School of Biological Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom.
Ecotricity Group Limited, Stroud, Gloucestershire, United Kingdom.
PLoS One. 2020 Feb 13;15(2):e0228668. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0228668. eCollection 2020.
Where humans and wildlife co-exist, mitigation is often needed to alleviate potential conflicts and impacts. Deterrence methods can be used to reduce impacts of human structures or activities on wildlife, or to resolve conservation conflicts in areas where animals may be regarded as a nuisance or pose a health hazard. Here we test two methods (acoustic and radar) that have shown potential for deterring bats away from areas where they forage and/or roost. Using both infrared video and acoustic methods for counting bat passes, we show that ultrasonic speakers were effective as bat deterrents at foraging sites, but radar was not. Ultrasonic deterrents decreased overall bat activity (filmed on infrared cameras) by 80% when deployed alone and in combination with radar. However, radar alone had no effect on bat activity when video or acoustic data were analysed using generalised linear mixed effect models. Feeding buzzes of all species were reduced by 79% and 69% in the ultrasound only treatment when compared to the control and radar treatments, but only the ultrasound treatment was significant in post-hoc tests. Species responded differently to the ultrasound treatments and we recorded a deterrent effect on both Pipistrellus pipistrellus (40-80% reduction in activity) and P. pygmaeus (~30-60% reduction), but not on Myotis species. However, only the ultrasound and radar treatment was significant (when compared to control and radar) in post-hoc tests for P. pipistrellus. Deterrent treatment was marginally non-significant for P. pygmaeus, but the ultrasound only treatment was significant when compared to radar in post-hoc tests. We therefore suggest that acoustic, but not radar methods are explored further as deterrents for bats. The use of acoustic deterrence should always be assessed on a case-by-case basis, with a focus on bat conservation.
当人类和野生动物共存时，通常需要采取缓解措施来减轻潜在的冲突和影响。威慑方法可用于减少人类结构或活动对野生动物的影响，或解决在动物可能被视为滋扰或构成健康危害的地区的保护冲突。在这里，我们测试了两种方法（声学和雷达），这些方法已显示出有潜力将蝙蝠从觅食和/或栖息的地方驱赶开。我们使用红外视频和声学方法来计算蝙蝠的通过次数，结果表明，在觅食点，超声波扬声器对蝙蝠有很好的驱赶效果，但雷达则没有。单独使用和与雷达一起使用时，超声威慑物可将蝙蝠的总活动（用红外摄像机拍摄）减少约 80％。然而，当使用广义线性混合效应模型分析视频或声学数据时，雷达单独使用对蝙蝠活动没有影响。当与对照和雷达处理相比时，在仅使用超声处理时，所有物种的觅食声都减少了 79％和 69％，但只有超声处理在事后检验中具有显著差异。不同物种对超声处理的反应不同，我们记录到对 Pipistrellus pipistrellus（活动减少约 40-80％）和 P. pygmaeus（活动减少约 30-60％）都有威慑作用，但对 Myotis 物种则没有。然而，只有超声和雷达处理在事后检验中与对照和雷达相比具有显著差异（对于 P. pipistrellus）。对于 P. pygmaeus，威慑处理的差异略不显著，但在事后检验中，与雷达相比，仅超声处理具有显著差异。因此，我们建议进一步探索声学而非雷达方法作为蝙蝠的驱避剂。在具体案例中，应始终根据蝙蝠保护情况来评估声学驱避剂的使用。
