IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0048201.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Bats in a Farming Landscape Benefit from Linear Remnants and Unimproved Pastures

Author

Listed:
  • Pia E Lentini
  • Philip Gibbons
  • Joern Fischer
  • Brad Law
  • Jan Hanspach
  • Tara G Martin

Abstract

Schemes designed to make farming landscapes less hostile to wildlife have been questioned because target taxa do not always respond in the expected manner. Microbats are often overlooked in this process, yet persist in agricultural landscapes and exert top-down control of crop pests. We investigated the relationship between microbats and measures commonly incorporated into agri-environment schemes, to derive management recommendations for their ongoing conservation. We used acoustic detectors to quantify bat species richness, activity, and feeding in 32 linear remnants and adjacent fields across an agricultural region of New South Wales, Australia. Nocturnal arthropods were simultaneously trapped using black-light traps. We recorded 91,969 bat calls, 17,277 of which could be attributed to one of the 13 taxa recorded, and 491 calls contained feeding buzzes. The linear remnants supported higher bat activity than the fields, but species richness and feeding activity did not significantly differ. We trapped a mean 87.6 g (±17.6 g SE) of arthropods per night, but found no differences in biomass between land uses. Wider linear remnants with intact native vegetation supported more bat species, as did those adjacent to unsealed, as opposed to sealed roads. Fields of unimproved native pastures, with more retained scattered trees and associated hollows and logs, supported the greatest bat species richness and activity. We conclude that the juxtaposition of linear remnants of intact vegetation and scattered trees in fields, coupled with less-intensive land uses such as unimproved pastures will benefit bat communities in agricultural landscapes, and should be incorporated into agri-environment schemes. In contrast, sealed roads may act as a deterrent. The “wildlife friendly farming” vs “land sparing” debate has so far primarily focussed on birds, but here we have found evidence that the integration of both approaches could particularly benefit bats.

Suggested Citation

  • Pia E Lentini & Philip Gibbons & Joern Fischer & Brad Law & Jan Hanspach & Tara G Martin, 2012. "Bats in a Farming Landscape Benefit from Linear Remnants and Unimproved Pastures," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(11), pages 1-13, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0048201
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0048201
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0048201
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0048201&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0048201?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. David Kleijn & Frank Berendse & Ruben Smit & Niels Gilissen, 2001. "Agri-environment schemes do not effectively protect biodiversity in Dutch agricultural landscapes," Nature, Nature, vol. 413(6857), pages 723-725, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Barraquand, F. & Martinet, V., 2011. "Biological conservation in dynamic agricultural landscapes: Effectiveness of public policies and trade-offs with agricultural production," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(5), pages 910-920, March.
    2. Anja Schmitz & Johannes Isselstein, 2020. "Effect of Grazing System on Grassland Plant Species Richness and Vegetation Characteristics: Comparing Horse and Cattle Grazing," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(8), pages 1-17, April.
    3. Vermaat, Jan E. & Eppink, Florian & van den Bergh, Jeroen C.J.M. & Barendregt, Aat & van Belle, Jasper, 2005. "Aggregation and the matching of scales in spatial economics and landscape ecology: empirical evidence and prospects for integration," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(2), pages 229-237, January.
    4. Meijerink, Gerdien W., 2007. "If services aren't delivered, people won't pay: the role of measurement problems and monitoring in Payments for Environmental Services," 106th Seminar, October 25-27, 2007, Montpellier, France 7948, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    5. Dörschner, T. & Musshoff, O., 2015. "How do incentive-based environmental policies affect environment protection initiatives of farmers? An experimental economic analysis using the example of species richness," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 90-103.
    6. Wamelink, G.W.W. & de Jong, J.J. & Van Dobben, H.F. & Van Wijk, M.N., 2005. "Additional costs of nature management caused by deposition," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(4), pages 437-451, March.
    7. Mack, Gabriele & Ritzel, Christian & Jan, Pierrick, 2020. "Determinants for the Implementation of Action-, Result- and Multi-Actor-Oriented Agri-Environment Schemes in Switzerland," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    8. Martinet, Vincent, 2014. "The economics of the Food versus Biodiversity debate," 2014 International Congress, August 26-29, 2014, Ljubljana, Slovenia 182800, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    9. Clements, Jen & Lobley, Matt & Osborne, Juliet & Wills, Jane, 2021. "How can academic research on UK agri-environment schemes pivot to meet the addition of climate mitigation aims?," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 106(C).
    10. Ingunn M Tombre & Einar Eythórsson & Jesper Madsen, 2013. "Towards a Solution to the Goose-Agriculture Conflict in North Norway, 1988–2012: The Interplay between Policy, Stakeholder Influence and Goose Population Dynamics," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(8), pages 1-8, August.
    11. Massfeller, Anna & Meraner, Manuela & Hüttel, Silke & Uehleke, Reinhard, 2022. "Farmers' acceptance of results-based agri-environmental schemes: A German perspective," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    12. Ohl, C. & Drechsler, M. & Johst, K. & Wätzold, F., 2008. "Compensation payments for habitat heterogeneity: Existence, efficiency, and fairness considerations," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(2), pages 162-174, September.
    13. Groot, Jeroen C.J. & Rossing, Walter a.H. & Tichit, Muriel & Turpin, Nadine & Jellema, André & Baudry, Jacques & Verburg, Peter & Doyen, Luc & van de Ven, Gerrie, 2009. "On the contribution of modelling to multifunctional agriculture: learning from comparisons," MPRA Paper 65467, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    14. Lerouge, Frederik & Sannen, Kurt & Gulinck, Hubert & Vranken, Liesbet, 2014. "Revisiting production and ecosystem services for evaluating land use alternatives in a rural landscape," Working Papers 187605, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Centre for Agricultural and Food Economics.
    15. Mouysset, L., 2014. "Agricultural public policy: Green or sustainable?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 15-23.
    16. Juha Siikamäki & David F. Layton, 2007. "Potential Cost-Effectiveness of Incentive Payment Programs for the Protection of Non-Industrial Private Forests," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 83(4), pages 539-560.
    17. Chobotová, Veronika, 2013. "The role of market-based instruments for biodiversity conservation in Central and Eastern Europe," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 41-50.
    18. Aerni, Philipp & Rae, Allan & Lehmann, Bernard, 2009. "Nostalgia versus Pragmatism? How attitudes and interests shape the term sustainable agriculture in Switzerland and New Zealand," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 227-235, April.
    19. Schönhart, Martin & Schauppenlehner, Thomas & Schmid, Erwin & Muhar, Andreas, 2011. "Integration of bio-physical and economic models to analyze management intensity and landscape structure effects at farm and landscape level," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 104(2), pages 122-134, February.
    20. Walder, Peter & Kantelhardt, Jochen, 2018. "The Environmental Behaviour of Farmers – Capturing the Diversity of Perspectives with a Q Methodological Approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 143(C), pages 55-63.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0048201. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.