The influence of habitat structure on the ability to detect ultrasound using bat detectors
By Krista J. Patriquin, Laureen K. Hogherg, B. Chruszcz, R. M. R. Barclay. 2003
119 citations recorded by the source corpus.
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/2300f0a38eca722bc25bb28adaa392ebf8358d6d
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
- A. Morris
- R. Brigham
- Gareth J. F. Jones
- E. Kalko
- Joy M. O’Keefe
- D. Miller
- M. Kalcounis-Rueppell
- P. M. Gorresen
Citations in the corpus
- Use of Forest Edges by Bats in a Managed Pine Forest Landscape (2008, background): “Northern long-eared bats (Myotis septentrionalis) likely comprised a portion of our Myotis detections (Morris et al. 2009) and are known to glean prey from substrates (Faure et al. 1993, Ratcliffe and Dawson 2003).”
- Assessing Bat Detectability and Occupancy with Multiple Automated Echolocation Detectors (2008, background): “Typically, the likelihood of detecting bats diminishes with distance from the detector and is affected by variables such as vegetation structure (e.g., clutter, canopy height, and canopy closure—Kalcounis et al. 1999; Patriquin et al. 2003; Weller and Zabel 2002).”
- Habitat Use by Forest Bats in South Carolina in Relation to Local, Stand, and Landscape Characteristics (2006, background): “However, Patriquin et al. (2003) found that, although there are some differences in detectability among forest types, vegetation density does not affect the detectability of bats that echolocate in the 40 kHz range (e.g., Myotis and eastern pipistrelles) and stand age does not affect the…”
- Bat activity in relation to fire and fire surrogate treatments in southern pine stands (2008, unknown): “Patriquin et al. (2003) found that detection of 40 kHz sounds (those characteristic of red bats and eastern pipistrelles as well as many Myotis spp.) does not differ between thinned, unthinned and clear-cut stands.”
- Bat Echolocation Research. Tools, Techniques and Analysis. (2004, background): “While it is generally assumed that detection rates remain constant within a species, making possible an evaluation of changes in abundance, differential detection rates among habitats (open, edge, clutter) may confound such comparisons if the habitats sampled differ dramatically in structure (Parson”