Conservation of breeding colonies of cave-dwelling bats using man-made roosts

Published source details Alcalde J.T, Martínez I, Zaldua A & Antón I (2017) Conservación de colonias reproductoras de murciélagos cavernícolas mediante refugios artificiales. Journal of Bat Research and Conservation (formerly known as Barbastella), 10.
Share Tweet Email

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

	Action	Category
	Manage microclimate of artificial bat roosts Action Link
	Create alternative bat roosts within developments Action Link
	Provide bat boxes for roosting bats Action Link

Manage microclimate of artificial bat roosts

A before-and-after study in 2014–2016 in one agricultural site in Navarra, Spain (Alcalde et al 2017) found more bats in artificial roosts after they were modified to reduce overheating. During the second summer of the study, five bat pups were found dead after a heatwave. The roosts were modified to reduce overheating, and in the following summer more bats were counted within them than in the previous summer (417 vs 91 Geoffroy's bats Myotis emarginatus, 93 vs 48 greater horseshoe bats Rhinolophus ferrumequinum, 44 vs 33 lesser horseshoe bats Rhinolophus hipposideros and 36 vs 15 common pipistrelles Pipistrellus pipistrellus). In July 2014, two buildings (2.6 x 2.6 x 3.2–4 m), 100 m apart, were constructed as artificial roosts to replace roosts that were destroyed in a building in 2013. With the aim of reducing overheating before summer 2016, the buildings were painted white and the ceiling was elevated. Bats were counted weekly from mid-April to mid-July in 2015 and 2016 using an infrared light.

(Summarised by: Ricardo Rocha)
Create alternative bat roosts within developments

A before-and-after study in 2014–2016 in one agricultural site in Navarra, Spain (Alcalde et al 2017) found that four bat species colonized two artificial roosts and a bat box after the original roost was destroyed. Numbers of at least three of the four species were higher two years after the construction of the artificial roosts than in previous counts in the destroyed roost (417 vs 90–200 Geoffroy's bats Myotis emarginatus, 93 vs 50 greater horseshoe bats Rhinolophus ferrumequinum, 44 vs 33 lesser horseshoe bats Rhinolophus hipposideros). Additionally, 36 common pipistrelles Pipistrellus pipistrellus roosted in one bat box placed on one of the artificial bat roost buildings (an unknown number roosted in the destroyed roost). In July 2014, two buildings (2.6 x 2.6 x 3.2–4 m), 100 m apart, were constructed as artificial roosts for bats roosting in a building destroyed in 2013. A bat box was placed inside one of the artificial roosts. Bats were counted weekly from mid-April to mid-July 2015 and 2016 using an infrared light.

(Summarised by: Ricardo Rocha)
Provide bat boxes for roosting bats

A before-and-after study in 2014–2016 in one agricultural site in Navarra, Spain (Alcalde et al 2017) found that common pipistrelles Pipistrellus pipistrellus colonized one bat box installed on a building constructed as an artificial roost. Six common pipistrelles roosted in the bat box in 2014 in the same summer that it was installed. Numbers increased to 15 in 2015 and to 36 in 2016. In July 2014, one bat box was attached to the outside wall of a building (2.6 x 2.6 x 3.2 m) constructed as an artificial roost. The artificial roost was built to replace a bat roost destroyed in a nearby building in 2013. Bats were counted weekly from mid-April to mid-July in 2015 and 2016 using an infrared light.

(Summarised by: Ricardo Rocha)