The Conservation of Synanthropic Bats

Chapter 14 Bats and Buildings: The Conservation of Synanthropic Bats Christian C. Voigt, Kendra L. Phelps, Luis F. Aguirre, M. Corrie Schoeman, Juliet Vanitharani and Akbar Zubaid Abstract Humans have shared buildings with bats for thousands of years, probably as early as first humans built primitive huts. Indeed, many bat species can be defined as synanthropic, i.e., they have a strong ecological association with humans. Bats have been observed using buildings as roosting and foraging sites, temporary shelters, for reproduction and hibernation. A synanthropic lifestyle may result in direct fitness benefits owing to energetic advantages in warmer roosts, which may ultimately lead to more rapid gestation and faster development of juveniles, or by being less exposed to natural predators in urban environments. All Luis F. Aguirre, M. Corrie Schoeman, Juliet Vanitharani and Akbar Zubaid: Contributed equally, listed alphabetically. C.C. Voigt (*) Department of Evolutionary Ecology, Leibniz Institute for Zoo and Wildlife Research, Berlin, Germany e-mail: ccvoigt@googlemail.com K.L. Phelps Department of Biological Sciences, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, USA L.F. Aguirre Centro de Biodiversida y Genetica, UniversidadMajor de San Simon, Cochabamba, Bolivia M. Corrie Schoeman School of Life Sciences, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, South Africa J. Vanitharani Department Advanced Zoology and Biotechnology and Research Centre, Sarah Tucker College, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli, Tamil Nadu, India A. Zubaid School of Environmental and Natural Resource Sciences, Faculty of Science and Technology, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, 43600 Bangi, Malaysia © The Author(s) 2016 C.C. Voigt and T. Kingston (eds.), Bats in the Anthropocene: Conservation of Bats in a Changing World, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-25220-9_14 427 428 C.C. Voigt et al. these benefits may allow bats to use buildings as stepping stones to exploit habitats otherwise devoid of roosting structures and may even lead to the expansion of geographic ranges. Yet, the coexistence with humans also comes with some risks. Bats may be exposed to chemical pollutants, particularly preservation chemicals used on lumber or during pest control measures. Bats may also be at risk of direct persecution or they may die accidently if trapped within buildings. In general, eviction of bats from buildings should follow the general rule of avoidance–mitigation–compensation. When considering conservation measures for synanthropic bats, it is most important to assess the role of the building for different life stages of bats. Construction work at buildings should be conducted in a manner that minimizes disturbance of bats. Artificial roosts can replace lost roosts, yet bats will often not accept alternative roosts. Demographic changes in human populations may lead to the abandonment of buildings, for example, in rural areas and to increased conflicts in urban areas when old buildings are replaced by new buildings or when previously unoccupied space in buildings is renovated. We advocate maintenance and enhancement of roosts for synanthropic bats, in addition to outreach and education campaigns, to improve the tolerance of humans for synanthropic bats. 14.1 Introduction 14.1.1 What Is the Purpose of This Review? Bats are nocturnal mammals that spend the daytime in dark places (Kunz 1982; Kunz and Lumsden 2003). Usually, they depend on natural roosting structures such as caves, crevices, foliage, branches, tree trunks, and hollows among many others. Bats most likely used buildings as roosts when humans started to build primitive huts thousands of years ago. Indeed, some bat species, such as the hairy split-faced bat, Nycteris macrotis, inhabit thatched huts in Africa that are likely similar to the earliest buildings of humans (Poché 1975). In this chapter, we focus on bats that use man-made buildings that are coinhabited by humans. We refer to these bats as synanthropic species, or species that are “ecologically associated with humans (Merriam-Webster’s dictionary). We do not use synanthropic species in the context of bats living in anthropogenically shaped landscapes; rather, this topic is covered in Chap. 2 (Reichel-Jung and Threlfall 2015). Nonetheless, we address certain aspects of bats living in other man-made structures unoccupied or abandoned by humans. Synanthropic bat species have benefited from the expansion of human populations, and some species have likely expanded their geographic distribution as humans moved into new habitats worldwide. Yet this close association has disadvantages when synanthropic bats are faced with threats from humans. Currently, about a quarter of all bat species are considered threatened or near threatened, and 14 Bats and Buildings: The Conservation … 429 one of the most prominent threats is loss of roost sites and disturbance at roosts (Mickleburgh et al. 2002). Therefore, this chapter is timely, and we hope that it will contribute to the conservation of synanthropic bats. 14.1.2 Relevant Natural History Features of Synanthropic Bats Along the fast–slow continuum of life, bats are considered to be in the slow lane, even though most other mammals of similar size are in the fast lane (Barclay and Harder 2003; Bielby et al. 2007). Bats have low reproductive rates that are associated with exceptionally long life spans, a feature most obvious in insectivorous bats from temperate zones (Wilkinson and South 2002; Munshi-South and Wilkinson 2010). Long life spans may predispose bats to inhabit relatively permanent structures, such as in buildings, since some bat species are loyal to their roost over many years and form long-term social relationships with other colony members (Kerth et al. 2011). Similar to other small mammals, bats exhibit relatively high mass-specific metabolic rates (McNab 2002). Many bats are also heterothermic, reducing their body temperature and consequently metabolic rate, during periods of adverse conditions, such as low resource abundance (insects, fruits, or nectar), low ambient temperature, or high rainfall (Geiser 2004). Most notably, temperate zone bats employ extended torpor when they hibernate in winter. Apart from hibernation, almost all bats use torpor on a daily basis as an energy-saving strategy (Speakman and Thomas 2003; Willis et al. 2006). During daytime torpor, bats may use passive rewarming when ambient temperatures peak during the warmest part of the day (Turbill et al. 2003). The use of radiant heat created by the exposure of building exteriors to sunshine likely saves synanthropic bats significant amounts of energy since they do not depend on endogenous heat production in brown adipose tissue (Geiser and Drury 2003). This could be a selective advantage for bats using sun-exposed buildings instead of dark caves as daytime roosts or hibernacula (Lausen and Barclay 2006; Halsall et al. 2012). 