Bats from Fazenda Intervales, Southeastern Brazil: species account and comparison between different sampling methods

Portfors, Christine V.; Fenton, M. Brock; Aguiar, Ludmilla M. de S.; Baumgarten, Julio E.; Vonhof, Maarten J.; Bouchard, Sylvie; Faria, Deborah M. de; Pedro, Wagner A.; Rauntenbach, Naas I. L.; Zortea, Marlon

doi:10.1590/S0101-81752000000200022

Abstract

Assessing the composition of an area's bat fauna is typically accomplished by using captures or by monitoring echolocation calls with bat detectors. The two methods may not provide the same data regarding species composition. Mist nets and harp traps may be biased towards sampling low flying species, and bat detectors biased towards detecting high intensity echolocators. A comparison of the bat fauna of Fazenda Intervales, southeastern Brazil, as revealed by mist nets and harp trap captures, checking roosts and by monitoring echolocation calls of flying bats illustrates this point. A total of 17 species of bats was sampled. Fourteen bat species were captured and the echolocation calls of 12 species were recorded, three of them not revealed by mist nets or harp traps. The different sampling methods provided different pictures of the bat fauna. Phyllostomid bats dominated the catches in mist nets, but in the field their echolocation calls were never detected. No single sampling approach provided a complete assessment of the bat fauna in the study area. In general, bats producing low intensity echolocation calls, such as phyllostomids, are more easily assessed by netting, and bats producing high intensity echolocation calls are better surveyed by bat detectors. The results demonstrate that a combined and varied approach to sampling is required for a complete assessment of the bat fauna of an area.

Atlantic rain forest; bats; bat detector; chiroptera; diversity; echolocation; sampling methods; southeastern Brazil

Bats from Fazenda Intervales, Southeastern Brazil - species account and comparison between different sampling methods

Christine V. Portfors^I; M. Brock Fenton^II,^* * Corresponding author: E-mail: bfenton@yorku.ca ; Ludmilla M. de S. Aguiar^III; Julio E. Baumgarten^IV; Maarten J. Vonhof^II; Sylvie Bouchard^II; Deborah M. de Faria^IV; Wagner A. Pedro^V; Naas I. L. Rauntenbach^VI; Marlon Zortea^VII

^IDepartment of Neurobiology, Northeastern Ohio Universities College of Medicine. 4209, State Route 44, P.O. Box 95, Rootstown, Ohio 44272-0095, USA

^IIDepartment of Biology, York University. North York, Ontario, M3J 1P3, Canada

^IIIDepartamento de Ecologia, Universidade de Brasília. Caixa Postal 04474, 70919-970 Brasília, Distrito Federal, Brasil

^IVDepartamento de Zoologia, Universidade Estadual de Campinas. Caixa Postal 6109, 13083-970 Campinas, São Paulo, Brasil

^VDepartamento de Apoio, Produção e Saúde Animal, Universidade Estadual Paulista. Caixa Postal 341, 16050-680 Araçatuba, São Paulo, Brasil

^VITransvaal Museum, P.O. Box 413, Pretoria, South Africa

^VIIPrograma de Pós-graduação em Ecologia e Recursos Naturais, Universidade Federal de São Carlos. Caixa Postal 676, 13565-905 São Carlos, São Paulo, Brasil

ABSTRACT

Assessing the composition of an area's bat fauna is typically accomplished by using captures or by monitoring echolocation calls with bat detectors. The two methods may not provide the same data regarding species composition. Mist nets and harp traps may be biased towards sampling low flying species, and bat detectors biased towards detecting high intensity echolocators. A comparison of the bat fauna of Fazenda Intervales, southeastern Brazil, as revealed by mist nets and harp trap captures, checking roosts and by monitoring echolocation calls of flying bats illustrates this point. A total of 17 species of bats was sampled. Fourteen bat species were captured and the echolocation calls of 12 species were recorded, three of them not revealed by mist nets or harp traps. The different sampling methods provided different pictures of the bat fauna. Phyllostomid bats dominated the catches in mist nets, but in the field their echolocation calls were never detected. No single sampling approach provided a complete assessment of the bat fauna in the study area. In general, bats producing low intensity echolocation calls, such as phyllostomids, are more easily assessed by netting, and bats producing high intensity echolocation calls are better surveyed by bat detectors. The results demonstrate that a combined and varied approach to sampling is required for a complete assessment of the bat fauna of an area.

Key words: Atlantic rain forest, bats, bat detector, chiroptera, diversity, echolocation, sampling methods, southeastern Brazil.

Full text available only in PDF format.

