Bats in a farming landscape benefit from linear remnants and unimproved pastures
Schemes designed to make farming landscapes less hostile to wildlife have been questioned because target taxa do not always respond in the expected manner. Microbats are often overlooked in this process, yet persist in agricultural landscapes and exert top-down control of crop pests. We investigated...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | PloS one 2012-11, Vol.7 (11), p.e48201-e48201 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | e48201 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 11 |
| container_start_page | e48201 |
| container_title | PloS one |
| container_volume | 7 |
| creator | Lentini, Pia E Gibbons, Philip Fischer, Joern Law, Brad Hanspach, Jan Martin, Tara G |
| description | Schemes designed to make farming landscapes less hostile to wildlife have been questioned because target taxa do not always respond in the expected manner. Microbats are often overlooked in this process, yet persist in agricultural landscapes and exert top-down control of crop pests. We investigated the relationship between microbats and measures commonly incorporated into agri-environment schemes, to derive management recommendations for their ongoing conservation. We used acoustic detectors to quantify bat species richness, activity, and feeding in 32 linear remnants and adjacent fields across an agricultural region of New South Wales, Australia. Nocturnal arthropods were simultaneously trapped using black-light traps. We recorded 91,969 bat calls, 17,277 of which could be attributed to one of the 13 taxa recorded, and 491 calls contained feeding buzzes. The linear remnants supported higher bat activity than the fields, but species richness and feeding activity did not significantly differ. We trapped a mean 87.6 g (±17.6 g SE) of arthropods per night, but found no differences in biomass between land uses. Wider linear remnants with intact native vegetation supported more bat species, as did those adjacent to unsealed, as opposed to sealed roads. Fields of unimproved native pastures, with more retained scattered trees and associated hollows and logs, supported the greatest bat species richness and activity. We conclude that the juxtaposition of linear remnants of intact vegetation and scattered trees in fields, coupled with less-intensive land uses such as unimproved pastures will benefit bat communities in agricultural landscapes, and should be incorporated into agri-environment schemes. In contrast, sealed roads may act as a deterrent. The "wildlife friendly farming" vs "land sparing" debate has so far primarily focussed on birds, but here we have found evidence that the integration of both approaches could particularly benefit bats. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1371/journal.pone.0048201 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_plos_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_plos_journals_1339094475</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A477090510</galeid><doaj_id>oai_doaj_org_article_3093d21e09564f8d960a9c161c9fcd5e</doaj_id><sourcerecordid>A477090510</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-c3ccc68cd7e7556f5aed91f93d1f3e2a6456a23b39b2859e06750b03a2864c2a3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkl2L1DAUhoso7rr6D0QLgujFjPlo0uZGWBc_BhZW_LoNZ9LTmQxtUpN20X9vxukuU9kLyUXCyfO-J-fkZNlTSpaUl_TNzo_BQbvsvcMlIUXFCL2XnVLF2UIywu8fnU-yRzHuCBG8kvJhdsI4FYKX1Wn2-R0MMbcuh7yB0Fm3yVtwdTTQY75Gh40d8ib4Lm-tQwh5wM6BS5pE5aOzXR_8NdZ5D3EYA8bH2YMG2ohPpv0s-_7h_beLT4vLq4-ri_PLhZGKDQvDjTGyMnWJpRCyEYC1oo3iNW04MpCFkMD4mqs1q4RCIktB1oQDq2RhGPCz7PnBt2991FMzoqacK6KKohSJWB2I2sNO98F2EH5rD1b_Dfiw0RAGa1rUnKTEjCJRQhZNVStJQBkqqVGNqQUmr7dTtnHdYW3QDQHamen8xtmt3vhrzQtVMUmSwavJIPifI8ZBdzYabFOz0Y_p3bSkVckFpwl98Q96d3UTtYFUgHWNT3nN3lSfF2VJFBF0n3Z5B5VWjZ01fv-9KT4TvJ4JEjPgr2EDY4x69fXL_7NXP-bsyyN2i9AO2-jbcbDexTlYHEATfIwBm9smU6L3g3_TDb0ffD0NfpI9O_6gW9HNpPM_Lkf8tg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1339094475</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Bats in a farming landscape benefit from linear remnants and unimproved pastures</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><source>Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry</source><source>Public Library of Science (PLoS)</source><creator>Lentini, Pia E ; Gibbons, Philip ; Fischer, Joern ; Law, Brad ; Hanspach, Jan ; Martin, Tara G</creator><creatorcontrib>Lentini, Pia E ; Gibbons, Philip ; Fischer, Joern ; Law, Brad ; Hanspach, Jan ; Martin, Tara G</creatorcontrib><description>Schemes designed to make farming landscapes less hostile to wildlife have been questioned because target taxa do not always respond in the expected manner. Microbats are often overlooked in this process, yet persist in agricultural landscapes and exert top-down control of crop pests. We investigated the relationship between microbats and measures commonly incorporated into agri-environment schemes, to derive management recommendations for their ongoing conservation. We used acoustic detectors to quantify bat species richness, activity, and feeding in 32 linear remnants and adjacent fields across an agricultural region of New South