Use of Complementary Methods to Sample Bats in the Amazon

Pub Date : 2022-02-14 DOI:10.3161/15081109ACC2021.23.2.017
G. Appel, U. D. Capaverde, Leonardo Queiroz de Oliveira, Lucas G. do Amaral Pereira, Valéria da Cunha Tavares, A. López‐Baucells, W. Magnusson, F. Baccaro, P. E. Bobrowiec
{"title":"Use of Complementary Methods to Sample Bats in the Amazon","authors":"G. Appel, U. D. Capaverde, Leonardo Queiroz de Oliveira, Lucas G. do Amaral Pereira, Valéria da Cunha Tavares, A. López‐Baucells, W. Magnusson, F. Baccaro, P. E. Bobrowiec","doi":"10.3161/15081109ACC2021.23.2.017","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Mist nets set at ground level is the traditional method of surveying bats and in the Amazon, almost half of the bat surveys used this methodology. The sole use of ground-level mist nets biases surveys because of the lack of records of aerial insectivorous bats, which forage above the canopy or in other open areas. Canopy mist nets, roost searches and acoustic surveys are methods to survey bat assemblages, but their efficiency compared to ground-level mist nets has not been fully evaluated in the Amazon, the world's largest tropical rainforest. Here, we test how the complementarity of sampling methods contributes to the number of species recorded in bat surveys in the Amazonian rainforest. We simultaneously sampled bats using ground mist nets and ultrasonic recorders at the Ducke Reserve (Central Amazon) in Brazil and did a literature review of bat surveys conducted in the Amazon to assess how these methods have been used in field research during the recent decades. Forty-three bat species were identified using ground mist nets, and seventeen species and five acoustic sonotypes were identified using ultrasonic recorders in Ducke Reserve. The combination of ground mist nets and acoustic recorders registered the largest number of bat species. However, for phyllostomid species the sole use of mist nets was efficient in recording the highest number of species, whereas for aerial insectivores acoustic surveys was the most effective. Of the 54 bat surveys made in the Amazon, 27 localities used complementary methods: roost search, canopy mist nets, harp traps and acoustic surveys. The combination of ground and canopy nets, and ground nets with roost search did not record more phyllostomid bat species than the use of ground nets alone. However, the sole use of acoustic surveys recorded more aerial insectivorous species than any other combination of sampling methods. Using mist nets and acoustic surveys simultaneously, as in our study, results in a dramatic increase in species diversity and different guilds than using only mist nets in the Amazon. Canopy nets and roost search did not increase the total number of species or the number of phyllostomid species in bat surveys. By combining different survey methodologies, we can optimize the recorded diversity of bats, especially using both mist nets and acoustic monitoring.","PeriodicalId":0,"journal":{"name":"","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-02-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"8","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3161/15081109ACC2021.23.2.017","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8

Abstract

Mist nets set at ground level is the traditional method of surveying bats and in the Amazon, almost half of the bat surveys used this methodology. The sole use of ground-level mist nets biases surveys because of the lack of records of aerial insectivorous bats, which forage above the canopy or in other open areas. Canopy mist nets, roost searches and acoustic surveys are methods to survey bat assemblages, but their efficiency compared to ground-level mist nets has not been fully evaluated in the Amazon, the world's largest tropical rainforest. Here, we test how the complementarity of sampling methods contributes to the number of species recorded in bat surveys in the Amazonian rainforest. We simultaneously sampled bats using ground mist nets and ultrasonic recorders at the Ducke Reserve (Central Amazon) in Brazil and did a literature review of bat surveys conducted in the Amazon to assess how these methods have been used in field research during the recent decades. Forty-three bat species were identified using ground mist nets, and seventeen species and five acoustic sonotypes were identified using ultrasonic recorders in Ducke Reserve. The combination of ground mist nets and acoustic recorders registered the largest number of bat species. However, for phyllostomid species the sole use of mist nets was efficient in recording the highest number of species, whereas for aerial insectivores acoustic surveys was the most effective. Of the 54 bat surveys made in the Amazon, 27 localities used complementary methods: roost search, canopy mist nets, harp traps and acoustic surveys. The combination of ground and canopy nets, and ground nets with roost search did not record more phyllostomid bat species than the use of ground nets alone. However, the sole use of acoustic surveys recorded more aerial insectivorous species than any other combination of sampling methods. Using mist nets and acoustic surveys simultaneously, as in our study, results in a dramatic increase in species diversity and different guilds than using only mist nets in the Amazon. Canopy nets and roost search did not increase the total number of species or the number of phyllostomid species in bat surveys. By combining different survey methodologies, we can optimize the recorded diversity of bats, especially using both mist nets and acoustic monitoring.
分享
查看原文
使用补充方法对亚马逊蝙蝠进行采样
在地面设置雾网是调查蝙蝠的传统方法,在亚马逊地区,几乎一半的蝙蝠调查都使用了这种方法。由于缺乏在树冠上方或其他开阔区域觅食的空中食虫蝙蝠的记录,仅使用地面雾网会使调查产生偏差。遮篷雾网、栖息地搜索和声学调查是调查蝙蝠群落的方法,但在世界上最大的热带雨林亚马逊,与地面雾网相比,它们的效率尚未得到充分评估。在这里,我们测试了采样方法的互补性如何影响亚马逊雨林蝙蝠调查中记录的物种数量。我们同时在巴西鸭子保护区(亚马逊中部)使用地雾网和超声波记录仪对蝙蝠进行了采样,并对亚马逊地区进行的蝙蝠调查进行了文献综述,以评估近几十年来这些方法在实地研究中的使用情况。在鸭子保护区,使用地雾网识别了43种蝙蝠,使用超声波记录器识别了17种蝙蝠和5种声学声型。地面雾网和声波记录器的结合记录了最多的蝙蝠物种。然而,对于叶口虫物种来说,仅使用雾网就可以有效地记录最高数量的物种,而对于航空食虫动物来说,声学调查是最有效的。在亚马逊地区进行的54次蝙蝠调查中,有27个地方使用了互补的方法:栖息地搜索、树冠雾网、竖琴陷阱和声学调查。地面网和遮篷网的结合,以及带有栖息地搜索的地面网,并没有记录到比单独使用地面网更多的叶口蝙蝠物种。然而,单独使用声学调查记录的空中食虫物种比任何其他采样方法的组合都多。与在亚马逊地区仅使用雾网相比,在我们的研究中,同时使用雾网和声学调查会显著增加物种多样性和不同的群落。在蝙蝠调查中,遮篷网和栖息地搜索并没有增加物种总数或叶口类物种的数量。通过结合不同的调查方法,我们可以优化蝙蝠的记录多样性,特别是使用雾网和声学监测。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信