Texto completo disponível apenas em PDF.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS. We thank E. Trajano for making the arrangements for working at Fazenda Intervales. R.M. Brigham, D.A. Blankenship, C.D. Grose and E.R. Dumont for reading earlier drafts of this manuscript and making suggestions for its improvement. This study was supported by a Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada research grant to MBF.

Recebido em 10.VI.199; aceito em 09.V.2000.

Baggoe, H.J. 1987. The Scandinavian bat fauna: adaptative wing morphology and free flight in the field, p. 57-74. In: M.B. Fenton; P.A. Racey & J.M.V. Rayner (Eds). Recent advances in the study of bats Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 470p.
Brosset, A.; P. Charles-Dominique; A. Cockle; J-F. Cosson & D. Masson. 1996. Bat communities and deforestation in French Guiana. Canadian Jour. Zool. 74: 1974-1982.
Fenton, M.B. 1997. Science and the conservation of bats. Jour. Mammal. 78: 1-14.
Fenton, M.B.; D.C. Tennant & J. Wyszecki. 1987. Using echolocation calls to measure the distribution of bats: the case of Euderma maculatum. Jour. Mammal. 68: 142-144.
Fenton, M.B. & G.P. Bell. 1981. Recognition of the species of bats by their echolocation calls. Jour. Mammal. 62: 233-243.
Findley, J.S. 1993. Bats: a community perspective Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 167p.
Gannon, W.L. & J.P. Sexton. 1996. Evaluation of bat diversity in New Mexico using the Anabat detector. Bat Research News 37: 132-133.
Griffin, D.R. 1958. Listening in the dark New Haven, Yale University Press, 415p.
Hovorka, M.D.; C.S. Marks & E. Muller. 1996. An improved chemiluminescent tag for bats. Wildlife Soc. Bull. 24: 709-712.
Jones, G. & S.M. van Parijs. 1993. Bimodal echolocation in pipistrelle bats: are cryptic species present? Proc. Royal Soc. London, Biological Sciences, 251: 119-125.
Novick, A. 1977. Acoustic orientation, p. 74-289. In: W.A. Wimsatt (Ed.). Biology of Bats New York, Academic Press, Vol. 3, 651 p.
O'Farrel, M.J. & B.W. Miller. 1997. A new examination of echolocation calls of some Neotropical bats (Emballonuridae and Mormoopidae) using Anabat. Jour. Mammal. 78 (3): 954-963.
Rautenbach, I.L.; M.B. Fenton & M.J. Whiting. 1996. Bats in riverine forests and woodlands: a longitudinal transect in southern Africa. Canadian Jour. Zool. 74: 312-322.
Roverud, R.C. & A.D. Grinnell. 1985. Discrimination performance and echolocation signal integration requirements for target discrimination and distance determination in the CF/FM bat, Noctilio albiventris. Jour. Comp. Physiol. 156: 447-456.
Rydell, J. & P.A. Racey. 1995. Streetlamps and the feeding ecology of insectivorous bats. Symp. Zool. Soc. London 67: 291-308.
Rydell. J. & R. Arlettaz. 1994. Low-frequency echolocation enables the bat Tadarida teniotis to feed on tympanate insects. Proc. Royal Soc. London 257: 175-178.
Simmons, N.B. 1996. A new species of Micronycteris (Chiroptera: Phyllostomidae) from northeastern Brazil, with comments on phylogenetic relationships. Amer. Mus. Novit. 3158: 1-34.
Simmons, N.B. & R.S. Voss. 1998. The mammals of Paracou, French Guiana: a neotropical lowland rainforest fauna. Part 1. Bats. Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. His. 237: 1-219.
Trajano, E. 1996. Movements of cave bats in southeastern Brazil, with emphasis on the population ecology of the common vampire bat, Desmodus rotundus (Chiroptera). Biotropica 28: 121-129.
Tuttle, M. D. 1974. An improved trap for bats. Jour. Mammal. 55: 475-477.
Vaughan, N.; G. Jones & S. Harris. 1996. Effect of sewage effluent on the activity of bats (Chiroptera: Vespertilionidae) foraging along the rivers. Biol. Conserv. 78: 337-343.
Voss, R.S. & L.H. Emmons. 1996. Mammalian diversity in Neotropical lowland rainforests: a preliminary assessment. Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist. 230: 1-115.
Walsh, A.L. & S. Harris. 1996. Factors determining the abundance of vespertilionid bats in Britain: geographical, land class and local habitat relationships. Jour. Appl. Ecol. 33: 519-529.
Waters, D. A. & G.Jones. 1995. Echolocation call structure and intensity in five species of insectivorous bats. Jour. Experim. Biol. 198: 475-489.
Wilson, J.W. 1974. Analytical zoogeography of North American mammals. Evolution 28: 124-140.

