BAT BIOLOGY AND THEIR HABITS UK

Ronnie Carleton 2012

email; carletonronald3@gmail.com

THE BIOLOGY DATA AND HABITS OF UK BATS.

Ronnie Carleton.

(c) 2012

WILDLIFE RESEARCH DATA

UK BAT DATA AND ECHOLOCATION. There are 30 species of bat which are found in Europe - and 17 of these inhabit or visit the British Isles; below is a table of the more common species with their geographical distribution and typical call frequencies. Species Not found in Scotland at time of writing and it likes wooded valleys with river course.. Roosts in house and barn roof spaces, rarely in tree holes. In winter in tree holes and caves. Found in damp woodlands but also in conifer woods. Tree hole roosts A woodland species near a water source and more roosts in trees. In winter caves, cellars. Some winter movements recorded. Distribution Hunting* Social

Barbastelle

S. Britain, W. 56kHz Europe

3040kHz

Bechstein's Small numbers in south of England

S/Central England, W. Europe S. Britain, Central/E. Europe, Central Asia

11240(50)kHz

34100kHz

Brandt's

6441(45)kHz

3080kHz

Brown LongEared

All Europe Open native and pine woods and comes except far out in the dark after sunset. North Also called the water bat and likes flat countryside with open woodland and water. All Europe except far North Medit. Europe Migrant bat in light woodlands and feeds on beetles. SW England (very rare), S. & W. Europe

6334(40)kHz

2550kHz 3585kHz 2045kHz 2030kHz

Daubenton's

50kHz

Free-Tailed

20kHz

Greater MouseEared Greater Horseshoe. Found SW England and Wales. At risk. More urgent research now needed.

45kHz

Sheltered woodland valleys with cattle grazing

SW England, SW Wales, 82kHz Medit. Europe

70120kHz

Lesser Horseshoe In danger and no longer in the north of England. Warm areas that are wooded and areas More research of limestone with roosts now needed.

S. & W. England & Wales, Ireland, S. & W. Europe

110kHz

100120kHz

Leisler's Small populations in England

Woodlands, buildings and old walls with holes. Will use bat boxes and tree holes.

Central England, Ireland, S. Europe S. Central England, W. Europe S. &E. England, Europe except W. Penins & far North All Europe except far North England, Wales, Central & E. Europe

3225(30)kHz

20100kHz

Grey Long-Eared

South of England in lowlands and rare.

6330(50)kHz

3050kHz

Nathusiuss' Pipistrelle Rare species

Possible migrant as it has been recorded . woodland species and pine forests that are dry and open.

4938(39)kHz

3870kHz

Natterer's

Open woodlands and farmlands. Some local movements of this species. Woodlands and parks, tree holes for roosts made by woodpeckers or large safe hole in tree.

7030(45)kHz

3580kHz

Noctule.

20kHz

2045kHz

Common Pipistrelle

House and building species but also All Europe will use bat boxes and tree holes. Feeds except far also over water and damp areas. North Habitat is also open woods and a rare species but more being reported. Confusion with pipistrelle and more urgent research needed. Found in the S of England in light woodland and pasture. Can at times be confused with Daubentons over water and also with Brandts bat. Open meadows with water and woods. All Europe except far North Now in the UK S. & E. England, W. Europe Britain except Far North, Europe

48kHz

2030kHz

Soprano Pipistrelle

55kHz

2030kHz

Serotine rare

27kHz

1565kHz

Whiskered

6441(50)kHz

3080kHz

except W. Penins (Species) (Sci.) (Distribution) (Hunting*) (Social)

The above information is for those people who use bat detectors in their own research and because many bats are very hard to ID in flight at dusk, echolocation helps a great deal. My own research also included the use of bat detectors in the field and then put on the computer for analyses later. If a bat detector is used or you want to get one make sure that it a good one. If you want to do a bat survey for the Bat Conservation Trust UK then you need to sign up for the surveys and if you do not have a bat detector a few are available from the Trust on loan. I would suggest strongly that if you have an interest in UK bats you could join your local bat group which will also offer training in Bat ID and the use of bat detectors in the field. I am of the opinion that more migrant bats will be found in the UK in the near future and of course that means more people doing research on bats as well as bat surveys all over the country. Besides the echolocation calls many bats have other calls and this can at times confuse people at dusk and during the night if they pick them up. MIGRANT BATS. As I said before there may well be more migrant bats arriving in the UK and some are already here but have not been ID as such and this is where bat research is lacking and needs to be addressed. I have addressed this problem of listing a number of possibilities and also what will turn up between 2012 and 2015 in the UK. The list of bats below are all possible migrants to the UK. Mehelys Horseshoe Bat, Pond Bat, Geoffreys Bat, Greater and Lesser Mouse Eared Bats, but Lesser Mouse Eared a doubtful possible. Much depends on climate change but I do feel that we are in for a few surprises in the bat world as we know it today. No doubt at all that bat Twitchers will turn up as well as some shoddy research papers written in a hurry!

INTRODUCTION TO THIS RESEARCH. This book is not a BAT field guide to the UK species but all part of my research over the years. That research started in Ireland many years ago and then there was only seven species recorded, all of which I wrote about in the Wild Mammals Of Donegal, Carleton 1976 published by the Donegal Democrat in book form. I then moved to England and my study in the field of wildlife continued, bats of course included and the research over the years is now updated and included here. The book of course is a fresh venture and being one on bat species found in the UK and not in Ireland this is where all my research took place. It took a long time getting it together and the data in some sort of order that could be presented in book form and not a report on bat species. I have tried to keep it simple but not always possible because the biology of bats demands updated data that can be understood though I have used the common English names for all the species where possible. Such research on the UK bats needs to be added to, people seeking out new information on bats but also new species which have and will turn up in the UK over the years from 2012. I have also avoided family grouping and sub-orders as well as the Latin names where possible as I want this book to be of use to lay people as well as researchers and most of all, young people who want to make a study of UK bats. Scientific research study into bat ecology does not need a degree but it does need some understanding of basic biology and also good records kept of all bat investigations and observations made in the field. All the data must be sorted and placed in a folder and the species named. Over a time, a bat species will be added to and this is why records are kept. ALL BAT SPECIES IN THE UK, IRELAND AND EUROPE ARE FULLY PROTECTED AND THERE ARE NO EXCEPTIONS. See Law on bats on the www. Bat Conservation Trust UK. All County Councils in the UK have a copy of the law on bats which includes, building, roofing, tree felling, and human disturbance and I suggest everyone reads it or obtains a copy in PDF form by downloading a copy of the law as it stands now. Failure to know the law in bat research or in the building trade is no excuse if you have to go to court because you were in breach of the law on bats.

CHAPTER ONE. There is still a lot of research to do on the UK bats and also in the next few years on migrant bats that arrive and have arrived from Europe. Yes, we know a great deal about UK and Irish bats but do we know if bats interbreed with a similar species such as the Whiskered bat and Daubenton's bat or what tick species our bats carry that also have disease factors for humans and bats alike? Research into bats is not like other mammal research because we don't see them in daylight as we do other UK mammals unless it is a short winter day flight for a few minutes if the temperature is up such as the small bat species sometimes do? Then there is the real problem of White Nosed Syndrome which I will cover later in the book, and as it is in Europe and the USA will it reach the UK or is it already here and we missed it? No one person in the wildlife studies of the UK knows it all and though a few people claim to know it all, they are in fact chasing smoke and trying to get their PhD on a bats wing and a prayer. What good is a PhD researched on our bats or migrant Europe species if no real research has been done and by that I mean not taking old rehashed data and doing a bit of juggling with it, or just copying it in blocks and then presenting it. That is not in my opinion and experience, good research but bad practice without the evidence of good field work and far from professional because giving the marks to the student does not help in the field of wildlife research. It in fact ends up as a piece of shoddy work by the student, approved by the professor, who is either sleeping with the student or is just plain lazy. It of course comes down to the old PhD targets for any university because a recorded pass is good for the University in question where a fail casts a dark cloud over all the research. Bat biology therefore is much harder to work on and research and by that I mean 'field research', cold and wet evenings, being chewed on at dusk by flies as you wait for bats to emerge, then of course writing up the reports when you get home. Walking around with a bat detector and waving it around at dusk and hearing the bats echolocation is only part of good bat research, you also need to look at numbers per roost, survival rates through a winter of hibernating bats and make many visits to your study area from spring through to the end of autumn. In three years time if you kept good records that suggest evidence of field research, maps of your research area and roosts marked then the final report on it I might even look at it but what I would not give time to is a rushed job and printed out in PDF with little or no evidence of field research. Then and only then can you hold your head up and smile.

THE UK BAT SPECIES DISTRUBUTION MAPS

Photograph by Hugh Clarke.

Brand.bat

D. bat

Greater Horseshoe bat

Grey Long Eared bat

Lesser Horseshoe bat

N.Pip

Natters bat

Noctule

Pipistrelle

Serotine

Soprano Pipistrelle

Whiskered bat

Pipistrelle

Identification of British Bats First impressions The usual method for identifying a mystery bat is to use a process of elimination. By asking yourself questions about the bat in front of you species can be quickly eliminated often leaving only two or three alternatives. There are several published dichotomous keys to help with this process (see references) Does it have a complicated nose leaf or a simple muzzle? This will immediately identify a horseshoe bat leaving only the forearm length to separate the species. Are the ears joined over the head or are they separate? If the ears are joined then only three species are possible; brown long-eared, grey long-eared or Barbastelle. Ears separate Ears joined

How big is the bat? For a beginner this may not be an easy question to answer but with experience many species can be eliminated on size alone. Forearm length is the most useful gauge as to a bats size. Weight is of little use as this can vary drastically over a short period. Forearm length can also be used on dead bats where weight would be useless. The length of forearm will immediately separate the horseshoe bats and the greater mouse-eared bat. Does the bat have a post calcarial lobe? This lobe of skin is found on several species (pipistrelles, noctule, Leislers, serotine) but not on myotis bats

calcar

post calcarial lobe

What shape is the tragus? The tragus size and shape is important for the separation of many species especially myotis bats. Noctule/Leislers Pipistrelle Myotis

Forearm length The forearm should be measured from a folded wing (see below) from the elbow to wrist. Callipers are often shown to measure forearms but careful use is required to avoid injuring the bat. A far safer method is to use a wooden ruler with a notch cut at the start of the scale. It is not important for identification purposes to be more accurate than the nearest millimetre.

Measure between the elbow and wrist

Pipistrelle Bats Key features: Small size Short, blunt ended, banana shaped tragus Underside fur is brown Post calcarial lobe present Three species are found in Britain:

Common Pipistrelle (45kHz) Soprano Pipistrelle (55kHz) Nathusiuss Pipistrelle Common Pipistrelle

Pipistrellus pipistrelles Pipistrellus pygmaeus Pipistrellus nathusii

Forearm 28-35 mm Usually has dark brown fur which is almost black at its base, and a black nose and face giving it a masked appearance. Has a more pointed snout than soprano pipistrelle.

Soprano Pipistrelle Forearm 28-35 mm Fur is usually lighter brown than common pipistrelle and is the same colour at the base. Face is pinkish and the snout is flatter in profile. Nathusiuss Pipistrelle Common/Soprano Pipistrelle Forearm 32-37 mm Dorsal fur is typically dark with lighter tips. The wing is broader than the other two pipistrelles. The fur is usually shaggier than common/soprano pipistrelle and there can be an obvious sharp dividing line between paler underside and darker dorsal fur. Fur on the underside of the wing can Nathusiuss Pipistrelle extend along the forearm to the wrist. There is an additional collagen band in the wing membrane (see opposite) not present in other pipistrelles.

The length of the fifth digit (not including the wrist) is usually >1.25 that of the forearm (in other British pipistrelle species it is less).

Myotis Bats This can be a very difficult group to separate. Careful attention to forearm length, tragus size and shape and calcar shape and size is important. Key features: Tapering tragus much longer than broad No post calcarial lobe There are six species found in Britain Daubentons bat Natterers bat Brandts bat Whiskered bat Bechsteins bat Greater mouse-eared bat Daubentons bat Forearm 33-40 mm Medium sized species. Ears are relatively short and rounded with a blunt ended tragus. Tragus convex on outer edge. Face is blunt and pinkish with bare skin around eyes. Fur is sleek (velvety, mole like); colour of dorsal fur is a uniform brown, under fur dingy white. Feet are noticeably very large. Calcar extends more than halfway to the tail and is fringed with a line of fine hairs (not to be confused with the much stiffer bristles of Natterers bat). Natterers bat Forearm 36-43 mm Medium sized species. Ears are long and curved back at the tip. Ears appear splayed when viewed from the front. Ears are long enough to project beyond the nose. Tragus is long and pointed (half to two-thirds the length of ear, nearly four times as long as wide). Long face with pinkish, bare muzzle. Upper fur is long and grey/brown in colour. Very white under fur. Calcar is S shaped and reaches halfway to the tail. There is a line of stiff bristles between the end of calcar and the tail. Myotis daubentonii Myotis nattereri Myotis brandtii Myotis mystacinus Myotis bechsteinii Myotis Myotis

Whiskered/Brandts bat These small species are very difficult to separate and close observation of several features are need to make a positive identification. Whiskered bat Forearm: 30-37 mm Ears longish, pointed and black (or very dark brown). Tragus about half the length of the ear (about three times as long as wide). Outer edge of tragus is straight or slightly concave. Face is pointed, dark coloured and well furred. Upper fur is quite shaggy and dark coloured; pale tips, brown middle, black root. Under fur is dingy white. Calcar extends half way to the tail. Penis is slim and parallel sided. Brandts bat Forearm 31-38 mm Ears shorter and more rounded than whiskered and lighter brown in colour. Tragus usually is slightly concave on the outer edge. Face blunter than whiskered and dark brown. Upper fur dark brown, under fur dingy white/buff. Calcar as whiskered. Penis is bulbous, Bechsteins bat Rare and found only in south-east Wales and southern England as far east as Sussex and Surrey. Forearm 38-46 mm Ears very long (over 18 mm, Natterers ear is less than 18 mm). Tragus long, straight and pointed (less than half the length of the ear). Face is pink and muzzle is quite long. Upper fur buff brown, under fur very white.

Greater mouse-eared bat Once considered extinct in Britain but one was found in a Sussex tunnel in January 2003 and again in January 2004. Still turning up in small numbers and more research needed. Forearm 57-68 mm Can be separated from all other British bats on size alone. Ears fairly long. Tragus about three times as long as broad. Upper fur brown with pale under fur.

Noctule, Leislers and Serotine Noctule Leislers bat Nyctalus noctula Nyctalus leisleri

Key Features: Mushroom shaped tragus. Square ear reaching down to the jaw line. Post calcarial lobe present. Serotine Eptesicus serotinus

Key Features: Tragus blunt tipped (about four times longer than broad). Ears rounded, medium length. Long, narrow post calcarial lobe present.

Noctule Forearm 47-55 mm Short dark ears (almost as broad as long) with a mushroom shaped tragus. Ears and muzzle are dark. Upper fur is sleek and a uniform golden brown colour (same colour at tip and base). Under fur similar to upper. Fur extends along the underside of the arm. Leislers bat Forearm 38-47 mm Very similar to Noctule but much smaller. The key difference is the fur colour. Leislers fur is bicoloured with dark roots and a paler tip. Fur can appear to be very shaggy especially around the neck giving the appearance of a mane. Serotine Forearm 48-55 mm Ears longer than Noctule or Leislers bat obviously longer than broad. The banana shaped tragus is blunt tipped and about four times longer than broad. Upper fur is dark brown and may have paler tips. Under fur is slightly paler. Tail extends up to 6 mm beyond the tail membrane. Fur does not noticeably extend along the wing as in Noctule and Leislers.

Long-eared Bats and Barbastelle All three species in this group have ears that are joined over the head. Barbastelle Brown long-eared bat Grey long-eared bat Barbastella barbastellus Plecotus auritus Plecotus austriacus

Barbastelle Forearm length 36-44 mm Large broad ears joined at the base giving the face a square appearance. Broad triangular tragus. Face short and pug-like. Fur dark brown/black with pale tips giving a frosted appearance.

Brown long-eared Forearm length 34-42 mm Extremely long ears (29-41 mm) joined at the base. Broad tragus (less than 5.5 mm. At rest the ears are often held only partially erect and look like rams horns. When in torpor the ears are tucked under the wings leaving the tragus exposed and looking like small ears. Face is pink. Upper fur is brown and is paler at the base. Under fur is pale buff. Thumb is long (more than 6 mm).

Grey long-eared Forearm length 36-44 mm Very similar to species above. Tragus broader than brown-loneeared (more than 5.5 mm at widest point). Thumb is shorter (less than 6 mm). Face is dark and upper fur is grey (young brown long-eared fur is also grey so colour is not a reliable identification feature!)

Horseshoe Bats Two species in Britain. Greater horseshoe bat Rhinolophus ferrumequinum Lesser horseshoe bat Rhinolophus hipposideros Key Features: Horseshoe shaped nose-leaf. No tragus (anti tragus instead) Wrap wings around their body when roosting There is no mistaking a horseshoe bat once the nose has been seen. They are very different in size. Greater Horseshoe forearm length 51-61 mm Lesser Horseshoe forearm length 35-42 mm .

CHAPTER TWO HIBERNATION.

BAT BIOLOGY AND HABITS UK All the bat species in the UK tend to go into hibernation torpor from the end of October right through to late March or mid April but during this time some species do have an arousal time at dusk and if under cover will even have a short flight around and if it is mild outside and has been for sometime, then a flight outside is not uncommon. Bats therefore for the most, do not sleep the winter away as many have suggested in the past. In one bat roost in winter I know of in a roof space of an Ashram in Wales, if the hall below is heated as it often is in winter, some of the bats in this roost have short bursts of active arousal and I have observed them as well as heard them in this roof space. In midwinter of course the flights become more random and I have observed at dusk when it was very mild, bats leaving the roost for a short flight. My timing I note was around between 6.00pm and 7.00pm and I have recorded over the years daylight flights in February, March and April but I have no records for December and Janauary. That does not mean that there is no activity during these two months on mild days, just that so far I have not seen them. One must also keep in mind that during a mild winter there are some flying insects about, mainly flies that a bat can, if it wants to, feed on during their short flights. Such flights don't last long in winter and not all the bats leave the winter roosts to have a fly around. I suspect from my own observations of winter flights from one roost that they do not last long, twenty minutes< at the most. From my research on the bats in spring and summer I found that in the study area that on cold wet days or nights with strong winds or a major temperature drop and keeps bats food in deep shelter they tend to return for a time into the torpid state and like the weather outside can last for a few days till things improve. This I suspect is carried out within the bat body and in a short time they adjust the body temperature to that of what it is outside. The slowing down of the bats heartbeat is the key, number of breaths taken as well as a body system that we only know a little about. Bats in this state can come out of torpid states at dusk and a rise in air temperature but also a sudden loud noise close to the roost.

As they warm up the heart beats get faster as does the bats breathing and in my observations they tend to start to shiver which helps the bat to speed up the warming up process. This may take up to 15 - 20 minutes of so and it is only then that they can fly if they need to. Temperatures in the winter roosts therefore needs to be around '0 - '15C at best, with no wind getting in to the roost area. In colder damp roosts like caves or cellars the heartbeat may be recorded 25 < beats per minute but all bats when in flight and in spring or summer the heart beat can go as high as 1000 beats per minute. Do not expect to see or hear bats in Spring if it is cold or wet and there is little point in going out with a bat detector in such conditions because you will not pick up any bats because they are tucked away nice and safe and in a torpid state while you get cold. Here is my guide for temperatures on my research area that I have used for 16 years and seems to work. My major study area for all bats is in south Wales but I also have two more in the Walsall / Birmingham areas. APRIL. Third week in April with roost temperature being around 13'C and outside 12'C> for first bat survey process. Sun hours recorded 2 MAY. 1st week with roost at 20.2'C and outside at 15'C > Sun hours recorded 11+ 3rd week with roost area 21'C and outside at 18.6'C Sun hours recorded 8 JUNE. 1st week with roost area 29.0'C < and outside 20'C> Sun hours recorded 16 3rd week with roost area 21'C> and outside 19'C Sun hours recorded 13 JULY. 2nd week with roost area 19.5'C and outside 19.3'C> Sun hours recorded 8 AUGUST. 2nd week with roost area 24.0'C and outside 20'C> Sun hours recorded 9 SEPTEMBER. 2nd week at roost area 26'C and outside 18'C> Sun hours recorded 6 3rd to 4 week outside 17.0'C> Sun hours recorded 8 What I therefore found was that the more sun hours in a day the more insects hatch out and are about therefore bats feed well and by September have already put on body fat and this continues to the end of October, depending of course on air temperatures and insect food out after dusk. Body weight fat build up in Autumn is therefore very important for bats that are ready for hibernation and a cold wet season reduces

this if insect food is scarce and deaths will occur in some bats in a roost. Keep in mind that all UK bat species emergence times for feeding is related to sunset and in Autumn, the time spent in the roost is shorter but the nights get colder, so bats are not out all night feeding as many people seem to think. There is no evidence that UK bat species migrate to warmer areas coming into late Autumn but because evidence is lacking does not mean that some do move south into Wales and Cornwall and even the south of England because if bats can and do migrate from Europe to our shores in Autumn, a few granted that there is data on, then there is no reason at all why some species living in Scotland and the north of England don't move also. Some of these bats would join others of the same species or share with another bat species a roost and also winter roosts. All the bats will of course put on as much body fat as possible and this fat covers most of their bodies under their skin. This fat is used to provide much needed energy for the reduced metabolism during the times when they become inactive but there is also a dark coloured fat around the blood vessels, lymphatic tissue in the chest and neck areas. This dark fat decreases much slower during hibernation than does the 'normal' body fat of a bat in hibernation. I have found a few dead bats in winter and found that they had little or no body fat left but the spleens were swollen up to a large size and infused with blood. Death of these bats was due to the Winter of 2010/2011 and all were in a hollow tree. The temperature for three weeks was -9'C to -10'C and the three dead bats were incrusted with ice and stuck to the inside of the tree. Thawed out a PM did show loss of body fat, large spleen, a number of internal parasites and one or two ticks also frozen. So what brings on the process of hibernation? Most people would say,'the drop in temperature' and the limited food supply so late in the year. I am of the opinion that it is much more than this and to do with an external stimulus and more to do with body fat stocks with air temperatures playing only a small part in the process because bats will not come out if the air temperatures drop as I have stated early on. The 'hibernation stimulus' is internal not external and this may account for some of the winter flights. My flying winter bats were mainly pipistrelle and whiskered bats and this was in the middle of winter (70%) of all winter sittings but the horseshoe species might also have short flights though I have not myself observed this. I know that horseshoe bats in caves do tend to move from areas within a cave to some other point there which suggests flight within the roost area and this may also mean that

they could also be feeding on spiders and woodlice as well as a few hibernation moths and butterflies. I have found evidence of food remains under hibernating bats in roosts and some of these in old caves and one mine shaft had horseshoe bats there. Below I have included some added data on the requirements of hibernation UK bats. Lesser Horseshoe bat. Winter roosts in caves,old mines, cellars with a temperature of 6-9'C but also with high humidity. This species always seems to hang down without making contact with another bat close by. There could well be 100+ bats in a winter hibernation roost. Greater Horseshoe bat. Winter and hibernation is in a mine shaft sometimes very far inside but will also use caves, cellars, and roof spaces with a temperature steady at 7-10'Cand rarely found them below that. May hang as a single bat in a winter roost or cluster together for body heat as that might be important to them. Whiskered Bat. Winter roosts may have a solitary bat and exposed on a wall or ceiling but in the past I have found them wedged into cracks of buildings and rocks. Sometimes a small numbers of whiskered bats will hibernate together but also share the winter roost with Brandt's, Long Eared bats and pipistrelles, though not touching one another. Likes the cooler spaces of a roost with a temperature of 2-8'C Brandt's Bat. Winter roosts caves, cellars,old mine shafts and hangs free. Shares with other bat species such as mentioned above but also with whiskered bats. Temperature in roost area 7-8'C If found in hibernation can be confused with whiskered bats and I also know they share with Daubenton's bats. Some winter movements known up to 2.5km in the south of England. Daubenton's Bat. Winter; Found in small groups in very tight crevices but in caves they seem to be more horizontal when in hibernation. Will share with other bat species. Suggest also migrates before winter for short distances. The possibility of Daubenton's and whiskered bats cross breeding from Autumn though to Spring in shared roosts must be considered and more research is needed on this. I will deal with this matter later in the research. Nathalina Bat and smaller than Daubenton's first discovered in 1977 as a new species and was always thought to be a Daubenton's and my opinion is that it is not a separate species but linked to Daubenton's.

Feeds over water and the measurements are the same as that of a Daubenton's Bat. The differentiation in this species I don't subscribe to as suggested by other bat researchers. As far as I am concerned a new fancy name given as 'Nathalina' by someone does not make it a new species and if written in Irish it is D.a.u.b.e.n.t.o.n's so when you speak the word it is a bat we all know already though maybe born on the wrong side of the DNA blanket! Natterer's bat. Winter and hibernates from Oct to April in caves,mine shafts,narrow cracks in walls or rocks and often lying on its back in scree on a hill but also hangs free from a wall or roof and can be found in small clusters sharing with Daubenton's bat at times. This is a bat of open farmland and woodlands. Bechstein's bat. Winter. The hibernation of this bat species shows more males then females sharing and goes into the winter roost from late Oct to mid April and will use old trees and old woodlands with holes throughout the year. Will use bat boxes if they are in place, buildings, caves and old mines. Most of the time it hangs free from a roof or wall and if finds a crack or crevice will hang head down. Most of the time will be single and not in clusters. Pipistrelle. Winter. This bat species for the most likes buildings, the older the better but takes to bat boxes, holes in trees, small cellars, old sheds for hibernation. Confusion at times with the Kuhl and Savi's pipistrelle but also with whiskered bat. Mid winter flying species if conditions are right. Noctule. Winter. Hibernates from first week in Oct/ Nov. through to 2nd week of April in mixed sex groups in clusters. Mortality in very low winter temperatures recorded for more than a week. Tree holes, bat boxes and old spit trees are used for hibernation as well as cracks and holes in bridges and sometimes old ruins with plenty of holes. Serotine. Winter. The hibernation roosts of this species in the south of England and very few of this species has been found in winter and the small number that have been found were all males wedged in cracks or hanging free from buildings. No bat box data but it seems that for the moment they do not use them in the UK. In France where I have observed them using buildings and flying at dusk in very light woodlands or local parks. Where the females go in the UK is still a mystery.

Barbastelle bat. Winter. found in wooded river valleys, foothills and hill farm areas and hibernate in caves, cellars and holes in old trees. This species is cold resistant, 0-5'C and is found at times in the open close to the winter roost or at the entrance of a roost even in bad weather. Sometimes found in large clusters during hibernation. Grey Long eared Bat Brown Long eared Bat. Winter. Hibernation by both species is underground sites, mines and caves and both species will share a hibernation site with one another. The Brown long eared bat is more cold resistant 0-5'C than the Grey long eared bat and both will also hang free from walls and in lofts with other bat species. Hibernation therefore for UK bats is not that well understood and more research on this is needed. I do know that sounds can be picked up in a winter roost on a bat detector but are not echolocation sounds. Many summer bat roosts hold no bats in winter so there is evidence of local movements of species and also for a few much longer distances before hibernation. Such movements for the moment from summer to winter roosts can not yet be classified in my opinion as true migration. The evidence in the UK is not yet presented and what little is the jury is still out. The main trouble with winter roosts and hibernation is that they are so hard to discover for some species of bats and you also have a point of law to contend with, that being the law that protects all bat species all year round. Disturbance of all bat roosts therefore is a breach of that law and unless you have a licence to research bats fully and backed by a University Research unit then you are well and truly up the creek. There are many good researchers of bats out there across the UK and in Ireland with no formal qualifications yet they know their bats, their habits and also their biology. A good many also know the winter hibernation areas as well as the summer ones and this is the case across Wales yet we are left with black holes in many parts of wilder Wales that we know nothing about the bat species living there. Universities of course have students who want to research bats and these fireside warriors start of their projects with books and computer data which is all well and good but it is known as 'copying' and rehashing already known material. Then along comes a student who makes a point of picking a research area, talks to local people and informs the local bat group of his or her intentions of the project only to find that this pre area research pays off.

CHAPTER THREE. THE BREEDING BIOLOGY OF UK BATS. This part of the bat research was in the beginning very complex because the breeding in bats is not the same all over as in Europe and I therefore had to do more research in the past, some of it in France that held the some of the same species as in the UK. Most of the UK bats are born from late May to the end of July but this depends on the species of course. When they are born they are naked and with no colour being carried around by the mother clinging to her fur. Within three weeks they have fur on their bodies and the first permanent teeth have come through. When they get too large the mother's do not take them with them but leave them back in the roost. This first coat young bats get is grey coloured and much lighter than that of the adults. In some species I have found them to be darker but the wings and ears tend not to be darkly coloured even when weaned, the ears may still be pink coloured. In the Vespertilionidae bats at parturition the young bat is delivered into the pouch formed by the inter-femoral membrane. Once born it is licked clean by the mother and she in fact also eats the placenta which I am sure is a good vitamin source,as the young bat then finds the nipples as it clings to the mothers chest fur. Bat mammary glands will extend under the skin and around the side of the body and up onto the adult females back. Horseshoe adult females also have another set of mammary glands in the groin area, one on each side of the opening but I should point out that these are false teats and do not produce milk. They are in fact used for the young bat to hold onto with its small mouth. In the past I suggest that these 'false teats' have been suppressed but used now as an anchor. Young Horseshoe bats will hold onto these teats when the mother flies with the head pointing in the same direction as the mother's. There is still some debate on how long the gestation period is for UK bats, the data suggests six weeks with the young being born in early summer but the whole process is complex. As bats are mammals but do not have the long duration as a human female I still was able to calculate mating,conception and birth using one of my old pregnancy calculators and all I had to do was draw on it a new line for mating. As an example of how this worked I set the mating event for the 28th of October just before hibernation, the sperm stored by the female in her uterus which soon becomes extended with live sperm as other males may also have mated with her.

What then happens more often than not is that this stored sperm do not always fertilize the egg that would become the young bats of the coming summer months so this stored sperm all though the hibernation is lost, more than likely expelled but in Spring mating takes place again and fertilization takes place of the egg. The male sperm therefore in the Spring has also been stored for males produce sperm all though Autumn but not once hibernation starts, and the stored sperm is saved in a tube of very small caliber. This in spring is then used when mating with females. Horseshoe bats differ in this process and there is autumn mating, sperm passes into the uterus but only in small amounts and therefor there is no evidence of swelling in the females because the passage that leads to the uterus is much larger and wider in Horseshoe bat females of breeding age. There is also a noted vaginal plug process which is jelly like in the female Horseshoe bats which is large and almost hard that would make you think of gristle but semi transparent. It suggests that the large glands in the male urethra which are not found in the smaller species of Vespertilionid bats. At the middle of this plug is a mass of sperm that will be used in the Spring though I can not rule out that some Horseshoe pairs mate again in spring. Female Horseshoe bats have been found to have met the fertilization requirements of mating with the winter vaginal plug still intact so this suggests that such happens during the winter while in hibernation. After hibernation the plug is expelled and if found is the size of an apple or orange pip. The evidence so far is that females give birth to one young in the UK but in Europe, twins of the same species have been recorded but I suspect that if good research was carried out here in the UK that in some areas some Horseshoe bats and other large species will also produce twins at times. We do lack for the moment competent zoologists to take on such bat work and why we have evidence of bat twins in Europe is that bats are studied much more than we do here in the UK or Ireland by professional zoologists, helped by good lay people who help and do more research on our bats than do our own zoologists. If some of our bats have or do produce twins then it is our 'amateur' naturalists will know and present their own records in a 'professional' way. I am of the professional opinion that some twins are born each year to some UK bat mothers and also suggest here that such twins are 'oniovular', that is twins born from a single egg. As the right side of the divided uterus then this is where egg and sperm meet because it seems that the smaller left ovary does not seem to function. One young bat a year is what has been suggested for the UK species and I urge more research on this.

The sex ratio of births is very important in bats and if the number of UK species are not to decline every female must therefore have at least one surviving daughter for this to happen. This means that during a female bats lifespan she must produce three young and one must be female. Therefore, a female bat will not produce young in its first year and the half and more likely two years before it can become pregnant. If the Vespertilionidae bats mate in Autumn and females are said not to become pregnant then mate again after coming out of hibernation then as an example I will pick the last week of March for conception and June and July for births then this past data of others is inaccurate because I have known of births as late as August and into September unless like some other UK mammals, delayed implantation takes place and even possible? As all UK and Irish bat species go into hibernation then this pre mating may take place in all of them and a few later in the spring, even early summer that result in bats being born much later than normal. Six months in hibernation with a little activity then six months with full activity unless the temperature drops and the young are born. My own research seems to show that within all the bat species in the UK that mating can and does take place also in summer as well as in the main part of spring. THE BATS MATING AND BIRTH CHART Lesser Horseshoe bat; Mating in the Autumn from late September through November but also at times during winter. Female stores sperm until ovulation and fertilization which has been stored in the vaginal plug with fertilization compleat by the end of April. Females move to nursery area and sometimes a few males follow (20%) but once the young are born, the males depart. 70% of all females give birth around the 21st of June and the first week of July with 30% giving birth in the first week of August. A nursery roost can have anything from 10 to 100 females> and this could mean that other bat females species are sharing space but to date there is no evidence produced of mixing. The number of litters born to this species is one per year with the young bats eyes open in 3 days and will be fully weaned in 5 weeks and completely dependent at 7 weeks. The nurseries then disperse in late August to mid September. During this dispersal stage it is possible that much larger females or young adults will turn up and if this happens it points towards middle Europe as Lesser Horseshoe bats are larger by far than the UK and French bats. This of course would be good evidence if any were found that migration happens.

Greater Horseshoe bat. Mates is September/October but some mating take place over the winter as I have known Greater Horseshoe bats born much later in the year as is classified as 'normal'. Births for the UK and this depends very much on the area, is 21st June onwards into mid August. The birthing roosts are taken over by females in May and into June with anything from 50-500 moving in. Again the males leave when the young are born or as I suspect driven out by the females when the young bats are born in mid June into July. The mothers will at times hang in clusters with their young and females will have their first baby in their 3rd year as an adult but in some areas it might be as long as five years. Very rare indeed for any female to produce young when they are a 2 year old adult. Litters and young is one per year and the young bats open their eyes on the 4th day after birth but I noticed that some females do not produce young ever year in some of my research areas. After 4 weeks the young bats take limited flights around the cave or mine roost but can catch their own insects at 3 weeks. All young bats of this species are weaned at 7 weeks. Whiskered Bat. Mating in this species takes place from Late Autumn into Spring and insemination tends to increases as hibernation becomes more progressive. Once May arrives the females leave the males and seek a nursery area with maternity colonies being established with anything up to 20 to 40 females during the months of April/May,July/ August, and at times into October but this is rare. The births take place in June into July and in most cases the nurseries disperse in mid-August. The sexual maturity is for females around 15 months< and the litter size is 1 with one baby bat born. The young bats are weaned at six weeks and also feeding at this time on their own. Brandt's bat. 20 to 30 females can be found in a nursery and sometimes sharing with Nathusius pipistrelle in France. In the UK however female adults of this species tend not to produce young until they are in their second year and they have one young and litter per year. The gestation period is the same as the whiskered bat. Will take to well placed bat boxes on good sites.

Daubenton's bat. The mating of this species is around the third week of September into late March and takes place for the most in the roost. Nurseries are taken over by the females, around 20-30>, in May but female numbers vary from area to area. A very few males may also be found in the nursery area. The young bats are born in the last week of June and into the first week of July with a litter size of 1 and this young bat will be weaned in 6 weeks. Gestation very much depends on weather conditions. Adult females are not sexually mature until they are 15 months > old very few adult females give birth at 1 year old and 70% do so at 2 years of age. The young are born with very short body hair and brown coloured at birth but a close up view will show sensory hairs on the tail. Young bats of this species can open their eyes on the 4th day and I suspect like other bats can see well at close range. The idea and myth that bats are 'blind' seems still to be the belief even by those people who should know better. There is complete hair cover by the time the young bat can open its eyes and by the 40th day it will show as what an adult bat looks like and can fly in its 3rd> week well. Weaning is complete in 6 weeks. Natterer's bat. Like many of our bat species mating is mid-Autumn to the end of March and then the nurseries are set up from April into May with births in June and July. These maternity groups of adult females only are around 20-30 mothers with one litter and 1 bat born the nurseries are changed between May and September and this is frequent with this species. Weaning is 6 weeks but will begin feed on its own at 3 weeks. There is a local movement of this species in some areas and the longest trip has been 90km but half that would be classified as a good flight distance. Bechstein's bat. Autumn and Spring mating and the nursery roosts are in place by by May with the birth of one young bat in late June/July with dispersal in August, early September. I little per year and the young bat is able to fly well by 18th to 20th of August. For the moment breeds in small numbers in the very South of England in three areas; Dorset, Wiltshire and Hamshire. Rare breeding species in the UK. This may well be because very few people are aware of this bat species and good UK research seems to be lacking.

The Pipistrelle's. Small bat species and common in some areas where there are good roosts in roofs or buildings. Also uses old tree holes and bat boxes. For this part of my research I am linking all three pipistrelle's together as Common Pipistrelle,Soprano Pipistrelle and the rare Nathusius Pipistrelle which have been recorded in the UK and Ireland. Pipistrelle. In the UK this bat mates around the last week of August well into mid-November at what is termed as 'established' mating roosts and the females store the sperm until ovulation and fertilization from the second week< with the births in June through to mid-July. but I have in the past found young bats in May and mid-August (Dungloe,Donegal 1976) and (Llandovery,Wales 2008) Gestation for this species is 44-80 days and the births within a roost seem to be almost synchronised over two weeks. If there is a weather factor that results in a shortage of food I have found that gestation is extended until things get better. There is 1 litter per year with one young bat born. I should point out that I have come across immature males in the nursery roosts (Ards Forest Park Donegal) and also at times there is local movements between nursery roosts but not great distances. Males will defend their territories during the mating season and I found this to be also the case when you were born. Females at times will visit the male roosts at times and it would not be unusual to find one male with 10-12 females in such a roost but only for a sort time. It is at this time there will be noticed a strong smell of musk coming from a roost be it in a house, roof space, tree hole or bat box. The only way I can describe this smell is that of warm mice. Females born are sexually mature at 3 months but females will only give birth every two years. Young pipistrelle's eyes open fully in 5 days, will make their first flight in 3-4 weeks and by six weeks can feed themselves on insects or spiders. Young bats less than a year old are darker coloured and look grey in the hand but they will remain with their mothers in the nursery roosts for five weeks and some may leave the roost before the mothers, in need of food. Such young bats are weaned at 5 to 6 weeks and the mothers and young bats will have a much longer contact than some other species. The mortality rate for females in a year is 60%> and for males 40%> but much more research is urgent of why it is so high in the UK.