14.1.3 Which Bat Species Use Buildings? The order Chiroptera comprises 19 living families, with at least one species in each family known to roost in buildings (Figs. 14.1 and 14.2), with the notable exceptions of Furipteridae, Mystacinidae, Myzopodidae, Natalidae, and Thyropteridae. Quite often, only local residents are aware of the occurrence of synanthropic bat species. The chapter on bats and urbanization (Reichel-Jung and Threlfall 2015) provides a meta-analytic perspective on bats living in urban landscapes. Many of the species included in their analysis also roost in buildings; thus, the general patterns derived from their study may also hold true for aspects of roost choice in synanthropic bats. 430 C.C. Voigt et al. Fig. 14.1 Example of synanthropic bats that use both natural roosts and buildings. The greater sac-winged bat, Saccopteryx bilineata, shown here in Costa Rica, forms colonies in the cavities formed by large buttress roots of canopy trees. In the absence of such trees, this species will roost on the exterior walls of buildings (or inside if the building is abandoned as shown in the right picture; © left picture Knörnschild M, right picture Voigt CC) Fig. 14.2 Colony of Megaderma lyra under a tin roof of a building in India 14.1.4 Human–Bat Conflict in Buildings and the Legal Protection of Synanthropic Bats Buildings constructed specifically as human dwellings are usually well maintained and protected against opportunistic invasions by unwanted animals. Unfortunately, synanthropic bats are unwanted by most humans, which generate conflicts (Gareca 14 Bats and Buildings: The Conservation … 431 et al. 2007). Accordingly, synanthropic bats are persecuted virtually worldwide, even if the legal framework may define this action as criminal. Documented cases of humans removing bats from buildings are apparent across the entire geographic range of synanthropic bats (e.g., Merzlikin 2002), but most cases remain unnoticed by law enforcement agencies even where bats are legally protected. Indeed, bats are legally protected in only a few countries. For example, bats are protected in countries of the European Union according to the Habitats Directive (Council Directive 92/43/EEC). Also, migratory bats are specifically protected in countries that have signed the United Nations convention on the “Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals” (Lyster 1989). In some countries, conservationists have established action plans for threatened bat species, including suggestions for protecting synanthropic bats (Aguirre et al. 2010). However, these recommendations have not yet been converted into some form of legal framework. In African and Asian countries, bats are not protected under specific legislation. In summary, the level of protection of synanthropic bats by national or international legislation is highly variable and clearly deficient. 14.2 How Do Bats Find and Use Buildings? Since most bat species are not capable of constructing their own roosts (Kunz 1982; Kunz and Lumsden 2003), they depend largely on preexisting roosting structures, either of natural or of artificial origin. Therefore, roost sites are likely a limited resource for bats (Kunz 1982; Kunz and Lumsden 2003), such that buildings may constitute an important substitute for natural roosts (Lisón et al. 2013). Buildings may resemble rocks or cavelike structures, which may attract bats into crevices or attics. Once one or a few bats establish a roost in a building, other bats may recognize the newly established roosts by olfactory or acoustic cues. The importance of nonsocial information such as visual and temperature-related cues and social sensory cues, e.g., conspecific echolocation calls, has recently been confirmed as important information for the common noctule bat, Nyctalus noctula, to initiate roost exploration (Ruczyński et al. 2007). Presumably, noctule bats use the same set of cues for exploring buildings as temporary shelters or hibernacula (Bihari 2004; Kozhurina and Gorbunova 2004; Szodoray-Parádi et al. 2004; Cel’uch and Kaňuch 2005; Cel’uch et al. 2006; Bačkor et al. 2007). 14.2.1 Buildings as Foraging Sites Buildings are rarely used by bats as foraging sites, although abandoned buildings may develop into small urban ecosystems. For example, Aspetsberger et al. (2003) found that cockroaches (Blattodea: Blaberidae), sharing the space under the metal roof of a building with little free-tailed bats, Chaerephon pumilus, comprised more than 60 % of the diet of the bats. Yet, most observations of foraging at buildings are bats hunting insects around illuminated buildings. Artificial lighting is known 432 C.C. Voigt et al. to attract insects, and consequently, bats may chase insects close to illuminated buildings (Rydell 1991, 1992; Rydell and Racey 1995; Pavey 1999; Rowse et al. 2015). 14.2.2 Buildings as Shelters During Foraging Bouts Buildings provide structures that can be used by bats as a temporary shelter. For example, buildings are often used by bats as a shelter to digest food items gathered during their most recent foraging bout (Ormsbee et al. 2007). This behavior has been observed in many species, including tropical carnivorous species such as the greater false vampire bat, Megaderma lyra, in India (Subbaraj and Balasingh 1996), and the greater slit-faced bat, Nycteris grandis, in southern Africa (Fenton et al. 1990) as well as temperate insectivorous bats such as Leisler’s bat, Nyctalus leisleri, in Europe (Shiel et al. 1999), and the pallid bat, Antrozous pallidus, in the USA (Lewis 1994). In general, the temporary use of buildings by foraging bats may be the first step toward a more permanent occupation of buildings. 14.2.3 Buildings as Maternity Roosts Females of many synanthropic bats use buildings as maternity roosts. Sometimes adult males share the same roost, but often the sexes are segregated. According to our literature survey, at least 35 bat species form maternity colonies in buildings. Energetic advantages and reduced predation risk may be benefits for female bats that give birth and raise their young in buildings. Harbusch and Racey (2006) reported that the serotine bat, Eptesicus serotinus, selected old buildings with slate roofing for maternity roosts, largely because such buildings tend to have small holes and fissures allowing easy access. Also, such buildings offered suitable temperatures of about 22 °C during gestation and lactation periods, a critical parameter for the survival of offspring (Harbusch and Racey 2006). Further, many species that form maternity colonies in buildings show high levels of site fidelity and natal philopatry, with female young returning to the same roosts to reproduce when they mature (Harbusch and Racey 2006). This could initiate a tradition of using buildings instead of natural roosts in local bat populations. 14.2.4 Buildings as Swarming Sites Several European bats, such as common pipistrelle bats, Pipistrellus pipistrellus, and parti-colored bats, Vespertilio murinus, swarm at large buildings during autumn (Kanuch et al. 2010; Šuba et al. 2010). Usually, swarming occurs 14 Bats and Buildings: The Conservation … 433 after juveniles have fledged and as they start to disperse from their natal roost. In Marburg, Germany, common pipistrelles swarm between mid-August and late September not only at tall buildings, such as historic towers, castles, and churches, but also at large multistory buildings. Interestingly, bat researchers recorded almost exclusively juvenile bats during swarming events (Kanuch et al. 2010; Šuba et al. 2010), and therefore, it was argued that swarming was related to roost exploration (Smit-Viergutz and Simon 2000). Yet, a social function of swarming behavior has also been suggested, for example, for Vespertio murinus (Kanuch et al. 2010; Šuba et al. 2010). To the best of our knowledge, swarming of bats at buildings has not been observed in countries outside of Europe. 14.2.5 Buildings as Hibernacula Many bat species are known to hibernate in buildings, presumably because building interiors rarely reach freezing temperatures, turning them into ideal hibernation sites for bats. For many of these species, natural hibernacula include not only caves, rock crevices, and rock screes, but also tree hollows. Michaelsen et al. (2013) reported that in Norway, hibernating bats prefer anthropogenic structures rather than natural subground hibernacula, but the reason for this preference was unknown. Bats, such as big brown bats, Eptesicus fuscus, hibernating in walls of heated buildings expose themselves to ambient temperatures of 2–5 °C which are created by the balance between warm interior temperatures from heated rooms and cold ambient temperatures from the outside (Whitaker and Gummer 1992). In addition, bats hibernating in buildings may also benefit from occasional passive rewarming, when being exposed to mild exterior temperatures. Nyctalus noctula usually forms maternity colonies in tree roosts, yet in Central and northern Europe, they frequently use prefabricated buildings, i.e., multistory buildings consisting of prefabricated concrete walls that are assembled at the construction site. Throughout continental Europe, large numbers of noctule bats hibernate in such buildings in crevices at about 5–10 m aboveground, sometimes forming winter aggregations of a few thousand individuals (Zahn et al. 2000; Kozhurina and Gorbunova 2004; Cel’uch and Kaňuch 2005; Cel’uch et al. 2006). Bats in subtropical and tropical zones may also use buildings during adverse conditions and employ torpor, yet their biology is largely unknown and therefore in need of further studies. 