Constructed wetlands support bats in agricultural landscapes
This study is summarised as evidence for the following.
Create artificial water sourcesAction Link
Create artificial water sources
A replicated, site comparison study in 2009 at seven ponds within vineyards in Landau, Germany (Stahlschmidt et al 2012) found that artificial retention ponds had similar or higher bat activity for three species groups than adjacent vineyards. Activity of Pipistrellus spp. and Myotis spp. was higher over retention ponds (Pipistrellus: 1,421 bat passes/night; Myotis: 65 bat passes/night) than in nearby vineyards (Pipistrellus: 8 bat passes/night; Myotis: 3 bat passes/night), but the activity of Eptesicus and Nyctalus spp. did not differ significantly (ponds: 55 bat passes/night; vineyards: 14 bat passes/night). All seven retention ponds (0.1–1.3 ha) had bankside vegetation. At each of seven sites, bat activity was recorded using bat detectors and thermal infra-red imaging cameras simultaneously at the pond and at a vineyard site 80 m away for 8–9 full nights in June–August 2009.