Soprano Much the same as the Common Pipistrelle and both will share the same nursery roosts. Nathusius pipistrelle. This is a woodland species of both native and conifer woods and mating again takes place between September and November. In the males there should be a noted swelling of the testes and small swellings on the nose. The nursery roosts will be occupied by May and births will start from mid June through to the last week in July. Mothers will leave the roosts after weaning and can fly as far as 15km seeking males roosts. Sexually maturity is when a year old in females and two years in males. It should be noted that this bat species has been found on oil rigs and at Lighthouses so there is food evidence of some form of migration and it has also been recorded in Co. Cork, Ireland. My research now suggests that this species is much more common in the UK as first thought and in my opinion is also much more widespread in the UK than other data suggests. More bat boxes in woods needed and much more research on this species also because I do not think that some of the 'experts', or claiming to be, would know a Nathusius pipistrelle if it jumped up and bit them! Their problem I think is that they tend to think 'pipistrelle' or 'Soprano pipistrelle' when they are looking or using bat detectors rather than thinking of a migrant pipistrelle. Bat box roosts and holes in trees should be inspected or at least observed, bat detector used and know that this species produces mating song flights as well as as calls within the roost. If females were born in a roost, many will seek that roost out again and have their own young bat in it as well. So to help observer's I have listed the Measurements for this species to compare with the Common pipistrelle measurements and you don't have to be a self acclaimed 'expert' to know the difference with the data I have given above and just some common sense. My rule of thumb is simple, if it looks like a larger pipistrelle, sings a love song, and lives around woods including dry conifer woods it has a 90% chance of being a Nathusius and not the common pipistrelle. Also if you find one dead or alive then do some maths for comparison. Keep in mind always if you intend to root around in bat boxes you do need a licence and nursery boxes should never be inspected during birthing!

Vital measurements of Pipistrelle's in the UK. NATHUSIUS; Body length 44-55mm. Tail; 30-44mm Hairs showing. Hind foot; 6.5-8mm Forearm; 31-34mm Wingspan; 220-250mm Ear; 10-14mm 5th finger; 43-48mm Body weight; 6-15.5g COMMON PIPISTRELLE. 36-51mm. 23-36mm Hairless. 4-7mm 28-35mm 180-240mm 9-13.5mm 36-42mm 3.5-8.5g

Dental formula for both 2/3,1/1,2/2,3/3, = 34 Tragus; short and blunt, slight curve inwards bent inwards. blunt, longer than wide 50% height of ear. First upper premolar seen from 1st premolar small the side. and covered by the canine tooth. There is nothing difficult about this and all it takes is time and some common sense putting all the details together of type of habitat, echolocation and other sounds, flight pattern, wing size, and body size. Nathusius will have hairs on the tail while the common pipistrelle has a hairless tail. The two bat species have similar skulls if found and except for the teeth look the same so little information can be gained except size. Owl pellets and more so those of Tawny,Barn and Long Eared Owls should be examined closely through out the summer if you can find then and more so if they live or hunt close to a known bat roost. Sometimes you will find parts or whole bat skulls as well as fur and bones. Of course this all needs to be sorted out of what mammal or bird some of the bones belonged to but you are on a winner if you do get a bat skull. All bats if found dead and are not maggot infested should be checked and more so now if the victim was a pipistrelle. Road kills are more common than many people know and country lanes produce more of these than main roads. Cats will also find and kill bats taking them to a doorstep and dropping it there. I always check under bat roosts for bodies and have been rewarded by a good number over the years.

Leisler's bat. Mating takes place last week> August-September and the maternity roosts are in use from April onwards with up to 20 females+ using tree holes or buildings. Young are born in June and July with one litter and 1 young but I have uncovered data in Europe that twins are also born and this may also happen in some areas of the UK. Young bats weaned at 6 weeks and feed themselves. Females with young are prone to changing birthing roosts from time to time and carry their young with them. Noctule bat. A migrant species as well as a resident one with mating taking place in late August through to the end of October> with known sperm storage with both males and females and this could last for six months>. Most of the UK births are in June and July with sexual maturity with females born within three months and within their first Autumn but this is a rare event and males will only be ready within 16 months old. Gestation is anything between 70-74 days and the litter size is 1 with no real evidence of twins being born in the UK as they do in Europe, sometimes 3 born if conditions are right in many parts of Europe. The young bats eyes open in 6 days fully and in 15 days are now covered in hairs (Fur) which are grey coloured and turn brown in 36 days. Young bats of this species can fly within 4 weeks>, get their adult teeth by the seventh week and are weaned by the seventh week. At this stage the young are now independent of their mothers as weaning in most cases will now be finished. A bat mainly of old beech tree habitats, sometimes in buildings and bridges with holes in the brick work. Serotine bat. Found in wooded park lands, the edge of woods and roosts in buildings and I have found very rarely in trees in the UK. I have never yet found them to be using bat boxes in my two main research areas. Again mating takes place September-October and the nursery roosts are in full swing by mid May< with births taking place around the 21 of June< but can also give birth in August. Sexual maturity for both males and females is during their first summer in the UK with a little size of 1 and only one birth in a year. This bat will make its first flight in 3 weeks > and can feed for themselves in six weeks. In their first year they looked black coloured. I have found that down south the Nursery roosts are left by the end of August.

Barbastelle bat. This species likes wooded river valleys, parks and areas close to human settlements with mating taking place in late Autumn with births in mid-June with 2nd year females. The litter size is 1 and in Europe very rarely two. Young much darker than the adults once they are at the flying stage but later get white tips to the dorsal fur in the first year. Some part albinos are common in the west of Europe but I have no research data if this also is common in the UK but it seems to turn up in the males only for some unknown reason. This is a very rare species in the UK. Grey long eared bat. In the SW of UK with grey ears. Brown long eared bat. Common across the UK with brown ears. Both are medium sized with large ears that have folds in them. Mating for both species is in the Autumn though the Long eared also can mate in Winter and Spring. Births for both is last week in June into July with nursery roosts taken over from May onwards. In the Long Eared species a normal female will give birth to 1 litter every two years up to five years and the breeding roost of this species can still be in place till the end of September. Grey long eared bat sexual maturity is 1 year for males and females 2 years< Brown long eared bat males are sexually mature at 1 year and in females 80% are sexually mature in at 2 years and 100% in 3 years. Survival rates for first year young in some areas can be low and if they land on the ground, young and adults alike they are easy prey for owls of all species, stoats and even cats. I have found the remains of long eared bats in fox droppings in Wales but do not know if this bat was picked up when already dead or killed while on the ground. More research is needed on migrant species from Europe that arrived here on the east and south coasts because in my opinion such bats may well now be getting a foothold in some areas. Like bird ID some bats look so much alike and in the case of the use of echolocation bat boxes it is not always possible to tell what a strange bat is in the field unless you catch it and this needs a bat group with a licence to work in the field. Little work in the research field has been down on bats hitching a lift on boats but we do know that some oil platforms and coastal lighthouses turn up some migrant species. The possibility of them getting into gaps on container vans must not be ruled out and they come over to the UK mainland that way.

A LOOK AT FUTURE AND TODAYS MIGRANT BATS ID. RESEARCH DATA FOR EUROPE. A bat in the hand is worth two in the roost As I have stated early in my research, migrant bat species are already here in some areas of the UK and even in the South of Ireland and in time what will be termed new bat species found smacks of , I did not know this could happen and how long have they been here? It is of course easy to understand this modern dilemma within the human bat research community and bat observers because for the most they were very blinkered to the possibility of such a thing happening with a small flying mammal. When they take the blinkers off and stop chewing on their bat detectors in frustration and know that their world as humans is not the bat world that we are still learning about. It is that simple. In order to help in this matter then this part of my research is what way we can ID bats from Europe and if there are any major differences between a known species in the UK or Ireland with the same species in Europe. I would like to thank those people in Europe who helped with this part of my research and all the emails and of course attachments they sent to me. For a while my email boxes were full with no normal mail getting through! My thanks to the Ashram Bat Team for their support, helping an old man around in the dark, picking me out of water filled holes and fussing over me, most of them young women so who is complaining! Jane Wood, Rama my main research buddy, Edward the habitat improver, Jackie Body and Soul the wee Welsh witch come hairdresser and of course; Swami Nichchalanda of the Ashram who made me welcome, put up with me coming and going in the dead of night, and set me up in a study area in his home. There were four other members of the team, all women who also helped me out on the surveys and one that must stand out is of course is Swami Atma who always made things right for my visits and put up with midnight and 0200am visits under her window with a very large torch shinning up at the bat roost above. The Bat Team as I call it were great in the field and were into bats right from the beginning and by the time the research had finished were able to name bats they heard on the bat detectors. Let us hope at least a few of them will return to help with more research but most of all have their own bat detectors and not hogging mine! Ronnie Carleton February 2012

BATS IN THE HAND MEASUREMENTS AND ID IN EUROPE

1

) A good number of species rising from 31 to 39 in 2004. This rapid development in taxonomy and systematics has made it harder for field biologists to identify living bats, especially in the Mediterranean area. Most of the newly discovered cryptic species are closely related to one or more long known species. In some of these species groups identification has been problematic for many years and species assignment could only be solved by the aid of modern molecular methods. But the analysis of genetic characters is an inappropriate method for most field studies. Not all characters of the newly described species are currently known in their full variability and furthermore some taxonomic questions are not finally clarified.

HOW TO PROCESS A CAPTURED BAT As this key is written to determine living bats in the hand it is necessary to mention first that bats are protected in all European countries. Therefore a licence is required to catch and handle bats. Bats might be caught by a variety of techniques both at roost sites and in free flight. General advice in bat work and how to catch bats is given for example in the Bat Workers' Manual published by the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, also available for free in electronic format (www.jncc.gov.uk/Publications/bat_workers). Once bats are captured great care is needed to ensure that they are determined and measured quickly and without causing any harm. Pregnant or lactating females with attached young should be released immediately without further disturbance. After being caught, bats can be best kept in soft cloth bags. Bags should be always hung up and never laid on the ground. Horseshoe bats and sexually active males of the large vespertilionid bats should always be kept as singles. For horseshoe bats the bags should be fixed in a way that allows the bats to hang head down and they should be kept captive as briefly as possible. Small vespertilionid bat species like pipistrelles or Daubentons bats can be kept in small groups in bags, but species should never be mixed. To obtain the bats measurements and to examine the characters it is best to wrap them in a cloth or to hold them with soft gloves. Make sure you do not handle them too long, avoid holding a bat tight in your palm (if they are very active, they might suffer from heat stress). Never hold the bats by their forearms, elbows or wing tips only, since their flight muscles might be strained or, even worse, their

skeleton system damaged beyond rep

MEASUREMENTS USED IN IDENTIFICATION In some very struggling bats I suggest that it best to let them go fast and try again later because of stress to the bat but also to the handler. Although measurements like wingspan, head-body-length and tail length are often mentioned in books, they are not really useful and there is too much variation through different measuring techniques, so they should be avoided to reduce unnecessary stress for the bats. Body mass is a good indicator for the identification of some species when taken at the same time of the day. All measurements given here are only valid for fully grown adults. At the time of their first flight, the bones of juveniles are not fully ossified. In not fully grown bats, the epiphyses are best visible in the joints of the digits against a light background. Small juveniles have long stretched joints and the fingers are still cartilaginous. With the onset of flight, most parts of the fingers are fully ossified, but the growth plates near the joints are. M. aurascens (1 2), M. emarginatus (3), R. ferrumequinum (4). 1

HOW TO TAKE THE MEASUREMENTS USED FOR IDENTIFICATION

Measurements are of any value only when taken in the same standardised way. Calipers and in some measurements steel rulers will be needed to obtain reliable values. To take the wing measurements it is best to hold the bat (for righthanded people) in your left palm curling your fingers around the bats body. To take the forearm length it might be easiest to keep the bat in your palm and to fix the folded right forearm of the bat with your thumb and the tip of your index finger. The inner end of the caliper can be fixed by a finger at the bats elbow. The maximum forearm length is taken between the elbow and the wrist [this is the maximum forearm length (FA+), in some publications the forearm length is given without the wrist (FA-) representing the true length of the forearm bone. Usually the values of FA- are about 0.5 to 1.2 mm less than FA+, depending on the species. As it is much harder to reproduce reliable FA- measurements, we recommend to use only FA+ in future or to give both values]. It is important to ensure that the moveable jaws of the caliper are well attached to elbow and wrist and that the elbow is held parallel to the caliper. To take the lengths of the third and the fifth digit it is easiest to keep the bat (for right-handed people) with your left hand and attach it, the bats ventral side up, to a flat surface (table or ones thigh) and open the wing . The outer end of the caliper is best attached to the inside of the wrist and the length to the tip of the finger is taken. In the fifth digit length

the full length of the straight finger is taken, in the third finger length in living bats it is better to take the secant of the finger of the outstretched wing. The lengths of the phalanges are taken as shown. Thumb length is measured as the maximum distance of the straight thumb without claws . Hind foot length is taken from the base of the spur to the toes without claws . The tibia length is taken from the knee to the end of the tibia after having bent the foot. Ear width in large Myotis is taken as shown as the combined value of a and b at the height of the tip of the tragus. Tragus width in Plecotus is taken at the point of the tragus with the maximum width The tragus is usually not flat, to obtain reliable values it is useful to attach the tragus to a steel ruler in order to make it level. Tragus length in Plecotus is measured from the notch at the outside of the tragus above its basal lobe to the tip of the tragus . The upper tooth row length can also be measured in living bats, but experience and concentration are necessary not to hurt the bat. This measurement is only necessary in some species groups if the identification is not clear having used all other characters given in the key. It might be helpful to obtain this data in the species groups of Myotis myotis / punicus / blythii in some Mediterranean areas, Plecotus austriacus / kolombatovici along the Adriatic coast and Greece and in Eptesicus serotinus / bottae along the coastlines of Turkey and the Greek islands. This measurement is taken as the distance between the posterior margin of the last molar and the base of the canine . LIMITS OF SPECIES IDENTIFICATION Unfortunately it is not always possible to determine all bats by external characters. Even when considering all characters given in a bat key some species are difficult to distinguish and even more, some individuals differ so much from the usual appearance that they do not match the given descriptions. There is a high degree of intraspecific variability within some species In some groups taxonomic questions have not been solved yet. Some cryptic species may still be awaiting discovery, and vagrants or accidentally transported individuals might further increase the list of European bat species.

MY EUROPE BATS ID FOR RESEARCH. Possible migrant bats from Europe. I have listed the bat species below that could reach the UK if conditions were right coming in from France or Spain with a few direct from middle AND North Europe. MEDITERRANEAN HORSESHOE BAT. Some migartion data but not over long distances

MEHELYS HORSESHOE BAT. Little or no known migration data

POND BAT. Little or no data on migration. 350km recorded

GEOFFROYS BAT longest movement recorded was 106 km

GREATER MOUSE EARED BAT. LESSER MOUSE EARED BAT Both species known migrants in Europe

GREATER NOCTULE. Known migrant in France

NORTHERN BAT. Does not migrate long distances in Europe. 1 record Surrey in 1987

NATHUSIUS PIPISTRELLE migrant bat to UK Found on oil rigs North Sea. Migrant range data at 1000km to 1500km from Russia.

PARTI-COLOURED BAT. Has two pairs of Mammery glands. Known migrant in Europe

HOARDY BAT USA migrant bat

record from Oakney Scotland SCHREIBERS BAT winter roosts Known seasonal migrant between summer and

EUROPEAN FREE TAILED BAT Known migrant in Europe

MY RESEARCH REFERRENCE DATA

The Author Ronnie Carleton

The subject BATS of the UK

Please note that I have included in the last pages pdf data on bat detectors and their use, pdf bat conservation in the UK, and also here my own research reference data. Mammals of Britain and Europe Collins Field Guide. Hibernating Bats Rodger Ransome 1990 British Mammals L. Harrison Matthews NN Collins books This research that I have presented is for a better understanding of UK bats and their need for conservation and of course more research in the future which I feel is needed because there is black holes in the British landscape on bat information, areas, some of them large, where no bat information is known or been survived in full. White Nose Syndrome is now in Europe and this started off in the USA and spread yet so far I have no reports of it being in the UK, yet.

That does not mean that it is not here within some bat species it just means we have not found it. As for the Rabies viruses we need to be always alert.

page

How to use BatScan software for basic sound analysis

Contents 1. Getting started (page 1) 2. Selecting the best calls for analysis (page 3) 3. Selecting calls and zooming in (page 4) 4. Checking and adjusting settings (page 6) 5. Measuring peak frequency (page 8) 6. Measuring start and end frequency (page 8) 7. Measuring interpulse interval (IPI) (page 10)

1. Getting started
BatScan is produced by Batbox Ltd and can be purchased on CD for a very small fee, or comes with Batboxs Baton bat detector. You will need to install the software from the CD onto your computer. The software can then be accessed through a shortcut, by double-clicking on the shortcut you bring up the opening screen. Open a .wav file by selection Function / F3 Analyze file or click on F3, then browse to a file saved on your computer. The file will need to be in standard .wav format. If your files are in a different format there are various sound conversion programs that enable you to convert different formats to .wav. Doing a web search on audio converter will bring up links to various packages that can be downloaded, some with free trial periods. The files needed to be converted to .wav files with the following specifications: PCM uncompressed, 44100 Hz, 16 bits, stereo (or mono if your original files are in mono).

Two displays will be seen on the screen as shown above: A the oscillogram showing signal amplitude on the vertical axis against time (s) on the horizontal. B the sonogram/spectrogram showing frequency (kHz) on the vertical axis against time (s) on the horizontal. The colour range of the spectrogram represents amplitude. The point values of time (ms), Frequency (Hz) and spectrum level (dB/Hz) are shown in the box at the bottom of the screen if the cursor is hovered over any part of the spectrogram. Click on PLAY WDW to listen to the call sequence.

2. Selecting the best calls for analysis

Change the amplitude scale by using the vertical slider on the right of the screen (circled in red above). This allows you to increase or decrease the sound level shown so you can examine the signal to noise ratio.

Clipped calls (where the sound is overloaded and the oscillogram spikes are cut off) should not ideally be analysed. When sound is extremely loud and calls are clipped the result can be spurious harmonics which are distortions of the recorded sound. In the example on the right the spikes go off the top of the scale which makes these calls less suitable for analysis.

If calls are too quiet (as in the example on the right) or the signal to noise ratio is too poor these are also less suitable for analysis. When bats are very far away the high frequencies will not be captured and this can be misleading.

3. Selecting calls and zooming in

To select a sequence of calls you want to analyse, click on the screen at the start of the sequence with the left mouse button, hold down the button and drag the pointer across the sequence required to select (as shown above) and release the mouse. The spectrogram will be redrawn showing the selected calls. 4

It may help to change the pointer style to a black cross (default is a target box). To do this click on Preferences / Display pointers / Black cross. The zoomed in view is shown below. The call structure is now becoming clearer and the calls appear to have frequency modulated (FM) sweeps ending in a short quasi-constant frequency (QCF) tails (combining to produce a reverse J shape).

To return to the previous view at any time, hit the F6 key or click on Function / F6 Restore Parameters.

4. Checking and adjusting settings

It is worth checking the spectrogram settings as these will make a difference to how the bat calls appear on your screen. At least one of these settings is often essential to get right while the others can aid identification. Click on Function / F5 Change parameters or hit the F5 key to bring up the Analyse or settings box as shown below.

Selecting the correct channel The most important setting to check is the Channels box which selects which channel you are looking at from a stereo recording (Options are Left, Right or Dual as circled in red above). If your recording is in mono or you recorded from an FD-only detector (e.g. the BatBox Baton) then it is not necessary to check this as the correct display will be shown whichever channel you are viewing. If you recorded from a detector which outputs time expansion (TE) or frequency division (FD) signals in one channel and heterodyne in the other channel, ensure you are viewing the TE or FD channel. To do this you can change the channel and see how the display changes. In the heterodyne channel, calls are often squashed down at the bottom of the screen (just discernible in the screenshot below) if you were tuned in to the peak frequency when listening to the bats in the field.

Depending on what frequency you were tuned to, heterodyne recordings can sometimes resemble TE and FD recordings except the call sequences will tend to veer up and down quite markedly (corresponding to tuning around on the detector in the field) whereas in TE and FD the call sequences typically show more gradual shifts in frequency range as the bat responds to changes in its surroundings. It is also important to check the Frequency and Time Conversion box settings, circled in blue on the top diagram. The Conversion should be selected to Freq Div for frequency division recordings, or Time Exp for time expanded recordings. The factor should be set using the Scale Multiplier sliding scale: the default is x10 for both frequency division and time expansion.

Other settings The other settings are also worth playing around with as they can bring out the call structure more clearly and aid identification.

The range of frequencies shown on the spectrogram can be adjusted using the slider controls for High Band Limit (Hz) and Low Band Limit (Hz) as shown above circled in red. The default settings give a range from 17 to 120kHz which would display most sounds from British bats. If you are focusing on species that use lower frequencies you might want to lower the High Band Limit to make the calls larger on the screen for easier interpretation. The display width determines the time shown on the screen; a smaller value gives a greater time resolution on the spectrogram screen. The Frequency Resolution (Hz) is calculated from the combination of the set band limits and display width. The settings will remain the same when you next open BatScan. You can restore settings to the default by clicking on Reset in the Analyze box.

5. Measuring peak frequency

Zoom into the sequence of best calls that you wish to analyse (1-5 calls). Click on Function / F4 Find Peak Frequency or hit the F4 button and a power spectrum will be shown for the peak frequency on that screen as shown below. The diagram on the left shows the selected call sequence, and on the right the peak power spectrum. The section of the call selected by BatScan for the peak frequency can be identified by the Time (msec) shown in the box at the bottom, circled in red. If you then hit F6 to return to the spectrogram screen, you can locate the call from which the peak frequency was calculated (in this example the first of the three calls).

Hover the cursor over the peak on the graph to read off the peak frequency of the call, 44kHz in this example. Because the Analyze settings are selected for Frequency Division by 10, the frequency shown is correct and no adjustment is needed.

6. Measuring start and end frequency

To measure the start frequency, hover the cursor so it is position at the highest frequency visible in the call and read off the frequency in the box at the bottom, as shown below circled in red, in this example 54kHz.

Use the same technique to measure the end frequency, placing the cursor over the lowest visible frequency of the call and read off the Frequency value in the box at the bottom of the screen.

7. Measuring interpulse interval (IPI)

BatScan can be used to measure the call repetition rate automatically, and from that the interpulse interval (IPI) between two calls can be calculated. To calculate call repetition rate, right click at the start of the first call to be included in the sequence, hold down and drag the mouse across to the start of the final call in the sequence to be measured and release. A box Find Pulse Repetition Rate will appear in the top right of the screen with a sliding scale which you use to set the number of calls included in the sequence (in this example 6). The pulse repetition rate in calls per second is shown in the box.

The interpulse interval (from the start of one call to the next) is the reciprocal of the pulse repetition rate. To estimate the IPI (ms) from the repetition rate, divide 1000 by the repetition rate. Using the above example: IPI = 1000 8.48 (repetition rate) = 118 ms Note that the IPI calculated in this way is an average estimate from the sequence of calls used to calculate repetition rate. If the call pattern is irregular with varying intervals between pulses, this will not be seen by calculating IPI using this method as opposed to measuring intervals between each individual call.

10

page

Using BatSound software for basic sound analysis (with frequency division recordings)
Contents
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Getting Started Selecting the best calls for analysis Selecting calls and zooming in Call shape Checking and adjusting settings 6. 7. 8. 9. Measuring peak frequency Measuring start and end frequency Measure call duration Measuring interpulse interval (IPI)

1. Getting started
BatSound is produced by Pettersson Elektronik (http://www.batsound.com/) and can be purchased on CD to be installed onto a PC following the instructions provided. Licences vary in cost depending on the number of users. The software can then be accessed as normal for software from the Start menu or through a shortcut on the Desktop. More details and minimum PC requirements can be found on the Pettersson website. Open a .wav or .bsnd file by selecting File/Open from the Menu Bar (Figure 1), then browse to a file saved on your computer. The file will need to be in standard .wav format or .bsnd format. Note that if the file is very long it will take a long time to open, and it is better to split files before analysing them (software is available that allows you to split files). If your files are in a different format there are various sound conversion programs that enable you to convert different formats to .wav. BatSound versions 4.01 (the main version used to create these instructions) and above will allow you to import other file types such as .mp3 files directly using the File/Import tab on the Menu Bar. [Alternatively, doing a web search on audio converter will bring up links to various packages that can be downloaded, some with free trial periods. The files needed to be converted to .wav files with the following specifications: PCM uncompressed, 44100 Hz, 16 bits, stereo (or mono if your original files are in mono).] When you have opened a file (Figure 2 shows a series of Nathusius pipistrelle calls), you will see the main BatSound window. This includes the graphics window (here showing the oscillogram and spectrogram) the Menu Bar and the Tool Bar at the top (you can choose to turn this off using the View tab). Two displays will be seen on the screen as shown in Figure 2: A the oscillogram showing signal amplitude on the vertical axis against time (s) on the horizontal. B the sonogram/spectrogram showing frequency (kHz) on the vertical axis against time (s) on the horizontal. The colour scale of the spectrogram represents amplitude. You can change which of these windows you see using the Analysis tab on the Menu Bar or the shortcut buttons on Tool Bar circled in red on Figure 2. If you hover the cursor over any of the icons on the Tool Bar it will tell you what the icon does. 1

Figure 1. Opening a file

Figure 2. Main BatSound window (showing series of Nathusius pipistrelle calls)

In the graphics window there is also additional text information on the length of the window (ms) and the length of each time division (right hand side of the oscillogram shown in Figure 2) and on the sound format of the file (bottom right of screenshot shown in Figure 2). For analysis of recordings in frequency division using BatSound, the time expansion factor needs to be set to 1 this can be checked by selecting the Sound/Sound format tab from the Menu Bar. Note that the frequency scale on the spectrogram in Figure 2 shows from 0 to around 11 kHz (the range may vary depending on sampling rate, and can be adjusted, as explained on pg 7 . Frequency division recordings are in real time but the frequency has been divided (usually by 10). Frequencies read from the spectrogram scale therefore need to be multiplied back up by 10 to give the actual call frequencies. To show the entire file within the graphics window, select the Tools/Zoom entire file tab from the Menu Bar. To play the sequence, select the Sound/Play sound tab from the Menu Bar or the blue Play icon on the Tool Bar. There are also options to Pause and Stop the sound in this menu or using the adjacent icons.

2. Selecting the best calls for analysis

From your call sequence or bat pass, select the best calls for analysis. Use the oscillogram to look for those with a good signal to noise ratio, as shown in Figure 2 where the spikes on the oscillogram have a high amplitude compared to the background noise, but without going off the scale. Clipped calls (where the sound is overloaded and the oscillogram spikes are cut off) should not ideally be analysed. When sound is extremely loud and calls are clipped the result can be spurious harmonics which are distortions of the recorded sound. If calls are too quiet or the signal to noise ratio is too poor these are also less suitable for analysis. When bats are very far away the high frequencies will not be captured and this can be misleading.

Figure 3. Clipped calls. The spikes go off the top of the scale which makes these calls less suitable for analysis. Figure 4. Quiet calls. The spikes barely register over the background noise so these calls are also less suitable for analysis.

3. Selecting calls and zooming in

To select a sequence of calls you want to analyse, click on the screen at the start of the sequence with the left mouse button, hold down the button and drag the pointer across the sequence required to select (as shown above) and release the mouse. Then select Tools/Zoom in from the Menu Bar or click on the Zoom in icon: Figure 5. Selecting calls

The zoomed in view is shown below. The call structure is now becoming clearer and the calls appear to have frequency modulated (FM) sweeps ending in a short quasi-constant frequency (QCF) tails (combining to produce a reverse J shape) which is typical of pipistrelle calls. Figure 6. Zoomed in view

4. Call shape
Figure 7. Examples of echolocation call shapes

CF

FM

FM-QCF

QCF

Bat call shapes usually comprise two main components. A constant frequency or CF component, where the frequency remains the same over time, is represented on the spectrogram by the flat horizontal lines in Figure 7. This component may also be a quasi-constant frequency or QCF component where there is a slight variation in frequencies over time resulting in a call shape on the spectrogram with a shallow slope (last two calls in Figure 7). A frequency modulated or FM component is where the call sweeps through a range of frequencies over time, represented by the almost vertical lines in Figure 7. In practice many calls are actually a combination of the two with an FM section and a CF or QCF part, as shown by the FM-QCF calls above. A rough guide to identifying species groups based on call shape is given below. Species Horseshoe bats Myotis bats Serotine Noctule/Leislers bat Pipistrelles Long-eared bats Barbastelle Call shapes CF FM FM-QCF Type 1: FM-QCF Type 2: QCF FM-QCF FM FM Notes FM sweep often visible at start and end of call Typically long sweeps through a wide range of frequencies End frequencies typically below 32 kHz End frequencies typically below 32 kHz Often alternate the two call types, or may just emit type 1 calls in clutter or type 2 calls in the open End frequencies typically above 36 kHz Long FM/short QCF in clutter, short FM/long QCF in open Calls quite complex with harmonics, but in frequency division they typically look like FM sweeps Several call types, generally short FM sweeps with start frequency typically below 50 kHz 5

5. Checking and adjusting settings

It is worth checking the spectrogram settings as these will make a difference to how the bat calls appear on your screen. At least one of these settings is often essential to get right while the others can aid identification. From the Menu Bar, click on Analysis then Spectrogram settings Default values or the Spectrogram Settings icon on the Tool Bar (if you want to use the same settings throughout your current sound analysis session) or right click on the spectrogram and select Spectrogram setting Current diagram (if you only want the settings to apply to the file you are currently looking at). Selecting the correct channel The most important setting to check in Spectrogram Settings is the If stereo, view box which selects which channel you are looking at from a stereo recording (tick Left Channel, Right Channel or both as circled in red below). If your recording is in mono or you recorded from an FD-only detector (e.g. the BatBox Baton) then it is not necessary to check this as the correct display will be shown whichever channel you are viewing. If you recorded from a detector which outputs frequency division (FD) signals in one channel and heterodyne in the other channel, ensure you are viewing the FD channel. To do this you can select each channel and see how the display changes, or initially view both at the same time (as below) to compare them. In the heterodyne channel, calls are often squashed down at the bottom of the screen (just discernible in the Right Channel displayed in the lower half of the screenshot below) if you were tuned in to the peak frequency when listening to the bats in the field. Alternatively, depending on what frequency you were tuned to, heterodyne recordings can sometimes resemble FD recordings except the call sequences will tend to veer up and down in frequency quite markedly (corresponding to tuning around on the detector in the field) whereas in FD the call sequences typically show more gradual shifts in frequency range as the bat responds to changes in its surroundings. When you have worked out whether the FD signals are in the left or right channel, then ensure that only this channel is ticked as this will be the channel that is more suitable for analysis. Figure 8. Selecting the channel for analysis

Other settings It is also worth adjusting some other Spectrogram settings as they can bring out the call structure more clearly and aid identification. Max and min frequency The range of frequencies shown on the spectrogram can be adjusted by changing the values in the Min and max frequency boxes as shown above circled in red. The default settings give a range from 0 to 22050 Hz (if using a sampling rate of 44.1kHz) which is wider than necessary for displaying sounds from British bats, since the highest frequencies you are likely to encounter are around 120kHz (120000 Hz).. If you do get calls that disappear off the top of the screen you can simply type a higher value in the max frequency box in order to display the full frequency range of the calls. Figure 9. Setting Min and max frequency

Ideally you should set the upper frequency no higher than the highest frequencies you expect to see as this will make the calls larger on the screen and easier to interpret. In the above example the first digit of the max frequency has simply been changed from 2 to 1, resulting in a more appropriate max frequency of 12050 Hz.

Milliseconds per plot This determines the time shown on the screen. The default value of 15000 ms (or 15 seconds) is usually a good setting to use when scanning through a long file for bat calls. By clicking to the right of the bar at the bottom of the screen (indicated with an arrow below) you can view the file in 15000 ms sequential sections. When you find some bat calls you can then zoom in to examine them more closely. Setting a lower value will make it easier to ID the bat calls without needing to zoom in but will also make it more time consuming to scan through your file. Setting a higher value will make it quicker to scan through your file but you will be more likely to miss short or quiet call sequences that are less easily spotted at this resolution. Figure 10. Selecting Milliseconds per plot and clicking through your file

FFT size Spectrograms are made up of a series of overlapping windows that give a representation of the shape of the sound wave in terms of time and frequency. If the windows are set wider on the time axis they will be correspondingly narrower on the frequency axis and hence the frequency resolution will be finer. If the windows are set wider on the frequency axis they will be correspondingly narrower on the time axis and hence the time resolution will be finer. The FFT size dropdown list in Spectrogram settings sets the width of the windows (measured in number of data points or samples in the wave form). The highest value (2048 samples Figure 11) gives very low resolution on the time scale (a small number of wide windows) and very high resolution on the frequency scale (a large number of very narrow windows), while the lowest value (16 samples Figure 12) gives very high resolution on the time scale and very low resolution on the frequency scale. In general, leaving the FFT size on Automatic will give a good compromise between time and frequency resolution (as illustrated in all other Figures in this document) but with less clear calls it can be worth experimenting with selecting slightly higher or lower FFT sizes to see if this provides further clues about the call structure.

Figure 11. FFT size set to 2048 samples Resolution is low on the time axis, making the calls look stretched out in time, and high on the frequency axis. It can be worth selecting a higher FFT size if you want to make more precise measurements of start and end frequency.

Figure 12. FFT size set to 16 samples Resolution is low on the frequency axis, making the calls look stretched upwards, and high on the time axis.

Threshold, Amplitude color mapping and Amplitude contrast These settings are worth adjusting to improve the clarity of the sonogram and aid interpretation of call structure. The Threshold determines the level of the weakest signal that is displayed in the spectrogram. If your recording is quiet you may need to set the Threshold to a lower level in order to make the calls easier to see. However this will also bring out a lot of background noise in addition to the bat calls and it will take longer for the display to refresh each time you move through your file. Setting a higher threshold will reduce visible background noise and can make the call shapes stand out more clearly, but take care not to set it so high that you start to lose the quieter frequencies contained within the calls, or entire quiet calls. Amplitude color mapping determines which colours are used to represent different amplitude levels. In the example below the colours shade from yellow for the frequencies with the lowest amplitude to dark blues for the frequencies with the highest amplitude, but different colour schemes can be selected according to taste. Adjusting Amplitude contrast will change the contrast between different amplitudes which can help make bat calls stand out more clearly from background noise. Figure 13. Threshold, Amplitude color mapping and Amplitude contrast

10

6. Measuring peak frequency / frequency of maximum energy (FmaxE)

Highlight the call you want to look at and then click on the Power spectrum icon in the Tool Bar or go to the Analysis menu/Power Spectrum on the Menu Bar. The power spectrum graph should pop up in a new window in front of the spectrogram. You can move the window around by dragging the top bar and you can resize it by clicking on the edges and dragging them in or out. The power spectrum has a loudness scale (a minus scale) in decibels on the y axis up the side and a frequency scale on the x axis along the bottom. On the decibel scale -20db is louder than -60db. Remember if you are using frequency division you need to multiply the frequency by 10 to get actual frequencies. To measure the peak frequency, centre the cursor (the cross) on top of the highest part of the highest peak; the frequency it corresponds to will be shown in the bottom left-hand corner of the screen. In the example below of a Nathusius pipistrelle call it is 3.90 kHz (or 39 kHz when multiplied by 10 to convert back to the frequencies originally contained in the bat call). Figure 14. Four steps to measuring peak frequency

Remember its best to take the average peak frequency of around three to five calls and not from just one call as there might be variation between calls. 11

7. Measuring start and end frequency

Figure 15. Selecting Measurement cursor

To measure start and end frequency, first select Tools/Measurement cursor from the Menu Bar.

Figure 16. Measuring start frequency

Figure 17. Measuring end frequency

To measure the start frequency (Figure 16), hover the cursor so it is positioned at the highest frequency visible in the call and read off the frequency in the box at the bottom, as shown below circled in red, in this example 7.17kHz (or 71.7 kHz when multiplied by 10). When analysing frequency division recordings the start frequency can be unclear making it more difficult to decide where to take the measurement. The start frequency is also less reliable than the end frequency since higher frequencies are more likely to attenuate meaning that you may not record the highest frequencies present in the bat calls. Use the same technique to measure the end frequency (Figure 17), placing the cursor over the lowest visible frequency of the call and read off the frequency value in the box at the bottom of the screen, in this example 3.59 kHz (or 35.9 kHz when multiplied by 10). 12

8. Measuring the call duration

Click at the start of the selected call and drag to the end of the call. It is a good idea to zoom in on the call beforehand so you can better see the start and end of the call. Always measure call duration from the oscillogram in order to get an accurate measurement. The duration will be displayed in the bottom left-hand corner of the screen. In the example below it is 7.7ms. The example below also shows how inaccurate the measurement would be if you measured duration from the spectrogram: note how the spectrogram diagram of the call extends beyond the actual call duration measured on the oscillogram. Figure 18. Measuring call duration

13

9. Measuring interpulse interval (IPI)

Measuring IPI between two calls To measure the interpulse interval, or the time in milliseconds between two calls, click at the start of one call, hold down and drag the mouse across to the start of the next call in the sequence. Time measurements such as this should be measuredfrom the oscillogram rather than the spectrogram as they are more accurate. You will need to ensure you are using the Marking cursor, so select Tools/Marking cursor from the Menu Bar if needed (it will default to this whenever you begin a session in BatSound). The IPI will be displayed in the bottom left-hand corner of the screen. In the example in Figure 19 it is 92 milliseconds.