14.3 Benefits of a Synanthropic Lifestyle in Bats 14.3.1 Increased Fitness of Bats Using Buildings Bats would not use buildings as roosts without a proximate (ecological or physiological) or ultimate (evolutionary) benefit. In the following, we will discuss three potential benefits for bats using buildings, which seem to be linked to increased fitness over the short or long term. 434 C.C. Voigt et al. Reduced predation risk In general, bats face only a few predators compared to non-volant mammals of similar size (Sibly and Brown 2007). Yet some birds, mammals, and even invertebrates hunt bats on a regular basis (Gillette and Kimbrough 1970; Speakman 1991; Altringham 1996; Nyffeker and Knörnschild 2013). Roosts in buildings could reduce the exposure of bats to predators if predators avoid anthropogenic environments. For example, snakes and giant centipedes hunt neotropical bats at the entrance of caves, and many of these species are less abundant or even absent in an urban environment (Molinari et al. 2005; Esbérard and Vrcibradic 2007). In North America, big brown bats, E. fuscus, seem to be less exposed to predators when roosting in buildings than in natural roosts (Lausen and Barclay 2006). However, clustered emergence of bats from roosts in buildings may point to antipredatory behavior in synanthropic bats in urban environments (Speakman et al. 1995; Duvergé et al. 2008; but see Irwin and Speakman 2003). Energetic benefits Bats may survive periods of adverse weather conditions, such as heavy rain or low ambient temperatures, by roosting in a warm and dry building. The energetic benefits for bats roosting in buildings may manifest particularly during critical life history stages, such as reproduction and hibernation. Buildings may provide conditions that are beneficial for reproducing female bats. For example, elevated ambient temperatures in attics seem to be ideal for pregnant and lactating bats. Angolan free-tailed bats, Mops condylurus, inhabit maternity roosts under corrugated steel roofs of houses that often exceed 40 °C during the day (Maloney et al. 1999), enabling them to maintain ideal growth conditions throughout the reproductive period without expending a lot of energy (Vivier and van der Merwe 2007). Their use of hot roosts may even be linked to increased reproductive rates (Bronner et al. 1999). Higher roost temperatures in attics seem to be also favorable for the development of juveniles of European greater mouse-eared bats, Myotis myotis. This species forms large clusters of individuals in natural cave roosts, presumably to benefit from huddling and sharing of body heat (Dietz et al. 2009). In buildings, however, greater mouse-eared bats usually form smaller colonies, and these smaller clusters may be energetically feasible only because Myotis myotis may benefit from exogenous instead of endogenous heat when roosting in warm attics (Zahn 1999). The use of different locations depending on reproductive state has been confirmed for other species as well, including Rafinesque’s big-eared bats, Corynorhinus rafinesquii (Roby et al. 2011). Similar to attic-roosting Myotis myotis, thermal benefits have also been suggested for Eptesicus fuscus. Pregnant big brown bats rarely entered torpor when roosting at favorable ambient conditions in buildings (Lausen and Barclay 2006). The avoidance of torpor may be advantageous for fetal development. For example, big brown bats gave birth earlier when roosting in buildings than when roosting in natural roosts. Furthermore, juveniles from buildings fledged one to two weeks earlier than conspecifics born in natural roosts (Lausen and Barclay 2006). Similarly, building-dwelling bats gave birth earlier than their conspecifics roosting in foliage or trees (Kurta 2010). These temporal differences could translate to important advantages for building-roosting juveniles; for example, they have more time to explore new roosts and foraging sites and to prepare for the onset of hibernation. 14 Bats and Buildings: The Conservation … 435 Hibernating bats may also benefit from thermal advantages in buildings. For example, thermoregulation of E. fuscus hibernating in buildings was more similar to that of tree-dwelling species than to that of cave-hibernating conspecifics (Halsall et al. 2012). The authors argued that bats hibernating in buildings may benefit to a larger extent from passive rewarming (Halsall et al. 2012), which may lead to massive savings of crucial fat depots (Turbill et al. 2003; Geiser and Drury 2003). This notion is also supported by the observation that some bats, such as Nyctalus noctula, choose crevices behind sun-exposed walls when hibernating in buildings (Bihari and Bakos 2001). In addition to thermal benefits, synanthropic bats may also benefit by reducing their travel distance and thus time to foraging sites, resulting in substantial energetic savings from reduced commuting distances (Knight and Jones 2009). Presence of social or mating partners If buildings are selected as roost sites by a single bat, conspecifics may follow to benefit from social advantages (Kerth 2008). These secondary social benefits for synanthropic bats are identical to those of conspecific roosting in natural roosts. Briefly, bats that form large colonies in buildings may be less exposed to predators because of the dilution effect. They may as well benefit from information transfer and by cooperation among members of the same social unit. Clustered emergence of bats from a roost may constitute an antipredator behavior (Speakman et al. 1995), yet clustered emergence may be disrupted in large colonies due to bottleneck effects (Speakman et al. 1999). Gillam et al. (2011) found non-random patterns when pit-tagged Eptesicus fuscus emerged from buildings, indicating that these bats may form social bonds that likely influence their foraging. Information transfer might also be involved during swarming at buildings as observed in some temperate zone bats (Kanuch et al. 2010; Šuba et al. 2010). Finally, bats may explore buildings in search of mating partners. For example, buildings are known to be used as mating roosts in a number of species, such as greater sac-winged bats, Saccopteryx bilineata (Bradbury and Emmons 1974; Bradbury and Vehrencamp 1976), greater mouse-eared bats, Myotis myotis (Dietz et al. 2009), spear-nosed bat, Phyllostomus hastatus (Santos et al. 2003), and free-tailed bats, such as Tadarida brasiliensis and Mops condylurus (Vivier and van der Merwe 2001). 14.3.2 Enhanced Access to Habitats by Using Buildings as Ecological Stepping Stones Extending the aforementioned argument that bats may benefit from using buildings as shelters by shortening travel distances to foraging habitats, one could argue that bats may even be able to explore and exploit new habitats by using buildings as ecological stepping stones. For example, some uniform and homogenous agricultural habitats, such as the former prairies of the Midwestern USA, are nearly void of roosting structures. Therefore, it is almost impossible for aerial-hawking 436 C.C. Voigt et al. insectivorous bats to use these habitats, unless artificial roosting structures are available. Here, buildings may present pivotal resources for bats to survive in an otherwise hostile environment. Farm buildings, villages, and cities may create structurally complex islands used by bat colonies (Coleman and Barclay 2012a), and this could possibly lead to an increase in local species richness. Some synanthropic bats, such as Mops condylurus, are capable of using exceedingly hot roosts (40 °C) which allow them to colonize habitats that other bats with a lower tolerance toward high roost temperatures are not able to exploit (Maloney et al. 1999), suggesting that heat tolerance might be favorable for bats with a synanthropic lifestyle. In forested