Constructed wetlands support bats in agricultural landscapes
-
Published source details
Stahlschmidt P., Pätzold A., Ressl L., Schulz R. & Brühl C.A. (2012) Constructed wetlands support bats in agricultural landscapes. Basic and Applied Ecology, 13, 196-203.
Published source details Stahlschmidt P., Pätzold A., Ressl L., Schulz R. & Brühl C.A. (2012) Constructed wetlands support bats in agricultural landscapes. Basic and Applied Ecology, 13, 196-203.
Actions
This study is summarised as evidence for the following.
| Action | Category | |
|---|---|---|
|
Create artificial water sources Action Link |
 |
-
Create artificial water sources
A replicated, site comparison study in 2009 at seven ponds within vineyards in Landau, Germany (Stahlschmidt et al 2012) found that artificial retention ponds had similar or higher bat activity for three species groups than adjacent vineyards. Activity of Pipistrellus spp. and Myotis spp. was higher over retention ponds (Pipistrellus spp.: 1,421 bat passes/night; Myotis spp.: 65 bat passes/night) than in nearby vineyards (Pipistrellus spp.: 8 bat passes/night; Myotis spp.: 3 bat passes/night), but the activity of Eptesicus and Nyctalus spp. did not differ significantly (ponds: 55 bat passes/night; vineyards: 14 bat passes/night). All seven retention ponds (0.1–1.3 ha) had bankside vegetation. At each of seven sites, bat activity was recorded using bat detectors and thermal infrared imaging cameras simultaneously at the pond and at a vineyard site 80 m away for 8–9 full nights in June–August 2009.
(Summarised by: Anna Berthinussen)