Figure 19. Measuring interpluse interval between two calls Measuring the average IPI between a number of calls

Figure 20. Measuring interpluse interval between a number of calls

It can be useful to measure the average IPI for comparison with published call parameters for each species and to allow for variation between intervals. Click at the start of the first call you wish to include in your measurement, hold down and drag the mouse across to the start of the last call you wish to include. The time between the first and last call will be displayed in the bottom left-hand corner of the screen. In the example in Figure 20 above it is 880 ms. Divide this by the number of intervals between calls (this will be one less than the number of calls). For speed of calculation it helps to pick a number of intervals that is easy to divide by, e.g. 5 or 10. Ten intervals were selected below so the average IPI is 880ms 10 = 88ms.

14

page

How to use TF32 software for bat sound analysis

Contents 1. Getting started (page 1) 2. Selecting the best calls for analysis (page 4) 3. Selecting calls and zooming in (page 5) 4. Checking and adjusting settings (page 6) 5. 6. 7. 8. Measuring peak frequency (page 11) Measuring start and end frequency (page 13) Measuring interpulse interval (IPI) (page 14) Measuring call duration (page 15)

1. Getting started
TF32 was developed by Paul H. Milenkovic at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. It was designed for speech analysis but is also a good tool for bat sound analysis. A Demo version is available to download free of charge at http://userpages.chorus.net/cspeech/ (or simply do a web search for TF32) and this provides all the functions described in this booklet. When you have saved it to your computer you will need to Run it each time you open the software. Ignore the warning about it being an unverified publisher, it's safe to use. Open a power spectrum by clicking on View - Open - Spec .

Open a sound file by clicking on Files Open, then browse to a file saved on your computer.

The file will need to be in standard .wav format. Some other formats are supported, none of which are commonly used for recording bat sounds (see user documentation at the TF32 website). If your files are in an unsupported format there are various sound conversion programs that enable you to convert different formats to .wav format. Doing a web search on audio converter will bring up links to various packages that can be downloaded, some with free trial periods. The files needed to be converted to .wav files with the following specifications: PCM uncompressed, 44100 Hz, 16 bits, stereo (or mono if your original files are in mono). To listen to the file press the Play button. If you have a number of files in the same folder you can click to the previous one or the next one by clicking the Prev and Next buttons.

The screen will be divided into three displays when viewed in full screen (the power spectrum is displayed in a separate window when TF32 is viewed in less than full screen).

A is the oscillogram which plots amplitude in decibels (vertical axis) against time (horizontal axis). If you are looking at a stereo recording, two oscillograms will be displayed, one for each channel (as in the example above). If you are looking at a mono recording, only one oscillogram will be displayed. Use this for measuring call duration and interpulse intervals (the number of milliseconds between calls). B is the sonogram/spectrogram which plots frequency (vertical axis) against time (horizontal axis). Use this for examining the structure of the calls and measuring start and end frequency. C is the power spectrum which plots amplitude (vertical axis) against frequency. Use this for measuring the peak frequency (also known as Frequency of Maximum Energy of FmaxE).

2. Selecting the best calls for analysis

Change the amplitude scale on the oscillogram to 20.000 Volts/2 by clicking on the down arrow to the right of the box circled above. You can also do this by right-clicking on the oscillogram and selecting scale down. This displays the full amplitude range of the oscillogram and enables you to examine the signal to noise ratio.

Clipped calls (where the sound is overloaded and the oscillogram spikes are cut off) should not ideally be analysed. When sound is extremely loud and calls are clipped the result can be spurious harmonics which are distortions of the recorded sound. In the example on the right the spikes go off the top of the scale in the middle of the sequence which makes these calls less suitable for analysis. It is better to select the earlier calls in this sequence.

If calls are too quiet (as in the example on the right) or the signal to noise ratio is too poor these are also less suitable for analysis. When bats are very far away the higher frequencies may not be captured and this can be misleading.

3. Selecting calls and zooming in

Click on the screen to insert left and right selection cursors. Once you have inserted cursors you can move them by clicking on them and dragging them to left or right in order to enclose selected calls. Select around five calls for closer examination. Click on the zoom in button (down arrow in top right hand corner). The zoomed in view is shown below. The call structure is now becoming clearer and the calls appear to have frequency modulated (FM) sweeps ending in quasi-constant frequency (QCF) tails (combining to produce a reverse J shape). The end of each call is slightly obscured by background noise but this can be cleaned up by adjusting the spectrogram settings as shown on the following pages.

4. Checking and adjusting settings

It is worth checking the spectrogram settings as these will make a difference to how the bat calls appear on your screen. At least one of these settings is often essential to get right while the others can aid identification. Click on the TimeFreqA button to display the spectrogram settings.

Selecting the correct channel The most important setting to check is the Ch box which selects which channel you are looking at from a stereo recording. If your recording is in mono or you recorded from an FD-only detector (e.g. the BatBox Baton) then the channel selection box does not appear. Ensure you have the same channel selected in the spectrogram and power spectrum (both circled above). If you recorded from a detector which outputs time expansion (TE) or frequency division (FD) signals in one channel and heterodyne in the other channel, ensure you are viewing the TE or FD channel. In the Ch box click up and down between channels 1 and 2 to check which one looks like the TE/FD channel. In the heterodyne channel, calls are often squashed down at the bottom of the screen (just discernible in the screenshot below) if you were tuned in to the peak frequency when listening to the bats in the field.

Depending on what frequency you were tuned to, heterodyne recordings can sometimes resemble TE and FD recordings except the call sequences will tend to veer up and down quite markedly (corresponding to tuning around on the detector in the field) whereas in TE and FD the call sequences typically show more gradual shifts in frequency range as the bat responds to changes in its surroundings. Other settings The other settings are also worth playing around with as they can bring out the call structure more clearly and aid identification. Preemphasis Checking this box increases the dB of higher frequencies for speech analysis and changes the spectrogram. This is not normally done for bat sound analysis so uncheck this box.

BW (Hz) Spectrograms are made up of a series of overlapping windows that give a representation of the sound wave in terms of time and frequency. If the windows are set wider on the time axis they will be correspondingly narrower on the frequency axis and hence the frequency resolution will be finer. If the windows are set wider on the frequency axis they will be correspondingly narrower on the time axis and hence the time resolution will be finer. The BW (Hz) box sets the frequency bandwidth of the spectrogram windows. It is normally fine to stick with the default value of 300 (below) which gives a good compromise between frequency and time resolution. If experimenting with different values you can click Apply to preview the spectrogram with the new bandwidth before hitting OK.

A lower value, e.g. 100 (below), gives higher resolution on the frequency scale but lower resolution on the time scale. It is worth setting a lower value if you want to make more precise measurements of start and end frequency (see page 12), though remember that start frequency is not always reliable since high frequencies are more likely to attenuate so the highest frequencies in the call may not have been picked up by the bat detector.

A higher value, e.g. 500 (below), gives lower resolution on the frequency scale but higher resolution on the time scale. Time measurements are best taken from the oscillogram (see pages 13 and 14).

Frequency range (kHz) This determines the upper frequency limit of the spectrogram. The set of values you can choose from depends on your screen resolution. You can also adjust this by right-clicking on the spectrogram and selecting scale up or scale down. A value above 11.4 kHz is ideal, since this will be high enough to display the highest frequency calls used by a UK bat species, i.e. the echolocation calls of the lesser horseshoe bat which have a maximum frequency of around 114 kHz (or 11.4 kHz when reduced by 10 on a TE or FD detector). 12.705 is selected in the screenshot below.

A high upper frequency limit will mean that a wider frequency range is displayed and some bat calls can look somewhat squashed into the lower half of the screen. If you wish to focus on species that use lower frequencies than horseshoe bats then you can set a lower upper frequency limit which will make the calls larger on the screen and this can make them easier to interpret. Unfortunately, in this case the next value down for upper frequency range was 6.352 which can cut off the higher end of pipistrelle calls (see below). However a value such as this is ideal for looking more closely at the structure of species such as noctule, Leislers bat, serotine and barbastelle as these all tend to emit calls with a start frequency below 63.52 kHz, so it is worth experimenting with this option to see what gives the clearest picture for the call sequence you are looking at.

Floor (dB) The floor setting acts like a threshold setting the minimum dB level shown on the spectrogram display. It is useful for minimising the amount of background noise that is displayed and can give a cleaner look to the spectrogram. This screenshot shows the default setting of -72 dB. This recording contains background noise which shows up quite strongly behind the bat sounds.

A setting of -80 dB makes the quieter frequencies in the bat calls show up more strongly but also increases the amount of background noise displayed which obscures the bat calls even more.

A setting of -60 dB reduces the amount of background noise visible so that the bat calls stand out more clearly. The call structure is now more easily discernible and you can say with more confidence that these calls have the FM sweeps and QCF components characteristic of pipistrelle calls. As you lower the floor setting the quieter frequencies in the calls will disappear, so you need to take care not to set this so low that you are losing important information about the calls. 10

Dynamic range (dB) This sets the dB span and affects the contrast of the display. A low value of 32 (below) gives a high contrast display where the calls will stand out more clearly from the background noise but you may lose some information from the quieter parts of the calls. A high value call gives a lower contrast display that retains more information on quieter sounds but the calls may not stand out so clearly from the background noise. The default value of 48 dB is usually a good compromise but it is worth experimenting.

5. Measuring peak frequency

Click to the left and right of the call you wish to measure. This will insert selection cursors which can be dragged to left or right until you have precisely enclosed the required call. Tick the LTA (Long Time Average) box (circled) to average the power spectrum over the region of time between the selection cursors.

11

The power spectrum (lower section of the display) plots the amplitude in decibels of frequencies contained between the selection cursors. Click on the power spectrum display to insert a cursor that can be dragged left and right across the power spectrum.

Drag the cursor until it crosses just past the highest peak in the power spectrum. The peak frequency information is displayed in the lower of the two rows of values (followed by pk) at the top right hand corner of power spectrum (circled above). Move the measurement cursor to left and right on either side of the peak until the pk values displayed remain constant. If you move it too far along it will eventually display a reading for the next lower peak it crosses, so take care not to move the cursor too far from the highest peak. The upper set of values give a reading for wherever the power spectrum cursor is currently positioned. As you move the cursor left and right along the horizontal frequency scale in the power spectrum you will see the corresponding frequency cursor move up and down the vertical frequency scale in the spectrogram. As TF32 displays the frequencies outputted by the bat detector, the frequency readings need to be multiplied by 10 (or whatever time expansion factor the detector was set to) in order to convert to the frequencies in the original bat calls. In the above example the peak frequency of the selected call is 5.347 kHz, or 53.47 kHz when converted. If you were using a time expansion detector set to a factor other than 10 (e.g. 32) then the frequency readings in TF32 need to multiplied by that factor. 12

6. Measuring start and end frequency

Untick the LTA box so that the frequency cursor moves to the middle of the selection cursors. To measure the start frequency, drag the power spectrum cursor until the frequency cursor is positioned at the highest frequency visible in the call. Read off the upper of the two frequency values to the upper right hand corner of the power spectrum. In this example the start frequency is 78.38 kHz (after converting from the bat detector output frequencies to the bat call frequencies by multiplying by ten).

To measure the end frequency, drag the power spectrum cursor until the frequency cursor is positioned at the lowest frequency visible in the call, as shown on the right. Again read off the upper of the two frequency values to the upper right hand corner of the power spectrum.

13

7. Measuring interpulse interval (IPI)

To measure the interpulse interval (IPI) between two calls, drag the left selection cursor to the start of one call and the right selection cursor to the start of the next call. Use the oscillogram rather than the spectrogram to determine where each call starts, as time readings from the spectrogram will vary depending on the spectrogram settings. The time between the calls is displayed in the upper right hand corner. In this example the IPI is 95.782 milliseconds. (NB if examining recordings from a time expansion detector you will need to divide this reading by 10 in order to get the correct value).

To take the average IPI between several calls, drag the left cursor to the start of the first call and the right cursor to the start of the last call. To calculate the average for (n) calls, read off the time value in the top right hand corner of the screen and divide it by the number of intervals (n-1) so for 5 calls there are 4 intervals. (For the example below 315.760 ms 4 intervals = 79ms).

14

8. Measuring call duration

To measure the call duration, move the left selection cursor to the start of the call and the right selection cursor to the end of the call. Again use the oscillogram rather than the spectrogram to determine where each call starts and ends, as time readings from the spectrogram will vary depending on the spectrogram settings. It can be difficult to decide where the start and end of the call is. This is always a subjective judgement to a certain extent when using this method. Try to be consistent and use a similar point on the oscillogram as where you define the start and end to be each time. In the example below the call has been taken to be the main burst of sound that looks like a distinct blob on the oscillogram. Based on the evidence of the spectrogram, the quieter burst of sound following the initial burst was assumed to be distortion or an echo of the call. In this example the call duration was measured as 6.440 milliseconds.

Thanks to David Lee and Paul H. Milenkovic for providing some of the information included in this booklet. 15 Bat Conservation Trust, Quadrant House, 250 Kennington Lane, London SE11 5RD www.bats.org.uk

Appendix 1

Literature review of bat roost and habitat requirements

A-1

December 2004

Introduction
With its cool, northern climate, all bat species found in the UK eat insects and all hibernate in the winter. British bats are long-lived (up to a recorded maximum of 30 years) and have a low reproductive rate, with females producing a maximum of one young per year on average. Most British species follow a similar annual cycle of hibernation, breeding and mating, although there are many differences between species. A short introduction to bat ecology is given below. Further details can be found in Altringham (2003). Hibernation British bats begin the year deep in hibernation. Hibernation is key to the survival of bats in the UK as there are few insects available for bats to eat in winter. During bouts of hibernation, bats allow their body temperature to fall close to that of their surroundings and reduce their heart rate to just a few beats per minute. This reduces the energy requirements of bats significantly during the winter and allows them to survive on their stored fat and minimal food. Most bat species require hibernation sites with particular conditions such as a stable temperature and humidity to hibernate successfully through the winter. Bats do not remain in hibernation throughout the winter, but will arouse periodically, probably to drink, mate and in mild weather to feed. Breeding Bats start to become more active during spring, between March and May depending on weather conditions and availability of food. During this time bats may move from their hibernation sites to transitional sites, before females start to gather in maternity roosts. Males may stay in these sites throughout the summer, as males of most species roost singly or in small groups away from the females. Females move on to form maternity colonies, usually during April and May. In some species, males may join females in maternity colonies. The number of bats found in maternity roosts varies between species and between colonies, but may range from just a handful of bats to over a thousand. Maternity roosts are usually located in relatively warm, dry sites such as trees or buildings, but exact conditions required varies between species. Generally maternity roost sites must provide shelter from predators, a stable microclimate suitable for minimising the energy required by bats to maintain their body temperature and a site suitable for rearing young in close proximity to good foraging habitat. Female bats retain sperm from mating the previous autumn or winter and the egg is released and fertilised in spring. Young bats are generally born between late-May and the end of June, one offspring per female, although twins may occasionally occur. Births within a colony are generally highly synchronous and most young are born within a 2-3 week period. The young bats are suckled by their mothers until they reach independence, usually by the end of August. Mating Once the young bats are weaned and have left the maternity roosts, the females also leave and move to other roost sites, to join males for mating. In some species, bats remain in the maternity roost where males are also present and mating occurs at these sites. Some bat species also visit swarming sites, thought to be specifically used for mating. Swarming sites are usually in or around the entrances to underground caves or mines, and bats are thought to visit these sites only in the evening to mate. They are rarely used as day roosts. Following mating, as the temperatures begin to drop and fewer insects are available to eat (between October and December) bats start to return to hibernation sites for the winter months. Bats prepare for hibernation by gaining body fat; they move to cooler roosting sites during the day and allow their body temperature to drop, so using up less energy. Some bats may lay down an additional 20 to

A-2

December 2004

30% of their body mass in the few weeks before hibernation begins. Bats may remain active on milder nights.

Roosting ecology
Most species of bat in the UK require several roost sites throughout the year to satisfy their changing needs in terms of the physical aspects of the roost (e.g.,, temperature, humidity) and their social needs (e.g.,, mating, breeding). The two main roost types used by bats are hibernation sites in winter and maternity roosts used by females during the summer months. In addition, males require roost sites through the summer months. Bats use transitory roost sites during periods between breeding and hibernation, and some species use night or alternative roost sites away from their main roost. Bats use a mixture of natural and artificial roosts. Natural roost sites include tree holes, caves and rock cavities. Artificial roosts are found in a range of man-made structures including dwelling houses, outbuildings, barns, churches, bridges and tunnels. In the PCNP the majority of (known) greater horseshoe bat hibernacula are on or close to the coast and include sea caves both on the mainland and on at least two of the Pembrokeshire islands. Most bats will therefore use several different roosts and types of roosts through the year according to their social and metabolic requirements. The two species of Rhinolophidae found in the UK, greater and lesser horseshoe bats are both heavily associated with underground sites such as caves. In winter, both species mainly hibernate in underground sites, and males may use underground sites throughout the year. However, currently most maternity roosts are located in old, undisturbed buildings, where temperatures are higher. Both species require considerable space within their roosting sites. Tree holes are used or have been used by most other species of bat in the UK. Pipistrelles and serotines are the only bats that now rely almost entirely on buildings. Tree holes used as roosts may vary from tight cracks and crevices to larger holes and cavities, for example hollow tree trunks. Most of the Vespertilionidae found in the UK use crevices or larger cavity areas for roosting. These mainly crevice or cavity-dwelling species may be found roosting in a range of buildings, structures such as bridges, trees and underground sites through the year according to their specific requirements. Although needing to be verified through research, there is some opinion that large bat colonies may be an anachronism caused by loss of natural roosts used by smaller colonies. Bats disperse from day roosts over a large area when foraging, which might help them to avoid competition with their neighbours, whilst the night roosts used for feeding or shelter, are usually used by an individual or very small numbers and perhaps only a few times each year. Perhaps the long distances travelled by greater horseshoe bats (and sometimes lesser horseshoe bats) between maternity and hibernation roosts are necessary because of the lack of suitable roosts close by. Further opinion questions whether or not populations of different bat species are subsisting within a sub-optimal habitat. For example, would numbers of Natterer's bat increase if the proportion of wet woodland in relation to permanent pasture were to increase? What effect might this have on other bat species? Trees Tree roosts used by bats may be identified from droppings, urine stains and occasionally by smell or noise. However, it is not always immediately obvious that a tree is being used by bats, as holes and cracks used by the bats may be well hidden. Bats may use a wide variety of roost sites in trees at any time of year, including cavities, splits, cracks, rot holes and under loose bark. Holes and cracks present in trees can be inspected for the presence of bats by using a mirror attached to a longhandled stick (Mayle 1990), or a fibrescope if available (Mitchell-Jones 2004). Tree holes may provide cool sites shaded by the tree canopy, or warmer sites in holes heated by the sun (Altringham 2003). A study of tree-dwelling bats in France showed that several bats species (pipistrelles, brown long-eared bat, Daubentons bat, whiskered and Natterers bat) were found in tree roosts (Pnicaud 2000). Tree roosts were found in various types of tree hollows throughout the year, most commonly in partially-healed narrow cracks. Racey and Smith (2005) found that roosts in attic mortises and

A-3

December 2004

tree cavities offered relatively stable roost microclimates well buffered from external temperature fluctuations. Here Natterers bats would not be forced to move to avoid the potentially lethal extremes of high temperature that might be experienced in attic roosts adjacent to the roof. Generally bats will select older or dead trees, as these are more likely to provide suitable cracks and holes for roost sites. A study carried out on roost selection by an American bat species (Myotis yumanensis) that uses both tree roosts and buildings has highlighted the importance of tree roosts in suburban and urbanised landscapes (Evelyn et al. 2004). A recommendation is made that large diameter trees and parkland habitat are preserved, particularly in areas near water bodies, to provide suitable roosting sites. This advice would be equally applicable in the UK as several bat species would benefit from the selected preservation of large trees. Increasingly, dead or dying trees may be removed for safety reasons, and this could remove potential roosting sites. Most bat species that roost in trees switch roost sites regularly, and therefore require many suitable trees. Buildings Buildings of many types offer suitable areas for bat roosts and different species exploit different parts of a building as a roost site. For example, bats may roost in loft areas, under tiles, around chimneys, under soffit or barge boards, in cavity walls, basements, around window frames and in crevices between timbers. Bats may use buildings for summer or hibernation sites and different species are generally associated with different types of buildings. Other man-made structures are also used by bats, for example tunnels, bridges, cellars, ice-houses and lime-kilns (Corbet & Harris 1991; MitchellJones & McLeish 2004). Roost sites in buildings may come under threat for several reasons. There may be a conflict of interest between the bats and the human users of the building, particularly if bats roost in a dwelling house. Accumulation of droppings, smell and noise in bat roosts can cause problems for house owners who may wish for the bats to be excluded from their dwelling. In other cases, buildings may be demolished, converted or improved and all of these activities may affect bats using the buildings as a roost. Bridges Bridges are commonly used by several species of roosting bat (Corbet & Harris 1991). Several studies have shown that several species of bat, including whiskered and Natterers bat, pipistrelles, brown long-eared bat and in particular Daubentons bat, regularly use bridges for roosting, with most roosts found in the span of the bridge (Billington & Norman 1997; review in Racey 1998). These studies of bat roosts in bridges have suggested that deep cracks in the bridge are required for bats to roost in them, and the size of the crack is important. Crevices 100 mm or deeper and between about 10 mm and 70 mm wide have been recorded as used by bats as roosts (Billington & Norman 1997; Shiel 1999). Bridges may often be used only irregularly and by small number of bats. Hibernation sites Generally bats do not use summer roost sites for hibernation. Different micro-climatic conditions are required for hibernation, and sites generally need to be constantly cool and humid. Bats may hibernate in man-made structures such as mines, tunnels and old buildings, although some species prefer natural caves or tree holes (Altringham 2003). For most species, much less is known about hibernation sites of bats in the UK than their summer sites, with the exception of the horseshoe bats. Many of the hibernation sites used by the rarer bat species in the UK are protected as SACs or SSSIs. SACs designated for horseshoe bats are selected where possible to cover a combination of summer and winter sites considered to be used by a single or group of population(s) and most known hibernation sites that support more than 50 bats are designated sites. All known hibernation sites for barbastelle and Bechsteins bat are also designated sites. In Wales site selection as SSSI or SAC is not limited to maternity roosts or hibernacula. The Pembrokeshire Bat Sites and Bosherston Lakes SAC includes Carew Castle which is neither a maternity roost nor hibernaculum.

A-4

December 2004

Its European importance is as a transitory roost used by the South Pembrokeshire population of greater horseshoe bats. Swarming sites Several species of bats in the UK use underground sites during the latter part of summer and into autumn (August to November) for swarming activity (Parsons et al. 2003). Species that swarm are mainly those that hibernate underground, particularly Myotis species and brown-long-eared bat (Parsons et al. 2002). Bats, mostly males, arrive at the sites after dusk, often in large numbers, and spend a few hours at the swarming location; the activity is thought to be related to mating. Few bats remain at the swarming sites during the day but the sites are very important to bat species in the UK. A recent radio-tracking study of two species, Daubentons bat and Natterers bat, using a swarming site in southern England (Parsons & Jones 2003), showed that the catchment area for the site 2 covered an area of several hundred square kilometres (up to 500 km ). Day roosts of both species that visited the swarming site were up to 27km from the site. This study therefore highlighted the importance in geographical terms of a single swarming site. Furthermore, a European study has showed that genetic diversity of Bechsteins bat is high at swarming caves and bats visiting the caves are ready to mate (Kerth et al. 2003). This supports the hypothesis that swarming sites may be important for gene flow by providing centres for mating at which bats from large ranges locate mates.

Species-specific roost requirements

The types of roosts used by the main species found in Wales are described below. Knowledge of the roosting requirements of bats varies greatly between species. The level of detail known of roosting requirements depends on the studies that have been carried out on the species, the types of roost they use and the ease of roost location. For example, less is known in general about the requirements of tree-roosting species than those that mainly use buildings, as tree roosts are often much harder to locate. Roost types used by each species at different stages of the year, during the summer months and for hibernation, together with details of key roosting requirements are summarised in Table 5.1 in the main text of this report. Further details on roosting requirements of bat species are also provided in Mitchell-Jones (2004). Greater horseshoe bat In the summer months, female greater horseshoe bats generally use large, old, undisturbed buildings for their maternity roosts. Roosts are often in farm buildings such as coach houses, stable blocks and barns (Duverg & Jones 2003). They prefer sites where they can fly directly into the building and to their roosting position, and bats hang free in the roost (Ransome & Hutson 2000). Maternity sites are generally found in large roof spaces 3-4 m high or greater providing a sufficiently large space for a flight area. Of the 35 breeding or year-round roosts and 380 hibernation sites that are currently known in the UK, about 14 maternity colonies of greater horseshoe bats are known in south-west England and south Wales, the majority (85%) of which are protected as SSSI/SAC. In addition to maternity roosts, when foraging the greater horseshoe bat often uses night roosts to rest for several hours between a first and second foraging session through the night. Night roosts may be any building or structure that provides shelter, for example outbuildings, garages, stables, milking sheds, porches or even trees (Duverg & Jones 1994; Ransome & Hutson 2000; Duverg & Jones 2003). Several suitable night roosts are required within the main 4km foraging zone for greater horseshoe bats (Ransome & Hutson 2000), although in Pembrokeshire radio tracking has shown that they travel up to 14km from the maternity roost to feed (P.L. Duverg, Vincent Wildlife Trust, unpublished). Transitory roosts used by female bats in spring and autumn may also be important sites for greater horseshoes. An example of a transitory roost is found at Carew Castle in PCNP, which provides a link between hibernation and the maternity sites at both Stackpole and Slebech within the Park, and which is used also by solitary males during the summer. It may also be a mating roost.

A-5

December 2004

Male bats remain solitary through the summer and often use underground sites. In winter, both male and female bats choose underground sites for hibernation. These may be tunnels, mines, caves or basements in cold buildings. A viable population of the species requires a series of hibernation sites offering a range of conditions (Corbet & Harris 1991). The main hibernation site will normally lie within 15 km of the maternity roost, although greater horseshoe bats may travel up to 60 km between summer and winter roost sites (Corbet & Harris 1991; Ransome & Hutson 2000). Lesser horseshoe bat Roost sites of the lesser horseshoe bat may include attics, chimneys and boiler rooms of buildings, rural houses and out-buildings in the summer, and cellars, tunnels, disused mines and caves for hibernacula (Corbet & Harris 1991; Schofield et al. 2002). Maternity sites are generally found in large roof spaces 3-4 m high or greater providing a sufficiently large space for a flight area. The lesser horseshoe bat may use several sites through the year to provide the required range of conditions but in some cases one building may provide for all the bats needs, for example bats may breed in the attic and hibernate in the cellar (Corbet & Harris 1991). As with greater horseshoe bat, the lesser horseshoe bat also prefers sites where they can fly directly into the building and to their roosting position. Summer and winter roost sites are generally no more than 5 to 10 km apart. However, a radio tracking study of lesser horseshoe bats from Agen Allwedd Cave (Craig y Cilau NNR) in the BBNP (Smith and Morgan 2004) revealed links between this major winter hibernaculum and summer day roosts ranging between 5.7km and 24.1km distance, as well as commuting routes between these and other day roosts. In the UK, around 230 summer roosts and around 480 hibernation sites are known, although only one fifth of the known hibernation sites support more than 10 bats. The lesser horseshoe bat also uses alternative roost sites during the night and day. Night roosts were used particularly by heavily pregnant females. Roosts in buildings, caves and rock fissures may be used as night roosts and only occasionally during the day in summer, being used more regularly during the autumn and winter as day roosts (Schofield et al. 2002). Daubentons bat Roosts of Daubentons bat may be found in hollow trees, bridges (particularly of stone) or sometimes buildings (Corbet & Harris 1991; Billington & Norman 1997) and are generally found close to water (Racey 1998). A study on the types of tree holes used by Daubentons bats showed that they preferred oaks over beech trees and selected trees close to the edges of woodland (Boonman 2000). Hibernation sites are usually underground including caves, mines and suitable tunnels where bats are found both in crevices and on open walls (Altringham 2003). They may also hibernate in tree cavities. A radio-tracking study of bats using a swarming site in southern England tracked a number of the bats back to day roosts between August and October (Parsons & Jones 2003). All day roosts were located in trees, either in parkland, broad-leaved woodland or road-side trees. Whiskered and Brandts bats There is limited information available on the roosting requirements of whiskered and Brandts bats. Both species may roost in trees and a wide range of buildings in the summer. They generally roost in crevices but may also use more open roof voids. Both species also hibernate in caves, where they are found sometimes together (Jones 1991), on open walls or in cracks and crevices (Altringham 2003). Bechsteins bat Bechsteins bat roosts in tree holes in the canopy in the summer, and prefer old trees with dead branches (Altringham 2003). They select cracks and crevices in the trees as breeding sites, and may be found in woodpecker holes in old oaks. Roosts are also known to occur in bat boxes and

A-6

December 2004

occasionally in buildings. A recent German study of roosting preferences of female Bechsteins bat showed that a range of roosts (bat boxes and tree holes) were needed to provide the range of temperature conditions required by female bats through the breeding season (Kerth et al. 2001). Most known breeding roosts are selected as SACs or SSSIs. Bechsteins bat also hibernates in trees and sometimes in caves (Corbet & Harris 1991). Natterers bat Natterers bats use a wide range of sites for roosting, mainly tree holes and different types of buildings (e.g., attic apexes, gable walls, stone crevices and cavity walls), although it has also been found in bridges (Corbet & Harris 1991; Billington & Norman 1997; Smith & Racey 2002). A study of summer roosting sites in Scotland found that female maternity roosts and male roosts were mainly located in crevices in the stonework of man-made structures other than buildings and often close to th rivers (Swift 1997). A known maternity roost in Pembrokeshire is found in a 12 century castle (Pembrokeshire County Mammal Recorder). They move between a selection of roosts in trees and buildings through the summer, usually roosting in attics between late May and mid-July (Smith & Racey 2002). A study of the physical and temperature characteristics of Natterers bats in Monmouthshire (Racey and Smith 2005), revealed that maternity colonies use a range of different types of day roost during a summer. Most of these were in small cavities even where large spaces (such as attics) were available. Colony members were found to be faithful to summer day roosts between years, despite the itinerant use of different roosts by colonies during a season. Natterers in this study were not found to be highly selective for the characteristics of tree roosts, though one study colony may have used more buildings owing to the scarcity of tree roosts in the area. Observations based upon mean daily temperatures in different roost types (for example roosts secreted in attic mortise joints and tree cavities versus other attic roosts close to the roof) suggested that daily fluctuations in temperatures may be significant in terms of Natterers energetics and the day to day selection of summer roost type. Many roost sites include space where the bats fly within the roost site (Swift 1997). Bat boxes are also used for roosts by both male and female Natterers bat throughout the summer and Natterers bat may breed in boxes (Park et al. 1998). Timber-framed barns built between the 12 and 19 centuries may be particularly important to Natterers bat (Briggs 1995; Briggs 2000), where they roost in the large mortise joints found in the tie beams in the summer, and in other mortise joints in the winter. Briggs (2000) recommends that original joints should be conserved wherever possible and suitable access locations to roost sites are also important. However, there are few timber-framed barns in any of the 3 Welsh National Parks. A radio-tracking study of bats using a swarming site in southern England tracked a number of the bats back to day roosts between August and October (Parsons & Jones 2003). Roost sites used included broad-leaved trees and buildings including timber-framed barns, stone-built garages, occupied buildings, a chapel and an ice house. Natterers bats hibernate almost exclusively in caves and mines, where they are usually found squeezed into tight cracks and crevices (Altringham 2003). Known hibernation sites include canal and railway tunnels, ice houses, and also tree cavities (Smith & Racey 2002). Common and soprano pipistrelle Maternity colonies of both the common and soprano pipistrelle are found mainly in buildings ranging in type from churches to modern houses. More than half of known roost sites are found in buildings less than 30 years old. Pipistrelles are mainly crevice-dwelling bats and usually roost out of sight in a building in a confined area, using for example the cavity wall, or cracks in woodwork or brickwork towards the outside of a building (Corbet & Harris 1991). Adult females may occupy a number of different maternity sites through the summer, but are often loyal to the same set of roosts for a number of years (Thompson 1992). Maternity roosts can vary greatly in size from around 20 to over one thousand bats (Speakman et al. 1991). Maternity roosts of the soprano pipistrelle (median number of females 203) tend to be larger than those of the common pipistrelle (median number of females 76) (Barlow & Jones 1999). It appears that the soprano pipistrelle also tends to show
th th

A-7

December 2004

greater roost fidelity than common pipistrelles, often using the same roost site all season and for several consecutive years, although this has yet to be proven rigorously. Males roost separately from the females in the summer months, and are usually found singly or in small groups in buildings or trees (Lundberg & Gerell 1986). Both sexes may also roost in bat boxes, particularly during the mating season but generally only males stay in bat boxes throughout the summer months (Park et al. 1998). A study of roost selection by pipistrelles in north-east Scotland showed that buildings containing a roost did not show any specific structural features. They were more likely both to be near to tall trees or have linear habitat features leading from them and to have woodland or a river within 0.5 km of the roost (Jenkins et al. 1998). A study in south-west England also found that roost sites of the soprano pipistrelle were more likely to have habitat associated with water within a 2 km radius of the roost (Oakeley & Jones 1998). Little is known about the location of pipistrelle hibernation sites, although they are not found in caves in the UK. Solitary bats or small groups are sometimes found in the cracks and crevices of buildings and it is likely that most bats hibernate in buildings or trees. Noctule Noctule bats roost almost exclusively in tree holes such as rot-holes or woodpecker holes in the UK but are sometimes found in bat boxes or buildings (Corbet & Harris 1991; Altringham 2003). In buildings the noctule is usually found behind tiles, behind soffit boards or between boards of ceilings and floors. A study on the types of tree holes used by the noctule showed that they preferred woodpecker holes to natural tree holes and selected trees close to the edges of woodland (Boonman 2000). The noctule mainly hibernates in trees, although again they are sometimes found in buildings. Leislers bats Leislers bats have been found roosting in trees, bat boxes and buildings. In buildings they have been found in old and new houses, for example around the gable end of lofts, under tiles, under soffit boards and in disused chimneys (Corbet & Harris 1991). Leislers bats often move around between several roost sites through the summer (Waters et al. 1999). In winter, they hibernate in tree holes, buildings and occasionally are found in tunnels and caves. Serotine The serotine roosts in buildings, usually old structures built around 1900 although newer buildings are used as roosts in Dorset and Essex, and are found in small cavities or crevices, for example around chimneys, with high access points such as gables. Mean summer colony size is 19 individuals although colonies of over 200 have been identified in Somerset. Occasionally the serotine is found to roost in trees. They are rarely found in winter and little is known of their hibernation sites, however it is likely that they hibernate in buildings. Householders occasionally report serotines under floorboards during the winter for example. Bats have been found hibernating in cavity walls, disused chimneys and occasionally in caves. Breeding females show high roost loyalty and no interchange between colonies has been recorded from radio-tracking studies (Catto et al. 1995). Barbastelle The barbastelle roosts in trees and also in man-made structures including buildings and underground sites (Harrington et al. 1995). Most known breeding roosts are selected as SACs or SSSIs. Recent radio-tracking studies of barbastelle in England and Wales have improved our knowledge of their roosting and habitat requirements. A study in Sussex has shown that the bats require a variety of roosting sites through the year, depending on weather conditions. In cold weather, the Sussex barbastelle usually hibernates in deep hollow trees, usually dead and often protected by dense holly, sometimes also using buildings or underground sites (Greenaway 2001). In spring and autumn, the bats roost behind loose bark on trees or in dead tree stumps; in summer,

A-8

December 2004

females may use a large number of tree roosts, moving between them regularly, preferring dead trees with a holly understorey around them (Greenaway 2001). During June and August radio-tracking of barbastelle in the Pengelli Forest National Nature Reserve, a site that lies within the PCNP, has shown similar results (Billington 2001). Bats roosted in crevices and cavities of trees, between intertwined limbs and behind ivy stems, commonly in oak trees and often in trees near the edges of woodland. Roosts were on average 6.9 m above ground. The bats stayed in one roost for about two days, and either roosted alone or in small groups, often moving between roosts during daylight hours. Movement from day roosts during daylight hours may be a result of disturbance however (Russo et al. 2004). In contrast, during autumn barbastelles that were radio-tracked in Somerset roosted behind flaking bark or in splits in trees mainly less than 2 m above ground level and these low level roosts are used into winter (Billington 2000). A study of roost sites of barbastelle in Italy showed that the bats selected similar sites; trees in unmanaged, mature woodland were favoured, with tall, dead beech trees the preferred tree species; the bats were often found in south-facing cavities beneath loose bark (Russo et al. 2004). This study also highlighted the importance of the availability of a number of roost sites to the barbastelle, as bats frequently switched between different tree roosts. Each bat used between 1 and 5 roost locations, and bats switched between these sites every 1 to 6 days. Brown long-eared bat The nursery roosts of brown long-eared bats are found in trees, in the voids of large, old buildings and also in bat boxes and barns (Corbet & Harris 1991; Briggs 1995). In a study in north-east Scotland, brown long-eared bats prefer summer roost sites in older, usually detached buildings, with roof spaces that are divided into compartments and are lined with rough wooden planking (Entwistle et al. 1997). Brown long-eared bats usually roost in the apex of attics or the equivalent space in stone farm buildings, and usually in direct contact with wooden beams. A large space is required for unobstructed flight within the roost (around 2m high by 4m long minimum) and the bats often cluster at the highest point in the roof spaces (Entwistle et al. 1997). The sites selected as roosts were closer to woods and open water than on average, the area within 0.5km from the roost being the most important. Brown long-eared bats shows high roost fidelity, and therefore given their specific roost requirements, roost loss may result in significant detrimental effects on the population (Entwistle et al. 1997). Male and female brown long-eared bats may also use bat boxes for roosting throughout the summer (Park et al. 1997). Feeding perches or night roosts in porches or outbuildings are commonly used in addition to the main roost site. In winter, brown long-eared bats hibernate in underground sites as well as tree holes and buildings.

