Comparación de sistemas de detección ultrasónica para actividad relativa de murciélagos insectívoros

Authors

  • Antonio Santos-Moreno Laboratorio de Ecología Animal. Centro Interdisciplinario de Investigación para el Desarrollo Integral Regional, Unidad Oaxaca, Instituto Politécnico Nacional. Calle Hornos 1003, Santa Cruz Xoxocotlán, Oaxaca, 71230.
  • Cristian Kraker-Castañeda Departamento de Conservación de la Biodiversidad, El Colegio de la Frontera Sur. Carretera Panamericana y Periférico Sur, San Cristóbal de Las Casas, Chiapas, 29290.

Keywords:

AnabatTM SD2, Echo Meter EM3, relative activity, , UltraMic200k

Abstract

We compared three acoustic systems for monitoring ultrasound (UltraMic200K, Rome, Italy; Echo Meter EM3, Concord, USA; and AnabatTM SD2, Brisbane, Australia) in order to infer relative activity of insectivorous bats under similar conditions, which presumably could implicate bias, but is evidence of the difficulty of comparing data sets generated in the same area with different detectors. The detectors were placed together for five days in an oak forest ecotone in Santa Maria Tiltepec, municipality of San Pedro Topiltepec, Sierra Mixteca of Oaxaca, Mexico. For each device we obtained 15 hours of recordings. The Ultramic200k is the cheapest system, although the space required for storing the files is very superior to the other devices, and requires connection to an external energy source. The Echo Meter EM3 is a medium priced dispositive, with less memory demands, but recorded significantly fewer ultrasound files and required a full load of batteries per recording session. The AnabatTM SD2 has been more widely used, requires significantly less storage space than the other two devices, and operates with less energy; however, it is the most expensive of the detectors tested.Key words: AnabatTM SD2, Echo Meter EM3, relative activity, UltraMic200k.

References

ADAMS, A. M., M. K. JANTZEN, R. M. HAMILTON, Y M. B. FENTON. 2012. Do you hear what I hear? Implications of detector selection for acoustic monitoring of bats. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 3:992-998

AVILA-FLORES, R., Y B. FENTON. 2005. Use of spatial features by foraging insectivorous bats in a large urban landscape. Journal of Mammalogy 86:1193-1204.

DANIELSEN, F., D. S. BALETE, M.0 K. POULSEN, M. ENGHOFF, C. M. NOZAWA, Y A. E. JENSEN. 2000. A simple system for monitoring biodiversity in protected areas of a developing country. Biodiversity and Conservation 9:1671-1705.

ESTRADA, A., C. JIMÉNEZ, A. RIVERA, Y E. FUENTES. 2003. General bat activity measured with an ultrasound detector in a fragmented landscape in Los Tuxtlas, Mexico. Animal Biodiversity and Conservation 27:1-9.

FENTON, M. B. 1970. A technique for monitoring bat activity with results obtained from different environments in southern Ontario. Canadian Journal of Zoology 48:847–851.

FENTON, M. B. 2002. Bat natural history and echolocation. Pp. 2-6 in Bat Echolocation Research: tools, techniques and analysis (Brigham, R. M., E. K. V. Kalko, G. Jones, S. Parsons, y H. J. G. A. Limpens, eds.). Bat Conservation International. Austin, EE.UU.

FLAQUER, C., I. TORRE, Y A. ARRIZABALAGA. 2007. Comparison of sampling methods for inventory of bat communities. Journal of Mammalogy 88:526–533.

GARCÍA-GARCÍA, J. L., A. SANTOS-MORENO, A. E. HERNÁNDEZ-CRUZ, Y M. PÉREZ-LUSTRE. 2009. Murciélagos de La Ventosa, Oaxaca: comparación entre el método de muestreo convencional y el muestreo acústico. Naturaleza y Desarrollo 7:19-29.

LIMPENS, H. J. G. A., Y G. F. MCCRACKEN. 2000. Choosing a bat detector: theorical and practical aspects. Pp. 28-37 in Bat Echolocation Research: tools, techniques and analysis (Brigham, R. M., E. K. V. Kalko, G. Jones, S. Parsons, y H. J. G. A. Limpens, eds.). Bat Conservation International. Austin, EE.UU.

MACSWINEY, M. C., B. BOLÍVAR, F. M. CLARKE, Y P. A. RACEY. 2009. Insectivorous bat activity at cenotes in the Yucatan Peninsula, Mexico. Acta Chiropterologica 11:139-147.

MILLER, B. W. 2001. A method for determining relative activity of free flying bats using a new activity index for acoustic monitoring. Acta Chiropterologica 3:93-105.

MILLER B. W. 2003. Community Ecology of the Non-Phyllostomid Bats of Northwestern Belize, with a Landscape Level Assessment of the Bats of Belize. Tesis de Doctorado. Universidad de Kent. Canterbury, Reino Unido.

OCHOA, J., M. J. O’FARRELL, Y B. W. MILLER. 2000. Contribution of acoustic methods to the study of insectivorous bat diversity in protected areas from northern Venezuela. Acta Chiropterologica 2:171-183.

O’FARRELL, M. J., Y B. W. MILLER. 1997. A new examination of echolocation calls of some Neotropical bats (Emballonuridae and Mormoopidae). Journal of Mammalogy 78:954-963.

O’FARRELL, M. J., Y B. W. MILLER. 1999. Use of vocal signatures for the inventory of free-flying neotropical bats. Biotropica 31:507-516.

O’FARRELL, M. J., B. W. MILLER, Y W. L. GANNON. 1999. Qualitative identification of free-flying bats using the Anabat detector. Journal of Mammalogy 80:11-23.

PARSONS, S., A. M. BOONMAN, Y M. K. OBRIST. 2000. Advantages and disadvantages of techniques for transforming and analyzing chiropteran echolocation calls. Journal of Mammalogy 81:927-938.

PECH-CANCHE, J. M., C. MAC SWINEY, Y E. ESTRELLA. 2010. Importancia de los detectores ultrasónicos para mejorar los inventarios de murciélagos Neotropicales. Therya 1:227-234.

SCHNITZLER, H., Y E. K. V. KALKO. 2001. Echolocation by insect-eating bats. Bioscience 51:557-569.

WELLER, T. J., Y C. J. ZABEL. 2002. Variation in bat detections due to detector orientation in a forest. Wildlife Society Bulletin 30:922-930.

WICKRAMASINGHE, L. P., S. HARRIS, G. JONES, Y N. VAUGHAN. 2003. Bat activity and species richness on organic and conventional farms: impact of agricultural intensiï¬cation. Journal of Applied Ecology 40:984–993.

WILLIAMS-GUILLÉN, K., Y I. PERFECTO. 2011. Ensemble composition and activity levels of insectivorous bats in response to management intensification in coffee agroforestry systems. PLoS One 6:16502.

Published

2013-04-30

Issue

Section

Articles