*

Corresponding author: E-mail:

bfenton@yorku.ca

Publication Dates

Publication in this collection
12 May 2009
Date of issue
June 2000

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

[1] Baggoe, H.J. 1987. The Scandinavian bat fauna: adaptative wing morphology and free flight in the field, p. 57-74. In: M.B. Fenton; P.A. Racey & J.M.V. Rayner (Eds). Recent advances in the study of bats Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 470p.

[2] Brosset, A.; P. Charles-Dominique; A. Cockle; J-F. Cosson & D. Masson. 1996. Bat communities and deforestation in French Guiana. Canadian Jour. Zool. 74: 1974-1982.

[3] Fenton, M.B. 1997. Science and the conservation of bats. Jour. Mammal. 78: 1-14.

[4] Fenton, M.B.; D.C. Tennant & J. Wyszecki. 1987. Using echolocation calls to measure the distribution of bats: the case of Euderma maculatum. Jour. Mammal. 68: 142-144.

[5] Fenton, M.B. & G.P. Bell. 1981. Recognition of the species of bats by their echolocation calls. Jour. Mammal. 62: 233-243.

[6] Findley, J.S. 1993. Bats: a community perspective Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 167p.

[7] Gannon, W.L. & J.P. Sexton. 1996. Evaluation of bat diversity in New Mexico using the Anabat detector. Bat Research News 37: 132-133.

[8] Griffin, D.R. 1958. Listening in the dark New Haven, Yale University Press, 415p.

[9] Hovorka, M.D.; C.S. Marks & E. Muller. 1996. An improved chemiluminescent tag for bats. Wildlife Soc. Bull. 24: 709-712.

[10] Jones, G. & S.M. van Parijs. 1993. Bimodal echolocation in pipistrelle bats: are cryptic species present? Proc. Royal Soc. London, Biological Sciences, 251: 119-125.

[11] Novick, A. 1977. Acoustic orientation, p. 74-289. In: W.A. Wimsatt (Ed.). Biology of Bats New York, Academic Press, Vol. 3, 651 p.

[12] O'Farrel, M.J. & B.W. Miller. 1997. A new examination of echolocation calls of some Neotropical bats (Emballonuridae and Mormoopidae) using Anabat. Jour. Mammal. 78 (3): 954-963.

[13] Rautenbach, I.L.; M.B. Fenton & M.J. Whiting. 1996. Bats in riverine forests and woodlands: a longitudinal transect in southern Africa. Canadian Jour. Zool. 74: 312-322.

[14] Roverud, R.C. & A.D. Grinnell. 1985. Discrimination performance and echolocation signal integration requirements for target discrimination and distance determination in the CF/FM bat, Noctilio albiventris. Jour. Comp. Physiol. 156: 447-456.

[15] Rydell, J. & P.A. Racey. 1995. Streetlamps and the feeding ecology of insectivorous bats. Symp. Zool. Soc. London 67: 291-308.

[16] Rydell. J. & R. Arlettaz. 1994. Low-frequency echolocation enables the bat Tadarida teniotis to feed on tympanate insects. Proc. Royal Soc. London 257: 175-178.

[17] Simmons, N.B. 1996. A new species of Micronycteris (Chiroptera: Phyllostomidae) from northeastern Brazil, with comments on phylogenetic relationships. Amer. Mus. Novit. 3158: 1-34.

[18] Simmons, N.B. & R.S. Voss. 1998. The mammals of Paracou, French Guiana: a neotropical lowland rainforest fauna. Part 1. Bats. Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. His. 237: 1-219.

[19] Trajano, E. 1996. Movements of cave bats in southeastern Brazil, with emphasis on the population ecology of the common vampire bat, Desmodus rotundus (Chiroptera). Biotropica 28: 121-129.

[20] Tuttle, M. D. 1974. An improved trap for bats. Jour. Mammal. 55: 475-477.

[21] Vaughan, N.; G. Jones & S. Harris. 1996. Effect of sewage effluent on the activity of bats (Chiroptera: Vespertilionidae) foraging along the rivers. Biol. Conserv. 78: 337-343.

[22] Voss, R.S. & L.H. Emmons. 1996. Mammalian diversity in Neotropical lowland rainforests: a preliminary assessment. Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist. 230: 1-115.

[23] Walsh, A.L. & S. Harris. 1996. Factors determining the abundance of vespertilionid bats in Britain: geographical, land class and local habitat relationships. Jour. Appl. Ecol. 33: 519-529.

[24] Waters, D. A. & G.Jones. 1995. Echolocation call structure and intensity in five species of insectivorous bats. Jour. Experim. Biol. 198: 475-489.

[25] Wilson, J.W. 1974. Analytical zoogeography of North American mammals. Evolution 28: 124-140.