Habitat requirements
Habitat requirements vary between bat species found in the UK. For example, based on a national bat survey between 1990 and 1992 (Walsh & Harris 1996a, b), a countrywide study of habitat use by vespertilionid bats in the UK showed that bats were consistent in their habitat use across contrasting landscapes. Favoured habitats were those associated with broadleaved woodland. Several studies have shown that bats avoid intensively managed arable habitats, both in general (Walsh & Harris 1996a; Vaughan et al. 1997), and for several species in particular, for example Leislers bat (Waters et al. 1999), serotine (Robinson & Stebbings 1997) and lesser and greater horseshoe bats (Bontadina et al. 2002; Duverg & Jones 2003). Moorland is also generally avoided by most bat species (Walsh & Harris 1996a). Pasture is important to several bat species, for example serotine (Catto et al. 1997; Robinson & Stebbings 1997), Leislers bat (Shiel et al. 1999; Waters et al. 1997) and greater horseshoe bat (Duverg & Jones 2003). At a smaller habitat scale, bats also selected woodland edge and water bodies more than any other habitat type (Walsh & Harris 1996a). Bats have also been shown to select linear vegetation corridors such as hedgerows (Walsh & Harris 1996a; Vaughan et al. 1997). The UK National Bat Habitat

A-9

December 2004

Survey (Walsh & Harris 1996a, b) is biased towards pipistrelles however, which accounted for approximately three-quarters of bats recorded. At the time of the study referred to, the two pipistrelle species were not separated and were considered together. Additionally, species identification was subjective. The more detailed study using broadband bat detectors, which allowed accurate species identification and encompassed a wider species range, also showed that river and lake habitats supported high bat activity (Vaughan et al. 1997). A study of habitat associations of bats in Northern Ireland (Russ & Montgomery 2002) showed that bats foraged over water bodies with bank side vegetation, along tree lines and along deciduous or mixed woodland edge. The study concluded that inland water bodies, deciduous woodland and field boundaries such as tree lines and hedgerow are important habitats. The importance of aquatic habitats has been shown specifically for Daubentons bat (Swift & Racey 1983) and soprano pipistrelle (Vaughan et al. 1997). Agricultural habitats Habitat quality is important. For example, in a study comparing organic with conventional farms, overall bat activity and foraging activity was higher in habitats on organic farms than conventional farms, probably due to the presence of taller hedgerows and better water quality (Wickramasinghe et al. 2003), which presumably gives rise to higher insect biomass. In this study, both horseshoe bat species were recorded on organic farms in woodlands, arable and pasture habitats and not at all on conventional farms (Wickramasinghe et al. 2003). Woodland Woodland habitats are also used by several bat species. The UK National Bat Habitat Survey suggested that bats avoided large blocks of coniferous plantation (Walsh & Harris 1996a). However, some bat activity has been recorded within coniferous plantations, usually concentrated around ponds and other watercourses (review in Racey 1998). Some bat species are found in deciduous, mixed or coniferous woodland, for example common pipistrelle (Vaughan et al. 1997) and brown long-eared bat (Entwistle et al. 1996), but others select only deciduous woodland, for example greater horseshoe bat (Duverg & Jones 2003). Although coniferous woodland does not usually present many opportunities for roosting, insect abundance may be high, particularly along rides or forestry tracks. See also the discussion on lesser horseshoe bats below. Water Habitats associated with water are important for most bat species, owing to the high availability of insect prey. Some species such as Daubentons bat, soprano pipistrelle and possibly whiskered bat are more associated with water and riparian habitats than others. Water quality may also affect bat activity. For example, a comparison of bat activity upstream and downstream from sewage outputs in south-west England (Vaughan et al. 1996) showed that bat activity was lower downstream from the outputs. However, although both soprano and common pipistrelles were less active downstream, Myotis spp. (including Daubentons bats), were more active downstream from sewage outputs, suggesting that Daubentons bats may benefit from eutrophication of water bodies (Vaughan et al. 1996). In contrast, a comparison of two rivers in Scotland with very different nitrate levels (Racey et al. 1998) produced no overall differences in activity of pipistrelle and Daubentons bats. Higher bat activity on organic compared with conventional farms may also be in part due to better water quality (Wickramasinghe et al. 2003). Parkland habitats Parkland habitats are quite common in the UK. Lowland wood-pasture and parkland habitat is a UK BAP priority habitat. In addition to providing potential roost sites for bats in mature and veteran trees and park buildings, parkland habitat may provide suitable bat foraging habitat. For example, rare bat species are found more commonly than expected in the National Trusts buildings set within historic landscape parks (Bullock 1995). A recent study of bat activity within historic parks in Gloucestershire

A-10

December 2004

(Glendell & Vaughan 2002) showed that unimproved grassland, water and plantation woodland habitats were selected by bat species foraging in them. In particular noctule, serotine and Leislers bats preferentially foraged in parkland habitat. In addition, rare bat species were well represented in the parks that were surveyed. The study concluded that where they are well managed, with an emphasis on the conservation or creation of preferred habitat types including woodland, tree lines, parkland and unimproved grassland, historic landscape parks may provide important bat habitats (Glendell & Vaughan 2002). Urban landscapes It is generally expected that bats may not utilise urban landscapes extensively, and that urbanisation is detrimental to bat populations. Although there has not been extensive research into bats in urban landscapes, a number of studies, particularly in Europe, have shown how bats use these habitats. For example, an American study showed that heterogeneous urban landscapes, including areas of woodland and water, provide islands of suitable habitat for bats in extensive areas of intensive agriculture that bats avoid (Gehrt & Chelsvig 2003). Another study, using bat detectors in southern Italy, showed that urbanisation had a negative effect on bat activity of most species recorded (Russo & Jones 2003). A study in Poland (Lesinski et al. 2000) showed that overall, bat activity was lower in habitats in the city than outside the city, but that within the city, wooded and riparian habitats were utilised the most by bats. In Greater London, bat activity is recorded in central London (Paul Sinnadurai, pers comm) although most activity is recorded in the more leafy suburbs, parks, open spaces and river corridors. As is true for other wildlife, bats can adapt to novel 'city' habitats, for example utilising other linear habitats (railway cuttings and embankments, canals, rivers, street trees etc) to navigate between the available semi-natural greenspace, parkland, allotments and gardens. The range of species is likely to be limited to the more ubiquitous species including the pipistrelle species, Daubenton's, noctule, Natterers, serotine and brown long-eared bats (Paul Sinnadurai, pers comm) but bat activity is a good indicator of the 'greenness' of the urban landscape. Owing to the abundance of insects that are attracted to white street lamps, some bat species such as noctules and pipistrelles, may forage around mercury vapour lamps or lamps with a mercury and sodium mix (Rydell 1992; Blake et al. 1994). In contrast, bats are rarely found foraging near the low pressure yellow sodium lamps. Conversely, continuous roadside lighting can form a barrier to bat movement and the replacement of street lamps containing mercury with sodium lamps may inhibit foraging bats. Some species, such as brown long-eared, Myotis species and horseshoe bats tend to be inhibited from foraging where there is white lighting. Lighting is a particular issue within national parks, where dark night skies can still be enjoyed. With barn conversions, an otherwise suitable mitigation scheme for a light-sensitive species could be rendered ineffective by excessive or inappropriate lighting or lit windows. Furthermore, the use of high pressure sodium lamps can have an adverse effect both on insect behaviour and bird behaviour (English Nature 1994). Linear features The national bat survey (Walsh & Harris 1996a) showed that bats selected linear vegetation features in all landscape types, demonstrating that habitat continuity is important to these bat species. At smaller scales, bats also selected corridor habitats such as hedgerows and tree lines. Bat abundance was also found to be determined significantly by habitat availability. Abundance was positively associated with the availability of woodland, vegetation corridors and riverine habitats, and negatively associated with arable land (Walsh & Harris 1996b). Linear features were also shown to be important to several species in a study of bat activity in different habitats in Northern Ireland (Russ & Montogmery 2002). The importance of linear features to bats has been well studied in the Netherlands (Limpens & Kapteyn 1991; Verboom & Huitema 1997; Verboom & Speolstra 1999). Several hypotheses have been suggested to explain why bats forage near linear features including food availability (Verboom & Speolstra 1999), protection from predators (Verboom & Speolstra 1999) and to maintain acoustic

A-11

December 2004

contact (Limpens & Kapteyn 1991). It is likely that a combination of all these factors may explain for example why pipistrelles fly along tree lines (Verboom & Speolstra 1999). Habitat Management A number of studies have recommended types of habitat management that may benefit bats. For example, woodland or wooded areas provide habitats for insects. Native broadleaved species of tree and shrub are valuable in providing good moth habitat (Mayle 1990). Planting of deciduous species in particular around ponds and alongside watercourses will improve habitats for bat foraging by increasing shelter and insect availability (Mayle 1990). Habitat management measures that may benefit individual bat species are detailed in Table 6.1 in the main text of this report. A guide to habitat management has been produced to provide both general and species-specific advice to land owners and managers (Entwistle et al. 2001). The guide identifies freshwater, woodland, grassland and linear habitats as particularly important for bats, for example rivers, tree lines, hedgerows and cattle pasture. Basic habitat management principles recommended include avoiding the loss of suitable bat habitat, avoiding habitat fragmentation, minimising the use of pesticides and protecting habitats close to known bat roost sites (Entwistle et al. 2001).

Species-specific habitat requirements and diet

Table A-1. Key insect families found in the diet of bats (for further explanation see following paragraphs)
Insect order Lepidoptera Insect family Noctuidae Geometridae Pyralidae Arctiidae Coleoptera Scarabaeidae Carabidae Geotrupidae Silphidae Diptera Nematocera Tipulidae Ceratopogonidae Chironomidae Culicidae Anisopodidae Psychodidae Cecidomyiidae Mycetophilidae Diptera - Brachycera Syrphidae Empididae Muscidae Stratiomyidae Sphaeroceridae Neuroptera Trichoptera

A-12

December 2004

Greater horseshoe bat The greater horseshoe bat has quite specific requirements in terms of its foraging habitat and diet. Its main preferred foraging habitats are ancient semi-natural and deciduous woodland, and cattle grazed pastures (Jones & Duverg 1994; Ransome 1997; Duverg & Jones 2003). Foraging areas from each maternity colony are typically fixed in their structural characteristics. Bats forage along the perimeters of grazed pastures and either woodland or tree lines, as well as the sides of hedgerows (preferring tall, thick hedgerows) (Ransome 1997). Radio-tracking studies have shown that bats usually flew within 5m of field boundaries, and flew lower when travelling over more open areas (Duverg & Jones 2003). Radio-tracking studies have shown that there are seasonal variations in habitat use by greater horseshoe bat (Duverg & Jones 2003). In spring, bats prefer to forage in woodland, compared to the summer and autumn when bats forage more over cattle grazed pasture than any other habitat type. The preference for woodland habitats in spring may be explained by the warmer temperatures found in sheltered woodlands on spring nights compared to open areas (Jones et al. 1995). When juvenile bats start to forage, they also show a habitat preference, spending most time foraging over cattle grazed pasture. Commuting distances of bats may vary between colonies to reach suitable habitats. It is important to ensure high concentrations of prey for the bats within a 3-4km sustenance zone from maternity roost sites within which the majority of bats forage (Jones et al. 1995; Ransome 1996, 1997), keeping in mind also that in Pembrokeshire they have been recorded travelling up to 14km from maternity roosts (P.L. Duverg, Vincent Wildlife Trust, unpublished). When foraging near hedgerows, bats generally use the area within 2m of the hedgerow, flying at between 0.5 and 2m above the ground (Duverg & Jones 1994). Detailed information on positive management of landscapes for the greater horseshoe bat has been produced by English Nature (Anon 2002). Recommendations include the following: a mixed grazing regime should be maintained on pastures close to maternity roost sites (2-3 cattle per ha); sheep alone tend not to produce the structural diversity in grassland required to support rich invertebrate populations. Grazing by cattle rather than sheep benefits cockchafers, Tipulidae, dung beetles and large noctuid moths which are important for greater horseshoe bats in spring and summer, as well as dung beetles and Tipulidae which are important in the autumn); the use of avermectin worming treatments should be avoided; existing hedgerows should be allowed to grow large with trees and shrubs overhanging field edges. Hedgerows cut too short are of limited use; newly planted hedges should be around 3-6 m wide and 3 m high; and woodland rides should be 10-15 m across.

With regard to the first recommendation above, there is a view that high stocking densities can produce a less diverse habitat structure within pasture and therefore less insect diversity and abundance. Management for bat foraging habitat should therefore consider moderate stocking densities of cattle to create a more diverse pasture habitat to encourage insects. (Cattle tend not to browse scrub cover/hedgerows as much as sheep and, being heavier, they will also poach the ground leading to a range of microclimates at ground level). Greater horseshoe bats catch their prey by low hawking over open pasture or by fly catching from feeding posts such as low branches in hedges or trees at woodland edges. The horseshoe bat is highly selective and conservative in its diet (Ransome 1997), the diet consisting mainly of several families of Lepidoptera and Scarabaeidae beetles found in pasture (reviewed in Vaughan 1997). The diet of the female greater horseshoe bat raising young is dominated by three key prey types: the, cockchafers (Melolontha melolontha) and dung beetles (Aphodius spp.) of the beetle family Scarabaeidae, and Lepidoptera. In addition, three secondary prey types are invariably eaten but in more variable proportions depending on roost location, for example proximity to river and lake

A-13

December 2004

habitats: Tipulidae, Trichoptera and ichneumonids of the Ophion luteus complex (Jones 1990; Ransome 1997). At other times of year, other key prey items may dominate the diet, for example dung beetles of the family Geotrupidae (Geotrupes spp.) in April and through the autumn and cockchafers in May (Jones & Duverg 1994; Ransome 1996). Juveniles feed mainly on dung beetles when they first start to forage, explaining their strong association with cattle grazed pasture. Greater horseshoe bats may remain quite active at night during the hibernation period, suggesting that they feed during the winter months (Park et al. 1999). A study on the diet of greater horseshoe bats in winter in south-west England showed that bats ate a series of prey items through the season (Ransome 2002): October: Aphodius (early) and Ophion (late); November and December: dung flies (Scatophaga stercoraria); January to early March: Ophion; and March and April: moths, dung flies, Trichoptera and Tipulidae.

Geotrupes beetles (from the family Geotrupidae) were also consumed throughout the winter. The dietary content is therefore very similar to the summer months, although secondary prey items are eaten in greater quantities. Important foraging areas during winter are likely to include areas close to hibernacula that are sheltered from winds, particularly south or south-west facing slopes. The study identified that two periods are likely to be crucial for foraging bats, in autumn when bats deposit reserves for the winter, and in early spring when bats may need to feed to avoid starvation. Two key factors influence the habitat quality for the greater horseshoe bat, structure and microclimate. Habitat quality may be improved by increasing the structural diversity of woodland and pasture (primarily occupied by cattle) to provide more edge habitat, for example by the introduction of woodland strips (to provide 40% deciduous woodland cover), and this is particularly valuable in the 1km zone from maternity roost sites (Ransome 1996, 1997). Improved habitat quality results in improved breeding productivity of maternity roosts and therefore is likely to have a positive effect on population status. Habitat protection is also required around hibernacula, particularly sites used during spring and autumn by males for mating (Ransome 1997). The greater horseshoe bat is vulnerable to the loss of deciduous woodland and pasture habitats, and the loss of their insect food due to the use of insecticides. Greater horseshoe bats in Pembrokeshire Some detailed studies have been carried out on two of the maternity colonies of the greater horseshoe bat in the PCNP, Stackpole and Slebech (Ransome 1997 and unpublished data reported therein). Radio-tracking studies (P.L. Duverg, Vincent Wildlife Trust, unpublished) at the two maternity sites in PCNP has suggested that bats travel much greater distances to foraging areas, up to 8 km at Stackpole and up to 14 km at Slebech (reported in Ransome 1997). A dietary study of roosts at different geographical locations has shown that Tipulidae were consumed in significant numbers at coastal sites, for example at Stackpole in the PCNP (Ransome 1997). Lesser horseshoe bat The lesser horseshoe bat prefers to forage in sheltered valleys with extensive deciduous woodland and dense scrub near roosts. In fragmented habitats, linear features such as hedgerows provide valuable corridors between roosts and foraging areas and bats are vulnerable to the loss of these corridors. Commuting corridors are important features for lesser horseshoe bats as they avoid crossing open areas.

A-14

December 2004

A recent radio-tracking study in Monmouthshire showed that lesser horseshoe bats mainly used deciduous woodland for foraging and preferred areas with a high diversity of habitats (Bontadina et al. 2002). The maximum distance that bats were recorded foraging from the roost was 4.2 km and most time was spent within 600 m of the roost. The recommendation was that conservation management should concentrate on the area within 2.5 km of roost sites (Bontadina et al. 2002). A further radio-tracking study at the Ciliau SSSI, Wales showed that the mean foraging distance from roosts was 1.4 km and the mean core foraging area used by bats was 21 ha (Schofield et al. 2002). This roost is to the north of the BBNP in Powys. Commuting routes used included hedges, woodland edges, riparian trees and a green lane. Bats foraged primarily in areas of deciduous woodland, including riparian woodland, connected by linear corridors which were also used for foraging, and on occasion bats foraged in a coniferous plantation close to the maternity roost (Schofield et al. 2002, Smith and Morgan 2003). The study suggested that the lesser horseshoe bat is highly reliant on cover provided by interconnecting hedgerows and other linear features, mainly foraging within 10 m of these features, although it has the potential to cover much larger areas during foraging if such a network is available to it. The study also showed that the species was reluctant to cross open spaces, as it flew very low over the ground (within 1 m) over open space (Schofield et al. 2002). In a study of the same population Smith and Morgan (2003) observed that despite other suitable routes in the area, the bats appeared not to be deterred by the coniferous woodland and indeed appeared to forage here to a greater extent than in the deciduous woodland. The report suggests that conifer plantations close to other lesser horseshoe bat maternity colonies may provide refuge in certain weather conditions. A Belgian study of lesser horseshoe foraging activity has shown similar habitat preferences. Bats mainly foraged along hedgerows and in woodland areas with bushes and coppice (Motte & Libois 2002). The importance of a network of wooded habitat features connecting maternity roosts to foraging areas was highlighted and it was recommended that habitat management should be concentrated in an area 1-2 km around the roost. The diet of the lesser horseshoe bat consists mostly of Diptera of the crepuscular sub-order Nematocera (reviewed in Vaughan 1997). Lepidoptera, Trichoptera and Neuroptera were also eaten. Families of Diptera recorded in the diet include Tipulidae (crane-flies), Ceratopogonidae (biting midges), Chironomidae (non-biting midges), Culicidae (mosquitoes), and Anisopodidae (window midges). A Swiss study of the diets of the lesser horseshoe bat and pipistrelles showed that both species were dominated by three main prey groups: Lepidoptera, Diptera and Neuroptera, and suggested that the similarities in the diets could result in competition for food between these species (Arlettaz et al. 2000). The lesser horseshoe bat also feeds throughout the winter, with activity mainly associated with temperature (Williams 2001). Radio-tracking of bats in England in the winter showed that they foraged on average to a maximum distance of 1.2 km from the hibernation site. The absolute maximum distance travelled by one bat was 2.1 km. The winter foraging range is therefore approximately half the area covered in the summer months. Bats foraged in similar habitats to those used in the summer months woodland and particularly over pasture. The winter diet of lesser horseshoe bats varied among different roost sites across England and Wales but overall, bats consumed a similar range of insect families as during the summer, with a larger proportion of Diptera including dung flies. Bats used a night roost following bouts of winter foraging, and use of the night roost was higher when ambient temperature was higher, supporting the hypothesis that bats foraged more in winter during warmer weather. Daubentons bat Daubentons bats almost always feed within 1m of the surface of water, either gaffing prey from the surface or catching prey close to the surface by aerial hawking (Jones & Rayner 1988). Daubentons bats forage almost exclusively over water within 3 km of the roost, but may travel up to 15 km to forage (Altringham 2003), and favour riverine habitats (Racey & Swift 1985; Rydell et al. 1994). Daubentons bats prefer areas with a smooth water surface with trees on both banks (Warren et al. 2000).

A-15

December 2004

The diet of Daubentons bats reflects their foraging habitats, feeding on aquatic Diptera including Tipulidae, Culicidae, Ceratopogonidae and Cecidomyiidae (gall midges), although their diet is dominated by Ceratopogonidae (reviewed in Vaughan 1997). Whiskered and Brandts bats Little is known of the foraging habitats of whiskered and Brandts bats. However, a German study of habitat availability around roost sites showed that Brandts bats were found mainly in areas where woodland was available, whereas whiskered bat foraged more often in areas near rivers and more open habitats with hedges and coppices (Taake 1984). This difference in habitats is reflected by differences in the diets of the two species (reviewed in Vaughan 1997). Whiskered bats feed mainly on Diptera including Tipulidae, Chironomidae, Ceratopogonidae, Psychodidae (moth-flies), and Cecidomyiidae. In contrast, Brandts bats feed also mainly on Diptera, but about half of the families recorded are diurnal Diptera of the sub-order Brachycera, taken by gleaning, and some Lepidoptera and spiders are also consumed. Natterers bat Natterers bats mainly forage in semi-natural deciduous woodland, tree-lined river corridors and ponds, and also use areas of grassland (Smith & Racey 2002). Radio-tracking has shown that the bats generally travel over a home range of around 12 km2, with core foraging areas located up to 4 km from the day roosts, although bats will forage up to 6 km to foraging sites (Smith & Racey 2002). An autumn radio-tracking study of bats using a swarming site in southern England between August and October showed that bats foraged in broad-leaved woodland and mixed agricultural areas (Parsons & Jones 2003). Natterers bats feed mainly by gleaning prey from vegetation, although they also hawk insects close to vegetation. The main items in the diet are diurnally active Diptera of the sub-order Brachycera, for example Syrphidae (hover flies) and Empididae (dance flies) (reviewed in Vaughan 1997). Bechsteins bat This species is associated with mature, deciduous woodland. It gleans spiders and insects from vegetation surfaces. The diet of Bechsteins bats consists mainly of Lepidoptera and both diurnal and crepuscular families of Diptera, for example Tipulidae and Anisopodidae (reviewed in Vaughan 1997). It is particularly vulnerable to fragmentation of open, ancient woodlands as it relies on this habitat type for foraging. Bechsteins bat is thought to forage close to roost sites, probably within about 1.5 km (H. Schofield, Vincent Wildlife Trust, unpublished information). Pipistrelles Pipistrelles forage mainly over water, in parks and woodlands, along hedgerows, in suburban habitats and over agricultural land, although they avoid open fields (Racey & Swift 1985). Where pipistrelles forage in riverine habitats, they prefer areas of a river with a smooth water surface and trees on both banks (Warren et al. 2000). There are some differences in the preferred foraging habitats of the two pipistrelle species. The soprano (55) pipistrelle forages almost exclusively over habitats associated with water, such as rivers and lakes, whereas the common (45) pipistrelle forages over a much wider range of habitats including rivers, lakes, woodland and cattle pasture (Vaughan et al. 1997). Pipistrelles generally forage in habitats within about 2 km of their roost site (Racey & Swift 1985). In a study in southwest Britain, a larger area of habitat associated with water was found within the 2 km radius of maternity roosts of the soprano pipistrelle than would be expected to occur by chance (Oakeley & Jones 1998). Recent radio-tracking studies of both common and soprano pipistrelles (Davidson-Watt & Jones, in prep.) have shown that the common pipistrelle generally travels short distances (up to 1.5 km on average) to foraging sites but uses a greater number of sites for foraging than soprano pipistrelles, which travel greater distances (up to 1.75 km on average) to fewer sites.

A-16

December 2004

The diet of pipistrelles mainly consists of nematoceran Diptera including Ceratopogonidae, Chironomidae, Tipulidae, Anisopodidae and Psychodidae (reviewed in Vaughan 1997; Barlow 1997). There are also differences in the diets of common and soprano pipistrelles: soprano pipistrelles feed almost exclusively on Ceratopogonidae and Chironomidae, whereas common pipistrelles eat a much wider range of prey types, reflecting the differences in their habitat preferences (Barlow 1997). Noctule The noctule forages over deciduous woodland, parkland, pasture, water and at woodland edges. In spring, they mainly feed on small Diptera, both diurnal and crepuscular families, moving onto Lepidoptera and Coleoptera later in the summer (reviewed in Vaughan 1997). A radio-tracking study in Germany showed that bats regularly foraged up to 2.4 km from their roost (Kronwitter 1988). Serotine The diet of the serotine mainly consists of Coleoptera including the families Scarabaeidae (dung beetles and chafers), Carabidae (ground beetles), Silphidae (burying beetles), and Geotrupidae (dor beetles), and some Lepidoptera and Diptera, including Tipulidae, Chironomidae, Ceratopogonidae, Culicidae and other diurnally active Diptera (reviewed in Vaughan 1997). Dung beetles, especially Aphodius species, are especially important in late summer and so areas of cattle (and resultant cattle dung) around maternity roosts are important. Radio-tracking studies in southern England (Catto et al. 1996; Robinson & Stebbings, 1997) identified cattle pasture, playing fields, village greens, white streetlights, tree-lined hedgerows and woodland edge as important foraging sites. Although individuals foraged up to 14 km from maternity roosts, most foraging occurred within 5 km. Leislers bat There are few studies on the habitat requirements of Leislers bat. A radio-tracking study in England showed that bats had relatively large foraging ranges, travelling a mean of 4.2 km from the roost 2 sites with foraging areas averaging around 7.4 km (Waters et al. 1999). Leislers bats foraged mainly in woodland, particularly around woodland margins, along scrub-lined or woodland-lined roads and over pasture, and avoided urban and arable habitats, and differences were found between two geographically separated sites (Waters et al. 1999). Another radio-tracking study in Ireland showed that this fast-flying species commuted up to 13.4 km to foraging sites which were mainly over pasture or drainage canals (accounting for two-thirds of foraging time), and also over lakes and coniferous forests (Shiel et al. 1999). A bat detector study in south-west England (Vaughan et al. 1997) suggested that Leislers bats were more active over pasture and near lakes. A recent bat detector study along roads in Northern Ireland showed that Leislers bats were equally active in all available habitat types (including hedges, tree lines, woodland, grassland, streetlights and arable areas) along roadsides (Russ et al. 2003). The diet of Leislers bat consists mainly of Diptera of several families, including dung flies, and small numbers of Lepidoptera and Coleoptera (reviewed in Vaughan 1997). Barbastelle The barbastelle forages mainly in wooded valleys, using a range of habitat types, particularly riparian woodland. Its diet is highly specialised, as it mainly feeds on small Lepidoptera taken in flight, but also gleans insects and spiders from vegetation surfaces (reviewed in Vaughan 1997; Sierro & Arlettaz 1997). Foraging barbastelle may travel significant distances from roost to foraging site (up to 18 km in one study), although this was weather dependent and in wet weather, bats stayed close to roost sites, usually within 2-3 km (Greenaway 2001). In this radio-tracking study of barbastelle in Sussex, the foraging habitats used by bats varied through the year. Riparian habitats were commonly used in spring, whereas bats mainly foraged along hedgerows or over meadows in summer. Some bats were active through the winter, foraging in dense woodland habitats (Greenaway 2001).

A-17

December 2004

A summer radio-tracking study in the PCNP in Wales showed that the barbastelle foraged mainly within 6 km from the roost, but travelled up to 15 km to reach foraging areas. The preferred foraging areas were along hedgerows and in wooded valleys. In woodland, bats foraged in the more open areas (glades and rides), but rarely along the outer woodland edges. Rides, tracks and the lines of valleys over the canopy were used as commuting routes through the forest. Most bats foraged throughout the night and rarely used night roosts (Billington 2001). In autumn, bats spent more time foraging within woodland areas (Billington 2000). Brown long-eared bat Brown long-eared bats forage in woodland habitats (Swift & Racey 1983), consuming a large proportion of Lepidoptera. A radio-tracking study in Scotland has shown that bats tend to forage within a distance of 0.5 km from the roost site (Entwistle et al. 1996). Lepidoptera are an important component of the diet of brown long-eared bat; Diptera and some non-flying prey are also taken (reviewed in Vaughan 1997).

A-18

December 2004

Appendix 2

Questionnaire sent to LPAs

Bat conservation questionnaire

You 1. Name and position

2. Contact details (if you want to add them)

General information 1. In your area, what do you regard as the major factors contributing to a) roost loss b) habitat loss (foraging and/or commuting) and any other conservation concerns for bats?

Protocols and planning 2. What advice do you give about the presence of bats in a) dwelling houses and/or b) non-dwelling if work is proposed that could affect bats?

3. How do you decide when a site visit is required when a planning application is submitted?

4. In your area (or elsewhere if no examples in your area) can you describe specific examples of case studies, in particular where mitigation/enhancement has or hasnt worked?

5. What additional information would be useful to you in assessing bats in relation to planning and bats?

Any other comments (Please add your contact details if youd like me to give you a call to discuss anything you have mentioned here further).

FINAL REPORT Bat Conservation Review

The Three Welsh National Parks, Pembrokeshire CC and CCW

FINAL REPORT

A Review and Synthesis of Published Information and Practical Experience on Bat Conservation within a Fragmented Landscape

October 2005

FINAL REPORT Bat Conservation Review

The Three Welsh National Parks, Pembrokeshire CC and CCW

All copyright of this report and any intellectual property rights thereof remain the property of the organisations comprising the Project Steering Group, namely the Brecon Beacons National Park, Pembrokeshire Coast National Park, Pembrokeshire County Council, Snowdonia National Park and the Countryside Council for Wales. In partnership with the Welsh national park authorities and Pembrokeshire County Council, this work was commissioned by the Countryside Council for Wales as part of its programme of research into sustaining natural beauty, wildlife and outdoor enjoyment in rural Wales and its inshore waters.

Sections 1-6, 9, and Appendices 1 and 7 were prepared by BMT Cordah Ltd.

BMT Cordah Limited

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANCY AND INFORMATION SYSTEMS

October 2005

FINAL REPORT Bat Conservation Review

The Three Welsh National Parks, Pembrokeshire CC and CCW

October 2005

FINAL REPORT Bat Conservation Review

The Three Welsh National Parks, Pembrokeshire CC and CCW

Preface from the Project Steering Group The three National Parks in Wales (Brecon Beacons, Pembrokeshire and Snowdonia) exist in order to conserve and enhance the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the Parks, and to foster the social and economic well being of local communities there. This role has a direct bearing not only on planning policy and development control but also on the management of biodiversity, cultural features and landscape. The Parks recognise that there are significant areas where they do not possess sufficient information to fulfil this role effectively. One such area is in the conservation of European Protected Species (EPS), which are frequently affected by development control as well as habitat management. Therefore they established a 1 partnership with Pembrokeshire County Council and the Countryside Council for Wales, sought to develop a project that would help to improve understanding of how EPS live in the landscape. This would focus on the areas of Snowdonia and Brecon Beacons National Parks and the county of Pembrokeshire, incorporating the Pembrokeshire Coast NP. It quickly became clear that the project should focus on bat conservation, the rationale being based upon The familiarity of bats to most people The important populations of bats in the study areas The range of habitats and landscape features used by bats, most of which are closely associated with human activity in some form or other The dramatic decline in population sizes for most British species for reasons associated with human activity The significant sites, designations and local action plans for bats within the study areas, and The lack of protection for bats' feeding areas or flyways, without which roosts are not viable.

By addressing the requirements of bats in the urban and rural landscapes through the various processes and mechanisms available, other wildlife would benefit too. The collective experience and skills held by the partners, together with their roles as local planning authorities and specialist advisers means that they are well placed to benefit from the findings of the project, as well as improve the implementation both of species action plans and the Habitats and Species Directive. Furthermore, by focussing a project on bat conservation within 3 contrasting upland and lowland landscapes, this would be of relevance for other local authorities and agencies. As the partners sought to develop the project they found themselves asking too many unanswerable questions. Therefore they settled on the project reported here as a start point. The intention is that by synthesising as much relevant information as is available, it should be clearer which questions on bat conservation within a fragmented landscape still need to be answered. This should provide the conservation community with a stronger basis for the advice provided about bats and conservation work carried out, as well as highlighting areas where more work is needed. The objectives for the project are listed in the introduction to this report. The partners are keen to stress that this report should not be treated as a mitigation manual of any sort. Rather do they hope that it forms an important milestone towards highlighting fundamental questions that still need to be answered on bat conservation and ecology. In particular they hope that it will provide an important reference source of ideas for local authorities, agencies, consultants, and governments and contribute towards decisions on how to develop a more effective understanding of, and practical application for, the conservation needs of bats and other European Protected Species. Paul Sinnadurai, Brecon Beacons NPA, on behalf of the Project Steering Group.

The Pembrokeshire Local Biodiversity Action Plan incorporates actions for the Pembrokeshire Coast NP too. Therefore Pembrokeshire County Council is supporting this project.

October 2005

FINAL REPORT Bat Conservation Review

The Three Welsh National Parks, Pembrokeshire CC and CCW

CONTENTS
1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 2 2.1 3 3.1.1 3.1.2 4 5 5.1 5.2 5.2.1 5.2.2 6 6.1 6.2 7 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.4.1 8.4.2 8.4.3 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1 Scope of work 1 Approach to the study Response to consultations Sources of information 2 2 3

Report structure 4 WILDLIFE LEGISLATION AND CONSERVATION POLICIES ....................................... 5 Legislation affecting bats 5 STATUS AND DISTRIBUTION OF BATS IN WALES................................................... 11 Brecon Beacons National Park 12 Pembrokeshire Coast National Park 14 THREATS TO BAT SPECIES ....................................................................................... 19 BAT ROOSTS ............................................................................................................... 23 Roosting requirements 23 Roost loss Alternative roosts 28 32

Minimising roost loss 35 HABITATS .................................................................................................................... 37 Habitat requirements of bat species 37 Habitat loss LAND USE PLANNING AND BAT CONSERVATION Conclusions Gaps in our knowledge Bats and development control Suggested further studies Bat status and distribution Bat ecology Understanding wind turbines and bat mortality 41 45 53 54 55 55 56 57 57

List of Tables Table 3-1 Status of bat species found in Wales (BCT) Table 5-1 Roost types and key requirements of bat species during the summer and winter in Wales Table 5-2 Summary of the results of the English Nature study on the outcome of bat advice Table 5-3 Checklist of information and features for bats and building works Table 6-1 Habitat types, diet, and key management requirements for bat species in Wales Table A-1 Key insect families found in the diet of bats

October 2005

FINAL REPORT Bat Conservation Review

The Three Welsh National Parks, Pembrokeshire CC and CCW

Appendices Appendix 1 Appendix 2 Appendix 3 Appendix 4 Appendix 5 Appendix 6 Appendix 7 Literature review of bat ecology Questionnaire Trigger list from bat group Draft trigger list provided by a respondent Highways planning and mitigation examples from The Netherlands Summary guidance to Local Planning Authorities Acknowledgements

October 2005

FINAL REPORT Bat Conservation Review

The Three Welsh National Parks, Pembrokeshire CC and CCW

INTRODUCTION
This is the Final Report for the project to review and synthesise published information and practical experience on bat conservation within a fragmented landscape, commissioned by the three National Park authorities in Wales, Pembrokeshire County Council and the Countryside Council for Wales (CCW). The three National Parks in Wales are: Brecon Beacons National Park (BBNP) Pembrokeshire Coast National Park (PCNP) Snowdonia National Park (SNP).

1.1

Scope of work
The short-term aim of the project is to review and synthesise existing information on bat conservation, particularly in fragmented landscapes. This information helps determine the potential effects of loss or damage to bat roosts or habitats on bat populations in Wales. Specific questions to be addressed are: what are the minimum roost (winter and summer roosts of all types) requirements for each species, including the design and management of buildings and other structures; what are the minimum habitat requirements for each species; what happens to a particular colony of bats when its roost is lost; what is best practice in terms of mitigation of the effects of development on bat roosts; how adaptable to change are individuals of each species; and linear features between roosts and between roosts and foraging areas what good practice exists on their management, restoration or creation?

The report provides a literature review and bibliography of published information in the UK and Europe to help answer the above questions; a summary of current relevant research; a review of gaps in current knowledge and recommendations on how these gaps can be addressed; and a synthesis of best practice for bat conservation within the land use planning system including recommendations on further development of best practice advice. It does not provide a manual on how to carry out mitigation work affecting bats, for which other publications and expertise are available. However, it does provide a summary of the information available on bat roost and habitat requirements, as they are currently understood. A further long-term aim is to provide information that can assist in the assessment of the favourable conservation status (FCS) of bats and its maintenance in Wales. The concept of FCS is central to European legislation protecting bats. Detailed information on the status and distribution of bat populations and on the ecology and conservation of bats in the UK is essential to assess whether a species is at favourable conservation status or not, and measures needed to either maintain FCS or work towards it in order to deliver obligations under the European legislation.

October 2005

FINAL REPORT Bat Conservation Review

The Three Welsh National Parks, Pembrokeshire CC and CCW

1.2

Approach to the study

In order to address the questions raised by this research project, the research was shared between the Bat Conservation Trust (BCT) and BMT Cordah Limited. The BMT Cordah input is divided into two main parts: an introduction to bat conservation in a fragmented landscape including an overview of current wildlife and planning legislation, and the status and distribution of bat populations in Wales (Sections 1 to 3); and a review of current literature available in the UK relevant to bat conservation in a fragmented landscape, including reports on current research being carried out (Appendix 1).

