Cave gate designs for use in protecting endangered bats
-
Published source details
White D.H. & Seginak J.T. (1987) Cave gate designs for use in protecting endangered bats. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 15, 445-449.
Published source details White D.H. & Seginak J.T. (1987) Cave gate designs for use in protecting endangered bats. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 15, 445-449.
Actions
This study is summarised as evidence for the following.
Action | Category | |
---|---|---|
Install and maintain cave gates to restrict public access Action Link |
![]() |
-
Install and maintain cave gates to restrict public access
A small replicated study in 1985 at two caves in Alabama and West Virginia, USA (White & Seginak 1987) found that Townsend’s big-eared bats Plecotus townsendii and gray myotis bats Myotis grisescens flew more frequently through test frames at gated cave entrances with a round bar design or angle iron design than a funnel design. A greater proportion of Townsend’s big-eared bats and gray myotis bats flew through test frames with a round bar design (average 40% of big-eared bats and 20% of gray myotis bats exiting through the cave entrance), or angle iron design (21% of big-eared bats and 16% of gray myotis) than a funnel design (7% of big-eared bats, 2% of gray myotis). At one entrance at each of two caves, a 1 m2 test frame was installed in front of an existing gate with a round bar design. Inserts of three different designs were installed in the frames: round bar (19 mm round steel bars in a 615 x 154 mm pattern), angle iron (103 mm angle iron welded 154 mm apart in a horizontal pattern) and funnel (a 1 m2 one-way metal funnel narrowing to an exit hole of 230 x 230 mm). Each of three designs was tested for a total of 25 nights/cave in May–August 1985. At dusk, bats were counted emerging through the frame and the remainder of the cave entrance.
(Summarised by: Anna Berthinussen)
Output references
|