Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
(a)
Chalinolobus morio
(b)
Vespadelus darlingtoni
(c)
Falsistrellus tasmaniensis
A
2.0
2.0
2.0
Logged
Unlogged
AB
1.5
1.5
A
1.5
A
A
1.0
1.0
1.0
A
AB
AB
A
AB
B
0.5
0.5
0.5
B
AB
B
B
B
B
B
0
0
0
Off-track
On-track
Riparian
Off-track
On-track
Riparian
Off-track
On-track
Riparian
(d)
Vespadelus pumilus
(e)
Rhinolophus megaphyllus
2.0
2.0
A
A
A
1.5
1.5
A
A
AB
1.0
1.0
B
B
B
B
0.5
0.5
B
B
0
0
Off-track
On-track
Riparian
Off-track
On-track
Riparian
Fig. 4.11
Mean counts per night (
standard error) of fi ve bat species recorded at sites off track, along tracks and along
stream riparian corridors. Histograms that do not share the same letter are signifi cantly different. (a)-(d) Species considered
to be clutter-sensitive because of their morphology and behavior; (e) a clutter-tolerant species. (After Law & Chidel, 2002.)
+
Fig. 4.12
Relationship
between total number
of recorded bat
movements and an
index of forest clutter
for all logged and
unlogged sites
combined. (After Law
& Chidel, 2002.)
3
2
1
0
-20
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
Index of forest clutter
clutter provided by regrowth in logged forest and the amount of understorey euca-
lypts in unlogged forest (Figure 4.12). This indicates that low bat activity away from
tracks and stream corridors was related to clutter.
While the opening up of forest tracks has clear benefi ts as feeding dispersal routes
for many species of bats, and the bat community recovers well within 15 years of
logging, it would be unsafe to conclude that logging is a blessing in disguise. Bird
Search WWH ::
Custom Search