Date of Award

Spring 5-1-2014

Document Type

Thesis

Degree Name

Master of Science (MS)

Department

Biology

Abstract

Documenting the presence of rare bat species can be difficult. The current summer survey protocol for the federally endangered Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) requires passive acoustic sampling with directional microphones (e.g., Anabats), but there are still questions about best practices for choosing survey sites and appropriate detector models. Indiana bats are capable of foraging in an array of cover types, including structurally-complex, interior forests. Further, data acquisition among different commercially available bat detectors is likely highly variable, due to the use of proprietary microphones with different frequency responses, sensitivities, and directionality. We paired omnidirectional Wildlife Acoustic SM2BAT+ (SM2) and directional Titley Scientific Anabat SD2 (Anabat) detectors at 71 random points near Indianapolis, Indiana from May-August 2012-2013 to compare data acquisition by phonic group (low, mid, Myotis) and to determine what factors affect probability of detection and site occupancy for Indiana bats when sampling with acoustics near an active maternity colony (0.20-8.39 km away). Weatherproofing for Anabat microphones was 45° angle PVC tubes and for SM2 microphones was their foam shielding; microphones were paired at 2 m and 5 m heights. Habitat and landscape covariates were measured in the field or via ArcGIS. We adjusted file parameters to make SM2 and Anabat data comparable. Files were identified using Bat Call ID software, with visual inspection of Indiana bat calls. The effects of detector type, phonic group, height, and their interactions on mean files recorded per site were assessed using generalized estimating equations and LSD pairwise comparisons. We reduced probability of detection (p) and site occupancy (ψ) iv model covariates with Pearson’s correlation and PCA. We used Presence 6.1 software and Akaike’s Information Criteria to assess models for p and ψ. Anabats and SM2s did not perform equally. Anabats recorded more low and midrange files, but fewer Myotis files per site than SM2s. When comparing the same model of detectors, deployment height did not impact data acquisition. Weatherproofing may limit the ability of Anabats to record Myotis, but Anabat microphones may have greater detection ranges for low and midrange bats. Indiana bat detections were low for both detector types, representing only 4.4% of identifiable bat files recorded by SM2s. We detected Indiana bats at 43.7% of sampled sites and on 31.4% of detector-nights; detectability increased as “forest closure” and mean nightly temperature increased, likely due to reduced clutter and increased bat activity, respectively. Proximity to colony trees and specific cover types generally did not affect occupancy, suggesting that Indiana bats use a variety of cover types in this landscape. Omnidirectional SMX-US microphones may be more appropriate for Indiana bat surveys than directional Anabat microphones. However, we conclude that 2 nights of passive acoustic sampling per site may be insufficient for reliably detecting this species when it is present. In turn, the use of acoustic monitoring as a means to document presence or probable absence should be reassessed.

Download

Share

COinS