Bat boxes as alternative roosts for displaced bat maternity colonies
-
Published source details
Brittingham M.C. & Williams L.M. (2000) Bat boxes as alternative roosts for displaced bat maternity colonies. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 28, 197-207.
Published source details Brittingham M.C. & Williams L.M. (2000) Bat boxes as alternative roosts for displaced bat maternity colonies. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 28, 197-207.
Actions
This study is summarised as evidence for the following.
Action | Category | |
---|---|---|
Create alternative bat roosts within developments Action Link |
![]() |
|
Provide bat boxes for roosting bats Action Link |
![]() |
-
Create alternative bat roosts within developments
A replicated study in 1991–1993 in an urban area of Pennsylvania, USA (Brittingham & Williams 2000) found that maternity colonies of big brown bats Eptesicus fuscus and little brown bats Myotis lucifugus used pairs of bat boxes at five of nine sites after they had been excluded from buildings. At the four sites where boxes were not used, bats either re-entered the building, found new roosts nearby or were not seen again. All occupied bat boxes faced a southeastern or southwestern aspect and received at least seven hours of direct sunlight. Unoccupied bat boxes received less than five hours of direct sunlight. Each of nine sites had a maternity colony of >30 bats that were excluded from buildings in 1991–1992. Homeowners installed pairs of wooden bat boxes (76 x 30 x 18 cm), one horizontally (30 cm tall) and one vertically (76 cm tall) side by side on the building close to the original roost. Emerging bats were counted on two nights in May–June and June–August in 1992 or 1993.
(Summarised by: Anna Berthinussen)
-
Provide bat boxes for roosting bats
A replicated study in 1991–1993 in an urban area of Pennsylvania, USA (Brittingham & Williams 2000) found that maternity colonies of big brown bats Eptesicus fuscus and little brown bats Myotis lucifugus used pairs of bat boxes at five of nine sites after they had been excluded from buildings. At four of five sites where boxes were not used, bats either re-entered the building, found new roosts nearby or were not seen again. All occupied bat boxes faced a southeastern or southwestern aspect and received at least seven hours of direct sunlight. Unoccupied bat boxes received less than five hours of direct sunlight. Each of nine sites had a maternity colony of >30 bats that were excluded from buildings in 1991–1992. Homeowners installed pairs of wooden bat boxes (76 x 30 x 18 cm), one horizontally (30 cm tall) and one vertically (76 cm tall) side by side on the building close to the original roost. Emerging bats were counted on two nights in May–June and June–August in 1992 or 1993.
(Summarised by: Anna Berthinussen)
Output references
|