Bat boxes are not a silver bullet conservation tool

Nest boxes are often promoted as substitute structures for hollow‐dependent fauna, but are they generally effective? In a long‐term bat‐box monitoring project in south‐eastern Australia, box occupancy was dominated by one common and widespread urban‐adapted species, Gould's wattled bat Chalinol...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Mammal review 2017-10, Vol.47 (4), p.261-265
Main Authors: Griffiths, Stephen R., Bender, Robert, Godinho, Lisa N., Lentini, Pia E., Lumsden, Linda F., Robert, Kylie A.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
artificial tree hollow
Bats
Biodiversity
biodiversity offset
Boxes
Conservation
Fauna
insectivorous bats
Land conservation
Land management
nest box
Nest boxes
Offsets
supplementary roost habitat
Wildlife conservation
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Nest boxes are often promoted as substitute structures for hollow‐dependent fauna, but are they generally effective? In a long‐term bat‐box monitoring project in south‐eastern Australia, box occupancy was dominated by one common and widespread urban‐adapted species, Gould's wattled bat Chalinolobus gouldii. In contrast, the 13 other bat species in the area made little or no use of the boxes. Policymakers, land managers and conservation professionals working in the field of biodiversity offsets should be aware that bat boxes are unlikely to compensate adequately for the broad‐scale loss of tree hollows caused by various forms of human disturbance.
ISSN:0305-1838
1365-2907
DOI:10.1111/mam.12097