in a Highly Urbanized Temperate Environment

“…While we should have been able to distinguish between them, it is possible that such calls were overlooked in this study. Finally, it is also possible that additional survey periods or multiple sampling locations per park would have revealed the presence of additional species [103], such as those passing through as migrants such as Lasionycteris noctivagans , or bats not easily detected using acoustic sampling such as A . pallidus and Corynorhinus townsendii .…”

Ultrasonic monitoring to assess the impacts of forest conversion on Solomon Island bats

“…The non-significant variation in total activity between different land uses in our study could be because echolocating bats use habitats indiscriminately, but could also be a consequence of our small sample size. Skalak et al (2012) found 'common' species were detected over 2-5 nights on average, but that longer sample periods (>45 nights) were necessary to detect 'rare' species (Skalak et al 2012). Furthermore, bats on Makira are predominantly cave-roosting (Flannery 1995) and so the proximity to cave roosts (which was unknown) could account for the variation in activity levels between sampling night and be causing high inter-habitat variation and non-significant results.…”