Back

Preventing unintentional bat captures in canopy traps used for insect surveys

Salle, A.; Arthur, L.; Parmain, G.; Williams, D.; Chretien, A.; Le Souchu, E.; Moliard, C.; Roques, A.; Bouget, C.

2025-08-12 ecology
10.1101/2025.08.11.669606 bioRxiv
Show abstract

There is growing interest in deploying insect traps in forest canopies for ecological research, invasive species surveillance, and biodiversity monitoring. However, forest canopies also harbor a diverse and abundant bat community, which may be incidentally trapped and killed by these devices. In this study, we investigated the impact of flight interception traps and multi-funnel traps deployed in oak canopies on incidental bat captures, and evaluated whether trap modifications could reduce this bycatch. We also examined how these modifications influenced the species richness, abundance, and mean body size of several beetle taxa, including Buprestidae, Cerambycidae, Cetoniinae, and Scolytinae. Both trap types captured bats. Flight interception traps accidentally caught seven species - Myotis bechsteinii, Myotis daubentonii, Myotis mystacinus, Nyctalus noctula, Nyctalus leisleri, Plecotus auritus, and Pipistrellus pipistrellus - with an average of 0.42 bats per trap. Multi-funnel traps primarily caught males of P. pipistrellus, with an average of 0.29 bats per trap. Adding a 13-mm mesh above the collection container significantly reduced bat bycatch to 0.02 and 0.05 bats per trap in flight interception traps and multi-funnel traps, respectively. This modification had no significant effect on insect species richness or mean body size, although it did reduce Cerambycidae and Scolytinae abundance in black multi-funnel and flight interception traps, respectively. This was likely due to more frequent clogging by twigs and leaves. We recommend modifying flight interception and multi-funnel traps deployed in forest canopies to prevent unintentional harm to protected bat species.

Matching journals

The top 2 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 3%
28.2%
2
Global Ecology and Conservation
25 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
23.0%
50% of probability mass above
3
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 22%
4.9%
4
Insects
36 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
3.7%
5
Forest Ecology and Management
25 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.9%
6
PeerJ
261 papers in training set
Top 3%
2.8%
7
Biological Conservation
43 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.1%
8
Pest Management Science
32 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
2.1%
9
Science of The Total Environment
179 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.9%
10
Ecology and Evolution
232 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.7%
11
Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution
60 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.7%
12
Conservation Science and Practice
13 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.7%
13
Ecological Entomology
11 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.5%
14
Biotropica
15 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.2%
15
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 50%
1.1%
16
Parasites & Vectors
57 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.9%
17
Remote Sensing in Ecology and Conservation
10 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.9%
18
Journal of Applied Ecology
35 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.8%
19
Journal of Economic Entomology
10 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.8%
20
Journal of Environmental Management
11 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.8%
21
Animal Conservation
11 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.7%
22
Ecological Applications
28 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
0.5%