Study

Bat activity in relation to fire and fire surrogate treatments in southern pine stands

  • Published source details Loeb S.C. & Waldrop T.A. (2008) Bat activity in relation to fire and fire surrogate treatments in southern pine stands. Forest Ecology and Management, 255, 3185-3192.

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Use prescribed burning

Action Link
Bat Conservation

Thin trees within forest and woodland

Action Link
Bat Conservation
  1. Use prescribed burning

    A replicated, controlled, site comparison study in 2001–2002 in nine pine forest sites in South Carolina, USA (Loeb & Waldrop 2008) found that burned tree stands had similar activity of three bat species to unburned control tree stands, and two bat species had higher activity in thinned stands than burned stands. Activity of big brown bats Eptesicus fuscus, eastern red bats Lasiurus borealis and eastern pipistrelles Perimyotis subflavus did not differ significantly between burned tree stands (big brown bats: average 0.3 bat passes/night; red bats: 0.3 bat passes/night; eastern pipistrelles: 0.1 bat passes/night) and unburned control stands (big brown bats: 0.1 bat passes/night; red bats: 0.5 bat passes/night; eastern pipistrelles: 0.1 bat passes/night). Activity was higher in thinned tree stands than burned stands for big brown bats (1.2 bat passes/night) and eastern red bats (0.7 bat passes/night), but similar for eastern pipistrelles (0.4 bat passes/night). Nine 14 ha stands (loblolly pine Pinus taeda and shortleaf pine Pinus echinata) were surveyed with three replicates of three treatment types: thinning to an average of 576 live trees/ha (in winter 2000–2001), prescribed burning (burned in April 2001 with strip head fire and flanking fires, average 532 live trees/ha), and a control with no treatment (average 755 live trees/ha). Bat activity was sampled with two bat detectors at random points in each of 12 stands for two full nights/month from May–August 2001 and 2002.

    (Summarised by: Anna Berthinussen)

  2. Thin trees within forest and woodland

    A replicated, controlled, site comparison study in 2001–2002 of nine pine forest sites in South Carolina, USA (Loeb & Waldrop 2008) found that thinned tree stands had higher activity for two of three bat species than unthinned control tree stands. Activity of big brown bats Eptesicus fuscus and eastern red bats Lasiurus borealis was higher in thinned tree stands (big brown bats: average 1.2 bat passes/night; eastern red bats: 0.7 bat passes/night) than in unthinned control stands (big brown bats: 0.1 bat passes/night; eastern red bats: 0.5 bat passes/night) or burned stands (big brown bats: 0.3 bat passes/night; eastern red bats: 0.3 bat passes/night). Activity of eastern pipistrelles Perimyotis subflavus did not differ significantly between thinned (0.4 bat passes/night), unthinned (0.1 bat passes/night) or burned stands (0.1 bat passes/night). Nine 14 ha stands (loblolly pine Pinus taeda and shortleaf pine Pinus echinata) were surveyed with three replicates of three treatment types: thinning to an average of 576 live trees/ha (in winter 2000–2001), prescribed burning (burned in April 2001 with strip head fire and flanking fires, average 532 live trees/ha), and a control with no treatment (average 755 live trees/ha). Bat activity was sampled with two bat detectors at random points in each of 12 stands for two full nights/month in May–August 2001 and 2002.

    (Summarised by: Anna Berthinussen)

Output references
What Works 2021 cover

What Works in Conservation

What Works in Conservation provides expert assessments of the effectiveness of actions, based on summarised evidence, in synopses. Subjects covered so far include amphibians, birds, mammals, forests, peatland and control of freshwater invasive species. More are in progress.

More about What Works in Conservation

Download free PDF or purchase
The Conservation Evidence Journal

The Conservation Evidence Journal

An online, free to publish in, open-access journal publishing results from research and projects that test the effectiveness of conservation actions.

Read the latest volume: Volume 21

Go to the CE Journal

Discover more on our blog

Our blog contains the latest news and updates from the Conservation Evidence team, the Conservation Evidence Journal, and our global partners in evidence-based conservation.


Who uses Conservation Evidence?

Meet some of the evidence champions

Endangered Landscape ProgrammeRed List Champion - Arc Kent Wildlife Trust The Rufford Foundation Save the Frogs - Ghana Mauritian Wildlife Supporting Conservation Leaders
Sustainability Dashboard National Biodiversity Network Frog Life The international journey of Conservation - Oryx Cool Farm Alliance UNEP AWFA Bat Conservation InternationalPeople trust for endangered species Vincet Wildlife Trust