Assumptions and practical considerations in the design and interpretation of echolocation-monitoring studies

By J. Hayes. 2000

155 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/e448d10fd07679a574c6c4de6fb33773bd2eb491

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

1. S. Loeb
2. W. Ford
3. Gareth J. F. Jones
4. Samuel L. Skalak
5. M. Yates
6. R. Sherwin
7. R. Muzika
8. Joy M. O’Keefe

Citations in the corpus

• Bat activity in relation to fire and fire surrogate treatments in southern pine stands (2008, unknown): “There are several inherent assumptions made when studying bat activity and habitat use with bat detectors (Hayes, 2000).”
• Habitat Use by Forest Bats in South Carolina in Relation to Local, Stand, and Landscape Characteristics (2006, background): “Increased use of points with sparse vegetation surrounding the detector may have resulted simply from greater detectability of echolocation calls at more open sites (Hayes 2000).”
• Bat Echolocation Research. Tools, Techniques and Analysis. (2004, methodology): “While numerous studies have examined habitat use, there is no published literature about spatial variation within a habitat (Hayes 2000).”
• Bats as bioindicators – the need of a standardized method for acoustic bat activity surveys (2012, methodology): “Because of the condenser microphone and its fixed position on the detector surface, the Anabat II shows high directionality, resulting in a detection field being longer than wide (Larson & Hayes 2000).”
• Presence and Absence of Bats Across Habitat Scales in the Upper Coastal Plain of South Carolina (2006, methodology): “Within the Southern Pine Region (SPR) of the Coastal Plain of the southeastern United States, bat communities are considered to be of high conservation value (Menzel et al. 2003).”
• Sampling period, size and duration influence measures of bat species richness from acoustic surveys (2012, methodology): “We focused on acoustic bat detectors as their use has increased exponentially (Hayes 2000; Fenton 2003; Gannon, Sherwin & Haymond 2003; Miller, Arnett & Lacki 2003).”
• EFFECTS OF CLUTTER ON ECHOLOCATION CALL STRUCTURE OF MYOTIS SEPTENTRIONALIS AND M. LUCIFUGUS (2004, background): “However, use of multiple systems necessitates standardization of the size of the reception area among detectors (Hayes 2000; Krusic and Neefus 1996, http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfd/pubs/docs/wp/wp23.htm, accessed November 2003).”
• Effect of Forest Structure and Fragmentation on Site Occupancy of Bat Species in Missouri Ozark Forests (2006, methodology): “Precipitation can influence both activity levels of bat species and the attenuation of echolocation calls (Hayes 2000, Erickson and West 2002).”
• Bat activity and species richness on organic and conventional farms: impact of agricultural intensification (2003, background): “This was not likely to introduce errors because variation in bat activity was thought to be greater within a night than between nights (Hayes 2000).”