areas, buildings may provide roosting structures for cave-roosting bats, i.e., for bats that do not use tree hollows or crevices. By using buildings as roosts, these bats may gain access to other habitats. For example, in a forest habitat in Central Europe, bats that typically do not occupy tree cavities, such as Eptesicus serotinus and Vespertilio murinus, will instead inhabit buildings. By doing this, they gain access to insect-rich forest habitats (Mazurska and Ruczyński 2008). Buildings can also provide roosting sites for cave-roosting bats in urban areas. For example, Otomops martiensseni exploits buildings only in the city of Durban, South Africa, while elsewhere in its range it uses caves as roosts. Despite the reduced availability of food and intensive large-scale agricultural land use in the surrounding landscape, the species is quite common in Durban (Fenton et al. 2002). Similarly, Moutou’s free-tailed bat, Mormopterus francoismoutoui, uses a variety of human structures (e.g., roof slats, window shutters) across the island of La Réunion, Mauritius, yet it was thought to be restricted to roosts in lava tubes and crevices along cliff faces before the colonization of the island by European settlers (~AD 1500; Goodman et al. 2008a). Seemingly, this species has profited from the large-scale changes that occurred on this island over the past centuries. In summary, buildings may present an important resource for synanthropic bats that could increase foraging ranges of individual bats as well as the diversity of local bat assemblages. 14.3.3 Expansion of Geographic Ranges The use of buildings as roosts may also lead to the expansion of a species’ geographic range (Kunz and Reynolds 2003). Some temperate bat species such as greater mouse-eared bats, Myotis myotis, and lesser and greater horseshoe bats, Rhinolophus hipposideros and Rhinolophus ferrumequinum, respectively, predominantly form maternity roosts in caves in southern Europe but occupy mostly attics of large buildings (e.g., churches and castles) in more northern regions of their geographic ranges where cave temperatures are too cold to host cave-roosting maternity colonies (Dietz et al. 2009). The notch-eared bat, Myotis emarginatus, also uses buildings as maternity roosts in the northernmost part of their range in Europe (Dekker et al. 2013). Frafjord (2007) observed a small nursery colony of 14 Bats and Buildings: The Conservation … 437 the northern bat, Eptesicus nilssonii, in the attic of a cabin at the northern extent of the species range. The roost was only occupied when human inhabitants heated the house for their own use, giving support to the idea that bats benefited from the warmer roost temperatures. The use of buildings as a driving force to reach more northern limits of their geographic ranges (in the Northern hemisphere) has been suggested for E. nilssonii and soprano pipistrelles, Pipistrellus pygmaeus, in Norway (Michaelsen et al. 2004), Pipistrellus pipistrellus, in Sweden (Ahlen et al. 2004), and Eptesicus fuscus, in North America (McAlpine et al. 2002). Bats may also benefit from favorable thermal conditions in buildings at higher elevations and may thus go beyond their normal elevational range. For example, a maternity colony of the rare eastern small-footed myotis, Myotis leibii, was found roosting in a high-elevation cabin above the previously known elevational limits for this species (O’Keefe and LaVoie 2011). A similar argument can be made for hibernating bats in buildings. Strelkov (2002) made the point that the ability of some European bat species, such as Nyctalus noctula, to hibernate in buildings may have enabled them to overwinter in more northern regions than when using exclusively natural roosts. By doing so, Nyctalus noctula are closer to their breeding ranges when arousing from hibernation in spring, which gives them an advantage in terms of time and energy in relation to conspecifics that migrate to more southern areas. This could lead to the expansion of this species’ geographic range northward. 14.4 Negative Consequences of a Synanthropic Lifestyle in Bats 14.4.1 Decreased Fitness Owing to Direct Threats Humans The foremost direct threat for synanthropic bats are humans. The co-occupancy of buildings by bats and humans gives rise to various conflicts. Interestingly, many early papers that discuss bats in buildings deal largely with the eradication or control of bats roosting in buildings (e.g., Silver 1935; Daver 1953; Kunz et al. 1977; Barclay 1980). These papers were gradually replaced by descriptive papers about the biology of synanthropic bats and eventually by those focusing on conservation topics. Nonetheless, eradication of bats from buildings is an eminent, yet mostly undocumented, problem, in all regions of the world. Unfortunately, there are no data available on the number of bats killed each year by closing entrances to daytime roosts in buildings, by destroying roosts, or by fumigating or poisoning bats. In many countries, bats are considered pests or vermin. Therefore, eradication of whole colonies is commonly practiced. In some African countries, synanthropic molossids are consumed by humans as a delicacy (Goodman et al. 2008b), and the bats’ distinct odor is regarded favorably from a culinary perspective (Allen et al. 1917), yet synanthropic bats as a form of bushmeat is rather the exception (Mildenstein and Tanshi 2015). 438 C.C. Voigt et al. Buildings as traps Buildings may act as traps for bats, when bats that enter a building through open windows or structural gaps are unable to find the exit (Gaisler 1998). In Europe, Pipistrellus pipistrellus is most often trapped during autumn swarming (Pfalzer and Weber 2007; Kanuch et al. 2010). Bats may also be killed if they become trapped in wire mesh that is used to protect buildings from feral pigeons (König and Neumann 1996). Predators Bats may also be killed by synanthropic predators. Some birds of prey, e.g., European kestrels and tawny and barn owls, specialize on bats that use buildings as roosts (Kovats et al. 2008; Lesiński et al. 2013; Mikula et al. 2013). Indeed, the high density of kestrels in Rome, Italy, is thought to be related to the abundance of feral pigeons, swifts, and bats (Salvati et al. 1999). In the Neotropics, great kiskadees, Pitangus sulphuratus, have been observed hunting Myotis nigricans and Myotis albescens when bats emerged from a building (Fischer et al. 2010). African goshawks, Accipiter tachiro, have attacked molossid bats, Mops condylurus and Chaerephon pumilus, near their roosts in buildings (Fenton et al. 1994). Synanthropic bats that fall to the ground or fly close to the ground may be captured and killed by domestic cats (Bruijn 1990; Ancillotto et al. 2013). Snakes and invertebrates have also been observed hunting bats in or at buildings (Esbérard and Vrcibradic 2007; Nyffeler and Knörnschild 2013). In some cases, natural predators may have devastating effects on bats, in particular when they specialize on hunting emerging bats at the entrance of roosts. Synanthropic owls are especially efficient predators of bats in or around buildings. An effective protective measure is to install a small water hose above the entrance of a colony that is triggered by the presence of a perching predator (pers. communication K. Kugelschafter, Fig. 14.3). Since owls are puzzled by the sudden stream of water, they immediately leave the entrance without any harm done to the predator (pers. commun. K. Kugelschafter). Pathogens Mühldorfer et al. (2012) reported that one-third of bat deaths in Germany were due to bacterial infections. According to this study, viral infections were less important as a natural cause of death, even though rabies infections are documented in some populations of synanthropic bats (O’Shea et al. 2012; Racey et al. 2013). Yet it is unknown to what extent bats suffer from rabies and whether disease dynamics are exacerbated in synanthropic species because of their specific choice of buildings. 