Wales, Australia. Nocturnal arthropods were simultaneously trapped using black-light traps. We recorded 91,969 bat calls, 17,277 of which could be attributed to one of the 13 taxa recorded, and 491 calls contained feeding buzzes. The linear remnants supported higher bat activity than the fields, but species richness and feeding activity did not significantly differ. We trapped a mean 87.6 g (±17.6 g SE) of arthropods per night, but found no differences in biomass between land uses. Wider linear remnants with intact native vegetation supported more bat species, as did those adjacent to unsealed, as opposed to sealed roads. Fields of unimproved native pastures, with more retained scattered trees and associated hollows and logs, supported the greatest bat species richness and activity. We conclude that the juxtaposition of linear remnants of intact vegetation and scattered trees in fields, coupled with less-intensive land uses such as unimproved pastures will benefit bat communities in agricultural landscapes, and should be incorporated into agri-environment schemes. In contrast, sealed roads may act as a deterrent. The "wildlife friendly farming" vs "land sparing" debate has so far primarily focussed on birds, but here we have found evidence that the integration of both approaches could particularly benefit bats.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0048201</identifier><identifier>PMID: 23155378</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Public Library of Science</publisher><subject>Agricultural industry ; Agricultural land ; Agricultural management ; Agricultural pests ; Agriculture ; Animal behavior ; Animals ; Arthropods ; Automation ; Bats ; Bioacoustics ; Biodiversity ; Biology ; Birds ; Chiroptera ; Conservation ; Conservation of Natural Resources ; Crop ; Detection equipment ; Ecology ; Ecosystem ; Environmental management ; Environmental protection ; Farming ; Farmlands ; Farms ; Feeding ; Habitats ; Landscape design ; Light traps ; New South Wales ; Nyctophilus geoffroyi ; Pasture ; Pastures ; Pest control ; Pests ; Roads ; Species richness ; Taxa ; Trees ; Vegetation ; Wildlife ; Wildlife conservation ; Wildlife management</subject><ispartof>PloS one, 2012-11, Vol.7 (11), p.e48201-e48201</ispartof><rights>COPYRIGHT 2012 Public Library of Science</rights><rights>2012 Lentini et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><rights>2012 Lentini et al 2012 Lentini et al</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-c3ccc68cd7e7556f5aed91f93d1f3e2a6456a23b39b2859e06750b03a2864c2a3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-c3ccc68cd7e7556f5aed91f93d1f3e2a6456a23b39b2859e06750b03a2864c2a3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3498260/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3498260/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,723,776,780,860,881,2096,2915,23845,27901,27902,53766,53768,79342,79343</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23155378$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Lentini, Pia E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gibbons, Philip</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fischer, Joern</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Law, Brad</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hanspach, Jan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Martin, Tara G</creatorcontrib><title>Bats in a farming landscape benefit from linear remnants and unimproved pastures</title><title>PloS one</title><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><description>Schemes designed to make farming landscapes less hostile to wildlife have been questioned because target taxa do not always respond in the expected manner. Microbats are often overlooked in this process, yet persist in agricultural landscapes and exert top-down control of crop pests. We investigated the relationship between microbats and measures commonly incorporated into agri-environment schemes, to derive management recommendations for their ongoing conservation. We used acoustic detectors to quantify bat species richness, activity, and feeding in 32 linear remnants and adjacent fields across an agricultural region of New South Wales, Australia. Nocturnal arthropods were simultaneously trapped using black-light traps. We recorded 91,969 bat calls, 17,277 of which could be attributed to one of the 13 taxa recorded, and 491 calls contained feeding buzzes. The linear remnants supported higher bat activity than the fields, but species richness and feeding activity did not significantly differ. We trapped a mean 87.6 g (±17.6 g SE) of arthropods per night, but found no differences in biomass between land uses. Wider linear remnants with intact native vegetation supported more bat species, as did those adjacent to unsealed, as opposed to sealed roads. Fields of unimproved native pastures, with more retained scattered trees and associated hollows and logs, supported the greatest bat species richness and activity. We conclude that the juxtaposition of linear remnants of intact vegetation and scattered trees in fields, coupled with less-intensive land uses such as unimproved pastures will benefit bat communities in agricultural landscapes, and should be incorporated into agri-environment schemes. In contrast, sealed roads may act as a deterrent. The "wildlife friendly farming" vs "land sparing" debate has so far primarily focussed on birds, but here we have found evidence that the integration of both approaches could particularly benefit bats.