Menu
Home
Log in / Register
 
Home arrow Environment arrow Bats in the Anthropocene: Conservation of Bats in a Changing World

Conservation of Bats in Buildings: Avoidance, Mitigation, and Compensation

The protection of synanthropic bats and their roosts should occur in a tri-level hierarchical pattern. First, it should be determined whether bat roosts can be preserved, e.g., left untouched, even when construction work is carried out near the roost. Second, if construction work affects the roost, developers and architects should mitigate the impact on the bat colony (mitigation). Lastly, if bat roosts are going to be lost, when, for example, barns are converted into apartments (Briggs 2004), appropriate compensation measures should be practiced in order to offer bats an alternative roost. Although this general approach may not be applicable in all countries, particularly when the legal framework is lacking, we will elaborate on it in the remainder of the chapter.

Conservation guidelines for bats in buildings have been formulated in various countries, including those from the European Union (Table 14.1; Marnell and Prsetnik 2010). Conservation networks (Kingston et al. 2016, Chap. 16) could use these and our recommendations to develop further region-specific guidelines for the protection of local synanthropic bats.

General Considerations for the Conservation of Bats in Buildings

Monitoring of colonies Monitoring of bat colonies, particularly maternity colonies, in buildings needs to be conducted with appropriate care (Kunz and Reynolds 2003). In some countries, it is legally forbidden to disturb bats in their roosts, particularly during the maternity period. Kunz and Reynolds (2003) suggested conducting evening emergence counts at roost exits to monitor maternity colonies without disturbing bats.

Table 14.1 List of Web-based resources pertaining to the conservation of synanthropic bats (sorted alphabetically according to continent or country)

Country

Web address

EU

eurobats.org/sites/default/files/documents/publications/ publication_series/pubseries_no4_english_2nd_edition.pdf

France Australia Latin America

sfepm.org/chiropteres.htm ausbats.org.au/#/bats-in-your-house/4569171536

relcomlatinoamerica.net/images/PDFs/PROTOCOLO.pdf

Germany

nabu.de/tiereundpflanzen/saeugetiere/fledermaeuse/aktivwerden/ 01506.html

Ireland

batconservationireland.org

Italy

biocenosi.dipbsf.uninsubria.it/chiroptera/

Netherlands

vzz.nl

Russia

zmmu.msu.ru/bats/popular/v_dome.htm

UK

bats.org.uk/pages/bats_and_buildings.html

UK

bedsbatgroup.org.uk/wordpress/?page_id=3429

UK

jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-2861

UK

naturalengland.org.uk/ourwork/regulation/wildlife/species/

bats.aspx

USA USA

conservewildlifenj.org/protecting/projects/bat/buildings/ nature.nps.gov/biology/wns/assets/docs/2012BatsInBuildingsWeb inarOdegard.pptx

Life stages of bats For effective protection of synanthropic bats, it is crucial to understand the purpose of the buildings being used as roosts by bats. We have outlined several possibilities for why bats use buildings. Since bats may be particularly vulnerable during their reproductive period and during hibernation, roosts that are used by bats during these life stages are of prime concern for conservation efforts. The central recommendation for such roosts is to leave them untouched, unless gradual deterioration of the building may destroy the roost.

Human occupancy Usually, disturbance of synanthropic bats by humans is detrimental to colonies. For example, de Boer et al. (2013) showed for the Netherlands that hibernacula in buildings were more suitable for bats when disturbance by humans was low. However, it should be noted that some studies report that synanthropic bats tend to leave roosts when humans no longer use buildings, possibly because buildings are no longer heated (Frafjord 2007). In Poland, Sachanowicz and Wower (2013) found evidence that the gradual deterioration of buildings caused an impoverishment of species in the local assemblages of atticdwelling bats. Therefore, human occupancy of buildings may be a benefit in some circumstances and a disadvantage in others, depending on the species involved and the specific life stages.

Interior of roosts The size and spatial structure of building interiors affects the occupancy by synanthropic bats. For example, the availability of sufficient space and optimal microclimatic conditions seem to be beneficial for attic-dwelling bats, such as the endangered Townsend's big-eared bat Corynorhinus townsendii (Betts 2010) and Rafinesque's big-eared bat, Corynorhinus rafinesquii (Loeb and Zarnoch 2011). In addition to roost compartments, relatively higher ambient temperatures in roost interiors are also relevant for bats inhabiting buildings (Entwistle et al. 1997). Eptesicus fuscus prefer old buildings with galvanized (tin) roofs that are also taller than surrounding buildings, most likely because of higher temperatures and wider temperature gradients in these buildings (Williams and Brittingham 1997). For some hibernating bats, the size and number of hiding places may contribute to the quality of hibernacula in buildings.