The main text of the literature review is provided in Appendix 1 to the report. Summary text and tables of key information are provided in the main text (Sections 4 to 6). Section 7 covers planning protocols and mitigation practices. The report is then completed with conclusions on the main questions raised by the study, and recommendations for further work (Section 8). A bibliography of all references cited within the report is given at the end of the report (Section 9). The draft and final reports have been peer-reviewed by Professor Gareth Jones of the School of Biological Sciences at Bristol University, whilst David Tyldesley of David Tyldesley and Associates has reviewed the information relating to land use planning. The report concentrates on bat species, planning processes and practical situations that are most relevant to Wales and the Welsh National Park authorities. However, information and recommendations made in the report are put into the wider context of bat conservation in the UK. The part of the study that considered best practice for conservation was completed in conjunction with local bat workers and ecologists. A questionnaire was sent out to local planning authority ecologists, local bat group members, CCW species officers and other ecologists, with additional information obtained during local workshops with bat specialists working in the study areas. Additional information was requested, particularly with reference to planning protocols and case studies. Those contributing to the report are listed in the acknowledgements in Appendix 7. The remaining part of the study was completed by carrying out a review of current literature published, mainly in the UK, on bat conservation in a fragmented landscape, with some additional references from Europe.

1.3

Response to consultations
Six responses were received to a request for details of formal or informal guidelines for dealing with bats and development in the planning process. Responses were received from the following local planning authorities: Brecon Beacons National Park Authority (BBNPA); Snowdonia National Park Authority (SNPA); Pembrokeshire County Council; Carmarthenshire County Council; Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough Council; and

October 2005

FINAL REPORT Bat Conservation Review Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council.

The Three Welsh National Parks, Pembrokeshire CC and CCW

A further 11 responses were received in response to the questionnaire. A number of concerns and issues were raised by more than one respondent, including the following: concerns about roost loss due to barn and loft conversions; concerns about roost loss due to removal of trees or branches; concerns about habitat loss due to development, particularly new housing and road schemes; survey work for bats must be requested before planning permission is granted; there is a need for protected species information to be integrated into the Listed Buildings Consent system; need for an improved knowledge of the status and distribution of bats in Wales to allow better informed decisions with respect to bats and development control; need for greater awareness and understanding of the significance of night/feeding roosts, which appear to form an integral part of feeding strategies of species such as the two horseshoe bats and brown long-eared bats; there is a tendency for bat research to focus on day roosts, the function and importance of which are much better understood; a better understanding is required of the ecological significance of sites that appear to be used only very occasionally, and where there are only a few scattered signs of bat activity; provision of a centrally controlled roost database, preferably linked to a GIS system for ease of use; clear and consistent guidance is needed within planning authorities to determine criteria for when surveys should be requested; more information is required at the planning application stage on how for example roofs will be affected by development and therefore what will be the effect on bat roosts; mitigation should be monitored and reported on to ensure it is adhered to, and to assess its efficacy; and bat records resulting from survey work for land use development should be made available to bat record databases.

More detailed information and assessment of the responses to questionnaires and information on planning protocols is included in Sections 7 and 8. An additional questionnaire was sent out to bat workers to assess their perceptions of how bats were dealt with in the land use planning process. Eight responses were received and this is also summarised in Section 7.

1.4

Sources of information
Information currently available on the subject was obtained from a number of sources. Bibliographic searches for published information were carried out using specialist library services including the ISI Web of Science, Science Citation Index and ScienceDirect. Other research reports and publications were obtained from conservation organisations such as Vincent Wildlife Trust, Mammal Society, CCW and university research departments (including information provided by Professor Gareth Jones, School of Biological Sciences, University of Bristol), and Dr Herman Limpens (independent consultant). The available literature and information is reviewed and the key findings summarised in

October 2005

FINAL REPORT Bat Conservation Review this report. reviewed.

The Three Welsh National Parks, Pembrokeshire CC and CCW

Research projects currently underway are also listed and gaps in knowledge are

1.5

Report structure
This Report consists of the following sections: Section 2 outlines current legislation covering bats in the UK; Section 3 looks at the status and distribution of bat species in Wales. Section 4 summarises the main threats to bat species in Wales; Section 5 reviews roosting requirements of bat species and roost loss; Section 6 reviews habitat requirements of bat species and habitat loss; Section 7 reviews planning issues and current protocols in place for bats; Section 8 provides conclusions and lists suggested recommendations for future work; Section 9 is the bibliography; Appendix 1 is a literature review of bat ecology in the UK See Contents for Appendices 2 onwards.

October 2005

FINAL REPORT Bat Conservation Review

The Three Welsh National Parks, Pembrokeshire CC and CCW

2 2.1

WILDLIFE LEGISLATION AND CONSERVATION POLICIES Legislation affecting bats

It is useful to outline here the main legislation under which bats and their roosts/habitats are protected. Further discussion on its influence over land use planning decisions is in Section 7. The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) (WCA); all wild bats receive protection under Section 9 because they are listed on Schedule 5 of the Act. The WCA protects bats and their roosts in England, Scotland and Wales. Some parts of the WCA have been amended, most recently by the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (CRoW) which applies in England and Wales, and by the Nature Conservation Act 2004 in Scotland, to increase the level of protection received by bats. Under the WCA, consultation is required with the appropriate statutory nature conservation organisation (ie CCW in Wales), for advice on when and how actions can take place that may affect a bat or bat roost in a dwelling house. Also Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) are also notified under the WCA. Twenty six SSSIs in Wales have been designated specifically to protect bats. The Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994 (commonly known as the Habitats Regulations) implements in the UK the Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and of Wild Fauna and Flora, commonly known as the Habitats Directive. All bat species receive full protection under Annex IV of the Directive. In addition, four species (five if Myotis myotis is included) currently extant in the UK are listed under Annex II, and these require the designation of Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) to ensure their protection. Four Annex II species occur in Wales the greater horseshoe bat (Rhinolophus ferrumequinum), the lesser horseshoe bat (R. hipposideros), the barbastelle (Barbastella barbastellus) and Bechsteins bat (Myotis bechsteinii). In Wales, there are currently eight SACs selected primarily for their bat interest. Of these eight, five are within the three Welsh National Park areas: Meirionnydd Oakwoods and Bat Sites (lesser horseshoe bat maternity and hibernation sites, and suitable foraging habitat) in SNP; Usk Bat Sites (lesser horseshoe bat maternity and hibernation sites) in the BBNP; Limestone Coast of South West Wales (greater horseshoe bat hibernation site) in the PCNP; Pembrokeshire Bat Sites and Bosherston Lakes (supports approximately 9.5% of the UK greater horseshoe bat population, and is a primary reason for its designation; lesser horseshoe bat present as a qualifying feature but is not a primary reason for site selection; greater horseshoe bat maternity, transitory and hibernation sites present here) in the PCNP; and North Pembrokeshire Woodlands (barbastelle bats are included as an additional interest feature in this woodland SAC within in the PCNP).

October 2005

FINAL REPORT Bat Conservation Review

The Three Welsh National Parks, Pembrokeshire CC and CCW

The UK and European legislation provides strong protection for both bats and roosts; in summary, it is an offence for any person to2: intentionally kill, injure or take any wild bat. Under the Habitats Regulations it is an offence to deliberately capture, kill or disturb a bat; intentionally or recklessly* damage, destroy or obstruct access to any place that a bat uses for shelter or protection. This is taken to mean all bat roosts whether bats are present or not. Under the Habitats Regulations damage or destruction of a breeding site or resting place of a bat is an absolute offence, i.e., intent or recklessness does not have to be proved; and intentionally or recklessly* disturb a bat while it is occupying a structure or place that it uses for shelter or protection (*reckless applies in England and Wales by virtue of the CRoW Act, in Scotland by virtue of the Nature Conservation Act). Under the Habitats Regulations it is an offence to deliberately disturb a bat (this applies anywhere, not just at its roost).

Under the Habitats Regulations, there are measures that allow derogation licences to be granted for certain otherwise unlawful activities to take place, and this includes land use development activities (this is covered further in Section 7). Habitats Regulations licences may be granted under Regulation 44 in specifically defined circumstances, where three specific tests are satisfied as follows: the proposal is for one of the purposes specified in Regulation 44(2) (to preserve public health or public safety or other imperative reasons of overriding public interest including those of a social or economic nature and beneficial consequences of primary importance for the environment); there is no satisfactory alternative (to the granting of the licence); and the action authorised will not be detrimental to the maintenance of the populations of the species concerned at a favourable conservation status in its natural range.

A licence application will fail if any one of the above three tests are not satisfied. For example, an application to destroy a bat roost will need to provide information on the current status of the population of that species, demonstrate that reasonable steps have been taken to minimise the effects on bats, and provide details of mitigation that will compensate for any adverse effects that the proposal may have had on the maintenance of the populations favourable conservation status. Also, the proposal must be for an imperative reason of overriding public interest, and there should be no satisfactory alternative to the proposal. Conservation status is defined in the Habitats Directive (Article 1(e)) as: the sum of influences acting on species concerned that may affect the long-term distribution and abundance of its populations within the territory referred to. Conservation status is defined as favourable when: population dynamics data on the species concerned indicate that it is maintaining itself on a long-term basis as a viable component of its natural habitats; the natural range of the species is neither being reduced for the foreseeable future; and

Note: the information given in this report is intended only as a guide to legislation. It is not a comprehensive interpretation of the law, and the full text of legislation should be consulted or legal advice taken as appropriate.

October 2005

FINAL REPORT Bat Conservation Review -

The Three Welsh National Parks, Pembrokeshire CC and CCW

there is, and probably will continue to be, a sufficiently large habitat to maintain its populations on a long-term basis.

The processes required to determine favourable conservation status of bats in the UK are currently under debate and are the subject of ongoing discussions and study at BCT. Current advice from English Nature is that in order to maintain favourable conservation status, there should be no net loss in the status of the local bat population, taking into account factors such as population size, viability and connectivity (Mitchell-Jones 2004). The Bat Conservation Trust has produced a series of leaflets in their Professional Support Series, providing advice on bats in relation to trees, buildings, and development planning (Bat Conservation Trust 2001, 2002a, 2002b). Habitats Regulations Licences are needed for many proposals affecting bats including building maintenance and tree works they are not just to enable land use development; although often called development licences, this is a misleading term and its use should be avoided. Further detail and discussion about the legislation and its influence on planning proposals affecting bats can be found in Section 7.

2.2

Biodiversity Action Plans

In 1992, the UK signed the Convention on Biological Diversity, following the Earth Summit held in Rio de Janeiro. In response to this, the UK government produced the UK Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP), a national strategy to conserve biodiversity, in 1994. The BAP is made up of Species Action Plans, Habitat Action Plans and Local Biodiversity Action Plans with targeted actions. There are 382 Priority Species Action Plans (SAPs), containing information on the threats facing these targeted species and actions to achieve the action plan targets. Six of these SAPs are for bat species in the UK, one of which, the mouse-eared bat (Myotis myotis) is not considered further in this report. The remaining five bat species for which SAPs exist are the greater horseshoe bat, the lesser horseshoe bat, barbastelle, Bechsteins bat and pipistrelles. In recent years, the taxonomic status of the pipistrelle has changed in the UK and it is now considered to be two species, the common pipistrelle (Pipistrellus pipistrellus) and the soprano pipistrelle (P. pygmaeus) (Jones & Barratt 1999). In addition to the UK BAP, Local Biodiversity Action Plans (LBAPs) focus on habitats and species that may be important at the local level. There are LBAPs for all three National Parks in Wales. The BBNPA has SAPs or Species Statements for three bat species: greater and lesser horseshoe bats and Bechsteins bat; the SNPA has SAPs for four bat species: lesser horseshoe bat, Natterers bats, noctule and pipistrelles. The PCNPA is covered within the Pembrokeshire LBAP and has proposed five bat SAPs: greater and lesser horseshoe bats, barbastelle and common and soprano pipistrelles. To date, a SAP has been completed for the common pipistrelle. Variations in species covered by each NPA reflect the species geographical distribution in Wales.

2.3

Bats and the Planning Process

When deciding planning applications and making local development plans, bats as a protected species are a material consideration if they are present on a site and the animals or their habitat might be harmed by the proposed development. Where the presence of bats is confirmed and the bats are likely to be affected by development, the planning authority, and ideally the planning applicant, must consult the relevant statutory nature conservation organisation (SNCO), i.e., The Countryside Council for Wales (CCW) as part of the planning process. A survey and assessment

October 2005

FINAL REPORT Bat Conservation Review

The Three Welsh National Parks, Pembrokeshire CC and CCW

may be required to be undertaken if bats are likely to be affected. Bat surveys and assessments should be undertaken by professional contractors and must be conducted at an appropriate time of year. If a development proposal is likely to affect bats, the actions required are dependent on the species of bat and type of development (whether it is a dwelling house or other structure). A leaflet produced by BCT outlines the planning process in relation to bats (Bat Conservation Trust 2002). The procedure followed is dependent partly on whether the development involves a dwelling house or other structure. Planning protocols and procedures followed in practice by the local planning authorities in Wales, and potential for improvements to these systems are discussed later in this report (Section 7). An outline of the procedures for dwelling and non-dwelling related developments are summarised below: Proposals affecting a roost in a dwelling house If the proposal affects a roost in a dwelling house, CCW should be consulted by the authority, and given sufficient time to advise if the work should be undertaken, and how it should be done. The presence of a protected species is a material consideration for the LPA, and the LPA should consider the effects of the proposed work on the species when determining the application. CCW will recommend that a survey is carried out if there is little or no information, if they consider that the site is likely to be used by bats (based on the type of structure, associated habitat and proximity to known roosts). CCW may provide detailed advice, such as timing of the work, further mitigation or other conditions that should be attached to the planning permission, and may recommend that the applicant commissions a consultant to provide recommendations to inform their advice on the mitigation. If the work involves demolition of the house then a Habitats Regulations licence may be required. The types of dwelling house proposals (not all need planning permission, but listed building consent may be required) that might affect bats if they are present and for which prior consultation with CCW is required include: renovation; conversion (including loft conversion); extension; demolition; re-roofing and roof repairs; control of pests with pesticides; remedial timber treatment; window replacement soffit/fascia board repair/replacement; and repointing.

Other development If a development proposal affects bats in a structure other than a dwelling house, a Habitats Regulations licence will be required from the appropriate authority (Welsh Assembly Government in Wales). The licence application may be made by the owner, developer, or a consultant acting on their behalf, and will include details of mitigation measures and monitoring that will be carried out at the development site. CCW recommends that applicants who do not have experience of undertaking ecological surveys or providing advice on mitigation should employ a suitably experienced professional consultant. Licence applications are currently issued separately and after planning

October 2005

FINAL REPORT Bat Conservation Review

The Three Welsh National Parks, Pembrokeshire CC and CCW

permission. Even if planning permission is granted, the works cannot commence until the (Habitats Regulations) licence to disturb European protected species is granted. Licences will be granted only if the three licensing tests are met (Section 2.1) to the satisfaction of the Welsh Assembly Government. In addition to the need for licensing from the governmental authority, Regulation 3(4) of the Habitats Regulations (1994) requires competent authorities (this includes local planning authorities) to have regard to the provisions of the Habitats Directive. The Habitats Regulations, therefore, are also relevant to local planning authorities (LPAs) in the UK. LPAs must ensure that, through adherence to the Regulations, the provisions of the Habitats Directive are taken into account in a proper manner, and are a material consideration, when making all planning decisions. Planning decisions must be consistent with the obligations imposed by the Habitats Directive. Under UK and European legislation, bats are always protected, even when their presence has not been identified at an early stage in any works or development, and they must be taken into account during the planning process. If bats are found only after the development work has commenced, work must cease and CCW must be contacted immediately and given time to provide advice on special precautions which may be required. Local Planning Authorities In addition to the above responsibilities with respect to planning applications, LPAs have further roles in relation to bat conservation. LPAs must ensure that the conservation of protected species is taken into account at the strategic level of the planning system, for example in local plans/unitary development plans (UDPs) and local BAPs. In order to do this, LPAs may need to acquire information on the presence and distribution of bats, in order to better inform the planning system. Studies may be required to determine methods and means to obtain and assess information on bats to achieve this. All three NPAs in Wales have Local Plans, each containing policies specifically in relation to Nature Conservation (Brecon Beacons National Park Local Plan, Adopted May 1999; Pembrokeshire Coast National Park Local Plan, Adopted April 1999; Snowdonia National Park UDP 2001-2016). The PCNPA Local Plan is to be superseded by a Joint Unitary Development Plan (JUDP) which is being produced jointly by the National Park Authority and Pembrokeshire County Council. The Nature Conservation policies of each Local Plan restrict developments which may adversely affect statutory and non-statutory sites (such as SACs, National Nature Reserves, SSSIs and local nature reserves), protected species, species of conservation importance, and wildlife corridors. However, none of these policies specify the need for surveys to determine the presence of protected species in relation to proposed developments. The Brecon Beacons National Park Local Plan will also be superseded by a UDP, which includes policies that specify the need for surveys to determine the presence of protected species in relation to proposed developments, in which the onus is placed on the developer. In 2003 an English Nature study was completed on development control, local authorities and protected species surveys (Gillespie & Rasey 2003) that assessed current local planning authority practice on deciding when protected species surveys were required in England. Information was collected from local planning authorities in England using questionnaires. One of the main findings was that often protected species, including bats, were considered only during the post-submission period, and not considered at the planning application stage. This led to a significant proportion of cases where protected species became an issue at a late stage of a planning application, often resulting in delays in determination. It was suggested that there was scope to develop basic criteria for determining when to request surveys. In addition, it was highlighted that protected species information, including bats, although often available, was poorly disseminated through the local

October 2005

FINAL REPORT Bat Conservation Review

The Three Welsh National Parks, Pembrokeshire CC and CCW

planning authorities, where it was found that there could be improvements to availability and usability of data. Mitchell-Jones (2004) recently noted the following in relation to the requirement for protected species surveys: The High Court has ruled (R. v. Cornwall County Council ex parte Jill Hardy, 22 September 2000) that for developments requiring Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) where there are grounds for believing that protected species may occur, environmental information (primarily survey results) needs to be provided to the Local Planning Authority before determination, and that initial surveys to determine the presence of protected species should not be conditioned. It seems logical that these principles apply more widely to non-EIA developments as well, since the guidance in PPG9 regarding protected species being a material consideration is difficult, if not impossible, to implement where no survey information exists. Ideally, an impact assessment should inform the drawing up of detailed development plans, so that impacts can be avoided where possible. It is therefore important that this stage is undertaken as early as possible in the planning process.

10

October 2005

FINAL REPORT Bat Conservation Review

The Three Welsh National Parks, Pembrokeshire CC and CCW

STATUS AND DISTRIBUTION OF BATS IN WALES

There are 16 (or 17 if Myotis myotis is included) species of bat extant in the UK. They are all insectivorous and represent two families, horseshoe bats (Rhinolophidae) and vespertilionid bats (Vespertilionidae). Of the 16 species, at least 14 occur in Wales, although two of these are from only occasional records (serotine and Leislers bat). In this section, a short summary of the three Welsh National Parks is given to highlight the differences in their landscapes and habitats. Then, an overview is provided of the status and distribution of each bat species found in Wales, with particular emphasis on the three National Park areas. The population estimates are taken from Harris et al. (1995) as these are the most recent population estimates available for all bat species in the UK. However, it should be noted that several assumptions were made by the authors in making these estimates and they should only be taken as a guide to the actual bat populations. Table 3-1 summarises the status afforded to each species of bat found in Wales. Table 3-1. Status of bat species found in Wales (Hutson 1993)

Species
Greater horseshoe bat Lesser horseshoe bat Daubentons bat Brandts bat Whiskered Natterers bat Bechsteins bat Common pipistrelle Soprano pipistrelle Noctule Leislers bat Serotine Barbastelle Brown long-eared bat

UK Conservation Status
Endangered Endangered Not threatened Endangered Endangered Not threatened Rare Not threatened Not threatened Vulnerable Vulnerable Vulnerable Rare Not threatened

11

October 2005

FINAL REPORT Bat Conservation Review

The Three Welsh National Parks, Pembrokeshire CC and CCW

3.1

The National Parks

The locations of the three National Parks in Wales can be seen on the National Park map (Fig 3-1). This report concentrates mainly on these three areas, but much of the information and recommendations made will be relevant to a wider area.

Figure 3-1. National Parks in England and Wales

3.1.1

Brecon Beacons National Park

The Brecon Beacons National Park covers 1344 square kilometres (520 square miles), comprising hill, moorland, rivers, scarps, gorges and farmland. Four groups of hills provide the major landforms in the Park, these being: The Black Mountain (Mynydd Du) (the most westerly range of hills), including two dramatic glacial lakes at the foot of steep scarp slopes - Llyn y Fan Fach and Llyn y Fan Fawr.

12

October 2005

FINAL REPORT Bat Conservation Review

The Three Welsh National Parks, Pembrokeshire CC and CCW

The Great Forest (Fforest Fawr) where upland streams flow into two rivers (Hepste and Mellte) that themselves flow into the Afon Nedd (River Neath) and thence into Swansea Bay. These streams and rivers cut through spectacular scenery of gorges, waterfalls and cliffs in the Waterfalls Area. The Brecon Beacons (the hill range that lend their name to this National Park) dominate the skyline south of the town of Brecon. Their summit, Pen y Fan, is the highest hill in southern Britain (886m). The Black Mountains (the most easterly range of hills) form the border between Wales and England. The general picture is dominated by the unenclosed moorland commons above the fence line (about 250-300m above sea level), with large areas of heavily grazed vegetation, remnant areas of heather moorland and blanket bog, large blocks of coniferous plantation and remnant areas of upland woodland. There is very little scrub or woodland on the hillsides. The main valley of the River Usk runs from west to east. The floodplain provides the main area for arable crop production in the Park but the majority of the lowlands are comprised of permanent pasture enclosed by hedgerows and some dry stone walls (especially on the higher pastures). There are only a few blocks of broadleaved woodland in the lowlands, with most woodland being linear strips on valley sides and roadsides, frequently closing over the tops of the roads. The density of settlement patterns increases from west to east. Farming is the main land use and has the most obvious influence on the landscape. Most farms include old stone outbuildings such as barns and livestock sheds as well as modern metal buildings. The stone buildings may still possess the original stone tiles or slates on a timber roof frame, though old and new corrugated iron roofs are common too. There are also a significant number of isolated stone field barns within areas of permanent pasture. Geology and climate The majority of the Park is made up of Old Red Sandstone (ORS) rocks of the Devonian age. These span the whole width of the area and form the north and northeast facing escarpments of the principal mountain blocks as well as the plateaux to the north and south of these scarps. Overlying the ORS, although at a lower altitude due to a dip to the south, lies the northern rim of the South Wales coalfield. Most prominent is a band of Carboniferous limestone, which in places forms a conspicuous escarpment. The limestone area exhibits a range of karst features including limestone pavement, river sinks and some of the longest cave systems in Britain. To the south and overlying the limestone is an area of Carboniferous millstone grit which forms escarpments, plateaux, sink holes and areas of gritstone pavement. As is true for most of Wales inland from the coast, the climate within the Park can be characterised as slightly cold to cool, with milder winters and cooler summers than occur further east along the Welsh Marches and England but less equable than occur year-round along the coast. This effect is modified by altitude, where areas above 200m within the Park (the upland zone) become cooler still (average air temperatures fall 0.60C for every 100m rise in altitude). Soils are moderately wet throughout the Park, a factor that favours pastoral over arable production. Finally, many areas of the Park are affected by high levels of exposure to wind, so that tree growth is poor and ericaceous plants (heather, bilberry) are abundant.

13

October 2005

FINAL REPORT Bat Conservation Review

The Three Welsh National Parks, Pembrokeshire CC and CCW

3.1.2

Pembrokeshire Coast National Park

The Pembrokeshire Coast National Park covers an area of approximately 225 square miles. The National Park comprises predominantly lowland landscape, dominated by the coast. The maritime influence extends across the National Park and the county of Pembrokeshire as a whole. The National Park can be divided into four main areas. The north coast is characterised by steep, rugged cliffs with exposed rocky shores and cobble beach. Inland from the north coast, the landscape is dominated by the Preseli Hills which rise to 1760 feet above sea level at their highest point. The Preseli Hills are bisected by the Gwaun Valley, characterised by steep, wooded slopes and tree-lined Gwaun River. Wetland dominates the valley bottom at the eastern end. The Nevern Valley which lies to the north of the Preseli hills is the second of these two major river valleys, and is also characterised by steep, wooded valley sides. Both valleys are glacial meltwater channels which open out onto the north coast of Pembrokeshire. The Preseli Hills are generally open and windswept, characterised by heathland and grassland with extensive flushes and mires on the northern slopes of Mynydd Preseli, above Brynberian. The west coast is dominated by exposed rugged cliffs, with wide sandy beaches backed by cobble in between. The coastal slopes support vegetation which ranges from bracken and scrub to more open sea cliff grassland and heath. A short distance off the mainland coast lie the islands of Ramsey, Skomer and Skokholm, with lonely Grassholm island some 10 miles offshore. Away from the coast, most of the land is intensively farmed, with a mixture of livestock and arable farming. Small stream valleys (often wooded) and traditional earth/stone banks with hedges provide important corridors for wildlife in an otherwise intensively managed lowland landscape. A major feature of the National Park is the Milford Haven Waterway and Daugleddau Estuary. Essentially a drowned river valley (or Ria), the Milford Haven Waterway and Daugleddau Estuary are sheltered estuary landscapes, with a central urban and industrialised section which includes oil refineries, a naval dockyard and an international ferry terminal. The upper parts of the Daugleddau Estuary are frequently wooded (coniferous, deciduous and mixed woodland, often on ancient seminatural woodland sites), or are bordered by pasture. Saltmarsh and freshwater marshes are features, together with numerous small tributary pills and streams. The middle and lower sections of the Milford Haven Waterway include larger rivers and their estuaries such as Pembroke River, and wide, shallow embayments such as Angle Bay. Artificial structures of interest (to/for bats) include old quarries, adits and a series of mainly Victorian fortifications along the north and south sides of the Haven. The South Pembrokeshire coast is dominated by cliffs and rocky shores, interspersed by sandy beaches backed by sand dunes. Much of the south coast comprises carboniferous limestone cliffs, with numerous caves, stacks and arches. Away from the MoD ranges at Castlemartin and areas such as Stackpole, Freshwater West and Freshwater East, semi-natural vegetation is frequently restricted to the cliff tops and coastal slopes. Inland, the landscape is dominated by intensively farmed land with traditional field boundaries and stream valleys providing vital corridors for wildlife. Freshwater marshes, with pockets of wet scrub/woodland characterise the Ritec Valley, inland from Tenby. In Pembrokeshire, bats use a wide variety of natural and artificial structures for roosts, ranging from outbuildings, lofts, cellars, old ice houses, tunnels and castles to sea caves, and indeed deep cracks and crevices in sea cliffs. River and stream valleys, traditional field boundaries and hedges alongside roads are important flyways and feeding corridors for bats.

14

October 2005

FINAL REPORT Bat Conservation Review

The Three Welsh National Parks, Pembrokeshire CC and CCW

3.1.3

Snowdonia National Park

The Snowdonia National Park was established in 1951 and is the second largest of the 11 National Parks in England and Wales. The Park covers 2,171 square km (840 square miles) and stretches from Cardigan Bays High Water Mark in the west, to the Conwy Valley in the east and from the River Dyfi and its estuary in the south to the coast of Conwy Bay as far as Conwy in the north. The Snowdonia National Park takes its name from Snowdon which, at 1065m (3,560 ft), is the highest peak in Wales and England. In Welsh, Snowdon used to be called Yr Wyddfa Fawr (The Great Tomb or the Great Throne) or Carnedd y Cawr (the Cairn of the Giant). Nowadays it is simply called Yr Wyddfa, but the various names bear testament to a land steeped in legends, history and tradition. This is the ancient Kingdom of Gwynedd, the heart of Wales and the stronghold of Cymraeg, the Welsh Language. The Welsh name for the National Park is Eryri (The Highlands). The Natural Beauty of Snowdonia National Park Authority Snowdonia is synonymous with extensive areas of windswept uplands and jagged peaks, the raison dtre for its National Park designation. The nine mountain ranges cover approximately 52% of the Park and include many peaks that are over 3,000 feet (915m). Apart from the beauty and charm of its high mountains, Snowdonia has inspiring natural and semi-natural habitats. It is a delightfully varied landscape of steep river gorges, waterfalls, passes and green valleys. Remnants of the once common oak, ash, rowan and hazel woodlands are found scattered throughout the Park whilst the beautiful Dyfi, Mawddach and Dwyryd estuaries and 23 miles of coastline and sandy beaches contribute to the overall diversity of habitat forms. This range of habitats is recognised nationally and internationally by the numerous designations ranging from Local Conservation Areas and Sites of Special Scientific Interest to Special Areas of Conservation and the Dyfi Estuary which is a UNESCO Biosphere Reserve. The Geology of Snowdonia National Park Authority The complex and diverse geology of Snowdonia has done much to shape the present landscape. Sea and land have changed place more than once. Great mountain ranges have been pushed up out of the oceans only to be slowly eroded away, their debris carried by the rivers and laid on the sea bed to form the substance of future mountains. Volcanic rocks have produced the distinctive jagged features of Snowdon, Cadair Idris, the Glyders, the Carneddau and the Arenigs. A distinguishing feature of the rocks of Snowdonia is that some are very old. The fossil shell fragments on the summit of Snowdon are a memory of life on the seabed over 500 million years ago. The most famous physical feature of Snowdonia is the Harlech Dome centred on what we now know as the Rhinogs. The original uplift of sedimentary rocks, composed of muds and sands, were altered by volcanic activity and have become the slates and grits of today. In recent geological terms, Ice Age activity has done much to shape the landscape. The glaciers of 10,000 years ago scoured out great U-shaped valleys including Llanberis and Nant Gwynant in the north and Tal-y-Llyn in the south. The same period also formed rocky cwms or corries, hanging tributary valleys many of which have breathtaking waterfalls cascading over them, whilst the characteristic pinnacled knife edge ridges are the remnants of ancient lava fields.

15

October 2005

FINAL REPORT Bat Conservation Review

The Three Welsh National Parks, Pembrokeshire CC and CCW

3.2

Bat Species their status in Wales and the Welsh National Parks
Greater horseshoe bat The distribution of the endangered greater horseshoe bat (Rhinolophus ferrumequinum) in Britain is restricted to south Wales and south-west England. It is a UK BAP species, and all three Parks have, or will have, a species action plan (SAP) for the greater horseshoe bat. The current population is estimated to be between 4,000 and 6,000 bats in the UK. In Pembrokeshire, there are an estimated 600 adult bats in three known maternity colonies and 388 pups were born in 2003 (Haycock & Hodges 2004, unpublished data). A transitory roost is also known in Carew Castle. Two hibernation sites are known of in the BBNP. No maternity roosts are known in SNP, although a few individuals have been recorded in north Wales in recent years. For example, one bat was found hibernating in a disused mine in the Conwy Valley in 2002, although the species has not yet been recorded as breeding in Snowdonia. There are several known hibernacula in the PCNP, many of which are on the coast. Two SACs in Wales, Pembrokeshire Bat Sites and Bosherston Lakes, which is within the PCNP, and Wye Valley and Forest of Dean Bat Sites (crossing the border into England and falling within the Wye Valley Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB)), alone account for around 15% of the UK population of greater horseshoe bats. Currently, a total of 35 breeding or year-round roosts and 380 hibernation sites are known in the UK. Annual population monitoring is carried out on this species by PCNP and the Pembrokeshire Bat Group at Carew Castle and by CCW elsewhere in Wales. Proposals have also been made for Wales-wide surveillance. A recent study of the molecular ecology of this species suggests that the Welsh colonies of greater horseshoe bats are genetically isolated from the English colonies, and are of lower genetic variability (Rossiter et al. 2000). The study suggests that genetic exchange between colonies could be enhanced by improving connectivity between them. The conservation implications of this are discussed further in Section 5. Lesser horseshoe bat The endangered lesser horseshoe bat (R. hipposideros) is more widely distributed than the greater horseshoe bat, but is still restricted to Wales, south-west England and west Ireland. It is a UK BAP species and all three Parks have or plan to have a SAP for this species. The current population is estimated to be approximately 17,000 bats in the UK, around 10,000 of which are found in Wales (Harris et al. 1995). Around a quarter of the UK population is found within the area of one SAC on the border of England and Wales, Wye Valley and Forest of Dean Bat Sites. Thirteen maternity colonies are known in Pembrokeshire in addition to several hibernation sites. At least twelve maternity colonies are known so far in BBNP, supporting a population of around 1,100 females, in addition to a number of hibernation sites. The largest known maternity roost for lesser horseshoe bats in the Parks is at Bryn-y-gwin Isaf SSSI/SAC in the Snowdonia National Park, where 526 adult bats were counted in 2002 (Halliwell & Matthews 2004). Over 30 maternity colonies have been recorded within SNP. The area also supports many hibernation sites in disused mines, the majority used by small numbers of bats but a few used by over 50 bats. Recent data (from 1993 to 1997) have shown that the lesser horseshoe bat population is not in decline, and may be rising (Bat Conservation Trust 2001; Warren & Witter 2002). Population monitoring continues in Wales by CCW for as many maternity roosts as possible each year. The most recent analysis shows that the population of lesser horseshoe bats in Wales continues to increase, with the largest colony (Glynllifon, Caernarfonshire) supporting 562 bats (Halliwell &

16

October 2005

FINAL REPORT Bat Conservation Review

The Three Welsh National Parks, Pembrokeshire CC and CCW

Matthews 2004). Numbers are declining, however, at some roost sites, and this may be due to deterioration in the condition of the sites. Daubentons bat The Daubentons bat (Myotis daubentonii) is distributed widely across the UK. It has an estimated population of 150,000 in the UK, with around 15,000 of those bats occurring in Wales (Harris et al. 1995). Summer and winter sites are known from all three Parks. Whiskered and Brandts bats Whiskered (M. mystacinus) and Brandts bat (M. brandtii) are both found in England, Wales and southern Scotland, although their distributions are patchy. The two species were only separated in the 1970s and their identification is sometimes difficult due to their similar appearance and distribution. The UK population of whiskered bats is estimated at around 40,000, with around 8,000 bats in Wales; the UK population of Brandts bats is thought to be slightly smaller at around 30,000 with around 7,000 bats in Wales (Harris et al. 1995). Both species are thought to be widespread in all three Parks, although few roosts are known and details of the status and distribution of these populations are not well understood. Natterers bat The Natterers bat (M. nattereri) is found across the UK, except in northern Scotland. There is a SAP for this species in SNPA. The population is estimated to be around 100,000, with around 12,500 bats in Wales (Harris et al. 1995). Summer and winter sites are known from all three Parks, but few roosts are known and details of the status and distribution of these populations are not well understood. Bechsteins bat The Bechsteins bat (Myotis bechsteinii) is one of the rarest mammals in the UK, and its distribution is restricted to southern England and south-east Wales. Few maternity roost sites are known and the population is estimated to be round 1,500 bats in the UK (Harris et al. 1995). This most recent population estimate is not divided into estimated numbers of bats in England and Wales. One bat was recorded recently in Wales in the BBNP; it has not been recorded in the PCNP. Bechsteins bat is a UK BAP species and BBNPA has a SAP for this bat. Pipistrelles Pipistrelles are the most abundant bats in the UK and are widely distributed throughout the UK. Pipistrelles have recently been divided into two species, the common pipistrelle (Pipistrellus pipistrellus) and the soprano pipistrelle (P. pygmaeus) (Barratt et al. 1997; Jones & Barratt 1999). Although not threatened, pipistrelles have undergone a significant decline in numbers in the last century. The National Bat Colony Survey (Bat Conservation Trust) suggests a population decline of approximately 70% between 1978 and 1993. The national population estimate for both pipistrelle species together is currently around 2,000,000 (Harris et al. 1995). Both species are common and widespread in all three Parks and some sizeable maternity colonies, supporting several hundred adult bats are known. At three sites in SNP between 1000 and 1500 bats have been recorded annually. For example, a very large roost of the soprano pipistrelle is located at Capel Curig in SNP, which contains 1,000 adult bats. Little is known of hibernacula however. The pipistrelle UK SAP covers both species, and SNPA has a pipistrelle SAP; PCNPA has one SAP for each of the two pipistrelle species. The two species are treated separately in this report. A third species of pipistrelle, Nathusius pipistrelle (P. nathusii) was recorded as a vagrant species in the UK until the 1980s. Since then, a growing number of records have been found of Nathusius pipistrelle, including two maternity roosts in England (Russ et al. 2000). Nathusius pipistrelle has

17

October 2005

FINAL REPORT Bat Conservation Review

The Three Welsh National Parks, Pembrokeshire CC and CCW

been recorded on several occasions in Pembrokeshire although no maternity roosts have been found. It is possibly present as a breeding species to the south of the BBNP in Monmouthshire and in the Vale of Glamorgan but its status in Wales is as yet unclear. This species is therefore considered only briefly in this report. Noctule The noctule (Nyctalus noctula) is found in England, Wales and southern Scotland. The UK population is estimated to be around 50,000, with around 5,000 bats in Wales (Harris et al. 1995). It is possible that this species may be declining in Wales. Summer sites are known from all three Parks, but few roosts are known and details of the status and distribution of these populations are not well understood. There is little information on hibernacula. The SNPA has a SAP for this species. Leislers bat The Leislers bat (N. leisleri) is quite rare in the UK, although it is more common in Ireland. It is mainly found in central and south-eastern parts of England, although it has been recorded in Wales occasionally, including counties south of the BBNP. The estimated UK population is around 10,000 bats (Harris et al. 1995). Serotine The serotine (Eptesicus serotinus) is mainly found in south-east England, south of a line from the Wash to the Bristol Channel. There is a scattering of records, however, in Wales, although no roost sites have been located. Its status may be described as vagrant for Wales. The UK population is estimated at around 15,000 bats (Harris et al. 1995). Barbastelle The rare barbastelle (Barbastella barbastellus) is found in southern England and Wales, south of a line from the Wash to Anglesey, and therefore potentially occurs in all three Parks. Major declines in the British populations of this species have probably occurred during the last century and in 1995, the UK population was estimated to be around 5,000 bats (Harris et al. 1995), but there are few empirical data to substantiate this estimate. In more recent years, improved technologies for the study of bats have resulted in the location of several maternity colonies, including one in Pembrokeshire (Greenaway 2001). It was last recorded in the BBNP in 1978. This is a UK BAP species and the Pembrokeshire LBAP will include a SAP for the barbastelle. There are two recent detector records in SNP, from Tremadog and Dolgellau. Brown long-eared bat The brown long-eared bat (Plecotus auritus) is widely distributed throughout the UK. The UK population is estimated at around 200,000, with 20,000 bats in Wales (Harris et al. 1995). Summer and winter sites are known and it appears to be common and widespread in all three Parks.