</description><subject>Agricultural industry</subject><subject>Agricultural land</subject><subject>Agricultural management</subject><subject>Agricultural pests</subject><subject>Agriculture</subject><subject>Animal behavior</subject><subject>Animals</subject><subject>Arthropods</subject><subject>Automation</subject><subject>Bats</subject><subject>Bioacoustics</subject><subject>Biodiversity</subject><subject>Biology</subject><subject>Birds</subject><subject>Chiroptera</subject><subject>Conservation</subject><subject>Conservation of Natural Resources</subject><subject>Crop</subject><subject>Detection equipment</subject><subject>Ecology</subject><subject>Ecosystem</subject><subject>Environmental management</subject><subject>Environmental protection</subject><subject>Farming</subject><subject>Farmlands</subject><subject>Farms</subject><subject>Feeding</subject><subject>Habitats</subject><subject>Landscape design</subject><subject>Light traps</subject><subject>New South Wales</subject><subject>Nyctophilus geoffroyi</subject><subject>Pasture</subject><subject>Pastures</subject><subject>Pest control</subject><subject>Pests</subject><subject>Roads</subject><subject>Species richness</subject><subject>Taxa</subject><subject>Trees</subject><subject>Vegetation</subject><subject>Wildlife</subject><subject>Wildlife conservation</subject><subject>Wildlife management</subject><issn>1932-6203</issn><issn>1932-6203</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2012</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>DOA</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkl2L1DAUhoso7rr6D0QLgujFjPlo0uZGWBc_BhZW_LoNZ9LTmQxtUpN20X9vxukuU9kLyUXCyfO-J-fkZNlTSpaUl_TNzo_BQbvsvcMlIUXFCL2XnVLF2UIywu8fnU-yRzHuCBG8kvJhdsI4FYKX1Wn2-R0MMbcuh7yB0Fm3yVtwdTTQY75Gh40d8ib4Lm-tQwh5wM6BS5pE5aOzXR_8NdZ5D3EYA8bH2YMG2ohPpv0s-_7h_beLT4vLq4-ri_PLhZGKDQvDjTGyMnWJpRCyEYC1oo3iNW04MpCFkMD4mqs1q4RCIktB1oQDq2RhGPCz7PnBt2991FMzoqacK6KKohSJWB2I2sNO98F2EH5rD1b_Dfiw0RAGa1rUnKTEjCJRQhZNVStJQBkqqVGNqQUmr7dTtnHdYW3QDQHamen8xtmt3vhrzQtVMUmSwavJIPifI8ZBdzYabFOz0Y_p3bSkVckFpwl98Q96d3UTtYFUgHWNT3nN3lSfF2VJFBF0n3Z5B5VWjZ01fv-9KT4TvJ4JEjPgr2EDY4x69fXL_7NXP-bsyyN2i9AO2-jbcbDexTlYHEATfIwBm9smU6L3g3_TDb0ffD0NfpI9O_6gW9HNpPM_Lkf8tg</recordid><startdate>20121114</startdate><enddate>20121114</enddate><creator>Lentini, Pia E</creator><creator>Gibbons, Philip</creator><creator>Fischer, Joern</creator><creator>Law, Brad</creator><creator>Hanspach, Jan</creator><creator>Martin, Tara G</creator><general>Public Library of Science</general><general>Public Library of Science (PLoS)</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>IOV</scope><scope>ISR</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7SS</scope><scope>7T5</scope><scope>7TG</scope><scope>7TM</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>D1I</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>KL.</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PDBOC</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><scope>DOA</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20121114</creationdate><title>Bats in a farming landscape benefit from linear remnants and unimproved pastures</title><author>Lentini, Pia E ; Gibbons, Philip ; Fischer, Joern ; Law, Brad ; Hanspach, Jan ; Martin, Tara G</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-c3ccc68cd7e7556f5aed91f93d1f3e2a6456a23b39b2859e06750b03a2864c2a3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2012</creationdate><topic>Agricultural industry</topic><topic>Agricultural land</topic><topic>Agricultural management</topic><topic>Agricultural pests</topic><topic>Agriculture</topic><topic>Animal behavior</topic><topic>Animals</topic><topic>Arthropods</topic><topic>Automation</topic><topic>Bats</topic><topic>Bioacoustics</topic><topic>Biodiversity</topic><topic>Biology</topic><topic>Birds</topic><topic>Chiroptera</topic><topic>Conservation</topic><topic>Conservation of Natural Resources</topic><topic>Crop</topic><topic>Detection equipment</topic><topic>Ecology</topic><topic>Ecosystem</topic><topic>Environmental management</topic><topic>Environmental protection</topic><topic>Farming</topic><topic>Farmlands</topic><topic>Farms</topic><topic>Feeding</topic><topic>Habitats</topic><topic>Landscape design</topic><topic>Light traps</topic><topic>New South Wales</topic><topic>Nyctophilus geoffroyi</topic><topic>Pasture</topic><topic>Pastures</topic><topic>Pest control</topic><topic>Pests</topic><topic>Roads</topic><topic>Species richness</topic><topic>Taxa</topic><topic>Trees</topic><topic>Vegetation</topic><topic>Wildlife</topic><topic>Wildlife conservation</topic><topic>Wildlife management</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Lentini, Pia E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gibbons, Philip</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fischer, Joern</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Law, Brad</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hanspach, Jan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Martin, Tara