14.4.2 Decreased Fitness Owing to Indirect Threats Roosting in buildings, particularly in urban environments, may provide fitness benefits for bats. However, Coleman and Barclay (2012b) concluded that urban bats did not perform better in terms of body condition, reproductive rate, and number of weaned juveniles compared to rural bats. Indeed, bats seemed to perform best in the transition zone between urban and rural sites, and thus, the authors summarized that the process of urbanization may be universally detrimental to bats (Coleman and Barclay 2012b). 14 Bats and Buildings: The Conservation … 439 Fig. 14.3 Method to repel owls from the entrance of bat colonies in Germany. Water flows from the overhead water hose when the perching owl (Strix aluco) interrupts a light beam at the entrance to a colony of greater mouse-eared bats (Myotis myotis) (copyright Kugelschafter K) Chemical pollutants Indirect threats for synanthropic bats are numerous, yet because of their subtle nature, it is more difficult to pinpoint indirect mortality risks. Chemical pollutants are likely an indirect threat for bats roosting in buildings (Mitchell-Jones et al. 1989; Bayat et al. 2014). Wood used in buildings is usually treated by chemicals such as chlorinated hydrocarbons to prevent rotting caused by fungi or insects. Bats roosting in buildings are in close contact with wooden structures and thus may be exposed to chemical preservatives such as lindane, pentachlorophenol, and pyrethroids (Racey and Swift 1986; Boyd and Myhill 1988; Mitchell-Jones et al. 1989; Shore et al. 1990, 1991; Bennet and Thies 2007). Most often, bats do not die immediately after contact with treated wood but instead suffer sublethal effects that cause, for example, immune suppression (Corrao et al. 1985; Clark and Shore 2001). Sometimes, bats are eradicated from buildings using poisons, and these poisons continue to persist so that bats may be exposed to toxic residues for extended periods after application. Poisoning is usually a gradual process that is exacerbated in temperate bats via the accumulation of toxic compounds in fat tissue and seasonal mobilization of these compounds during migration and hibernation (Mitchell-Jones et al. 1989; Bayat et al. 2014). Since the introduction of alternative bat-friendly chemical treatments of wood in buildings, mortality caused by chlorinated hydrocarbons has decreased markedly (Bayat et al. 2014), yet from a global perspective, the problem of slow poisoning of synanthropic bats in buildings remains an issue. 440 C.C. Voigt et al. Parasites Patterson et al. (2007) found that bats inhabiting relatively permanent roosts, such as caves and buildings, carry more ectoparasites than bats that roost in temporal structures, such as leaves or tree hollows. Buildings may provide ectoparasites, e.g., streblid flies, bed bugs (Cimex spp.), or reduviid bugs (Triatominae; Reduviidae), an ideal substrate for egg laying and larval development. As female bats may be immunosuppressed during pregnancy, they may suffer from heavy parasite infestation during reproduction (Christe et al. 2000; Pearce and O’Shea 2007). The combined effect of inflammation and immune challenge may then increase oxidative stress and consequently reduce longevity in housedwelling bats (Schneeberger et al. 2013; Lilley et al. 2014). Endoparasites are poorly studied in synanthropic bats. Leishmania braziliensis occurs in Brazilian house-dwelling bats, yet it is unknown whether roost choice and colony dynamics are different from those of conspecifics roosting in natural roosts and whether building roosts may impose a higher risk of contracting these parasites (Shapiro et al. 2013). 14.5 Consequences for Humans Sharing Buildings with Bats 14.5.1 Benefits of Sharing a Building with Bats There are several direct benefits for humans when sharing buildings with synanthropic bats. Bats provide essential ecological services (e.g., pest suppression, pollination, seed dispersal) near houses, villages, and cities (Jones et al. 2009; Kunz et al. 2011; Ghanem and Voigt 2012). For example, synanthropic bats, such as molossids, feed on large quantities of insects that are vectors of human diseases, such as dengue, yellow fever, and chikungunya fever (Andrianaivoarivelo et al. 2006; Goodman et al. 2008b). In tropical and subtropical regions, bats are important seed and pollen dispersers. Orchards in house gardens may largely benefit from the cost-free ecosystem services provided by pollinating bats. Insectivorous bats have the ability to reduce insect herbivory in temperate forests (Böhm et al. 2011), tropical forests (Kalka et al. 2008), and tropical agricultural fields (Williams-Guillén et al. 2008; Maas et al. 2013). Thus, the presence of synanthropic bats comes with large, yet mostly unacknowledged, benefits to humans. Lastly, bats are an integral component of our natural heritage, and thus, they have intrinsic value (Soulé 1985). 14.5.2 Pathogen and Parasite Exposure Viruses Bats inhabiting buildings may be reservoir hosts of viruses. For example, North American Eptesicus fuscus and Eurasian Eptesicus serotinus are both 14 Bats and Buildings: The Conservation … 441 synanthropic species roosting in buildings, and they are known for their relatively high prevalence of rabies (Zorya 2002; O’Shea et al. 2012; Racey et al. 2013). In Dutch populations of Eptesicus serotinus, bats exhibited a 21 % seroprevalence for lyssavirus (Van der Poel et al. 2005), yet is unknown how many of these positive cases were infectious. In another Dutch study, 30 % of sampled bats that bit humans tested positive for European bat lyssaviruses (Takumi et al. 2009). Other synanthropic bat species may carry lyssaviruses, such as the molossid bats Tadarida brasiliensis or Nyctinomops macrotis in North and South America, or vespertilionid bats such as Eptesicus furinalis in South America (Clark et al. 1996; Uieda 1998; Passos et al. 1998; de Almeida et al. 2011; Favi et al. 2012) or nycterid bats such as Nycteris thebaica in Zimbabwe (Foggin 1988). In Kenya, SARSlike coronaviruses (CoVs) were identified in a Chaerephon spp. (Tong et al. 2009), and in South Africa, bat-derived CoVs that are closely related to the MERS-CoV were found in Neoromicia capensis (Corman et al. 2014). Frequent roost switching of synanthropic bats may increase the transmission risk of the rabies virus to humans (Ellison et al. 2007), particularly when humans try to evict bats from houses (Streicker et al. 2013). In general, precautionary measures should be taken when handling synanthropic bats: (1) Do not touch or handle bats without gloved hands, and (2) in case of a bat bite, immediately proceed to the appropriate facility for post-exposure prophylactics. A more detailed treatment of bat-related diseases is provided in Chap. 10 (Schneeberger and Voigt 2016). Bacteria Bacterial infections are one of the primary causes of natural death in temperate bats (Mühldorfer et al. 2012), and many of the documented bacterial strains are relevant to human health. For example, bats may act as a reservoir for Bartonella/Burkholderia bacteria, which can be transmitted to humans via bed bugs (Saenz et al. 2013). Bat ticks, specifically Argas vespertilionis, collected from a human-inhabited building were documented to carry Borrelia, Rickettisa, and Ehrlichia species (Socolovschi et al. 2012). Staphylococcus nepalensis was detected in guano samples from mixed M. myotis and M. blythii summer roosts, and guano in or near buildings may pose a significant threat to human health (Vandzurova et al. 2013). To our knowledge, no direct infection of humans with bat-related bacterial strains has been described. Overall, synanthropic bats have the potential to transmit zoonotic diseases, yet as outlined by Mühldorfer et al. (2011), there is no evidence, at least for temperate zone bats, that they pose a greater health risk to humans than other wildlife species. Parasites Besides bat-specific ectoparasites, bats may also carry generalist ectoparasites that could infect humans as well. For example, bed bugs (Cimex spp.) could possibly switch between bat roosts and rooms inhabited by humans (Pearce and O’Shea 2007). Bat ticks have been suggested to cause inflammatory responses in humans living in a building with bats in the attic (Labruna et al. 2014). Ticks associated with bats, and