Dissemin is shutting down on January 1st, 2025

Published in

Monte L Bean Life Science Museau, Western North American Naturalist, 4(76), p. 501-508

DOI: 10.3398/064.076.0412

Links

Tools

Export citation

Search in Google Scholar

Survey of the bat fauna, Desert National Wildlife Refuge, Nevada

This paper was not found in any repository, but could be made available legally by the author.
This paper was not found in any repository, but could be made available legally by the author.

Full text: Unavailable

Red circle
Preprint: archiving forbidden
Red circle
Postprint: archiving forbidden
Green circle
Published version: archiving allowed
Data provided by SHERPA/RoMEO

Abstract

We conducted a survey of the bat fauna of Desert National Wildlife Refuge (DNWR) in Nevada during 2008–2014. Our objectives were (1) to determine the species present at DNWR by mist-netting at likely bat drinking areas; (2) to compare the bat fauna at White Spot Spring at DNWR to the fauna documented there in 1962–1967; and (3) to assess the possible importance of artificial water sources to bats on this highly arid landscape in relation to an ongoing drought. We captured 480 bats of 10 species in mist nets over drinking water sources; species identifications are documented by voucher specimens. In order of frequency of capture, species and numbers of individuals captured were as follows: canyon bat (Parastrellus hesperus), 223; combined California myotis and western small-footed myotis (Myotis californicus/M. ciliolabrum), 157; long-legged myotis (Myotis volans), 55; long-eared myotis (Myotis evotis), 12; Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii), 12; fringed myotis (Myotis thysanodes), 10; pallid bats (Antrozous pallidus), 7; big brown bats (Eptesicus fuscus), 3; and Yuma myotis (Myotis yumanensis), 1. California myotis and small-footed myotis could not be reliably distinguished in the field because many individuals were intermediate in identifying characters. The abundance-based Jaccard’s community similarity index for the bat community at White Spot Spring in April and July 2013–2014 compared with that from about 50 years earlier (O’Farrell and Bradley 1970) was 0.99 (SE bootstrap 0.02), indicating negligible change. Despite an ongoing severe drought, positive evidence for female reproduction was evident in July 2014. We suspect that DNWR could not sustain current levels of reproduction in bats without suitable drinking water sources.Realizamos un monitoreo de la fauna de murciélagos del Refugio del Desierto de la Reserva Nacional (RBSN) en Nevada durante 2008–2014. Nuestros objetivos fueron: (1) determinar, con el uso de redes de niebla, las especies presentes en RBSN en zonas de acceso a agua; (2) comparar la fauna de murciélagos en el manantial White Spot Spring dentro de RBSN con la fauna documentada allí entre 1962–1967; (3) evaluar la posible importancia de las fuentes de agua artificiales para los murciélagos en este paisaje tan árido en relación con la actual sequía. Capturamos 480 murciélagos de 10 especies con redes de niebla sobre las fuentes de agua, documentados por especímenes de muestra. En orden de frecuencia de captura, las especies y el número de individuos capturados fueron: murciélagos del cañón (Parastrellus hesperus), 223; combinados, el murciélago de California y el murciélago de patas cortas del oeste (Myotis californicus/M. ciliolabrum), 157; murciélago de patas largas (Myotis volans), 55; murciélago orejudo (Myotis evotis), 12; murciélagos orejudos de Townsend (Corynorhinus townsendii), 12; murciélagos bordados (Myotis thysanodes), 10; murciélagos pálidos (Antrozous pallidus), 7; murciélagos marrones (Eptesicus fuscus), 3; y murciélagos Yuma (Myotis yumanensis), 1. Los murciélagos de California y los de patas cortas no pudieron distinguirse de forma fiable en el campo debido a que muchos individuos mostraban características intermedias. La abundancia basada en el Índice de Similitud de Jaccard para la comunidad de murciélagos en el manantial White Spot Spring en abril y julio de 2013–2014, en comparación con la de unos 50 años antes (O’Farrell y Bradley 1970), fue de 0.99 (Error estándar con bootstrap 0.02), lo que indica un cambio muy pequeño. A pesar de una grave sequía en curso, encontramos evidencia positiva de la reproducción de las hembras en julio de 2014. Sospechamos que RBSN no podría mantener los niveles actuales de reproducción de los murciélagos sin fuentes de agua adecuadas las.