Cargando…

Comparing acoustic and radar deterrence methods as mitigation measures to reduce human-bat impacts and conservation conflicts

Where humans and wildlife co-exist, mitigation is often needed to alleviate potential conflicts and impacts. Deterrence methods can be used to reduce impacts of human structures or activities on wildlife, or to resolve conservation conflicts in areas where animals may be regarded as a nuisance or po...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Gilmour, Lia R. V., Holderied, Marc W., Pickering, Simon P. C., Jones, Gareth
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7018087/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32053663
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0228668
_version_ 1783497302703341568
author Gilmour, Lia R. V.
Holderied, Marc W.
Pickering, Simon P. C.
Jones, Gareth
author_facet Gilmour, Lia R. V.
Holderied, Marc W.
Pickering, Simon P. C.
Jones, Gareth
author_sort Gilmour, Lia R. V.
collection PubMed
description Where humans and wildlife co-exist, mitigation is often needed to alleviate potential conflicts and impacts. Deterrence methods can be used to reduce impacts of human structures or activities on wildlife, or to resolve conservation conflicts in areas where animals may be regarded as a nuisance or pose a health hazard. Here we test two methods (acoustic and radar) that have shown potential for deterring bats away from areas where they forage and/or roost. Using both infrared video and acoustic methods for counting bat passes, we show that ultrasonic speakers were effective as bat deterrents at foraging sites, but radar was not. Ultrasonic deterrents decreased overall bat activity (filmed on infrared cameras) by ~80% when deployed alone and in combination with radar. However, radar alone had no effect on bat activity when video or acoustic data were analysed using generalised linear mixed effect models. Feeding buzzes of all species were reduced by 79% and 69% in the ultrasound only treatment when compared to the control and radar treatments, but only the ultrasound treatment was significant in post-hoc tests. Species responded differently to the ultrasound treatments and we recorded a deterrent effect on both Pipistrellus pipistrellus (~40–80% reduction in activity) and P. pygmaeus (~30–60% reduction), but not on Myotis species. However, only the ultrasound and radar treatment was significant (when compared to control and radar) in post-hoc tests for P. pipistrellus. Deterrent treatment was marginally non-significant for P. pygmaeus, but the ultrasound only treatment was significant when compared to radar in post-hoc tests. We therefore suggest that acoustic, but not radar methods are explored further as deterrents for bats. The use of acoustic deterrence should always be assessed on a case-by-case basis, with a focus on bat conservation.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7018087
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-70180872020-02-26 Comparing acoustic and radar deterrence methods as mitigation measures to reduce human-bat impacts and conservation conflicts Gilmour, Lia R. V. Holderied, Marc W. Pickering, Simon P. C. Jones, Gareth PLoS One Research Article Where humans and wildlife co-exist, mitigation is often needed to alleviate potential conflicts and impacts. Deterrence methods can be used to reduce impacts of human structures or activities on wildlife, or to resolve conservation conflicts in areas where animals may be regarded as a nuisance or pose a health hazard. Here we test two methods (acoustic and radar) that have shown potential for deterring bats away from areas where they forage and/or roost. Using both infrared video and acoustic methods for counting bat passes, we show that ultrasonic speakers were effective as bat deterrents at foraging sites, but radar was not. Ultrasonic deterrents decreased overall bat activity (filmed on infrared cameras) by ~80% when deployed alone and in combination with radar. However, radar alone had no effect on bat activity when video or acoustic data were analysed using generalised linear mixed effect models. Feeding buzzes of all species were reduced by 79% and 69% in the ultrasound only treatment when compared to the control and radar treatments, but only the ultrasound treatment was significant in post-hoc tests. Species responded differently to the ultrasound treatments and we recorded a deterrent effect on both Pipistrellus pipistrellus (~40–80% reduction in activity) and P. pygmaeus (~30–60% reduction), but not on Myotis species. However, only the ultrasound and radar treatment was significant (when compared to control and radar) in post-hoc tests for P. pipistrellus. Deterrent treatment was marginally non-significant for P. pygmaeus, but the ultrasound only treatment was significant when compared to radar in post-hoc tests. We therefore suggest that acoustic, but not radar methods are explored further as deterrents for bats. The use of acoustic deterrence should always be assessed on a case-by-case basis, with a focus on bat conservation. Public Library of Science 2020-02-13 /pmc/articles/PMC7018087/ /pubmed/32053663 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0228668 Text en © 2020 Gilmour et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Gilmour, Lia R. V.
Holderied, Marc W.
Pickering, Simon P. C.
Jones, Gareth
Comparing acoustic and radar deterrence methods as mitigation measures to reduce human-bat impacts and conservation conflicts
title Comparing acoustic and radar deterrence methods as mitigation measures to reduce human-bat impacts and conservation conflicts
title_full Comparing acoustic and radar deterrence methods as mitigation measures to reduce human-bat impacts and conservation conflicts
title_fullStr Comparing acoustic and radar deterrence methods as mitigation measures to reduce human-bat impacts and conservation conflicts
title_full_unstemmed Comparing acoustic and radar deterrence methods as mitigation measures to reduce human-bat impacts and conservation conflicts
title_short Comparing acoustic and radar deterrence methods as mitigation measures to reduce human-bat impacts and conservation conflicts
title_sort comparing acoustic and radar deterrence methods as mitigation measures to reduce human-bat impacts and conservation conflicts
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7018087/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32053663
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0228668
work_keys_str_mv AT gilmourliarv comparingacousticandradardeterrencemethodsasmitigationmeasurestoreducehumanbatimpactsandconservationconflicts
AT holderiedmarcw comparingacousticandradardeterrencemethodsasmitigationmeasurestoreducehumanbatimpactsandconservationconflicts
AT pickeringsimonpc comparingacousticandradardeterrencemethodsasmitigationmeasurestoreducehumanbatimpactsandconservationconflicts
AT jonesgareth comparingacousticandradardeterrencemethodsasmitigationmeasurestoreducehumanbatimpactsandconservationconflicts