English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Spatial and Predictive Foraging Models for Gray Bats in Northwest Georgia and a Comparison of Two Acoustical Bat Survey Techniques Joshua B. Johnson The federally endangered gray bat (Myotis grisescens) is an obligate, year-round, cavedwelling species. Efforts to protect caves occupied by gray bats have proved beneficial to recovery. Specific gray bat foraging area characteristics also are critical to gray bat population recovery and maintenance. In summer 2000 and 2001, I determined gray bat presence/absence with Anabat II acoustic bat detectors in potential foraging areas near 2 bachelor colonies in northwest Georgia. In 2000, I systematically sampled 213 locations near water sources over an 8.3 × 9.4 km sampling grid that was established over a 5,100 km study area. Each sampling point was monitored for 20 minutes. A predictive landscape-level model was developed in a Geographic Information Systems (GIS). In summer 2001, to further refine gray bat spatial activity patterns on a macro-habitat level, I sampled 114 locations that were predicted on a landscape level as gray bat foraging areas based on data from 2000. In 2000, 6,314 echolocation call sequences were collected using Anabat6 software and analyzed using Analook software. I identified 237 gray bat calls at 34 locations. Gray bats were detected 1.6 km to 28.0 km straight-line distance and 66 km riparian corridor distance from the 2 bachelor colony roost caves. Spatial data suggested the presence of 2 additional gray bat colonies and that gray bats foraged along major riparian corridors nearest to their roost sites. A GIS model incorporating the 2 known roost caves and the 2 predicted roost caves contained the largest waterway near each roost cave and its tributaries up to a minimum third-order stream. The GIS model contained 79% of locations where gray bats were detected and included 14% (1,235 km) of streams and rivers in northwest Georgia. Gray bats were detected in low valleys more often than ridge tops and mountains. Gray bats were detected at lotic water sources in greater proportion than lentic water sources. In 2001, I developed a macro-habitat foraging model based on 5,124 echolocation call sequences collected at 114 locations within gray bat foraging areas delineated by the GIS model. I collected 620 gray bat calls at 87 locations. Gray bats were detected more often in larger, downstream portions of foraging areas than narrow, cluttered, upstream portions. The use of ultrasonic detectors to survey bat species presence is common. Echolocation call quality differs between call sequences recorded directly to a laptop computer and sequences recorded to tape, but few studies have quantified the magnitude of difference and its potential effect on bat survey results. In 2000, I sampled 213 locations in northwest Georgia passively with an Anabat II bat detector (Titley Electronics, Ballina, Australia) linked to a tape recorder and actively with an Anabat II detector linked to a laptop computer (hereafter referred to as tape recorder and laptop, respectively). On average, the laptop recorded >2! as many species/site as the tape recorder. Moreover, I detected 3 bat species with the laptop system that I did not detect with the tape recorder. The laptop system detected all species detected by the tape recorder. I was able to identify to species 53.2% of recorded calls on the laptop in contrast to only 28.0% of tape-recorder calls. My results suggest that actively monitoring with an Anabat detector linked directly to a laptop computer records more bat call sequences and produces higher quality call recordings, resulting in a more complete bat community survey than passively monitoring with an Anabat detector linked to a tape recorder.

Spatial and predictive foraging models for gray bats in northwest Georgia and a comparison of two acoustical bat survey techniques