Detection probability of bats using active versus passive monitoring.Author(s): Katherine Teets; Susan Loeb; David Jachowski
Source: Acta Chiropterologica
Publication Series: Scientific Journal (JRNL)
Station: Southern Research Station
Download Publication (492.0 KB)
As technology has evolved, bat researchers have relied more heavily on using acoustic techniques to collect data on bat communities. Acoustic data can be collected actively, where the researcher is present at the sampling point and follows the bat with the detector, or passively, where the researcher is not present and the detector is set out by itself. Active sampling can yield longer, clearer calls, and is only conducted during part of the night (usually from sunset to about 02:00 hours) for short bouts (20 minutes). By contrast, passive sampling can yield lower quality calls, but procedures are easily repeatable and data can be used to measure temporal vari- ation in activity throughout the night and detect individuals and species that are missed during active
sampling. Researchers are in- creasingly attempting to monitor and compare bat communities over time, including sites where both active and passive sampling have occurred. However, these two techniques can yield different detection probabilities and the extent to which data collected using these two techniques can be compared is unclear. Thus, in July 2017 we simultaneously collected acoustic data actively and pas- sively to compare detection probabilities of bats at the Savannah River Site, South Carolina, USA. Using Anabat Express detectors, we detected five species or species groups (Eptesicus fuscus/Lasiurus cinereus, L. borealis/L. seminolus, Perimyotis subflavus, Myotis austroriparius, and Nycticeius humeralis) using each method. Using single season occupancy modeling, we found that method (passive vs. active sampling) had a significant effect on detection probabilities of all species, and that passively sampling throughout the night yielded the highest detection probability for all species. As a result, if differences in detection probability are not taken into account, comparison of historical active datasets with current passive datasets could lead to different insights into habitat use by similar bat communities. Based on our findings, we recommend that researchers use passive sampling throughout the night when studying and monitoring bat communities.
- You may send email to email@example.com to request a hard copy of this publication.
- (Please specify exactly which publication you are requesting and your mailing address.)
CitationTeets, K.D.; Loeb, S.C.; Jachowski, D.S. 2019. Detection probability of bats using active versus passive monitoring. Acta Chiropterologica 21: 205-213.
Keywordsacoustics, active sampling, clutter, passive sampling, occupancy probability
- Nightly and yearly bat activity before and after white-nose syndrome on the Fernow Experimental Forest in West Virginia
- Observations of little myotis (myotis Lucifugus) habitat associations and activity in the Chugach National Forest, Alaska
- Research and absence of bats across habitat scales in the upper coastal plain of South Carolina
XML: View XML