18

October 2005

FINAL REPORT Bat Conservation Review

The Three Welsh National Parks, Pembrokeshire CC and CCW

THREATS TO BAT SPECIES

A short section is dedicated to each species summarising the main factors affecting bat populations that have been identified from a review of published literature (Appendix 1), and additional information from the areas of the three National Parks in Wales. Where it has not been recorded that species are declining, or the status of the species is unclear, the potential factors that would result in loss of roosts or important habitats are listed. The main threats are those that result in loss of roosts, for example in trees, buildings, underground sites and bridges, and those that result in loss of habitat, which for the most part has been a result of historical and continuing agricultural intensification. Intensification of agricultural activities leads to loss or degradation of feeding habitat for bats, for example chemical improvement or ploughing of permanent pasture, clearance or poor management of linear features such as hedgerows, loss of suitable riparian habitats, and loss of insect abundance and diversity through the increased use of insecticides. Greater horseshoe bat The main factors that may cause loss or decline of this species include: reduction in food availability, particularly loss of old pasture, through agricultural intensification; loss, destruction and disturbance of roosting and hibernation sites, particularly where a single area provides a series of all roost types required for a population (including breeding, transitional, winter roosts and night and/or feeding perches); loss, damage or fragmentation of foraging habitat and flyways, through the conversion of mosaics of habitat containing woodland, hedgerows and pasture to arable land, particularly the conversion of hay meadows to silage which is cut 3 times per year rather than once. This is an example of intensification rather than land use change. In Pembrokeshire silage fields have high levels of fertiliser input and may be cut up to three times in the growing season; the use of avermectin worming treatments leading to a reduction of available insect prey attracted by the dung; lack of suitably connected foraging habitat (a mosaic of pasture, hedgebanks, hedgerows and woodland) within the foraging zone up to 14km radius of breeding roosts essential for the maintenance of greater horseshoe bat populations; and loss or disruption of key flyways between different roosts (the greater horseshoe bat is a wideranging species: there are hibernacula used by the Pembrokeshire population that are outside the county).

Lesser horseshoe bat The main factors that may cause loss or decline of this species include: loss, destruction and disturbance to maternity roosts (a result of deterioration, renovation or change of use of old buildings and barns which exclude them from use by the bats); loss, destruction and disturbance to underground hibernation sites through a change of use, leisure use or for safety purposes (underground sites may be quite small features and easily overlooked); loss, damage or fragmentation of important foraging habitats such as deciduous woodland and connecting linear features such as hedgerows and tree lines;

19

October 2005

FINAL REPORT Bat Conservation Review -

The Three Welsh National Parks, Pembrokeshire CC and CCW

lack of suitably connected foraging habitats (a mosaic of deciduous woodland, hedgerows and tree lines) within a 2-3 km radius of breeding roosts essential for the maintenance of lesser horseshoe bat populations; and loss of cover immediately adjacent to roost sites.

Daubentons bat The current factors that may cause loss or decline of this species include: loss, destruction or disturbance to roosts in bridges and trees during maintenance works; excessive tidying up e.g., removal of ivy or trees adjacent to foot paths; loss, destruction and disturbance to underground hibernation sites through a change of use, leisure use or for safety purposes; loss or disturbance of suitable riverine habitats where bank-side trees and vegetation provide shelter foraging opportunities for bats; and loss of/alteration to underground swarming sites.

Whiskered and Brandts bats The current factors that may cause loss or decline of this species include: loss, destruction or disturbance to roosts in bridges, trees and buildings during maintenance or renovation works; loss, destruction and disturbance to underground hibernation sites through a change of use, leisure use or for safety purposes, also of buildings used as hibernacula; loss of suitable foraging habitats (including woodlands, rivers and hedgerows) and edge habitats; and loss of/alteration to underground swarming sites.

Natterers bat The current factors that may cause loss or decline of this species include: loss, destruction or disturbance to building roosts during renovation, conversion or change of use or buildings used as roosts (particularly barns, and in Wales, old mills); loss of mature trees for roosts, including hedgerow trees; loss, destruction and disturbance of hibernation sites through change of use, leisure use for safety purposes or as a result of development (hibernacula also include loose stone walls that are typical of old stone outbuildings); loss of foraging habitat (including semi-natural broadleaved woodland and wetlands) due to agricultural intensification and inappropriate riparian management, and loss of connecting linear features such as hedgerows; and loss of/alteration to underground swarming sites.

Bechsteins bat The current factors causing loss or decline of this species are not well documented but may include: loss, damage or fragmentation of open, ancient semi-natural deciduous woodland on which it depends for foraging areas;

20

October 2005

FINAL REPORT Bat Conservation Review -

The Three Welsh National Parks, Pembrokeshire CC and CCW

loss, destruction or disturbance of roost sites, particularly old trees providing dead branches, cracks, crevices and woodpecker holes for roosting sites through inappropriate woodland management; and loss of/alteration to underground swarming sites.

Common pipistrelle The current factors that may cause loss or decline of this species include: reduction in food availability due to agricultural intensification and inappropriate riparian habitat management; over-use of pesticides, including herbicides in private gardens close to roosts, reducing quantity of insect prey; loss of foraging habitats and flyways, particularly due to loss of wetlands and hedgerows; loss of hibernation roost sites in trees and buildings; and loss, destruction or disturbance of roosts including exclusion, particularly of large roosts, and use of toxic timber chemicals resulting in the loss of maternity roosts.

Soprano pipistrelle The current factors that may cause loss or decline of this species include: reduction in food availability, particularly due to inappropriate riparian habitat management; loss of foraging habitats and flyways, particularly due to loss of wetlands; loss of hibernation roost sites in trees and buildings; and loss, destruction or disturbance of roosts including exclusion, particularly of large roosts, and use of toxic timber chemicals resulting in the loss of maternity roosts (this species can be especially vulnerable because it forms such large roosts);

Noctule The current factors that may cause loss or decline of this species include: loss, destruction or disturbance of roosts in old trees providing suitable roosting sites such as cracks, crevices and woodpecker holes through inappropriate woodland management; reduction in food availability due to agricultural intensification, inappropriate riparian habitat management, change of hay meadows to silage production and increased use of insecticides; and loss of foraging habitat, particularly pasture.

Leislers bat The current factors that may cause loss or decline of this species include: loss or disturbance to building roosts during renovation, conversion or change of use of buildings used as roosts; loss of hibernation roost sites in trees and buildings; and loss of suitable foraging habitats including deciduous woodland and pasture.

21

October 2005

FINAL REPORT Bat Conservation Review Serotine

The Three Welsh National Parks, Pembrokeshire CC and CCW

The current factors that may cause loss or decline of this species include: loss or disturbance to building roosts during renovation, conversion or change of use or buildings used as roosts, as serotines are loyal to their roost sites; and loss of suitable foraging habitats including cattle pastures, deciduous woodland and hedges.

Barbastelle The current factors that may cause loss or decline of this species are not well documented but may include: loss or fragmentation of foraging habitats including ancient semi-natural deciduous woodland, riparian habitats, hedgerows and meadows; loss, destruction or disturbance of summer roost sites, particularly mature or dead trees with crevices and flaking bark, through inappropriate woodland management; loss, destruction or disturbance of autumn and winter roost sites through inappropriate woodland management, as these sites are often found low to the ground; loss, destruction or disturbance to roosts in buildings during renovation, conversion or change of use (particularly barns and buildings with large roof spaces) as the bats are loyal to their roost sites; reduction in food availability as a result of agricultural intensification; loss of cover in the vicinity of roost sites (e.g., removal of dense shrub layer/understorey in woodlands); disturbance to underground swarming sites; and loss/disruption of flyways e.g., woodland edges, mature hedge banks.

Brown long-eared bat The current factors that may cause loss or decline of this species include: loss, destruction or disturbance to roosts in buildings during renovation, conversion or change of use (particularly barns and buildings with large roof spaces) as the bats are loyal to their roost sites; loss of suitable foraging habitat, particularly deciduous woodland, especially within 0.5 km of roost site; loss of underground swarming sites; loss/fragmentation of foraging habitats, including ancient semi-natural woodland, riparian habitats, mature hedge banks and meadows; loss/disturbance/destruction of summer roosts e.g., in woodland and mature trees, as a result of inappropriate management; and loss of cover in the immediate vicinity of roost sites.

22

October 2005

FINAL REPORT Bat Conservation Review

The Three Welsh National Parks, Pembrokeshire CC and CCW

5 5.1

BAT ROOSTS Roosting requirements

Table 5-1 provides a summary of the key roosting types and requirements of each species. The table is divided into the requirements for maternity roosts, hibernation roosts and also other roost types that may be important to that species. A comprehensive review of the roost requirements of all bat species is provided in Appendix 1. When referring to Table 5-1 it should be borne in mind that this table, like Table 6-1, does not provide a definitive account of roosting (or foraging) behaviour for any of the species listed. Furthermore, bats are intelligent animals highly tuned to respond to prevailing environmental conditions and therefore their behaviour may vary from year to year.

23

October 2005

FINAL REPORT Bat Conservation Review

The Three Welsh National Parks, Pembrokeshire CC and CCW

Table 5-1. Roost types and key requirements of bat species during the summer and winter in Wales.

Species

Summer Main roost types used Old or decaying, undisturbed buildings Key requirements Direct flight access into roosting position in building preferred (greater than 400 x 300 mm). Requires buildings that offer a range of microclimates (e.g., temperatures) within the roost. High constant humidity might be necessary too. Prefer warm roof space, solar heating may be required (mean July temp greater than 20C) and preferably a cool site within the same building. No artificial lights shining on or across roost access. Cover close to roost access (e.g., trees or shrubs) providing sheltered light sampling areas. Direct flight access to roost. Direct flight access into roosting position in building preferred (greater than 300 x 200 mm). Requires warm roof space, (mean July temp greater than 20C) and preferably a cool site within the same building, giving a range of microclimates, e.g., range of temperatures within the same building. No artificial lights shining on or across roost access. Vegetation or other cover close to roost access (e.g., trees or shrubs) providing sheltered light-sampling areas.

Winter Main roost types used Underground sites Buildings cold basements or cellars Key requirements Unobstructed sheltered access by bats preferred. No disturbance. Site cool and dark inside (6-10C) with humidity. Temperature in each roost needs to be relatively stable.

Other roosts Roost types used Feeding perches Mating roosts in buildings or underground sites. Transitory and male roosts Night roosts Key requirements Low branches of hedges or woodland edge trees in sheltered areas. Buildings that are suitable for use as day roosts. Buildings or underground sites Outbuildings and garages.

Greater horseshoe bat

Lesser horseshoe bat

Old, undisturbed buildings, although also known to roost in buildings that are currently used, and in modern roofs. Will show some adaptability under pressure of roost loss.

Underground sites Buildings: cold basements or cellars.

Unobstructed sheltered access by bats preferred. No disturbance.

Transitory roosts Night roosts Mating roosts

Site cool and dark inside (6-10C) and high humidity. Usually less than 10 km from maternity sites.

Buildings such as outbuildings or garages, in the vicinity of the main roost may be used during the day or night. Outbuildings; garages. Sites that are suitable as day roosts.

24

October 2005

FINAL REPORT Bat Conservation Review

The Three Welsh National Parks, Pembrokeshire CC and CCW

Species

Summer

Winter

Other roosts

Daubentons bat

Main roost types used Trees Bridges (mainly stone) Old stone buildings, deep cracks and crevices in stone walls and vaulted ceilings. Buildings Trees

Key requirements Roost within 2-300m of water Mature and dead trees in parkland, woodland and at roadsides within ca. 2 km of water.

Main roost types used Underground sites Bridges; large old stone buildings Trees

Key requirements Found in caves, mines and tunnels. Found in tight cracks, crevices in walls and ceilings (e.g., vaulted ceilings). Cavities in trunks and limbs; cracks and crevices.

Roost types used Swarming sites

Key requirements Underground, may be essential for mating in autumn (not known in Pembrokeshire).

Brandts/ whiskered

Mainly roost in crevices in trees. When in buildings, these bats tend to form clusters in the roof void.

Underground Also in buildings

Found on open walls or in tight cracks in caves.

Swarming sites

Brandts recorded at underground swarming sites in autumn (not known in Pembrokeshire) Underground, may be essential for mating in autumn (not known in Pembrokeshire).

Natterers bat

Buildings, particularly stone barns, and attics, churches; old mills (west Wales) Trees

Select crevices in stonework e.g., barns. Also roost in timber mortice joints in barns, other outbuildings and attics. Access points are important and may require light-sampling areas. Often roost close to water. Require several roosting sites at one location (used in rotation). Mature and dead trees should be retained to provide roost sites. Usually found in attics between late-May and mid-July. Prefer old trees with dead branches and rot holes. Select woodpecker holes on oaks. Require a number of tree roost sites providing different temperature regimes (which may be provided by the use of bat boxes). Mature and dead trees should be retained to provide roost sites.

Underground Large old stone buildings (e.g., castle)

Found in caves, mines and tunnels, sometimes squeezed into tight cracks. Found in deep cracks and crevices and cavities in vaulted ceilings and other stonework.

Swarming sites

Bechsteins bat This species is not known in Pembrokeshire ; no evidence yet reported of being a breeding species in

Tree holes e.g., woodpecker holes Bat boxes.

Underground Trees

Little known of requirements (Nothing known in Pembrokeshire). Recorded at sites south of BBNP just inside cave entrances in winter.

Swarming sites

Recorded at underground swarming sites in autumn.

25

October 2005

FINAL REPORT Bat Conservation Review

The Three Welsh National Parks, Pembrokeshire CC and CCW

Snowdonia or Brecon Beacons NPs. Species Summer Main roost types used Buildings, often modern Trees Bridges: cracks, crevices in old stone bridges; possibly also use modern bridges eg expansion joints. Buildings, often modern Trees May use several roosts through summer, although large colonies are more site faithful. Key requirements Prefer confined areas of building e.g., cavity walls, soffits, and between slates and roofing felt, under hanging tiles, and fascias. Winter Main roost types used Suite of buildings used in rotation Trees cavities/holes in limbs. Key requirements Probably mainly hibernates in cracks and crevices e.g., within stone walls and cavity walls; between roof timber joints i.e., similar locations as for Myotis nattereri. Other roosts Roost types used Mating roosts (Autumn) Key requirements Holes in groups of trees, bat boxes, buildings.

*Common pipistrelle

Soprano pipistrelle

Prefer confined areas of buildings e.g., cavity walls, soffits, and between slates and roofing felt. Larger colonies often found in cavity walls and gable ends. Likely to be near water (within 2 km). Large colonies are more site faithful. In the Brecon Beacons, nursery colonies may be larger than for common pipistrelle. Little is known of its requirements in Wales. Has been recorded on several occasions in Pembs. It is possible that a maternity colony is present within a 1930s housing development in south Wales.

Buildings Trees: cavities, holes in limbs. Also in tight cracks and crevices in trunks and limbs.

Probably mainly hibernates in cracks and crevices, e.g., within stone walls and cavity walls; between timber joints.

Mating roosts

Holes in groups of trees. Bat boxes, buildings, used during autumn.

Nathusiuss pipistrelle

Noctule

Old buildings (Pembs), large walls with crevices possibly important in BBNP Trees (rarely found in buildings) Trees buildings

Leislers bat (not known in Pembrokeshire)

Prefer woodpecker holes in mature trees or trees with dead wood on edges of woodland. Moves regularly between roost sites: several suitable trees in a given area required. May use several roosts during summer. Prefers confined areas, usually found around gable ends, under tiles and under soffits.

Trees. Occasionally use bat boxes. Trees Buildings

Cavities; holes in trunks; will also use bat boxes and is occasionally found in bird boxes in late autumn/early winter Little known of requirements.

Mating roosts

Tree holes; bat boxes

26

October 2005

FINAL REPORT Bat Conservation Review

The Three Welsh National Parks, Pembrokeshire CC and CCW

Serotine (Vagrant in Pembrokeshire)

Buildings Trees

Prefers buildings of around 1900, in cavities and crevices although has been known to use modern buildings. Limited experience of European roosts would suggest that Welsh mills would be very suitable. High roost loyalty.

Occasionally underground Buildings Occasionally underground

Little known of requirements.

Transitory roosts

(Recorded in a castle and in a sea cave in Pembrokeshire).

Species

Summer Main roost types used Trees Not known to use buildings in Pembs Key requirements Roosts in cracks and crevices in trees, under flaking bark or in vertical splits, in trees e.g., arising from storm damage. Trees must be in woodlands with a dense shrub or under storey layer, e.g., of holly and other evergreen shrubs. Requires a large range of roost sites, moves regularly between roosts, often every 2-3 days. Uses roost sites low to the ground (<2 m) in cold weather. Mature and dead trees should be retained to provide roost sites

Winter Main roost types used Trees Perhaps in buildings; uncertain of this in Pembrokeshire not recorded. Underground sites used only in exceptionally cold weather. Underground Trees Buildings Prefers contact with wood if available. Woodpecker holes; cracks and crevices in trunks of mature trees. Usually close to water or woodland (within 0.5 km). Requires cover/shelter immediately adjacent to roost sites. Note: in West Wales, Natterers bats are often found roosting with these bats, particularly in buildings with steeply pitched roofs. Key requirements Similar to those for summer roosts.

Other roosts Roost types used Swarming sites Key requirements Recorded at underground swarming sites in autumn not in Pembrokeshire, England only. Possibly uses very sheltered riverine woodland in Pembrokeshire.

Barbastelle

Brown longeared bat

Buildings, including churches and barns, village schools and rectories. Trees Bat boxes and bird boxes

Roof voids of large, old buildings or barns preferred, 2 m high by 4 m long minimum. Also found roosting in crevices in stone walls/ceilings. Typically roosts between the ridge board and roof apex.

Little known of requirements. Will hibernate in cracks and crevices in caves and underground structures, and walls and vaulted ceilings in old stone buildings

Feeding perches Night roosts Swarming sites

27

October 2005

FINAL REPORT Bat Conservation Review

The Three Welsh National Parks, Pembrokeshire CC and CCW

5.2

Roost loss
There have been few studies on the effects of roost loss on bat species in the UK, although most species are thought to be vulnerable to roost loss. Potentially, loss of roosts may have a significant effect on bat populations as the availability of roost sites may be limiting. Currently, there is insufficient knowledge of roost selection and requirements for most species to quantify the potential population effects of loss of roosts. The loss of a maternity or hibernation site is almost certainly significant to a local bat population. The significance of other types of roost site, such as night roosts or transitory roosts is less well understood, but their loss may be equally important to bat populations. The precautionary principle should therefore be exercised for the loss of roosts other than maternity roosts, particularly until we have a better understanding of the importance of these roost types. Buildings Roost loss in buildings may occur as a result of a variety of development or building proposals including: building demolition; conversion of buildings, particularly barns, to dwellings or for other purposes; building repairs and renovation; and isolation of the building (e.g., from key foraging areas; additional roosts) as a result of unsympathetic development around it.

Roost loss from dwelling houses may occur as a result of several activities including: roof repairs or alterations; extensions loft conversions other building repairs; soffit or barge board replacement; external lighting; timber treatment; exclusion of the bats; and isolation of roosts through removal of linking hedgerows, hedge banks, tree lines or other local habitat change.

These works might affect the roost, access point(s) or both. Some of the above do not require planning permission or other forms of consent see Section 2.3 above. Loss of roosts in natural features e.g., trees; cliffs/rock faces and in artificial structures other than buildings may occur as a result of repairs, for example on bridges, or changes to a structure for safety reasons, e.g., tunnels or underground sites or changes in level of disturbance. Also worth noting is the potential cascade effect of loss of important roosts, which may affect the behaviour of bats at other roosts (including failure to turn up at regular roosts).

28

October 2005

FINAL REPORT Bat Conservation Review

The Three Welsh National Parks, Pembrokeshire CC and CCW

The following paragraphs summarise the findings from some studies that have been undertaken to investigate how certain works have affected the viability of roosts. Dwelling houses The need for further work on the effects of roost loss from dwelling houses has been highlighted by recent studies. Two studies have been carried out on the outcome of advice provided by statutory nature conservation organisations Scottish Natural Heritage and English Nature to roost owners on bat colony management and mitigation works (Wray et al. 2002; Moore et al. 2003). The English Nature study used questionnaires and follow-up visits to assess the outcome of advice given in response householders requesting advice about bat roosts in their dwelling houses, and to determine whether bats were still present following works carried out once the advice had been received. The study covered queries on general advice, queries in relation to remedial timber treatment, queries in relation to building work (ranging from minor decoration to loft conversions and extensions) and exclusion. Table 5-2 summarises the advice most frequently given, and the circumstances under which the bats were most likely and least likely to return to the dwelling house following the work. Overall, the study showed that around two-thirds of building and timber treatment cases resulted in successful return of the bats to the dwelling following completion, although in quite a number of the remaining cases the outcome was unknown. The report identified that the main threats to bat roosts in dwellings were loft conversions and soffit or fascia board replacement (Moore et al. 2003). Table 5-2. Summary of the results of the English Nature study on the outcome of bat advice Type of work Advice most commonly given Careful timing of works Continue with caution Following roof repairs Retain access points for bats When bat access points were retained, or gaps were left When treatment was carried out between October and April When treatment was carried out between May and September Following soffit or fascia replacement Cases in which bats most likely to return Following minor decorations Cases in which bats least likely to return Following loft conversions

Building repairs

Remedial timber treatment

Postpone until after bats leave Use a bat friendly chemical

Exclusion

Wait until bats leave and then block access points (using various methods)

N/A

N/A

A further study on the success of conservation advice and mitigation is ongoing (Barry Collins, Nottinghamshire Bat Group). To date, the work has shown similar results to that of the English

29

October 2005

FINAL REPORT Bat Conservation Review

The Three Welsh National Parks, Pembrokeshire CC and CCW

Nature study. The study has shown that, following remedial timber treatment and maintenance to church buildings, bats returned to most buildings but following soffit or fascia boards replacement, around three-quarters of bat roosts were lost (although the sample size is small). Following reroofing of dwelling houses, around one third of roosts were lost, mainly of brown long-eared bats. The study funded by Scottish Natural Heritage (Wray et al. 2002) also used questionnaires to assess the outcome of advice given in response to queries from roost owners in dwelling houses about bats. Queries were divided into those concerning exclusion and those concerning other bat-related issues that came to light between 1997 and 2000 throughout Scotland. A total of 286 questionnaires were sent out in relation to advice given on exclusions. Around two-thirds of exclusions carried out were reported to be successful and, given the percentage of exclusions completed, it is estimated that around 35 bat colonies per year are excluded in Scotland. In the majority of cases these exclusions will be of roosts of pipistrelle species. The study estimated that if an average of 80 bats per colony is assumed (Harris et al. 1995), an estimated 2,800 pipistrelle bats may be excluded from their roosts in Scotland each year. The study recommended that alternatives to exclusion are always explored in addition to the option of exclusion when advice is sought on bats in dwelling houses. The effects on the population of the above rate of roost loss are not known. However, the report suggested that if the estimated Scottish population of 550,000 pipistrelles +/- 50% is assumed (Harris et al. 1995), i.e., between 275,000 and 825,000 bats, between 0.3 and 1% of the Scottish pipistrelle population could be affected by exclusion each year. If alternative roosts are not readily available to the excluded bats, it is highly likely that this rate of exclusion will have a significant effect on pipistrelle populations. However, the fate of excluded roosts is not currently known, and it is therefore not possible to estimate how many of these colonies do or do not find alternative roost sites. In addition, it is worth noting that most pipistrelle roost exclusions are requested for very large colonies, as these are the colonies most likely to cause problems to roost owners through noise and smell. Exclusions on housing estates may also simply move the problem on within the estate. Development requiring planning permission In Dartmoor National Park, the National Park Authority Ecologist completed a study (Glendell 2003) on the effectiveness of bat conservation through development control. As part of the study to investigate the outcome of mitigation for bats during building works, a total of 15 sites for which planning permission had been applied were re-investigated for bats. Of these, in 5 cases the work had not gone ahead. In the remaining 10 sites, none of the mitigation measures implemented during loft conversions or demolitions were successful, whereas most were successful during re-roofing or house extensions. It was recommended that detailed architectural drawings be required as part of the planning conditions to allow checks to be made of the proposed bat mitigation measures in advance of the commencement of works. The following mitigation measures worked successfully where site supervision ensured that the mitigation works were completed properly: timing of works; incorporation of bat tiles; and provision/retention of access points for bats.

Provision of a short-term, temporary alternative roost during building works was not successful, probably because the bats were not given sufficient time to locate and adapt to the new roost site. The provision of bat access in a roof was not successful as the area provided was too small.

30

October 2005

FINAL REPORT Bat Conservation Review

The Three Welsh National Parks, Pembrokeshire CC and CCW

Barn conversions In recent years, conversion of barns into residential dwellings has become a popular and lucrative business, as the demand for traditional barns by farmers has decreased and the demand for accommodation or diversification of the farm business has increased, often in areas where planning permission for new build is more difficult to obtain. Timber-framed barns built between the 12th and 19th centuries are common in south-east England and many of these are listed buildings. In Hertfordshire, a survey of these types of barns revealed that around 80% were used by bats of several species, including Natterers bat, brown long-eared bat and both pipistrelle species (Briggs 1995). The barns may be used throughout the year and bats roost in the wooden mortice joints. A recent study in which 51 barns that had planning permission for conversion were re-surveyed for bats, showed that all 15 where development had not commenced were still used by bats (Briggs 2000). By contrast, of the 36 that were developed, only 8 barns that had been converted were still used by bats and colony size had decreased in these sites. Importantly bats continued to use the barns only in the following situations: when work was timed to avoid main periods in year when bats use buildings; for Natterers bat, where access to the original roosting sites were retained i.e., recessed mortice joints; and for brown long-eared bat, an example where a large bat loft was provided (3 m high by 5.5 m wide by 11 m long providing over 180 m3).

Light pollution from external lighting particularly around bat access points and removal or disturbance to important nearby habitat features, such as hedges and trees, may also contribute to roost loss. The Hertfordshire study highlighted the importance of barns to bats and some of the conservation issues that can arise from development involving barn conversions. In Wales, barn construction is often very different. Many outbuildings in the PCNP for example, are small stone outbuildings with cavity walls, corrugated asbestos or metal roofs supported by sawn pine timbers. This type of outbuilding is prevalent in Pembrokeshire, although larger barns are found in some of the bigger farm complexes, used by several different bat species including the Myotis species, brown longeared and greater and lesser horseshoe bats, as day and/or night feeding roosts. In the Snowdonia and Brecon Beacons national parks the majority of barns are stone built with either slate, stone tiles or corrugated metal/asbestos roofs on top of timber frames and these attract a similar range of species under similar circumstances. The bat conservation issues that arise from conversion of these and other stone buildings are common with those highlighted by the Hertfordshire study. In the BBNP and Snowdonia there are numerous large barns and barn complexes within the home farm, as well as smaller isolated field barns outside the allocated development curtilege. Many of these retain the slate or stone tiled roof on oak timbers, whilst others already possess replacement timbers and/or corrugated roofs. Numbers of planning applications for barn conversions in all three parks continue to be high. A significant proportion of the barns retain enough structural integrity to be likely to support bats (where the surrounding habitat is suitable) and yet for the majority of them records of bat use are made only when a prior inspection is possible before planning permission is granted. It should be noted that mitigation for roost loss in Pembrokeshire barns is potentially more difficult still: exterior and interior walls are usually sealed, denying bats access to crevices or cavity roost sites. Recreating cavities and other spaces that could be used by bats inside walls is not always a practical option. Therefore

31

October 2005

FINAL REPORT Bat Conservation Review

The Three Welsh National Parks, Pembrokeshire CC and CCW

owing to the range and rarity of the bat species affected, as well as the buildings involved, the potential adverse effects of barn conversions on bat conservation may be more severe in Wales. Trees Roost loss in trees may occur as a result of unsuitable woodland management in areas used by bats or because of tree-felling for safety reasons or for development. The significance of tree removal on tree-dwelling bat species is not clearly understood. It is possible that bat species that roost in trees are limited by the number of suitable roost sites. The effect on bat populations of the loss of dead and mature trees during forest clearance or felling for developments, for example road and housing schemes, is not well studied. Most tree-dwelling species switch roosts frequently, depending on environmental conditions. It is therefore likely that a significant number of suitable trees within a woodland area are required to support a breeding bat colony. Frequent roost switching in tree-dwelling species has been recorded in the USA, Australia, New Zealand and in the UK. It is well illustrated in a recent radio-tracking study of breeding female barbastelle in Italy, in which each bat used between 1 and 5 roost locations, and bats switched between these sites every 1 to 6 days (Russo et al. 2004). A study in Pembrokeshire produced similar results (Billington 2001), where barbastelle bats stayed in one roost for about two days either alone or in groups, before moving on. Night roosts Night roosts are also an important resource for some bat species. For example, greater horseshoe bats use night roosts between foraging bouts, particularly during the later part of the summer. A study in England showed that a female greater horseshoe bat used 2.7 night roosts on average, mainly barns and cattle-sheds (Rossiter et al. 2002). Three mother-daughter pairs were found either sharing night roosts or roosting within 50m of one another, whereas non-relatives did not share roost sites. The study did not suggest that information was shared on the location of night roosts through information transfer, and it is therefore thought that it may occur through maternal inheritance or tuition. The loss of these traditionally used sites could therefore result in a significant detrimental effect on the foraging success of greater horseshoe bats. In Pembrokeshire radio-tracking work has shown that greater horseshoe bats travel up to 14km from their day (maternity) roosts to feed (P.L. Duverg, Vincent Wildlife Trust, unpublished). Regular use is made of outbuildings on or in the vicinity of flyways linking roosts with favoured foraging areas. Availability of night roosts is thought to be important in the feeding strategies of individuals, which need access to shelter for rest and feeding. Providing appropriate mitigation for night roosts is difficult. Other bat species, including lesser horseshoe bat and brown long-eared bat also use night roosts. These may be located in barns, sheds, garages, porches and also in trees. Currently, little is known of the importance of these sites to bats, and the consequences of their loss. Given that it is only solitary bats that appear to use night roosts and this only occasionally, these roosts are probably overlooked during bat surveys. There are indications from ongoing research that these roosts extend a bats foraging range, as well as the possibility that bats may visit them when prospecting for new potential maternity roosts (Jean Matthews, personal communication).

5.2.1

Alternative roosts
Two types of alternative roost are considered here that might be provided as an option for roost owners who wish for bats to be excluded from their dwelling house for reasons of nuisance. First,

32

October 2005

FINAL REPORT Bat Conservation Review

The Three Welsh National Parks, Pembrokeshire CC and CCW

bat boxes may be placed within a roof space, thereby isolating problems caused by droppings and noise to a limited area that can be accessed and cleaned on a regular basis. Secondly, the use of artificial bat houses is discussed as an alternative to a bat roost within a building. Information on new roost provision is given in Bat Mitigation Guidelines (Mitchell-Jones 2004). Bat boxes within roof spaces The use of bat boxes within roof spaces was assessed in nine roost sites in Scotland (Wray et al. 2002), seven in soprano pipistrelle roosts, one in a common pipistrelle roost and one in a brown long-eared bat roost. The boxes were constructed for a variety of reasons, but generally due to problems associated with a large number of bats in the roof space. All of the boxes constructed for soprano pipistrelle roosts were used to varying degrees of success. Whilst in most cases the number of bats using the roost decreased, in two cases numbers increased. No bats used either the box constructed for the common pipistrelle or the brown long-eared bat roost; the reasons cited for this failure included, in order of importance: unsuccessful exclusion of bats from other sites in the dwelling; inappropriate design of box; unsuitable position in the roof; and incorrect temperature in the box.

In addition, the box constructed for the brown long-eared bat colony was not of a sufficient size to accommodate this species. Recommendations were made to improve design and construction of boxes to be used within roof spaces and the following were identified as key requirements for bat boxes to be used within a roof space (Wray et al. 2002): access to other parts of the roof space must be excluded (bats can enter through gaps of 6 mm or more); the temperature within the box must emulate that within the original site used for roosting (additional heating may be required); the roost entrance should emulate that of the original access used by bats and be constructed from a suitable, roughened material; the box should be of a suitable size for the target species (crevice or roof-space dweller); the box should be constructed outside the period when the roost is used by bats (usually November to March); and the box should be positioned in the part of the roof occupied by the original roost.

In general, in areas of low (human) population and hence housing density, bats frequently have little choice if their favoured roosts are lost. Either they must adapt to modifications to the roost or move to another roost which may be sub-optimal or a long way from the original. Bat houses In the USA, there has been some success in providing bat houses as alternative roosting sites for bats that are excluded from dwelling houses. For example, big brown bats (Eptesicus fuscus) and little brown bats (Myotis lucifugus) are vulnerable to exclusion from buildings. A recent study showed that as long as bat houses were correctly designed and placed to provide the required temperature conditions within them, both species successfully relocated to them (Brittingham & Williams 2000).

33

October 2005

FINAL REPORT Bat Conservation Review

The Three Welsh National Parks, Pembrokeshire CC and CCW

However, there is little evidence of successful use of similar bat houses the UK, possibly because of different climatic conditions. An ongoing study in Scotland is looking at the possibility of adapting the bat house design that has been used successfully in the USA to be suitable for use in the UK climate. The aim is to add an integral heating system to the basic bat house to mimic temperature conditions in a building roost and so make the house attractive to nursery colonies, especially of pipistrelles, in cool, northern climates. The bat houses are constructed of heavy-duty plywood, with three roosting crevices, as well as two side-chambers to which bats have no access, housing the coil heaters and the control system. The house is maintained at 12-14C above ambient temperatures (up to 27-28C) at which point the control system shuts off the heaters to avoid overheating. The bat house will hold around 250-300 pipistrelles. It can be fixed to an exterior wall of a building, or can be mounted on a pole. In the current design, power for the heating system is provided from the mains of the building; a solarheated version is also being designed (Dr S. Swift, pers comm.). Three bat houses were tested during the summer of 2003. Two were occupied for the first time in the autumn, and they are both now occupied (summer 2004), although it has not yet been confirmed whether bats are breeding in the boxes. Three further houses were erected in the spring of 2004, and although there have been signs of bats exploring them, no bats were in residence as of July 2004. The research is continuing (Dr. S. Swift, pers. comm.). Artificial roosts have been tested with some success for lesser horseshoe bat (Freer et al. 2002). A design for a completely artificial, isolated building specifically designed for occupation by a colony of lesser horseshoe bats is described. This incorporates the species requirement for a large roosting area in which bats can fly freely, a wide range of temperatures including hot and cool areas, and external cover around the building to allow light sampling. It should be noted that although our detailed knowledge of the roosting requirements of this species allows for such detailed designs to be described, the use of alternative roosts should be seen as a last resort, used only if an existing roosting site for a colony cannot be protected. The success of translocation of roosts and the effects on bat populations is not well studied and designs for artificial roost sites should only be treated as guidelines. Trees In addition to suitable development control in relation to bats and buildings, similar protocols are required for the management of known or potential tree roosts. Trees may be felled or limbs removed for a number of reasons including development or safety, for example adjacent to public highways. Most bat species that roost in trees move regularly between roosts and it is often difficult to assess the use of trees by bats. Careful surveying and the use of good arboriculture practice, taking bats into account (Cowan 2003) will minimise the loss of bat roosts in trees. Mature and veteran trees should be retained as far as possible, and limbs removed only if essential for safety purposes. The Bat Workers Manual provides further advice on management of trees as bat roosts (Mitchell-Jones & McLeish 2004). Potential for retaining trees or boughs should be considered, and their loss minimised as part of development or proposals or safety work. Michael Blackmore has observed Bechsteins bat roosting in habitat/log piles, and brown long-eared bats roosting in stacked firewood. The Forestry Commission is currently developing woodland management guidelines for bats.

34

October 2005

FINAL REPORT Bat Conservation Review

The Three Welsh National Parks, Pembrokeshire CC and CCW

5.2.2

Minimising roost loss

A checklist is given in Table 5-3 that can help to minimise the risk of roost loss and maximise the likelihood that bats of most species will return to a roost site if a bat roost is to be altered or disturbed as a result of building works. The information required will help to determine the importance of the particular roost to be affected, and the features to be incorporated into any building works will help to improve the likelihood that bats will return to a roost site. The main features of mitigation that appear to have been most successful from studies to date include: suitable timing of building or timber treatment works to avoid periods when bats are using the roost; retention of original access points for bats, or construction of new access points at same location (for most bat species access should be a slit 15 mm wide by at least 20 mm across, for example between wall and soffit boards, although specialist advice should be sought for each situation where bats are affected). Specialist advice may be needed for horseshoe bat access which have different roost requirements from those of other species; where used, provision of suitable artificially constructed roost sites in advance of development work; retention of original roost site as part of mitigation; temperature regime of original roost maintained in new roost; use of bat tiles and bat bricks where appropriate; and provision of a large roosting area for brown long-eared bats (at least 3m high by 5m wide by 5m long (NB cf. Table 5-1). Comment: bat bricks have been found to have limited use in providing alternatives to cavities and crevices in stone walls, which are often interlinked.

35

October 2005

FINAL REPORT Bat Conservation Review

The Three Welsh National Parks, Pembrokeshire CC and CCW

Table 5-3 Information and features for bats and building works to be considered prior to works commencing.
(This list is not exhaustive and, depending upon the site, there may be additional information to be considered.)