known to bite humans, may also be carriers of bacteria or viruses that can cause disease in humans. For example, Carios kelleyi collected from residential and community buildings in Jackson County, Iowa, tested positive for Rickettsia (Loftis et al. 2005). In addition, some endoparasites are threats to human health, yet many depend on an invertebrate host as a vector 442 C.C. Voigt et al. for transmission to humans. For example, in Brazil, Leishmania braziliensis occur in some synanthropic bat species that serve as a reservoir host for leishmaniasis but require sand flies as a vector (Shapiro et al. 2013). Fungus Environments soiled with large accumulations of guano may harbor Histoplasma capsulatum, a fungal pathogen that causes histoplasmosis. When roosts in attics, roofs, and other rooms are not cleaned on a regular basis, guano accumulates creating a greater risk to humans (Bartlett et al. 1982; Martins et al. 2000). Humans can develop histoplasmosis after inhaling the microscopic spores of H. capsulatum, often while participating in activities that disturb a heavily contaminated environment. While histoplasmosis is rarely fatal, infections in individuals with weakened immune systems can become severe (Martins et al. 2000), yet it is questionable that infections by H. capsulatum can be traced back to bats. 14.5.3 Noise, Odor, Dust, and Activity Although echolocation calls emitted by most bats in open space are not audible to humans, many social vocalizations of bats are noticeable because they are typically below the 20 kHz auditory threshold of humans. These vocalizations may be particularly evident at times of the year when pups use contact calls to attract their returning mothers. Such vocalizations combined with noises caused by terrestrial locomotion of bat inhabitants, e.g., molossid bats moving through small crevices below tin roofs, can be a nuisance for human inhabitants. In addition, humans sometimes complain about bat-related odors and dust (Razafindrakoto et al. 2011). 14.5.4 Harmful Bats Bat feces is suggested to have antigenic properties, causing skin rashes in susceptible humans (Alonso et al. 1998), yet detailed studies are lacking. To our knowledge, there is only one bat species worldwide that could be directly harmful to humans. The common vampire bat, Desmodus rotundus, consumes mammalian blood but is restricted to Latin America. Although this species feeds primarily on livestock animals, e.g., cattle (Delpietro et al. 1992; Voigt and Kelm 2006), vampire bats may feed on sleeping humans not protected inside buildings (Schneider et al. 2001; Carvalho-Costa et al. 2012). Though vampire bats are not known to inhabit occupied buildings, in some areas of South America, these bats inhabit abandoned buildings next to occupied houses (Mialhe 2013). Besides the potential of contracting rabies via a bite, humans can suffer from inflammation, secondary infections, and blood loss. Overall, humans are not a regular victim for vampire bats. 14 Bats and Buildings: The Conservation … 443 14.5.5 Destruction of Buildings Caused by Bat Excreta Bats may inhabit buildings over many years, or even centuries, and accumulated feces and urine may cause severe damage to buildings. For example, bat guano was the cause of damage to some buildings of the UNESCO World Heritage Centre—Angkor monuments in Cambodia. Apparently, salts in excretions of bats are eroding the sandstone of some ancient buildings (Hosono et al. 2006). In most cases, structural damage can be prevented by removing accumulations of guano. Plastic sheets can be placed over exposed structures to protect them and facilitate the removal of urine and guano; in addition, wooden boards placed directly under roosts may also be helpful in collecting bat excreta from roosts inside buildings. 14.6 Conservation of Bats in Buildings: Avoidance, Mitigation, and Compensation The protection of synanthropic bats and their roosts should occur in a tri-level hierarchical pattern. First, it should be determined whether bat roosts can be preserved, e.g., left untouched, even when construction work is carried out near the roost. Second, if construction work affects the roost, developers and architects should mitigate the impact on the bat colony (mitigation). Lastly, if bat roosts are going to be lost, when, for example, barns are converted into apartments (Briggs 2004), appropriate compensation measures should be practiced in order to offer bats an alternative roost. Although this general approach may not be applicable in all countries, particularly when the legal framework is lacking, we will elaborate on it in the remainder of the chapter. Conservation guidelines for bats in buildings have been formulated in various countries, including those from the European Union (Table 14.1; Marnell and Prsetnik 2010). Conservation networks (Kingston et al. 2016, Chap. 16) could use these and our recommendations to develop further region-specific guidelines for the protection of local synanthropic bats. 14.6.1 General Considerations for the Conservation of Bats in Buildings Monitoring of colonies Monitoring of bat colonies, particularly maternity colonies, in buildings needs to be conducted with appropriate care (Kunz and Reynolds 2003). In some countries, it is legally forbidden to disturb bats in their roosts, particularly during the maternity period. Kunz and Reynolds (2003) suggested conducting evening emergence counts at roost exits to monitor maternity colonies without disturbing bats. 444 C.C. Voigt et al. Table 14.1 List of Web-based resources pertaining to the conservation of synanthropic bats (sorted alphabetically according to continent or country) Country EU France Australia Latin America Germany Ireland Italy Netherlands Russia UK UK UK UK USA USA Web address http://www.eurobats.org/sites/default/files/documents/publications/ publication_series/pubseries_no4_english_2nd_edition.pdf http://www.sfepm.org/chiropteres.htm http://ausbats.org.au/#/bats-in-your-house/4569171536 http://www.relcomlatinoamerica.net/images/PDFs/PROTOCOLO.pdf http://www.nabu.de/tiereundpflanzen/saeugetiere/fledermaeuse/aktivwerden/ 01506.html http://www.batconservationireland.org http://biocenosi.dipbsf.uninsubria.it/chiroptera/ http://www.vzz.nl http://zmmu.msu.ru/bats/popular/v_dome.htm http://www.bats.org.uk/pages/bats_and_buildings.html http://www.bedsbatgroup.org.uk/wordpress/?page_id=3429 http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-2861 http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/ourwork/regulation/wildlife/species/ bats.aspx http://www.conservewildlifenj.org/protecting/projects/bat/buildings/ http://www.nature.nps.gov/biology/wns/assets/docs/2012BatsInBuildingsWeb inarOdegard.pptx Life stages of bats For effective protection of synanthropic bats, it is crucial to understand the purpose of the buildings being used as roosts by bats. We have outlined several possibilities for why bats use buildings. Since bats may be particularly vulnerable during their reproductive period and during hibernation, roosts that are used by bats during these life stages are of prime concern for conservation efforts. The central recommendation for such roosts is to leave them untouched, unless gradual deterioration of the building may destroy the roost. Human occupancy Usually, disturbance of synanthropic bats by humans is detrimental to colonies. For example, de Boer et al. (2013) showed for the Netherlands that hibernacula in buildings were more suitable for bats when disturbance by humans was low. However, it should be noted that some studies report that synanthropic bats tend to leave roosts when humans no longer use buildings, possibly because buildings are no longer heated (Frafjord 2007). In Poland, Sachanowicz and Wower (2013) found evidence that the gradual deterioration of buildings caused an impoverishment of species in the local assemblages of atticdwelling bats. Therefore, human occupancy of buildings may be a benefit in some circumstances and a disadvantage in others, depending on the species involved and the specific life stages. Interior of roosts The size and spatial structure of building interiors affects the