What makes a good bat box? How box occupancy depends on box characteristics and landscape-level variables

• Main Authors: Pschonny, Sandra, Leidinger, Jan, Weisser, Wolfgang, Leitl, Rudolf
• Format: Other/Unknown Material
• Language: unknown
• Published: Zenodo 2022
• Subjects: Myotis nattereri; nursery groups; Pipistrellus pipistrellus; artificial roost; continuity; bat box; forest-roosting bats; species specificity
• Online Access: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5918809

Bat populations are in steep decline and presently, 16% of all species are classified as "threatened". One main driver identified for this decline is the loss of natural roosting opportunities, caused by the removal of natural habitats. Installation of bat boxes is one solution to compensate for the lack of natural roosting opportunities. Current recommendations for box design emphasize low maintenance costs and are rarely based on empirical evidence. We investigated occupancy of 13634 bat boxes in northern Bavaria, Germany. In our study boxes differed in type, age and mounting height, as well as in maximum community age, i.e. the length of time a group of boxes had been installed in a particular place, the size of box groups and the distance to the next box in the surrounding area, i.e. box isolation. Our results showed that box occupancy depended on box type and bat species. As a case study, we analysed the two most common species found within the investigated boxes, Pipistrellus pipistrellus and Myotis nattereri , in more detail . Both species showed preference to a voluminous box that had a narrow entrance ("Gable box" 14 mm). For P. pipistrellus , only box type affected occupancy, whereas for M. nattereri , the relationship between box type and box age were important. Older boxes, and boxes in areas with higher maximum community age of boxes showed higher box occupancy by bats. Box occupancy decreased with the distance between adjacent box groups ("box isolation"). High mounting height showed a tendency for increased box occupancy, but the effect was only weakly significant.