Information
Have suitable surveys been undertaken to determine: Species of bat(s) present Number of bats using roost Type of roost (breeding, occasional, mating, hibernation) Location of roost in building and its aspect Location and dimensions of access points Temperature regime in roosting area (bats frequently move around within buildings in response to changes in temperature). Does the survey include sufficient information on flight route(s) from the roost and the features used (if any) for these? Are the architectural drawings available detailing any proposed mitigation measures, before work commences? Is there to be site supervision during works to ensure that mitigation measures are completed? Is there to be monitoring work carried out following completion of the works to assess success of mitigation? Is there to be a written report submitted on site supervision and monitoring for use in assessment of bats and development?

Mitigation features
Has external lighting been minimised particularly around bat access points? Are bat access points: Included in mitigation; Suitably designed and constructed of suitable material, and likely to remain undisturbed in the future; In the correct position (preferably in original location)? Is the timing of proposed building works suitable (outside period during which bats normally use the building)? Are bat tiles to be used where appropriate (bat bricks may have limited potential)? Is the roosting area available to bats of a suitable size (species dependent) and constructed of a suitable material (wood preferable)? Is the area to be available to bats in a similar location to the original roost? Will the temperature regime of the original roost be maintained? Has the need for an alternative roost been avoided where possible? (i.e., the original roost should be retained wherever possible) Are the current flight routes maintained (or equivalent features to allow safe commuting from roost)? Is suitable site monitoring proposed post-construction?

36

October 2005

FINAL REPORT Bat Conservation Review

The Three Welsh National Parks, Pembrokeshire CC and CCW

6 6.1

HABITATS Habitat requirements of bat species

Appendix 1 provides some details of the habitat requirements of bat species recorded in Wales. Table 6-1 provides a summary of the key habitat types and requirements of each species. The table also provides guidance on habitat management that would be beneficial to each bat species. It should be noted, however that this is based on best available information, which for some species is limited. Several habitat types have been highlighted as important for bats, particularly freshwater habitats, woodland (mainly deciduous), grassland and linear features such as hedgerows and tree lines. To positively manage habitats for bats, a number of basic principles can be followed: avoid loss of suitable habitat; avoid fragmentation or isolation of suitable habitats; minimise the use of pesticides, particularly avermectins; create new suitable habitat wherever possible; ensure that newly created or restored habitats are connected to existing habitats, e.g., via linear habitat corridors; and prioritise habitat management in areas close to known roost sites.

These general principles may also benefit other wildlife, although exact habitat requirements will vary between species. Details of general habitat management for freshwater, woodland, grassland, linear and other habitats are described in the publication Habitat management for bats, A guide for land managers, land owners and their advisors (Entwistle et al. 2001).

37

October 2005

FINAL REPORT Bat Conservation Review

The Three Welsh National Parks, Pembrokeshire CC and CCW

Table 6-1. Habitat types and key management requirements for bat species in Wales.
Species Greater horseshoe bat Key habitat requirements Ancient semi-natural, deciduous woodland and parkland Linear commuting routes e.g., hedgerows, woodland edges, water courses Pasture and hay-meadows Marshy and aquatic habitats Tipulidae Foraging style / key dietary group Hawking, fly-catching; occasional gleaning (from the surface of ground vegetation). Scarabeidae e.g., cockchafer Melolontha melolontha, dung beetles Aphodius Lepidoptera, especially large grassfeeding moths (eg Noctuids) Key management actions Give priority to up to 14 km zone around maternity roosts to provide sufficient foraging areas (mosaic of woodland strips / blocks and pasture) for adult bats. The 2 km radius zone around maternity roosts is important for foraging juveniles. Retain existing pasture within the 2 km zone from maternity roost sites and maintain mixed grazing regime (cattle, especially beef; sheep) to benefit invertebrate populations; retain hay meadows (very important for greater horseshoe bats in Pembrokeshire). Leave uncultivated field margins on arable land and maintain pasture as small fields separated by substantial hedges. Maintain existing and create new hedges to link roost sites and foraging areas. Hedges should be broad (36 m wide) and tall (3 m high on average) with hedgerow trees at intervals and an umbrella overhang. Retain existing mature semi-natural woodland and old orchards and create new areas of deciduous woodland where possible, for example as shelter belts or small woods. Woodlands should contain woodland rides, at least 10-15 m across. Retain large old trees and encourage development of parkland by additional tree planting. Retain existing and where possible create new marshy and aquatic habitats, for example ponds. Avoid use of avermectin, insecticides and herbicides (which in turn can lead to depletion of insect prey). May be important to promote conditions for successful foraging for bats in winter. Maintain existing hedgerows linking areas of deciduous woodland, including hedgerow trees, fill gaps in hedgerows and create new hedges, with hedgerow trees at intervals and an umbrella overhang. Retain existing mature semi-natural woodland and create new areas of deciduous woodland where possible, for example as shelter belts or small woods, particularly in areas near water bodies. Give priority to 2 -3 km radius zone around maternity roosts. In Brecon Beacons sheep dung attracts suitable insect prey.

Lesser horseshoe bat

Deciduous woodland, dense scrub and riparian woodland Linear commuting routes e.g., hedgerows; tree-lined watercourses; woodland edges In Brecon Beacons, also detected in association with overgrown pasture and tall herb vegetation; also wide rides, glades and deciduous underplanting found to be important. In Powys, observed foraging within coniferous plantation Access to water (foraging habitat). Mature trees within 2kms of water.

Hawking, fly-catching; gleaning Diptera Lepidoptera Trichoptera Neuroptera

Daubentons bat

Trawling over water Aquatic Diptera

Brandts bat

Woodlands, coppice, marshy areas sheltered by woodland and scrub.

Hawking, some gleaning Diptera

Maintain watercourses and waterbodies to provide a mosaic of water surfaces, including areas of smooth water where bankside trees and vegetation are present. Protect bankside vegetation and trees, and flight lines to and from watercourses. Retain mature and dead trees within 2kms of water. Give priority to watercourses and waterbodies within 3 km of roost, although bats may travel much greater distances. (This species also roosts away from water and makes use of flight lines to water). Retain existing woodland areas. Retain existing and where possible create new marshy and aquatic habitats, for example ponds, in woodlands.

38

October 2005

FINAL REPORT Bat Conservation Review

The Three Welsh National Parks, Pembrokeshire CC and CCW

Species Whiskered bat

Key habitat requirements Riparian habitats Woodland edges Hedges and coppice

Foraging style / key dietary group Hawking, some gleaning In Brecon Beacons detected feeding up and down small lanes enclosed by high hedges. Diptera Gleaning including taking prey from the surface of ground vegetation Diurnal Diptera

Key management actions Retain existing woodland areas. Maintain watercourses and waterbodies. Protect bankside vegetation and trees; in Brecon Beacons retention of high roadside hedges important

Natterers bat

Deciduous woodland including wet woodland and scrub Riparian habitats Mixed agricultural areas

Bechsteins bat

Mature deciduous woodland

Gleaning Lepidoptera Diptera Hawking Diptera

Maintain existing deciduous woodland, particularly damp areas or next to watercourses and water bodies. Create new areas of deciduous woodland and provide connectivity between woodland areas using linear features such as hedgerows and tree lines. Maintain pasture and meadows and avoid pesticide use. Retain existing and where possible create new marshy and aquatic habitats, for example ponds, in woodlands. Give priority to 4 km zone around maternity roosts. Maintain well-structured deciduous woodland with closed canopy and well-developed understorey. Maintain tree lines and hedgerows between areas of deciduous woodland. Probably forage in small areas around roost, give priority to woodland within 1 km from roosts.

Common pipistrelle

Woodland edge and parkland Tree lines and hedgerows Attracted to insects around white lighting in built-up areas Riparian habitats Woodland edges, tree lines and hedgerows

Encourage development of parkland by additional tree planting. Give priority to 2 km zone around maternity roosts. Maintain aquatic and riparian habitats to ensure high insect densities.

Soprano pipistrelle

Hawking Diptera (mainly aquatic)

Noctule

Cattle pasture Over water and wetlands Over deciduous woodland and parkland Attracted to insects around white lighting in built-up areas

Hawking Diptera Coleoptera Lepidoptera

Maintain aquatic and riparian habitats to ensure high insect densities. Maintain watercourses and waterbodies, including areas of smooth water where bankside trees and vegetation are present. Protect bankside vegetation and trees. Give priority to 2 km zone around maternity roosts. Maintain permanent pasture through regular grazing and avoid pesticide use. Maintain aquatic habitats to support high insect densities. Maintain open areas in deciduous woodland.

39

October 2005

FINAL REPORT Bat Conservation Review

The Three Welsh National Parks, Pembrokeshire CC and CCW

Species Leislers bat

Key habitat requirements Deciduous woodland and scrub (including at roadsides) Pasture Over water Cattle pasture Unimproved grasslands Woodland edges and parkland Tree lines and hedgerows Deciduous woodland Linear features such as hedgerows; woodland rides, woodland edges. Meadows and wet field areas Gorse and bramble scrub and bracken Deciduous woodland and wet woodland Parkland

Foraging style / key dietary group Hawking Diptera

Key management actions Maintain permanent pasture through regular grazing and avoid pesticide use. Maintain aquatic habitats. Give priority to 4 km zone around roost site, although bats may travel much greater distances to foraging sites.

Serotine

Hawking, gleaning Coleoptera Lepidoptera Diptera Hawking, gleaning Lepidoptera

Maintain permanent pasture through regular grazing and avoid pesticide use. Maintain existing woodland and hedgerows. Leave uncultivated field margins on arable land. Give priority to 5 km zone around maternity roosts, although bats may travel much greater distances to foraging sites.

Barbastelle

Retain existing deciduous woodland and manage to favour moths. Woodlands should contain rides and glades. Away from rides & glades, woodland should have a dense understorey or shrub layer. Maintain large areas of suitable habitat around roost areas (up to 150 km2). Give priority to 6 km zone around roost, although bats may travel larger distances to foraging sites.

Brown longeared bat

Gleaning, also hawking and fly catching from perches. Lepidoptera Diptera

Retain existing deciduous woodland and manage to favour moths. Maintain linear features such as hedgerows and tree lines close to roost sites. Give priority to 1 km zone around maternity roosts.

40

October 2005

FINAL REPORT Bat Conservation Review

The Three Welsh National Parks, Pembrokeshire CC and CCW

6.2

Habitat loss
Loss of habitat suitable for use by bats for commuting or foraging may occur as a result of development, changes in land use affecting habitats, fragmentation of existing habitats, changes in management of habitats or environmental factors resulting in changes in habitat quality. In order to fully understand the effects of habitat loss in an area known to provide foraging and commuting habitat for bats, it is vital to determine the habitat use by the bats through suitable surveys. Information on bat survey techniques are provided in The Bat Workers Manual (Mitchell-Jones & McLeish 2004) and in Mitchell-Jones (2004). Agricultural intensification Agricultural intensification has been identified as a crucial factor affecting bat population decline and is one of the major factors causing changes in land use. Agricultural intensification has led to the loss of hedgerows, field margins, ponds and copses (Robinson & Sutherland 2002). Areas of woodland have been fragmented, isolated or cleared, hedgerows removed to increase field size or replaced by fences, wetland areas and ponds have been drained and converted to agricultural land, watercourses have been straightened and bankside vegetation cleared, and there has been increased use of chemical insecticides. In addition, permanent pasture is, on the whole, intensively managed with fewer and fewer species-rich pastures available for flying insects. Also, meadow management has changed; additional fertiliser and earlier and repeated cutting for silage has all but replaced the cutting of meadows later in the summer for hay, again at the expense of a diverse community of flying insects. These changes have resulted in loss of suitable foraging habitat for bats due to the reduction of insect abundance and diversity. Linear features such as tree lines and hedgerows also provide important commuting routes for bats travelling between roosting, foraging and lekking sites. Hedgerow management has also changed through use of mechanical flails to cut hedges, resulting in shorter and more uniform hedges and loss of large trees. A recent study of bat activity showed that there was much greater foraging activity on organic farms than conventional farms in Wales and southern England, suggesting higher prey availability and quality of habitat on organic farms due to the absence of agrochemicals (Wickramasinghe et al. 2003). Increased foraging and activity was found for all species recorded (mainly pipistrelle and Myotis species) and greater and lesser horseshoe bats were recorded only on organic farms. Additionally, the overall abundance and diversity of insects, and the abundance of five insect families commonly eaten by bats (beetle family Carabidae, Lepidoptera families Noctuidae and Geometridae, and nematoceran Diptera families Chironomidae and Psychodidae) was higher in pasture, woodland and water habitats on organic farms than on conventional farms (Wickramasinghe et al. 2004). Some of the effects of agricultural intensification can be reversed on a countrywide scale through the promotion of agri-environment schemes across the UK, for example Tir Gofal and Tir Cynnal in Wales. These schemes promote management and diversification of agricultural landscapes to favour wildlife. Tir Cynnal for example, the entry level scheme in Wales, is open to all farmers on a selfassessment basis. Farmers are required to retain or develop 5% of the farm as wildlife habitat, which can include linear features such as double-fenced hedgerows and arable field margins, as well as farm woodlands and ponds. In theory it would be possible to co-ordinate this scheme in order to improve habitat availability for foraging bats between neighbouring farms for example, not least of all where bats are occupying the barns. In response to the Water Framework Directive the Welsh Assembly Government is also proposing to introduce a higher level scheme to encourage cooperation between neighbouring farms within river basins. Furthermore under the requirements within the new Single Farm Payment for maintaining every farm in good agricultural and environmental condition (GAEC), there would appear to be scope for assessing this on the basis of bat status and habitat use on farmland.

41

October 2005

FINAL REPORT Bat Conservation Review

The Three Welsh National Parks, Pembrokeshire CC and CCW

In England, the Greater Horseshoe Bat Project has implemented key recommendations for management of greater horseshoe bat foraging areas between 1998 and 2003, as set out in the UK SAP for greater horseshoe bats. As part of this, landowners were encouraged to enter agrienvironment schemes such as the Countryside Stewardship Scheme (CSS, now superseded by the all-England Environmental Stewardship Scheme). The main focus of the work was on land around the main greater horseshoe roosts in Devon. The CSS agreements included the following key land management options: to improve important foraging area by reverting arable land to grazed pasture; to manage permanent pasture and hay meadows to ensure sufficient supplies of key prey species; to create 6m wide grassy arable field margins alongside hedgerows and woodland edges; and to maintain and improve bat commuting routes through the restoration of existing hedgerows and planting of new hedgerows.

Overall to 2003, of the 500,000 hectares in Countryside Stewardship in England, more than 4,300 ha of land on 46 farm holdings entered CSS agreements, with the aim of securing the long-term favourable management of habitat for greater horseshoe bats (Longley 2003a). Concurrently, roost counts from the main maternity sites in Devon have shown that the greater horseshoe bat population increased by 58% between 1995 and 2003 (Longley 2003b). Although no direct link has been found between the management of land through agri-environment schemes and this population increase, it is likely that these changes have contributed to the rising population. However, whilst this increase is presumably based on roost emergence counts, work on greater horseshoe bats in Pembrokeshire suggests that productivity is a more reliable indicator of population size than exit counts (Tom McOwat, pers.com). In Wales, Tir Gofal provides a whole farm agri-environment scheme, including scope for the restoration of agricultural buildings (which was also true for Countryside Stewardship). A key difference between the Tir Gofal and CSS schemes is that areas can be targeted for inclusion in CSS by DEFRA. This is not the case for Tir Gofal where farmers are invited to submit applications for assessment. However Tir Gofal officers are in close contact with the CCW District teams. In the Brecon Beacons for example district officers frequently advise on the requirements for suitable habitat features to be retained or developed for several species including lesser horseshoe bats, as well as for particular management methods to be avoided. By December 2003 some 1450 farmers, involving some 174,000 ha were in Tir Gofal in Wales. Fragmentation of habitats Roads may increase habitat fragmentation by creating a barrier between areas of habitat, or fragment large areas of continuous habitat. One study in France on the effects of a motorway on mortality in wildlife populations showed that bats were affected by road traffic (Lod 2000). In the study, bats represented 1.4% of the road-kills recorded and a total of six bat species were identified in the road-kill survey including the barbastelle and lesser horseshoe bats (Lod 2000). A recent study in Wales has reviewed literature and case studies to investigate the implication of new road schemes on bats, particularly concentrating on greater and lesser horseshoe bats and whiskered bats (Catherine Bickmore Associates 2003). The main effects of roads on bat habitat include: habitat loss; flight route severance;

42

October 2005

FINAL REPORT Bat Conservation Review

The Three Welsh National Parks, Pembrokeshire CC and CCW

road casualties; and disruption due to lighting.

Road casualties have been recorded on roads in Wales, although the full extent and significance of road deaths is difficult to assess. Habitat loss and flight route severance were the main effects of roads on bat habitat, and the importance of suitably designed surveys to determine the use of areas of habitat by bats was emphasised. The Catherine Bickmore report contains detailed information on the use of underpasses and culverts by bats, including details on design features of these structures that are required for different species, for example culvert sizes and locations. The main mitigation options included in road schemes, most of which are currently in progress, were the provision of safe crossing points for bats, adjustments to lighting to encourage bats to continue to use the areas, and landscaping including tree and hedgerow alignment, and fencing. The importance of the early scheduling of bat surveys, mitigation and involvement of SNCOs in road schemes was highlighted, to avoid expensive options having to be included during late stages of the road scheme design.Appendix 5 offers some theoretical mitigation options to be incorporated into highway design, based upon research underway in the Netherlands. Habitat fragmentation may occur as a result of any development which involves the reduction in the available area of potential foraging habitat, particularly those covering large areas of land, for example new housing developments or golf courses. The accumulation of new development without suitable mitigation and development control for bats could lead to the loss of significant areas of suitable bat habitat. Wind farms Bat fatalities at wind turbines (or indeed other man-made structures) do not fit easily within any of the sections of this report. This topic is included under Habitat Loss because these structures may represent a significant obstacle within the landscape. The significance of any effects of wind turbines on bats in the UK has not yet been determined but research in the US and in European countries indicates that wind turbines have a detrimental effect on some bat species. These include tree roosting species, aerial feeding and also migratory bat species. The extent to which British bat species are migratory has not been studied but some of the species that have been killed by wind turbines occur in the UK (Jean Matthews personal communication). Various theories have been put forward to explain why bats fail to avoid wind turbines or what might be attracting them towards the turbines. These include the possibility that migrating bats might rely more on visual senses and less on echo location when travelling over long distances or at a significant height above the ground, so that they fail to detect the turbines. Alternatively bats might detect the turbines but fail to perceive them as an obstacle. Turbines might affect the bats echolocation system or their flight might be affected by the turbulence generated. It is also not clear precisely how wind turbines kill bats, though current evidence suggests collisions. In North America, fatal bat collisions involving several species have been reported for a lighthouse, television towers, communication towers and power lines (cited in Johnson et al. 2003). The same report also cites a significant number of bat fatalities for several species at wind plants in Australia and North America between the 1970s and 2000. Most of the North American fatalities are to migrant or dispersing bats during the late summer and early autumn. Among the bat species involved (hoary bats Lasiurus cinereus, eastern red bat Lasiurus borealis, silver-haired bat Lasionycteris noctivagans, eastern pipistrelle bat Pipistrellus subflavus, little brown bat Myotis lucifugus and big brown bat Eptesicus fuscus), late season peaks in fatalities were recorded for eastern red bat and hoary bat. This suggested that the turbines were located within autumn

43

October 2005

FINAL REPORT Bat Conservation Review

The Three Welsh National Parks, Pembrokeshire CC and CCW

migration routes for these species, whereas for other species the numbers of fatalities were spread evenly between spring and autumn. Johnson et al. is uncertain on the causes of bat fatalities at wind farms. At some sites bat fatalities are coincident with avian fatalities, for example during poor weather conditions. At other sites there is no such coincidence. This suggests that collisions may depend upon whether or not different species rely upon echolocation or visual acuity to navigate over long distances. Currently there is insufficient data to determine the effects of bat fatalities at wind farms on bat populations. A pilot study (Ahln 2002, 2003) conducted in Sweden on the effects of wind turbines and bats, examined the possible causes of bat (and bird) mortalities. This followed observations of dead bats beneath or near wind turbines in Sweden, Spain, Germany, the USA and Australia, as well as unpublished data suggesting that this might be a serious problem. The most likely cause was found to be attraction of insects to the rotors, which in turn attracted insectivorous, aerial hawking bats and birds. Six species of bat (both resident and migrant species) and 17 species of bird were affected. During the study the same bat species were observed to hunt close to the rotor blades and to fly between the blades. Furthermore, on some nights there was a clear concentration of insects around the wind turbine, possibly attracted by heat radiating from the surface of the turbines, the top parts of which were observed to be warmer than the surrounding air at dusk. The species affected were aerial hunters, i.e., those species that hunt in open space (hawking) rather than species that glean insects from foliage or hunt close to the ground. The study concluded that this might be a serious problem for bats. With their slow rate of reproduction an apparently small numbers of fatalities might be significant within the population. Both migrant and non-migrant bat species were affected because the turbines were located close to habitats that were rich in insect life late in the season (August early October). To this effect the report recommended that onshore turbines should be located away from the coastline, larger lakes and linear habitat features and that offshore turbines should be located away from bat migration corridors.

44

October 2005

FINAL REPORT Bat Conservation Review

The Three Welsh National Parks, Pembrokeshire CC and CCW

LAND USE PLANNING AND BAT CONSERVATION

Development plan policies are able to steer land use planning decisions in a way that benefits nature conservation. This can be achieved by using sustainable development principles, taking into account environmental considerations, using a combination of policies, proposals and reasoned plan justification/the explanatory memorandum. Ideally the precautionary principle should be implicit in planning for sustainable development and sound scientific information and knowledge should underpin all operations that affect nature conservation. It is therefore important that planning authorities keep themselves informed of the state of the natural environment within their area, and also outside the administrative boundary where their decisions might affect it. Within this context the conservation and enhancement of wildlife habitats and species is important, especially those with legal protection, local designations and those meeting biodiversity action plan (BAP) targets. In using policies to secure conservation and enhancement of the natural beauty and amenity of land, policymakers are able to consider how methods to achieve this can also benefit wildlife (including tree and hedgerow protection and planting). Urban areas should not be forgotten policies to improve physical environments of urban areas can greatly benefit biodiversity and of course protected species and habitats are not confined to rural areas. Hence landscape and amenity planning should also promote planning for species and their habitats. Of increasing concern are the effects of infill development in rural settings. As is true for other animals too, orchards, allotments, walled gardens and previously developed land have all become increasingly important to foraging bats as the extent and quality of habitats has declined under modern farming practices. Not only might infill development change the aesthetics of protected landscapes such as national parks, it runs the risk of 'squeezing' wildlife out. To avoid this, careful consideration can be given to identifying green networks within all sites (whether greenfield or brownfield) that are allocated for infill development and indeed all development. This should be based upon ecological assessments of the sites in advance of their allocation for development, in addition to any such assessments required prior to the commencement of, during or after development work.

7.1

Making the planning system work effectively for nature conservation

The way in which land use planning is implemented can have far reaching effects on the conservation of bats, and land use planning decisions at both the strategic/policy and development control level are important. There is now very good legislation and national policy guidance available or in development for planning and nature conservation. Yet many of the threats to bat species that are outlined in Chapter 4 can be exacerbated by planning decisions, and although the overall planning aim should always be to maintain and where possible enhance bat populations and habitats, in practice the converse may happen. Using the planning legislation effectively, a local planning authority should be capable of considering the requirements of most protected species and even locally important species issues. Problems arise where there is a lack of information about the species (bats in this instance), including the ecology, distribution and status of the local populations, as well as a general lack of awareness of their importance in planning terms. This gives rise to a number of concerns amongst conservationists working with bats, which were expressed in feedback relating to this report. Some of these appear to be based upon an assumption that the planning system is at fault whereas the real fault might be related to the lack or availability of sufficient skills (a training issue) and information, meaning that the right issues are neither identified nor brought forward: developers and planning officers may not realise that bats might be an issue on a site; the possible presence of bats is not considered early enough in the planning process, if at all; bats may move in after sites have been allocated in the development plan;

45

October 2005

FINAL REPORT Bat Conservation Review

The Three Welsh National Parks, Pembrokeshire CC and CCW

even if bats are identified as an issue, there is often significant social and/or economic pressure to proceed with a proposal, as well as pressure on planning officers to determine planning applications within the target timescale; bats may be discovered after work has commenced which, as well as holding work up, usually presents difficulties in designing effective mitigation measures once planning approval is granted; demolition prior to development is not routinely inspected for roosting bats or even carried out carefully enough to permit this to be done there is often a failure to understand the complexity of bat activity and implications for their longevity. Bats may not necessarily return to a particular roost for some time, and their use of a particular location may be affected by factors such as local weather conditions. The roost may, however be used at some point in the future. mitigation proposals may be inadequate due to a lack of knowledge, understanding or inadequate survey information or mitigation is not implemented properly; for example mitigation may fail to reproduce the conditions, spaces and access points that the particular colony of bats was accustomed to and which suited their flight and roosting behaviour prior to the development; post-mitigation monitoring of previously completed projects may not have been properly carried out; this produces a gap in knowledge (of what works, and what doesnt) when considering future proposals the bat data relating to development may not be copied to the local mammal recorder or record centre the law (both under planning and wildlife legislation) needs to be enforced more consistently; developers may insist that there is no vegetation (trees, shrubs) within a certain distance of the development and planning permissions may fail to incorporate connections with foraging areas near to the roost (and as Table 6-1 shows, foraging areas differ for each species and may also change for different parts of the life cycle); and there is insufficient understanding of the area required to support a bat colony, the importance of landscape connectivity for bats and the different requirements of different bat species. However, in cases where positive planning for wildlife is practised, gains to nature conservation can be great, even benefiting species other than those identified on site. For any planning application to be determined it must be in accordance with the development plan, since development plans form the basis for all decisions. All development plans are required to have policies relating to the conservation and enhancement of natural beauty and amenity of the land, as well as policies encouraging the management of landscape features important for wild fauna and flora (see Regulation 37 of the 1994 Habitats Regulations). These policies must be robust and relevant for the area. Under Section 11 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 (S2), all local planning authorities (LPAs) are required to record and review information about the environment of the plan area. Therefore LPAs will often hold information about their areas, perhaps in conjunction with local record centres. Such information is usually available to developers and the public, although sometimes this is chargeable and sometimes detail is withheld either to safeguard protected species or in order to satisfy Data Protection Act requirements. In any case, developers may need to supplement existing information with further survey work. To gauge the land use planning policy and practices in Wales with respect to bats, a questionnaire (Appendix 2) and request for information was sent out to a range of individuals who deal with bats in their day to day planning casework. Officers from the national park authorities (NPAs) and LPAs were asked for information about their planning advice notes/procedures and their experience of bats and planning. Countryside Council for Wales (CCW) officers were sent questionnaires to ascertain their views on bat conservation concerns. A variety of responses were received (see Section 1.3 above) but those who responded stressed that bat issues need to be taken into account in the decision-making process. The following overview of current knowledge and experience is based on those from whom a response was received.

7.2 7.2.1

Planning for bats within the study area Current level of information/knowledge of bat conservation in NPAs and LPAs

46

October 2005

FINAL REPORT Bat Conservation Review

The Three Welsh National Parks, Pembrokeshire CC and CCW

It is clear that all respondents were aware of the legislation that affects bats and their roosts. Respondents provided their authorities written guidelines for planning officers and/or gave details of the procedures that their planning departments followed for protected species when carrying out the development control function. The majority of guidelines were not bat specific, but referred to several protected species. In about half of the cases, the guidelines were formally adopted by the authority.

The quality of these guidelines varied; some were very good, others were helpful with room for improvement. One respondent provided useful guidance that took account of the importance of the wider habitat for bats; in other cases the vital importance of maintaining habitat continuity between foraging areas and roosts was not included. As a rule, guidance notes seemed to concentrate on preservation of the actual roost site, without taking into account the need for landscape connectivity. Two authorities asked for bat information up front with the submission of the planning application, and all implied that they would consult with CCW at whatever stage bat issues became evident. One authority uses a form of trigger list* to guide planning officers as to the sort of development that may implicate protected species; it then details actions that should be taken for assessment, and then gives brief details on factors for mitigation. * Trigger list; a list of (usually habitat related) criteria that, if present on a site proposed for development, trigger the need for a protected species survey.

This trigger list approach can be helpful to planning officers because it is usually consistent, clear, concise and succinct. However, there is a danger that such lists can be too simplistic and they should therefore be used with care; protected species may be found in unlikely areas as well as their usual habitats. This is particularly so with bats; for much of the year the locations of most bats are simply not known. In two cases there is probably too much detail about the actual legislation for most development control officers; more useful would be more information on the actions planning officers should take as a result of the legislation. As mentioned in Section 2.3, a Habitats Regulations licence is needed for many planning situations where European protected species or their resting places are to be affected. Many people involved with planning and protected species refer to development licences. However, as indicated previously, this term can give rise to confusion because the licences being referred to are not solely for development, they are necessary also for activities such as maintenance work, tree felling, and research where protected species would be affected i.e., many activities which are not covered by planning legislation. (It should also be remembered that some construction works to existing buildings require Building Regulations and are not classed as development.) It is preferable, therefore, to refer to these licences as Habitats Regulations Licences*. * Habitats Regulations Licences/WAG Licences; licences obtained under S44 of The Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994 (usually referred to as the Habitats Regulations) which are administered by the Welsh Assembly Government. WAG consults CCW for advice on the third test relating to the maintenance of favourable conservation status. Provided the three tests specified in the 1994 Regulations are met, this licence may be granted to permit certain acts that are normally prohibited by the Habitats Regulations.

47

October 2005

FINAL REPORT Bat Conservation Review

The Three Welsh National Parks, Pembrokeshire CC and CCW

(When obtained for land use planning reasons these licences would be site specific. Habitats Regulations Licences are distinct from conservation or scientific licences, which are held by an individual bat worker and which are issued by CCW.) There is currently no industry standard for bat surveys, making it difficult for planning officers to be certain that a bat survey is sufficiently detailed or that the surveyor is sufficiently experienced in advising on mitigation, even if they hold a conservation or scientific licence. This can cause difficulty for both planning officers and developers. Currently a survey manual is being co-ordinated by BCT that will identify survey standards for trees and woodlands, highways and artificial structures (particularly barns). This will be an evolving document which will be updated as knowledge about bats develops, and it will guide both developers and planning officers on the minimum standards required for bat surveys in differing circumstances; this will enable judgements on whether the methods used to assess the proposals impact on bats are adequate.

7.2.2

Practical experiences of land-use planning and bats CCWs perception

Although those planning authority ecologists and planning officers who responded report that bats and habitats are taken into account, comments from CCW respondents generally indicate that land use planning and its results are still major factors in the loss of bat roosts and foraging habitat. This may indicate that good practice guidance where it exists is not effective or alternatively perhaps, this sort of guidance is not available across all counties.

Many of CCWs concerns are outlined above in 7.1. concerns include:

o o o the lack of attention paid to the wider (foraging) habitat that post-development monitoring is inconsistent, and bats are not taken into account early enough in the procedure.

The most common

Other concerns relate to the type of land use development that is impacting on bats, particularly loft and barn conversions, and large developments such as housing schemes. Furthermore there is sometimes insufficient communication between different specialists within a LPA, for example between listed buildings and ecology, leading to potential conflicts of interest. This was not reported to be a problem within the national parks or Pembrokeshire however.

7.3

How might planning procedures be implemented effectively for bats?

There are a number of steps that can to be taken by both planning departments and developers, in consultation with the local authority ecologist. These are outlined below: 1 Development plan policies for nature conservation must be robust and clear, in accordance with TAN 5 (currently under revision), and cover the following aspects: General nature conservation considerations The requirements of Regulation 37 of the 1994 Habitats Regulations (management of landscape features of major importance for wild fauna and flora) Protection of designated sites (from local to European importance) Protected species (including bats)

A suggested planning policy that includes protection for bats might be: Planning permission will not be granted for development that would be likely to have an adverse effect on a protected species. When considering development proposals that may affect these species, the planning authority may impose conditions or use planning agreements where they: a) facilitate the survival of individual members of the species

48

October 2005

FINAL REPORT Bat Conservation Review

The Three Welsh National Parks, Pembrokeshire CC and CCW

b) mitigate against disturbance c) provide adequate alternative habitats to sustain at least the current levels of population of the species locally d) Enhance habitats. 2 Planning application forms might include questions about the proposals impact on European protected species (EPS) and UK protected species, to bring them to the developers attention from the outset. For planning applications to be determined effectively, LPAs need to be clear about the information they require (especially since the developer will be collecting this information) and be sure that they have it when determining applications. It is therefore advisable to talk to the local authority ecologist, CCW, wildlife trusts, BCT and other relevant species interest groups. The precise information required will vary according to the type of development proposal, but the impact on protected species/habitats should be considered for all proposals. For instance, a proposal to remove a flight line can effectively isolate the roost from the foraging area for some species; hence simply safeguarding the roost may not be enough, and potential harm to any habitat on which bats rely is a material consideration in planning decisions. Another example is modern house building techniques and materials; in most cases these effectively exclude bats from areas of the house which previously afforded valuable roost space, particularly with new building regulations requirements for energy efficiency. Roost spaces and crevices, as well as suitable habitat features should be incorporated. Similarly, where bats are already present in older houses, modern building techniques should be designed to accommodate the roost. Some guidance on this is provided in Bat Mitigation Guidelines (A Mitchell-Jones, English Nature 2004). If it is considered that protected species/habitats (of bats) might be an issue (and this will be the case for many proposals) then further enquiries need to be made in order to establish: Existing bat records in the area (foraging and roosting) Any potential or actual roosting sites on or near the site Type of roosting site (day, night perch, maternity, satellite or hibernation site) Species involved (may be more than one) Location of foraging areas in relation to roost, and consider this in relation to species requirements Routes bats use between roost and foraging areas Autumn swarming/mating sites in the vicinity Time lag between survey and project commencement (will re-survey be necessary?) The way in which the proposal will affect the bats Mitigation Post project monitoring how long, who does it, cost?

Many land-use planning operations affecting bats, their roosts or in some cases their foraging areas, require a licence issued by the WAG under the 1994 Habitats Regulations before the operations can go ahead. Although the developer may apply for this licence after planning permission has been given, they need to be aware of the importance of gathering bat information in order for it to be considered early during the planning process. This is because the approval of planning permission does not necessarily mean that a Habitats Regulations licence will be issued. A licence is unlikely to be issued if the decision to give planning permission has not taken account of the likely effect on bats and possible mitigation measures. Therefore the mitigation requirements that will be set out in the Habitats Regulations licence should be anticipated by the developer applying for the licence (often through an ecological/bat consultant) so that they can form part of the planning approval by way of conditions or obligations. So bat information is needed at the planning application stage and also for any (subsequent) Habitats Regulations licence application. In any case, the discovery of bats on a site prior to detailed proposals being drawn up means that proposals can sometimes be altered such that the effect on bats is minimised or even avoided

49

October 2005

FINAL REPORT Bat Conservation Review

The Three Welsh National Parks, Pembrokeshire CC and CCW

altogether, with minimal impact on the overall development. If there no effect on bats is anticipated then a Habitats Regulations Licence will not be needed (saving time and expense). If the bat survey indicates that mitigation will be needed in order for the proposal to proceed, then the developer should submit details in order that they can inform the decision-making process. Such details might include: Avoidance of impacts Mitigation/reduction of impacts Compensation for features lost or damaged due to unavoidable impacts Long-term management after planning conditions have been discharged/the licence (if appropriate) has expired Monitoring arrangements after completion of the works (the results of which will also inform future decisions) An understanding that alternative proposals or adjustments to existing ones might be required where monitoring demonstrates that the mitigation is not [fully] successful within an agreed timescale.

In addition, the details might include opportunities for additional habitat enhancement. Also, in order an attempt to enable planning decisions to contribute valuable information to nature conservation, consideration might be given to undertaking radio-tracking studies of bats both before and after completion of works. The information derived would help to establish whether/where there are other roosts nearby, assess the importance of the roost in question, and to contribute to post development monitoring. The LPAs message to developers, therefore, must be that timely and thorough survey is in their best interests because: (a) it minimises the possibility of receiving planning permission that cannot be legally implemented owing to the presence of protected species, (b) it means that effects on protected species can be minimised (or even avoided altogether, which would avoid the need for a WAG licence), and (c) it reduces the risk of finding protected species on site after the proposal has commenced. (Proposals affecting dwelling houses where a bat roost is known or discovered generally do not require a Habitats Regulations licence. In these circumstances CCW is consulted and given sufficient time to provide a response.) Information submitted with the application and referring to species surveys should also cover the following points: Project aims and objectives justification for the development, with reference also to its effects on bat populations/habitats What needs to be done objectives and targets to take account of the species/habitat Where the works will be carried out When the works will be carried out Who will undertake and oversee the works - the specialist(s) in collaboration with the building contractors How the works are to be carried out methodology How, when and by whom post-development monitoring of the effectiveness of the mitigation will be carried out against clear criteria for success or failure Advice on what sort of adjustments might be required if mitigation proves to be ineffective.