Exterior of roosts Synanthropic bats not only depend on suitable roosting interiors, but also depend on the quality of the surrounding environment, e.g., for foraging or drinking. Suitable roost entrances are critical for some bats, particularly for fast-flying species with a low ability to maneuver (Neubaum et al. 2007). For example, Nyctalus noctula roosting in buildings preferred roosts that were located at the top floors (Bihari 2004; Cel'uch and Kanˇuch 2005). Molossids, e.g., Chaerephon ansorgei, and vespertilionids, e.g., Neoromicia capensis, that inhabit crevices or narrow spaces under roofs are capable of landing and crawling through narrow roost entrances, whereas horseshoe bats, e.g., Rhinolophus clivosus, and slit-faced bats, e.g., Nycteris thebaica, require an opening large enough to fly through since they usually do not crawl (Monadjem et al. 2010). Other species, such as Pipistrellus pipistrellus, are generalists with respect to their roost preference, i.e., they do not prefer specific structural attributes of buildings (Jenkins et al. 1998). It is also noteworthy that some species may require several roosts in separate buildings to establish a stable colony, e.g., greater horseshoe bats, Rhinolophus ferrumequinum (Maltagliati et al. 2013), eastern pipistrelles, Pipistrellus subflavus (Whitaker 1998), and Eptesicus fuscus (Ellison et al. 2007; O'Shea et al. 2012).

Additional landscape elements, such as vegetation and water sources, have been suggested to promote bat populations in cities (Neubaum et al. 2007). Trees in the vicinity of roosts were beneficial for pipistrelle bats, Pipistrellus pipistrellus, not only as foraging grounds but also as a protection against aerial predators, thus enabling bats to increase their nocturnal foraging activity substantially by emerging earlier from their roost (Jenkins et al. 1998). Brown long-eared bats, Plecotus auritus, preferred buildings situated close to woodland and water (Entwistle et al. 1997; Moussy 2011).

Illumination of buildings at night by streetlamps reduces the quality of roosts for some bats. For example, European Rhinolophus ferrumequinum, Myotis emarginatus, and Myotis oxygnathus emerged later at sunset from roosts when buildings were illuminated. Also, body mass and forearm length were smaller in juveniles from illuminated buildings than in those from not illuminated. In the worst case, roosts are abandoned after direct lighting of the buildings in which the roost is located (Boldogh et al. 2007).

Eviction of bats from roost Eviction of bats from houses is practiced worldwide, yet it is against the law in some countries. The corresponding authorities may grant concessions if there is no alternative to the exclusion of bats from roosts. Yet, in many countries, it is a legal requisite that appropriate measures are practiced to compensate for the loss of a roost. The permanent closure of roost exits or the destruction of a roost should only be considered during times when bats are not using the roost, e.g., outside the reproduction or hibernation period. Otherwise, bats may be trapped and killed, which is against animal welfare. If roosts are destroyed or closed, bats may switch to alternative roosts (Neilson and Fenton 1994). After eviction of Eptesicus fuscus from buildings, females produced fewer offspring at alternative sites, even though foraging behavior remained constant (Brigham and Fenton 1986). Relocation of bats to nearby habitats usually fails because bats will return to their original roost in most cases. Lastly, the permanent eviction of bats from roosts may increase the frequency of roost switching. In the case of species with a high prevalence of rabies infections, it is predicted that the rabies transmission risk may increase due to more, and possibly undirected, movements of evicted bats around buildings (e.g., Eptesicus fuscus, Streicker et al. 2013). Therefore, roost closures might have unforeseen and unwanted side effects for public health.

 
Found a mistake? Please highlight the word and press Shift + Enter  
< Prev   CONTENTS   Next >
 
Subjects
Accounting
Business & Finance
Communication
Computer Science
Economics
Education
Engineering
Environment
Geography
Health
History
Language & Literature
Law
Management
Marketing
Mathematics
Political science
Philosophy
Psychology
Religion
Sociology
Travel