occupancy by synanthropic bats. For example, the availability of sufficient space and optimal microclimatic conditions seem to be beneficial for attic-dwelling bats, such as the endangered Townsend’s big-eared bat Corynorhinus townsendii 14 Bats and Buildings: The Conservation … 445 (Betts 2010) and Rafinesque’s big-eared bat, Corynorhinus rafinesquii (Loeb and Zarnoch 2011). In addition to roost compartments, relatively higher ambient temperatures in roost interiors are also relevant for bats inhabiting buildings (Entwistle et al. 1997). Eptesicus fuscus prefer old buildings with galvanized (tin) roofs that are also taller than surrounding buildings, most likely because of higher temperatures and wider temperature gradients in these buildings (Williams and Brittingham 1997). For some hibernating bats, the size and number of hiding places may contribute to the quality of hibernacula in buildings. Exterior of roosts Synanthropic bats not only depend on suitable roosting interiors, but also depend on the quality of the surrounding environment, e.g., for foraging or drinking. Suitable roost entrances are critical for some bats, particularly for fast-flying species with a low ability to maneuver (Neubaum et al. 2007). For example, Nyctalus noctula roosting in buildings preferred roosts that were located at the top floors (Bihari 2004; Cel’uch and Kaňuch 2005). Molossids, e.g., Chaerephon ansorgei, and vespertilionids, e.g., Neoromicia capensis, that inhabit crevices or narrow spaces under roofs are capable of landing and crawling through narrow roost entrances, whereas horseshoe bats, e.g., Rhinolophus clivosus, and slit-faced bats, e.g., Nycteris thebaica, require an opening large enough to fly through since they usually do not crawl (Monadjem et al. 2010). Other species, such as Pipistrellus pipistrellus, are generalists with respect to their roost preference, i.e., they do not prefer specific structural attributes of buildings (Jenkins et al. 1998). It is also noteworthy that some species may require several roosts in separate buildings to establish a stable colony, e.g., greater horseshoe bats, Rhinolophus ferrumequinum (Maltagliati et al. 2013), eastern pipistrelles, Pipistrellus subflavus (Whitaker 1998), and Eptesicus fuscus (Ellison et al. 2007; O’Shea et al. 2012). Additional landscape elements, such as vegetation and water sources, have been suggested to promote bat populations in cities (Neubaum et al. 2007). Trees in the vicinity of roosts were beneficial for pipistrelle bats, Pipistrellus pipistrellus, not only as foraging grounds but also as a protection against aerial predators, thus enabling bats to increase their nocturnal foraging activity substantially by emerging earlier from their roost (Jenkins et al. 1998). Brown long-eared bats, Plecotus auritus, preferred buildings situated close to woodland and water (Entwistle et al. 1997; Moussy 2011). Illumination of buildings at night by streetlamps reduces the quality of roosts for some bats. For example, European Rhinolophus ferrumequinum, Myotis emarginatus, and Myotis oxygnathus emerged later at sunset from roosts when buildings were illuminated. Also, body mass and forearm length were smaller in juveniles from illuminated buildings than in those from not illuminated. In the worst case, roosts are abandoned after direct lighting of the buildings in which the roost is located (Boldogh et al. 2007). Eviction of bats from roost Eviction of bats from houses is practiced worldwide, yet it is against the law in some countries. The corresponding authorities may grant concessions if there is no alternative to the exclusion of bats from roosts. Yet, in many countries, it is a legal requisite that appropriate measures are practiced to compensate for the loss of a roost. The permanent closure of roost 446 C.C. Voigt et al. exits or the destruction of a roost should only be considered during times when bats are not using the roost, e.g., outside the reproduction or hibernation period. Otherwise, bats may be trapped and killed, which is against animal welfare. If roosts are destroyed or closed, bats may switch to alternative roosts (Neilson and Fenton 1994). After eviction of Eptesicus fuscus from buildings, females produced fewer offspring at alternative sites, even though foraging behavior remained constant (Brigham and Fenton 1986). Relocation of bats to nearby habitats usually fails because bats will return to their original roost in most cases. Lastly, the permanent eviction of bats from roosts may increase the frequency of roost switching. In the case of species with a high prevalence of rabies infections, it is predicted that the rabies transmission risk may increase due to more, and possibly undirected, movements of evicted bats around buildings (e.g., Eptesicus fuscus, Streicker et al. 2013). Therefore, roost closures might have unforeseen and unwanted side effects for public health. 14.6.2 Avoiding or Mitigating Roost Losses in Buildings Roosts are key resources for bats since many species are limited by roost availability (Kunz 1982; Kunz and Lumsden 2003). Therefore, a prime conservation effort should be the protection of existing roosts and possibly the enhancement of their quality. If private or commercial development of buildings is an inevitable conflict with synanthropic bats, appropriate measures should be practiced, particularly when the species is endangered and/or protected. Reduction of human disturbance Disturbance of bat roosts in buildings can lead to a variety of outcomes, ranging from direct effects when people disturb building roosts to indirect effects of noise and light pollution. Bats seem to adjust quickly to noise, yet as Rowse et al. (2015) point out, some species may be quite sensitive to artificial light. For example, Pipistrellus pipistrellus are quite tolerant to artificial light during foraging, but altered their emergence behavior when exposed to different light intensities at their daytime roost (Down et al. 2003). Directing artificial light at roost entrances may have a negative impact on bats roosting in buildings (Boldogh et al. 2007). Adjusting the regime of artificial light near a colony and reducing the light spill from neighboring buildings or streetlamps should be considered to improve the quality of roosts in buildings. It is important to recognize that human visits to hibernacula of bats in buildings might cause bats to arouse from hibernation, a process that is energetically costly and causes bats to deplete their fat depots which increases the risk of starvation (Speakman and Thomas 2003). Therefore, it is necessary to cease visitations to known hibernacula to minimize impacts on hibernating bats. The impact of disturbance caused by structural work in buildings, e.g., renovation of roof structures or attics, can have severe consequences for synanthropic bats. Indeed, colonies will abandon roosts because of this disturbance. To minimize these negative impacts, construction work should only take place during the 14 Bats and Buildings: The Conservation … 447 annual period when bats are not using the roost. For example, renovation of attics used by bats as maternity roosts should only occur after juveniles fledge or when colony members leave the roost to hibernate in another location. Minimizing disturbance is also vital for protecting hibernacula, and construction work at these sites should not be conducted during the hibernation period. Conservation of smaller-sized roosts Reduction of the size of bat roosts inside buildings might be acceptable if the only alternative is the complete loss of a roost. For example, attics or barns are sometimes converted to apartments or houses, respectively. If bats are roosting in an attic or barn, a small part of it could be separated from the space used by humans and this smaller space could be designated for the exclusive use by bats. However, it should be noted that many bat species roosting in attics or barns prefer large and complex structures with some variation in microclimate conditions. A decrease in size and structural complexity of the roost space may lead to the gradual decline in colony size and possibly complete