G</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Science</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts</collection><collection>Nucleic Acids Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Materials Science & Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural & Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Materials Science Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><collection>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</collection><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Lentini, Pia E</au><au>Gibbons, Philip</au><au>Fischer, Joern</au><au>Law, Brad</au><au>Hanspach, Jan</au><au>Martin, Tara G</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Bats in a farming landscape benefit from linear remnants and unimproved pastures</atitle><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><date>2012-11-14</date><risdate>2012</risdate><volume>7</volume><issue>11</issue><spage>e48201</spage><epage>e48201</epage><pages>e48201-e48201</pages><issn>1932-6203</issn><eissn>1932-6203</eissn><abstract>Schemes designed to make farming landscapes less hostile to wildlife have been questioned because target taxa do not always respond in the expected manner. Microbats are often overlooked in this process, yet persist in agricultural landscapes and exert top-down control of crop pests. We investigated the relationship between microbats and measures commonly incorporated into agri-environment schemes, to derive management recommendations for their ongoing conservation. We used acoustic detectors to quantify bat species richness, activity, and feeding in 32 linear remnants and adjacent fields across an agricultural region of New South Wales, Australia. Nocturnal arthropods were simultaneously trapped using black-light traps. We recorded 91,969 bat calls, 17,277 of which could be attributed to one of the 13 taxa recorded, and 491 calls contained feeding buzzes. The linear remnants supported higher bat activity than the fields, but species richness and feeding activity did not significantly differ. We trapped a mean 87.6 g (±17.6 g SE) of arthropods per night, but found no differences in biomass between land uses. Wider linear remnants with intact native vegetation supported more bat species, as did those adjacent to unsealed, as opposed to sealed roads. Fields of unimproved native pastures, with more retained scattered trees and associated hollows and logs, supported the greatest bat species richness and activity. We conclude that the juxtaposition of linear remnants of intact vegetation and scattered trees in fields, coupled with less-intensive land uses such as unimproved pastures will benefit bat communities in agricultural landscapes, and should be incorporated into agri-environment schemes. In contrast, sealed roads may act as a deterrent. The "wildlife friendly farming" vs "land sparing" debate has so far primarily focussed on birds, but here we have found evidence that the integration of both approaches could particularly benefit bats.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Public Library of Science</pub><pmid>23155378</pmid><doi>10.1371/journal.pone.0048201</doi><tpages>e48201</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1932-6203 |
| ispartof | PloS one, 2012-11, Vol.7 (11), p.e48201-e48201 |
| issn | 1932-6203 1932-6203 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_plos_journals_1339094475 |
| source | MEDLINE; DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; PubMed Central; Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry; Public Library of Science (PLoS) |
| subjects | Agricultural industry Agricultural land Agricultural management Agricultural pests Agriculture Animal behavior Animals Arthropods Automation Bats Bioacoustics Biodiversity Biology Birds Chiroptera Conservation Conservation of Natural Resources Crop Detection equipment Ecology Ecosystem Environmental management Environmental protection Farming Farmlands Farms Feeding Habitats Landscape design Light traps New South Wales Nyctophilus geoffroyi Pasture Pastures Pest control Pests Roads Species richness Taxa Trees Vegetation Wildlife Wildlife conservation Wildlife management |
| title | Bats in a farming landscape benefit from linear remnants and unimproved pastures |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-13T04%3A30%3A58IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_plos_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Bats%20in%20a%20farming%20landscape%20benefit%20from%20linear%20remnants%20and%20unimproved%20pastures&rft.jtitle=PloS%20one&rft.au=Lentini,%20Pia%20E&rft.date=2012-11-14&rft.volume=7&rft.issue=11&rft.spage=e48201&rft.epage=e48201&rft.pages=e48201-e48201&rft.issn=1932-6203&rft.eissn=1932-6203&rft_id=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0048201&rft_dat=%3Cgale_plos_%3EA477090510%3C/gale_plos_%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1339094475&rft_id=info:pmid/23155378&rft_galeid=A477090510&rft_doaj_id=oai_doaj_org_article_3093d21e09564f8d960a9c161c9fcd5e&rfr_iscdi=true |