(Adapted from Developing Naturally, M Oxford, 2000)

50

October 2005

FINAL REPORT Bat Conservation Review

The Three Welsh National Parks, Pembrokeshire CC and CCW

Again, not only is this information needed for the planning application, it will also be needed for any Habitats Regulations Licence application. The level of detail and length of time this exercise takes will depend upon the complexity of the planning proposal, the local environment, the species involved and the way in which the species is using the site. The accuracy and effectiveness of the advice and ensuing mitigation will depend upon the expertise and skills of the specialist providing it, so developers should satisfy themselves that their bat specialist is sufficiently qualified and experienced. This information needs to be available to guide potential applicants on the information that should be submitted with a planning application, i.e., as part of pre-application advice or guidance. This should enable applicants to submit the necessary information at the start of the planning process, so that it forms a material consideration throughout the decision-making process. 5 The survey manual (referred to above) might be used by both developers and planning officers seeking guidance on the minimum standards required for bat surveys in differing circumstances. It will cover surveying for woodland and trees, highway works and buildings (with an emphasis on barns). These will enable a judgement to be made on whether the methods used to assess the proposals impact on bats are adequate. Bat specialists commissioned by developers can refer to Bat Mitigation Guidelines produced by English Nature (A Mitchell-Jones, 2004) when drawing up or considering mitigation methods (see www.english-nature.org.uk/pubs/publication/pub_search.asp). These provide advice on a range of real case studies. The guidance is not exhaustive but includes case studies on building and church restoration, domestic properties, alterations to and replacement of existing bat roosts. However, information provided in Chapter 5 of this report suggests that each development needs to be treated on its merits rather than relying solely on published guidelines or general practice. 7 If the survey information is non-existent/substandard, there are options that LPAs can choose: Request sufficient information in order to determine the application If an environmental assessment (EA) is required, the planning officer can use Statutory Instrument (SI) 1999/293 (S4) to require the applicant to add further information which can be considered with the EA For detailed applications the planning officer can use use SI 1988/1812 (S3) which requires the applicant to provide further information to enable determination of the application. The LPA may also consider using trigger lists (see reference to these above) to help it consider whether some/further ecological information is needed. This is controversial because trigger lists are not as reliable as survey work and therefore should be used as a guide and with care. Ideally they should be tested first on sites where bat roosts are known, to ensure the criteria are not too onerous or too weak. (Two examples are provided in Appendices 3 and 4, the first provided by a local bat group, the second by a local planning authority.) If the planning officer then considers a survey should be undertaken, the above three options are available.

7.3.1

Bat workers perceptions

An additional questionnaire about bats and planning, to investigate the perceptions of bat workers, was circulated and returned by eight individuals. Three respondents felt that bat issues are not taken into account well enough in land use planning, three did not comment on this matter, and two felt that LPA responses to bats varied. Six respondents considered that roost loss was a cause for concern one person citing mating roosts in particular, and over half were concerned about adverse effects on commuting routes and foraging habitats of planning proposals. Tree Preservation Orders (TPOs) were mentioned as a special case by a LA ecologist, where there is insufficient time to assess TPO works for bat interest. This is a cause for concern because trees with an Order are often by implication the ones most likely to be used by bats. Whilst there was a call for planning guidance on EPS both for applicants and planning officers, as well as minimum survey standards for bats prior to the application being determined, there was

51

October 2005

FINAL REPORT Bat Conservation Review

The Three Welsh National Parks, Pembrokeshire CC and CCW

also the suggestion that restrictions for mitigation should not be too onerous since this might discourage developers.

7.4

Highways planning considerations

Highway proposals can impact on bats in many ways by interrupting flight-lines, destroying foraging habitat, by removal of tree roosts, removal of existing highway structures where upgrading is concerned, and lighting. Highway planning did not form a major part of this research but is covered here briefly because of its significant impacts on a landscape scale. Planning and mitigation proposals from the Netherlands are attached at Appendix 5 *. Further work needs to be done in this area, but is outside the scope of this report. However, the survey manual which is in the process of being developed by BCT will give guidelines as to the level of survey required for highway proposals.

* This work is still largely at the theoretical stage. It should be noted that whilst the designs presented may work for lesser horseshoe bats, (because they do feed at tree/shrub canopy level), they are unlikely to work for greater horseshoe bats, which present particular challenges in terms of road design and mitigation. Work on lesser and greater horseshoe bats and road design (e.g., incorporation of bat crossing points) has been carried out in connection with trunk road improvements schemes in North Wales and Pembrokeshire (see Catherine Bickmore Associates, 2003). Mitigation work is also underway and at the design stage for trunk road projects currently underway within the BBNP.

52

October 2005

FINAL REPORT Bat Conservation Review 8 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The Three Welsh National Parks, Pembrokeshire CC and CCW

8.1

Conclusions
In this section, the questions identified in the scope of work for the project are each addressed briefly. What are the minimum roost (winter and summer roosts of all types) requirements for each species, including the design and management of buildings and other structures? What are the minimum habitat requirements for each species? The roost requirements for each species, as documented in the published literature, is detailed in the literature review and summarised in the table in Section 5. As far as possible, details of the known roost requirements are given. Factors to be taken into account if roosts are to be disturbed during development are also detailed in Section 5. The habitat requirements for each species, as far as is documented in the published literature, is detailed in the literature review and summarised in the table in Section 6. As far as possible, the habitats required and the main zone around the roost used by each species during foraging is identified. It is impossible, however, to determine minimum habitat and roost requirements for each species, and estimation of these could lead to misinterpretation and misuse of information. Colonies of different size require different amounts of habitat, and the links between habitat availability and roost presence or size are poorly understood. Future research may be able to answer questions such as what are the minimum areas of habitat required to sustain nursery colonies or what are the links between habitat availability and colony size, but at present these questions have no simple answers. Therefore based upon the information reviewed, this report summarises what is known to date about the habitat and roosting requirements of each species and specifies foraging radii, which give the best approximations to some of these issues. A further factor to take into account is quality of foraging areas, which may in turn be linked to minimum area of foraging habitat required. What happens to a particular colony of bats when its roost is lost? The effects of roost loss for any bat colony are poorly understood. This is an area where further studies are required. It is likely that the loss of an important maternity or hibernation site will have significant consequences for local bat populations, but exactly what those consequences are have not been well studied. Even less well understood are the potential effects of the loss of a night roost or transitory roost used only at certain times of the year. Ideally the precautionary principle should be adopted to protect these roosts until a better understanding of the consequences of their loss is available. It is vital that a greater understanding of the role and importance of these roost types is gained in order that they can be suitably protected. The topic of roost loss is very difficult to study however, due to the problems associated with deliberate exclusion of roosts of protected species. If radio-tracking studies were commissioned to follow bats excluded from roosts this might lead to a better understanding of some of the effects of exclusion. What is best practice in terms of mitigation of the effects of development on bat roosts? There is no single solution to mitigate the effects of development on bat roosts. This report has highlighted that although general guidelines can be adopted for mitigation (see Mitchell-Jones 2004), the effects of development on bat roosts must be considered on a case by case basis. This must account for the type of roost, species and numbers of bats present, surrounding habitat and the type and detail of the development. This highlights the importance of having expertise available within planning authorities to advise during the planning process, as well as suitable skills and experience available to the developers.

53

October 2005

FINAL REPORT Bat Conservation Review

The Three Welsh National Parks, Pembrokeshire CC and CCW

How adaptable to change are individuals of each species? The adaptability of bat species to change is not well documented. Some species may be able to adapt to changes in their roost spaces if these changes are appropriate to the species present, and made over a suitable time period. More feedback from current mitigation methods is required to determine which methods currently in use are successful and which need improvement. Post development monitoring is vital to improve our knowledge in this area. Linear features between roosts and between roosts and foraging areas what good practice exists on their management, restoration or creation? It has not been possible to answer this question owing to a paucity of information on this topic. Linear features, both between roosts and between roosts and foraging areas are vital for the maintenance of bat populations. Some species, for example the horseshoe bats, that may prefer not to cross open areas, are more reliant on these features than others, but most species use linear features to some extent. Clearly it is important to include consideration to the requirements of foraging and migrating bats when undertaking management of hedgerows, riparian trees and other linear features.

8.2

Gaps in our knowledge

For many bat species in the UK, even relatively basic information on ecology, including roost and habitat requirements is not well documented. Current research programmes into bat conservation are continually improving our knowledge of UK bat species, and a register of current research has been compiled as part of this project by BCT. Some current or as yet unpublished research projects that will improve our knowledge of bat conservation include: foraging and roosting ecology of common and soprano pipistrelle (Aberdeen University); aspects of the conservation biology of noctule (Aberdeen University); use of landscape elements by bats in north-east Scotland (Aberdeen University); ecology and conservation of lesser horseshoe bat (Bristol University); habitat fragmentation and genetic diversity in lesser horseshoe bat (Bristol University); resource partitioning between whiskered and Brandts bats (Bristol University); interactions between agricultural management, biodiversity and life history: insectivorous mammals and their prey as bio-indicators (Bristol University); foraging and roosting ecology of common and soprano pipistrelle (Open University); techniques for surveying Bechsteins bat (Sussex University); radio-tracking of barbastelle, greater horseshoe bat and lesser horseshoe bat (CCW); radio-tracking of Bechsteins bat (Vincent Wildlife Trust); and roost parameters of horseshoe bats in Europe and Britain, before and after development (VWT).

This is of course not a definitive list of research. New studies are constantly coming to light, including hitherto unpublished work made available by local bat experts or consultants working under contract. For example The Mammal Societys 2005/2006 directory of mammal workers and projects lists a further 24 projects currently underway or soon to commence. The main gaps in our knowledge include detailed information on the status and distribution of bat species in Wales and records of important bat roosts, the effects of the loss of bat roosts or habitats

54

October 2005

FINAL REPORT Bat Conservation Review

The Three Welsh National Parks, Pembrokeshire CC and CCW

and information on how well mitigation for bats is working. These areas are addressed in the recommendations below. In general a significant increase is needed in ecological studies of each species across Wales. Only by comparison between a sufficient number of similar studies in different areas is it possible to be consistent and confident about the ecology and behaviour of each species. For some species there is not even enough baseline information available to influence the design of more detailed studies. Furthermore, it has become clear during the preparation of this report that there remains a number of unpublished or embargoed studies which, were these available, would assist with the direction of future studies as well as improve the knowledge base. Ideally a meta-database should be assembled that lists all historic, current and planned research on ecology, biology and conservation.

8.3

Bats and development control

Detailed recommendations on planning protocols for bats and development control are addressed in Section 7. In addition, some further studies are needed to improve the effectiveness of survey, development and post-development monitoring.

8.3.1

Conclusions from the planning questionnaire

Evidence from CCW indicates that bat roosts and habitats are being lost as a result of land use development proposals and procedures. This is in spite of a reasonably good level of knowledge and good practice guidance at the LPA/NPA level. It seems, therefore, that more effort is required to develop, disseminate and implement good practice guidance. It is possible that those who responded to the questionnaire are (by implication) those who are more aware of the guidelines available but perhaps planning officers are not aware of this guidance. Perhaps the information needs to be clearer, more concise and succinct; protected species are one of a number of issues that planning officers have to take on board in their profession. Perhaps local authority ecologists need to be given a stronger role in the planning process. Appendix 6 provides a summary of suggested procedures for local planning authorities for assessing the suitability of land for bats prior to allocating it for development or granting planning permission. In the light of the sort of steps listed in 7.3 of this report, there may be a need for protected species awareness training as part of continuing professional development, for both local authority ecologists and planning officers. Also, better enforcement of planning conditions and wildlife legislation is needed.

8.4

Suggested further studies

In this section, some suggestions are made for further studies that might help to improve our knowledge about bat behaviour and conservation in a fragmented landscape. In order to assist such studies in future, better advice is required on precise methodologies with different survey techniques, for example the ideal number of observers involved in radio-tracking and the ideal proportion of animals tracked during forage or roost surveys. Given their different roosting preferences, what are the most suitable survey techniques and methodologies for each species? How much useful information might be gleaned from analysis of archived roost report forms? Whilst each form is limited in its usefulness (because they rely upon observations that are based upon those spaces, surfaces and corners of a residential building that visible and accessible to the roost visitor), they might also reveal useful information about some of the less well understood species, for example whiskered/Brandt's bats.

55

October 2005

FINAL REPORT Bat Conservation Review

The Three Welsh National Parks, Pembrokeshire CC and CCW

Very little is understood or published on the effects of modern building techniques and materials on bat roosting behaviour. Useful information is required for example on the effects of modern insulation materials - their colour, surface, heat absorption, 'breathability' - on bat behaviour. Do modern warm roofs exclude bats owing to insufficient solar heating, relying instead on ambient central heating? Close and controlled inspection of a defined sample of buildings during demolition (for example old housing developments scheduled for replacement) might reveal useful information on roost locations.

8.4.1

Bat status and distribution

1. Improved data on bat distributions. More detailed information is required at a local level on bat distributions, including information on roosts and habitat use. Only by having a detailed understanding of species distributions throughout the three National Parks and Pembrokeshire can decisions be made on important areas for bats to be taken into account in the management of these areas. This could be gained through a number of means: bat detector surveys; roost surveys; involvement in the National Bat Monitoring Programme for all species; and specific studies for rarer species including targeted surveys for roosts, foraging and roosting ecology.

2. GIS database on bat roost, potential/known foraging areas and links between them. Our understanding of the distribution of bat species within each National Park and Pembrokeshire, and indeed on a wider basis across Wales, could be improved significantly by the continued development of a geographically based database of information on bat roosts and important bat habitats. Such a database might then be used to further investigate the geographical distributions of bats within the 3 study areas, and to identify important areas within them for bat habitats (see below). It might also be used to better inform development control decisions in relation to bats. For example, target areas could be identified for more detailed bat surveys on all barns within areas highlighted as favourable for bats. It is essential that any such database is compatible and attached to the National Biodiversity Network (NBN) and Local Biological Record Centre (LBRC) databases. The current bat databases as exist within the 3 areas should be examined to identify gaps which can inform what kinds of surveys are required under point 1 above to improve knowledge on bat status and distribution. 3. Bat roosts and habitat features. There is limited understanding of the distribution of bats within the three study areas. To identify sensitive locations for bats, a useful study might be to investigate the relationship between habitat type/feature and current known roost sites of different species to provide an overview of areas and habitats within the 3 areas. To begin with this might be achieved using data such as Phase 1 habitat surveys and aerial photos of the 3 areas. Until better information becomes available through surveys, this information might be extrapolated across each of the 3 areas to identify target areas for bat conservation activities, further targeted studies or as areas that are sensitive to development. Planning applications received in these sensitive areas could then be flagged up as being most likely to require a survey or the incorporation of appropriate habitat/roost features, for example. Essentially this would be the first step to providing a landscape-wide view of bats in the Parks and Pembrokeshire, incorporated into the forward planning and development control process.

56

October 2005

FINAL REPORT Bat Conservation Review

The Three Welsh National Parks, Pembrokeshire CC and CCW

An additional way forward might be to develop predictive models (involving climate and habitat variables) to predict where species should occur, based upon current distribution data (Gareth Jones, personal communication.

8.4.2

Bat ecology
1. Testing the effectiveness of mitigation measures for roost loss or habitat loss. Further information is required on how bats are affected by the loss of different types of roosts, and on whether and how foraging behaviour changes after mitigation or not. In order to do this, rigorous monitoring is required of roost and habitat use before and after developments, for example by radio-tracking bats between sites prior to the commencement of development works at a particular site. 2. Testing the importance of night and other types of roosts e.g., male and summer (non-breeding) roosts. Further information on the importance and exact role of alternative roosts is required. This information will inform planning decisions on the effects of development on these roost sites. (Note: some roosts have more than one use; e.g., they can be used as maternity roosts by one or more species and as transitory roosts by others). 3. Testing the importance of tree roosts and understanding bat behaviour in tree roosts. Further information is required on how important individual trees are within woodland areas supporting populations of tree-roosting bats, and on the effects of tree removal. More research is needed to identify better mitigation for loss of tree roosts. Not all species will use bat boxes. 4. Testing the efficacy of agri-environment schemes alongside control conditions, to investigate whether they do benefit bat populations. Rigorous studies are required to carefully test how agrienvironment schemes are benefiting bat populations, for example by improving insect availability or the number of bats foraging on farmland. 5. This study has highlighted barns and other agricultural buildings to be important roost sites for several bat species, and also that when they are re-developed, the record of successful mitigation is poor. Due to the known importance of these structures for bats, it is suggested that work be carried out to investigate the effects of barn conversions on bat roosts in the 3 study areas, along similar lines to the Hertfordshire barn study (Briggs 2000). The Bat Conservation Trust proposed such a study during 2002 but unfortunately funding was not forthcoming to enable the project to develop. Results of such a survey might provide useful information to guide future development control decisions in relation to barn, redundant church or mill (also old schools) conversions within the Welsh National Parks and Pembrokeshire.

8.4.3 Understanding wind turbines and bat mortality

1. Research is needed in the UK to determine which species are vulnerable to interference or collision with wind turbines. The research needs to establish how significant the effect may be (especially during the period of peak mortality observed in Europe and the USA of August September/early October) and how it may best be mitigated (for example by changing the proposed location to avoid important bat areas). A survey protocol is currently being written by the Bat Conservation Trust in conjunction with the Statutory Nature Conservation Organisations and with input from European bat researchers. Offshore (and onshore) thermal imaging studies are being carried out in the US and these will inform future European research. 2. The Parties to the Eurobats Agreement have requested that the Advisory Committee carry out an assessment of the impacts of wind turbines on bat populations. If appropriate guidelines should be developed for assessing potential impacts on bats and for including the ecological requirements of bat populations in the development of wind turbine schemes (Resolution No. 4.7 on Wind Turbines and Bat Populations (The EUROBATS. MoP4. Record. Annex 10 4th Session of the Meeting of Parties

57

October 2005

FINAL REPORT Bat Conservation Review

The Three Welsh National Parks, Pembrokeshire CC and CCW

Sofia, Bulgaria, 22 24 September 2003). The resolution emphasises that until this task is completed, the Parties and Range States should take full account of the precautionary principle in the development of wind turbine plants, as well as take account of bats in planning processes relating to the siting of wind turbines, especially along migration routes and in areas of particular value to bat populations. 3. In Wales a consultation exercise is underway to assess the number of such developments, how permissions for these are determined and to identify what survey and monitoring techniques are currently used. CCW recommends that in the meantime the EIA should address the effects of any proposals on bat populations in the study area. However, given that knowledge of the effects of wind turbines on bats in Britain is still lacking, the guidance provided by the Eurobats Agreement should be taken into account.

58

October 2005

FINAL REPORT Bat Conservation Review

The Three Welsh National Parks, Pembrokeshire CC and CCW

Bibliography
Ahln, I 2002. Fladdermss och fglar ddade av vindkraftverk. [Summary: Bats and birds killed by wind power turbines.] Fauna and Flora 97:3 14 21 Ahln, I (2003) Wind turbines and bats a pilot study. Final report to Swedish National Energy Administration. Sveriges Lantbruksuniversitet. Altringham JD 2003. British Bats. The New Naturalist Series. HarperCollins, London. Arlettaz R, Godat S & Meyer H 2000. Competition for food by expanding pipistrelle bat populations (Pipistrellus pipistrellus) might contribute to the decline of lesser horseshoe bats (Rhinolophus hipposideros). Biological Conservation 93: 55-60. Anon 2002. Managing Landscapes for the Greater Horseshoe Bat. English Nature, Peterborough. Barlow KE 1997. The diets of two phonic types of Pipistrellus pipistrellus (Chiroptera: Vespertilionidae) in Britain. Journal of Zoology, London 243: 597-609. Barlow KE & Jones 1999. Roosts, echolocations calls and win morphology of two phonic types of Pipistrellus pipistrellus. Zeitschrift f r Sugertierkunde 64: 257-268. Barratt EM, Deaville R, Burland TM, Bruford MW, Jones G, Racey PA & Wayne RK 1997. DNA answers the call of pipistrelle bat species. Nature 387: 138-139. Bat Conservation Trust 2001. The UKs National Bat Monitoring Programme Final Report 2001. DEFRA Countryside Research Programme: Research Findings. Bat Conservation Trust 2001. Bats and Trees in England. Professional Support Series, Bat Conservation Trust, London. Bat Conservation Trust 2002a. Bats, Development and Planning in England. Professional Support Series, Bat Conservation Trust, London. Bat Conservation Trust 2002b. Bats and Buildings in the UK. Professional Support Series, Bat Conservation Trust, London. Billington GE & Norman GM 1997.The Conservation of Bats in Bridges Project a report on the survey and conservation of bat roosts in bridges in Cumbria. English Nature, Peterborough. Billington GE 2000. Preliminary report on further research on the barbastelle at Holnicote Estate, English Nature, Peterborough. Billington GE 2001. Radio-tracking study of barbastelles at Pengelli Forest National Nature Reserve, June and August 2001, West Wales Wildlife Trust. Blake D, Hutson A, Racey PA, Rydell J & Speakman JR 1994. Use of lamplit roads by foraging bats in Southern England. Journal of Zoology, London 234: 453-464. Boonman M 2000. Roost selection by noctules (Nyctalus noctula) and Daubentons bats (Myotis daubentonii). Journal of Zoology, London 251: 385-389.

59

October 2005

FINAL REPORT Bat Conservation Review

The Three Welsh National Parks, Pembrokeshire CC and CCW

Bontadina F, Schofield H & Naef-Daenzer B 2002. Radio-tracking reveals that lesser horseshoe bats (Rhinolophus hipposideros) forage in woodland. Journal of Zoology, London 258: 281-290. Briggs P 1995. Bats in Barns. Transactions of the Hertfordshire Natural History Society 32: 237-244. Briggs P 2000. A Study of Barn Conversions in Hertfordshire. Commissioned by Hertfordshire BRC and Hertfordshire County Council. Brittingham MC & Williams LM 2000. Bat boxes as alternative roosts for displaced bat maternity colonies. Wildlife Society Bulletin 28: 197-207. Bullock DJ 1995. Bats in National Trust properties a preliminary review. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 56: 103-118. Catherine Bickmore Associates 2003. Review of Work Carried out on Trunk Road Network in Wales for Bats. July 2003. Catto, C.M.C, Racey, P.A. & Stephenson, P.J. 1995. Activity patterns of the serotine bat (Eptesicus serotinus) at a roost in southern England. Journal of Zoology, London 235: 635-644. Catto CMC, Hutson AM, Racey PA & Stephenson PJ 1996. Foraging behaviour and habitat use of the serotine bat (Eptesicus serotinus) in southern England. Journal of Zoology, London 238: 623-633. Corbet GB & Harris S 1991. The Handbook of British Mammals (3 Publications, Oxford.
rd

edn.). Blackwell Scientific

Countryside Council for Wales. Bats in Roofs. A brief guide for builders and surveyors. Online leaflet. Davidson-Watts I & Jones G (In prep). Differences in foraging behaviour between Pipistrellus pipistrellus (Schreber, 1774) and Pipistrellus pygmaeus (Leach, 1825). Duverg PL 1998. Could variations in the foraging activity of greater horseshoe bats affect our conservation strategy for this species? Abstracts of conference presentations and papers. The National Bat Conference, University of Wales, Swansea. Duverg PL & Jones G 1994. Greater horseshoe bats Activity, foraging behaviour and habitat use British Wildlife 6: 69-77. Duverg PL & Jones G 2003. Use of farmland habitats by greater horseshoe bats. In Farming and mammals. Conservation and Conflict (Tattersall F & Manley W, eds), pp. 64-81. The Linnean Society, London. English Nature 1994. Species Conservation Handbook. Entwistle AC, Harris S, Hutson AM, Racey PA, Walsh A, Gibson SD, Hepburn I & Johnston J 2001. Habitat Management for Bats A guide for land managers, land owners and their advisors. JNCC, Peterborough. Entwistle AC, Racey PA & Speakman JR 1997. Roost selection by the brown long-eared bat Plecotus auritus. Journal of Applied Ecology 34: 399-408.

60

October 2005

FINAL REPORT Bat Conservation Review

The Three Welsh National Parks, Pembrokeshire CC and CCW

Entwistle AC, Racey PA, & Speakman JR 1996 Habitat exploitation by a gleaning bat, Plecotus auritus. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society 351: 921-931. Evelyn MJ, Stiles DA & Young RA 2004. Conservation of bats in suburban landscapes: roost selection by Myotis yumanensis in a residential area in California. Biological Conservation 115: 463-473. Freer RA, Waters DA and Altringham JD (1998) Artificial maternity roosts for Rhinolophus hipposideros, the lesser horseshoe bat. CCW Contract Science Report 250 Gehrt SD & Chelsvig JE 2003. Bat activity in an urban landscape: Patterns at the landscape and microhabitat scale. Ecological Applications 13: 939-950. Gillespie J & Rasey A 2003. Development control, local authorities and protected species surveys. Report No. 479. English Nature Research Reports, Peterborough. Glendell M & Vaughan N 2002. Foraging activity of bats in historic landscape parks in relation to habitat composition and park management. Animal Conservation 5: 309-316. Glendell M 2003. The effectiveness of bat conservation through development control in the Dartmoor National Park. Dartmoor NP report. Greenaway F 2001. The barbastelle in Britain. British Wildlife 12: 327-334. Halliwell EC & Matthews JE 2004. Lesser Horseshoe Bat Summer Roost Surveillance 29 May to 17 June 2002. CCW Natural Science Report No. 03/91. Harris S, Morris P, Wray S & Yalden D 1995. A review of British Mammals: population estimates and conservation status of British mammals other than cetaceans. JNCC, Peterborough. Harrington L, Catto C & Hutson AM 1995. The status and distribution of barbastelle (Barbastella barbastellus) and Bechsteins bat (Myotis bechsteinii) in the UK with recovery plans. The Bat Conservation Trust, London. Haycock, A and Hodges J 2004 Unpublished data on greater horseshoe bats in Pembrokeshire. Pembrokeshire Bat Group. Hutson, A.M., 1993. Action Plan for the Conservation of Bats in the United Kingdom. BCT, London Jenkins EV, Laine T, Morgan SE, Cole KR & Speakman JR 1998. Roost selection in the pipistrelle bat, Pipistrellus pipistrellus (Chiroptera: Vespertilionidae), in northeast Scotland. Animal Behaviour 56: 909-917. Johnson, GD, Erickson, WP, Strickland, MD, Shepherd, MF, Shepherd DA and Sarappo, SA 2003. Mortality of bats at a large-scale wind power development at Buffalo Ridge, Minnesota. Am. Midl. Nat. 150: 332 342 Jones G 1990. Prey selection by the greater horseshoe bat (Rhinolophus ferrumequinum): optimal foraging by echolocation? Journal of Animal Ecology 59: 587-02. Jones G 1991. Hibernal ecology of whiskered bats (Myotis mystacinus) and Brandts bats (Myotis brandtii) sharing the same roost. Myotis 29: 121-128.

61

October 2005

FINAL REPORT Bat Conservation Review

The Three Welsh National Parks, Pembrokeshire CC and CCW

Jones G & Barratt EM 1999. Case 3073. Vespertilio pipistrellus Schreber, 1774 and V. pygmaeus Leach, 1825 (currently Pipistrellus pipistrellus and P. pygmaeus; Mammalia, Chiroptera): proposed designation of neotypes. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 56: 182-186. Jones G, Duverg PL & Ransome RD 1995. Conservation biology of an endangered species: field studies of greater horseshoe bats. Symposium of the Zoological Society of London 67: 309324. Jones G & Raynor JMV 1988. Flight performance, foraging tactics and echolocation in free-living Daubentons bats Myotis daubentonii (Chiroptera, Vespertilionidae). Journal of Zoology, London 215: 113-132. Kerth G, Weissman K & Konig B 2001. Day roost selection in female Bechsteins bats (Myotis bechsteinii): a field experiment to determine the influence of roost temperature. Oecologia 126: 1-9. Kerth G, Kiefer A, Trappmann C & Weishaar M 2003. High gene diversity at swarming sites suggest hot spots for gene flow in the endangered Bechsteins bat. Conservation Genetics 4: 491499. Kronwitter F 1988. Population structure, habitat use and activity patterns of the noctule bat, Nyctalus noctula Schreb., 1774 (Chiroptera: Vespertilionidae) revealed by radio-tracking. Myotis 26: 23-85. Lesinski G, Fuszara E & Kowalski M 2000. Foraging areas and relative density of bats (Chiroptera) in differently human transformed landscapes. Zeitschrift fur Saugertierkunde 65: 129-137. Limpens HJG & Kapteyn K 1991. Bats, their behaviour and linear landscape elements. Myotis 29: 39-48. Lod T 2000. Effect of a motorway on mortality and isolation of wildlife populations. Ambio 29: 163166. Longley M 2003a. Greater horseshoe bat project 1998-2003. Report No. 532. English Nature Research Reports, Peterborough. Longley M 2003b. The Greater Horseshoe Bat Project: a species conservation success story. British Wildlife 15: 1-6. Lundberg K & Gerell R 1986. Territorial advertisement and mate attraction in the bat Pipistrellus pipistrellus. Ethology 71: 115-124. Mayle BA 1990. Habitat management for woodland bats. Research Information Note 165. Forestry Commission, Surrey. Mitchell-Jones AJ 2004. Bat mitigation guidelines. English Nature, Peterborough. Mitchell-Jones AJ & McLeish AP 2004. Bat Workers Manual (3 edn). JNCC, Peterborough. Moore NP, Jones S, Hutson AM & Garthwaite D 2003. Assessing the outcome of English Nature advice on bat colony management and mitigation works. Report no. 517. English Nature Research Reports, Peterborough.
rd

62

October 2005

FINAL REPORT Bat Conservation Review

The Three Welsh National Parks, Pembrokeshire CC and CCW

Motte G & Libois R 2002 Conservation of the lesser horseshoe bat (Rhinolophus hipposideros Bechstein, 1800) (Mammalia: Chiroptera) in Belgium. A case study of feeding habitat requirements. Belgian Journal of Zoology 132: 49-54. Oakeley SF & Jones G 1998. Habitat around maternity roosts of the 55kHz phonic type of pipistrelle bats (Pipistrellus pipistrellus). Journal of Zoology, London 245: 222-228. Oxford M 2000. Developing Naturally a handbook for incorporating the natural environment into planning and development. Association of Local Government Ecologists/English Nature. Park KJ, Jones G & Ransome RD 1999. Winter activity of a population of greater horseshoe bats (Rhinolophus ferrumequinum). Journal of Zoology, London 248: 419-427. Park KJ, Masters E & Altringham JD 1998. Social structure of three sympatric bat species (Vespertilionidae). Journal of Zoology, London 244: 379-389. Parsons KN & Jones G 2003. Dispersion and habitat use by Myotis daubentonii and Myotis nattereri during the swarming season: implications for conservation. Animal Conservation 6: 283-290. Parsons KN, Jones G, Davidson-Watt I & Greenaway F 2002. Swarming of bats at underground sites in Britain implications for conservation. Biological Conservation 111: 63-70. Pnicaud P 2000. Chauves-souris arboricoles en Bretagne (France): typologie de 60 arbres-gtes et elements de lcologie des espces observes. Le Rhinolophe 14: 37-68. Racey PA 1998. The importance of the riparian environment as a habitat for British bats. In: Behaviour and Ecology of Riparian Mammals. (Dunstone N & Gorman ML, eds.), pp. 69-91. Symposia of the Zoological Society of London 71, London. Racey PA & Swift SM 1985. Feeding ecology of Pipistrellus pipistrellus (Chiroptera: Vespertilionidae) during pregnancy and lactation. I. Foraging behaviour. Journal of Animal Ecology 54:205215. Racey PA, Swift SM, Rydell J & Brodie L 1998. Bats and insects over two Scottish rivers with contrasting nitrate status. Animal Conservation 1: 195-202. Ransome RD 1996. The management of feeding areas for greater horseshoe bats. Report no. 174. English Nature Research Reports, Peterborough. Ransome RD 1997. The management of greater horseshoe bat feeding areas to enhance population levels. Report no. 241. English Nature Research Reports, Peterborough. Ransome RD 2002. Winter feeding studies on greater horseshoe bats. Report no. 449. English Nature Research Reports, Peterborough. Ransome RD & Hutson AM 2000. Action Plan for the Conservation of the Greater Horseshoe Bat in Europe (Rhinolophus ferrumequinum). Nature and Environment, No. 109. Council of Europe Publishing. Richardson PW 2000. Distribution Atlas Of Bat In Britain And Ireland, 1980-1999. Bat Conservation Trust, London.

63

October 2005

FINAL REPORT Bat Conservation Review

The Three Welsh National Parks, Pembrokeshire CC and CCW

Robinson RA & Stebbings RE 1997. Home range and habitat use by serotines in England. Journal of Zoology, London 243: 117-136. Robinson RA & Sutherland WJ 2002. Post-war changes in arable farming and biodiversity in Great Britain. Journal of Animal Ecology 39: 157-176. Rossiter SJ, Jones G, Ransome RD & Barratt EM 2000. Genetic variation and population structure in the endangered greater horseshoe bat Rhinolophus ferrumequinum. Molecular Ecology 9: 1131-1135. Rossiter SJ, Jones G, Ransome RD & Barratt EM 2002. Relatedness structure and kin-based foraging in the greater horseshoe bat (Rhinolophus ferrumequinum). Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 51: 510-518. Russ JM & Montgomery WI 2002. Habitat associations of bats in Northern Ireland: implications for conservation. Biological Conservation 108: 49-58. Russ JM, Briffa M & Montgomery WI 2003. Seasonal patterns in activity and habitat use by bats (Pipistrellus spp. and Nyctalus leisleri) in Northern Ireland, determined using a driven transect. Journal of Zoology, London 259: 289-299. Russo D, Cistrone L, Jones G & Mazzoleni S 2004. Roost selection by barbastelles (Barbastella barbastellus, Chiroptera: Vespertilionidae) in beech woodlands of central Italy: consequences for conservation. Biological Conservation 117: 73-81. Rydell J 1992. Exploitation of insects around streetlamps by bats in Sweden. Functional Ecology 6: 744-750. Rydell J, Bushby A, Cosgrove CC & Racey PA 1994. Habitat use by bats along rivers in north east Scotland. Folia Zoologica 43: 417-424. Schofield H, Messenger J, Birks J & Jermyn D 2002. Foraging and roosting behaviour of lesser horseshoe bats at the Ciliau, Radnor. Report to The Vincent Wildlife Trust, Herefordshire. Shiel CB 1999. Bridge usage by bats in County Leitrim and County Sligo. Heritage Council, Ireland. Shiel CB, Shiel RE & Fairley JS 1999. Seasonal changes in the foraging behaviour of Leislers bats (Nyctalus leisleri) in Ireland as revealed by radio-telemetry. Journal of Zoology 249: 347-358. Sierro A & Arlettaz R 1997. Barbastelles (Barbastella spp) specialise in the predation of moths: implications for foraging tactics and conservation. Acta Oecologica 18: 91-106. Smith PG & Racey PA 2002. Habitat management for Natterers bat. PTES / Mammals Trust UK. Smith PG & Racey PA (2005). The itinerant Natterer: physical and thermal characteristics of summer roosts of Myotis nattereri (Mammalia: chiroptera). Journ. Zool. Lond. 266: 171-180 Smith PG and Morgan PL 2003. Identification of the foraging areas and commuting routes used by lesser horseshoe bats at Ciliau SSSI. Report prepared for CCW. Smith PG and Morgan PL 2004. Radio tracking of lesser horseshoe bats from Agen Allwedd Cave (Craig y Cilau NNR), Spring 2003. Report prepared for CCW.

64

October 2005

FINAL REPORT Bat Conservation Review

The Three Welsh National Parks, Pembrokeshire CC and CCW

Speakman JR, Irwin N, Tallach N & Stone R 1999. Effect of roost size on the emergence behaviour of pipistrelle bats. Animal Behaviour 58: 787-795. Swift SM 1997. Roosting and foraging behaviour of Natterers bats (Myotis nattereri) close to the northern border of their distribution. Journal of Zoology, London 42: 375-384. Swift SM & Racey PA 1983 Resource partitioning in two species of vespertilionid bats (Chiroptera) occupying the same roost. Journal of Zoology, London 200: 49-259. Taake KH 1984. Strukturelle Unterschiede zwischen den Sommerhabitaten von Kleiner und Grosser Bartfledermaus (Myotis mystacinus und M. brandtii) in Westfalen. Nyctalus 2: 16-32. Thompson MJA 1992. Roost philopatry in female pipistrelle bats Pipistrellus pipistrellus. Journal of Zoology, London 228: 673-679. Vaughan N 1997. The diets of British bats (Chiroptera). Mammal Review 27: 77-94. Vaughan N, Jones G & Harris S 1996. Effects of sewage effluent on the activity of bats (Chiroptera: Vespertilionidae) foraging along rivers. Biological Conservation 78: 337-343. Vaughan N, Jones G & Harris S 1997. Habitat use by bats (Chiroptera) assessed by means of a broad-band acoustic method. Journal of Applied Ecology 34: 716-730. Verboom B & Huitema H 1997. The importance of linear landscape elements for the pipistrelle Pipistrellus pipistrellus and the serotine bat Eptesicus serotinus. Landscape Ecology 12: 117-125. Verboom B & Spoelstra K 1999. Effects of food abundance and wind on the use of tree lines by an insectivorous bat, Pipistrellus pipistrellus. Canadian Journal of Zoology 77: 1393-1401. Walsh AL & Harris S 1996a. Foraging habitat preferences of vespertilionid bats in Britain. Journal of Applied Ecology 33: 508-518. Walsh AL & Harris S 1996b. Factors determining the abundance of vespertilionid bats in Britain: geographical, land class and local habitat relationships. Journal of Applied Ecology 33: 519529. Warren RD & Witter MS 2002. Monitoring trends in bat populations through roost surveys: methods and data from Rhinolophus hipposideros. Biological Conservation 105: 255-261. Warren RD, Waters DA, Altringham JD & Bullock DJ 2000. The distribution of Daubentons bats (Myotis daubentonii) and pipistrelle bats (Pipistrellus pipistrellus) (Vespertilionidae) in relation to small-scale variation in riverine habitat. Biological Conservation 92: 85-91. Waters DA, Jones G & Furlong M 1999. Foraging ecology of Leislers bat (Nyctalus leisleri) at two sites in southern Britain. Journal of Zoology, London 249: 173-180. Wickramasinghe L, Harris S, Jones G & Vaughan N 2003. Bat activity and species richness on organic and conventional farms: impact of agricultural intensification. Journal of Applied Ecology 40: 984-993.

65

October 2005

FINAL REPORT Bat Conservation Review

The Three Welsh National Parks, Pembrokeshire CC and CCW

Wickramasinghe L, Harris S, Jones G & Vaughan N 2003. Abundance and species richness of nocturnal insects on organic and conventional farms: effects of agricultural intensification on bat foraging. Conservation Biology 18: 1-10. Williams CA 2001. The winter ecology of Rhinolophus hipposideros, the lesser horseshoe bat. PhD thesis, Open University, May 2001. Wray S, Reason P, Haddow J & Sargent G 2002. Assessing the outcome of SNH advice on bat colony management. Unpublished internal SN report.

66

October 2005