loss. Therefore, a reduction in roost size may best be accompanied by the provision of new artificial roosts that are suitable for the specific bat species (Figs. 14.4 and 14.5; Kunz and Reynolds 2003). Fig. 14.4 Artificial bat roost on the exterior of the Leibniz Institute for Zoo and Wildlife Research building in Berlin, Germany. Nyctalus noctula use the roost during autumn 448 C.C. Voigt et al. Fig. 14.5 Artificial bat roosts embedded into the external insulation layer of a renovated public building in Berlin, Germany: a row of artificial roosts within the top floor of a seven-story building; b detail of a single artificial roost (the horizontal exit is at the base). Such roosts are suitable as hibernation sites and stopover sites during migration for noctule bats, Noctula noctula, in Europe, yet they may not host as many individuals as buildings before renovation 14.6.3 Compensating for Lost Roosts Sometimes it is inevitable that roosts in buildings are lost. The addition of artificial bat boxes near previously occupied buildings can successfully compensate in some instances. For example, colonies of Pipistrellus pygmaeus and Plecotus auritus and various other species throughout Europe benefited from artificial roosts when the original roost was destroyed (Anonymous 2006; Beck and Schelbert 1999). Artificial bat roosts were also provided for and accepted by South American Molossus molossus when roosts in buildings were destroyed (Alberico et al. 2004). In North America, Eptesicus fuscus, and Myotis lucifugus, will occupy artificial bat boxes installed at buildings that formerly housed colonies (Brittingham and Williams 2000). For example, the Bat House Research Project in the Kruger National Park, South Africa, has recently provided new accommodation for bats in the Letaba Rest Camp in an effort to help identify the most effective way to remove bats from buildings within the park (http://www.krugerpark. co.za/krugerpark-times-2-11-bat-accommodation-19864.html). Similar attempts to provide alternative roosting structures for synanthropic bats have been successful in the USA; for example, artificial roosts have been built on the campus of the University of Florida to host populations of Tadarida brasiliensis and other native bats (https://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/index.php/bats/home/). These success stories should not imply that roosts in building are replaceable by artificial structures and that bats will readily occupy artificial roosts. Sometimes, for unknown reasons, bats avoid artificial roosts in buildings completely. Therefore, protection of existing roosts should be considered prior to attempting the use of artificial roosts. 14 Bats and Buildings: The Conservation … 449 14.6.4 Loss of Roosts Due to Demographic Changes in the Human Population Demographic changes in human populations of many countries are turning rural areas into areas nearly devoid of humans. As a result, buildings are abandoned and, due to a lack of maintenance, deteriorate over time. Shortly after abandonment, many synanthropic bat species benefit, likely due to the reduced disturbance by humans. Deserted buildings may provide new roosting structures for bats, e.g., for Hipposideros nicobarulae in Myanmar (Douangboupha et al. 2012). Yet in the long run, synanthropic bats may vanish from these sites when buildings deteriorate (Sachanowicz and Wower 2013). Another effect of demographic changes involves movement and thus concentration of people in urban areas. Following this, previously unused buildings, even in industrial areas, or unoccupied space under the roof of buildings are converted into houses or apartments to host the influx of people in cities. This may cause losses of roosting opportunities for synanthropic bats. In China, like in many Asian countries, a vast number of old buildings are demolished during the process of modernization and this reduces the density of roosts significantly for synanthropic bats (Zhang et al. 2009). 14.7 Examples of Good Practice 14.7.1 Example 1: The Outreach Program for the “Bat-Friendly House” To conserve synanthropic bat species, education appears to be the prime method to protect bat roosts in buildings. Kingston (2016, Chaps. 17 and 18) address various outreach approaches. Here, we focus on a specific German-based conservation program called “bat-friendly house.” Directed by a consortium of nonprofit organizations (spearheaded by the “Naturschutzbund” Germany) and federal and local authorities and bat conservationists, the program has created a “Bat-Friendly House” award for owners who protect bat colonies in their buildings. The major goal of this program is to support populations of synanthropic bats by maintaining or even enhancing their roosts and to involve local people in the protection of bats. Several hundred houses have been deemed bat-friendly in the federal states of Hessen, Schleswig-Holstein and Northrine-Westfalia and others in Germany. The award ceremony is usually accompanied by a press campaign to raise awareness about the conservation of bats that use building as their roosts. Similar programs have been initiated in other EU countries. 450 C.C. Voigt et al. 14.7.2 Example 2: Renovated Buildings Designated for Bat Conservation Purposes There are many examples of buildings that were renovated successfully to mitigate the human–bat conflict or to protect endangered bats. The details of the vast majority of these cases have not been documented or published. Yet, it is encouraging to read about some of the examples on Web pages or in the gray literature of nongovernmental organizations (Table 14.1). The EUROBATS publication, available at www.eurobats.org, provides examples of successful projects throughout Europe. Many of these examples underline that the details of specific conservation efforts depend largely on the biology of the target bat species and on local circumstances, ranging from the building in question, the overall legal framework, and the funding agencies and the authorities and persons involved. We have summarized some general features in the next section that might be relevant for many synanthropic bats, but we cannot provide a comprehensive overview of all projects. We have also refrained from repeating case studies that have already been described in detail at other places. Instead, we focus on a single example that we consider successful because it combines efficiently the practical aspects of protecting a building for an endangered bat species, preservation and enhancement of suitable habitats, and a community-based outreach program to facilitate the acceptance and thus continuation of the project beyond the funding period. Protection of the last maternity colony of greater horseshoe bats, Rhinolophus ferrumequinum, in Germany According to surveys over the past decades, populations of greater horseshoe bats, Rhinolophus ferrumequinum, are on the decline throughout Europe (Ransome and Hutson 2000; Dietz et al. 2009; Spitzenberger et al. 2010). Although some parts of southern Germany were inhabited previously by this species, today they are virtually absent from Germany except for a maternity colony found in 1992 in Hohenburg, a small village located in northeastern Bavaria adjacent to a large military training area. Because of its rarity, this species is categorized as “Threatened by Extinction” in the national red list of mammals for Germany. The colony occupied a house and adjacent farm buildings that were built in the sixteenth century. Since the 1980s, the buildings have not been inhabited or used by humans (Fig. 14.6). Thus, the complex deteriorated and was nearly to the point of collapse when the colony was discovered. In 1992, there were 21 adults, yet it is unknown how large the colony had been before its discovery. After initial monitoring of the bats in the colony and their feeding habits, it was decided in 2011 to apply for a grant from the European Union which supports biodiversity projects. Since the funding scheme required complementary funding sources, the applicants, namely the “Landesbund für Vogelschutz e.V.,” a German NGO devoted to protecting national biodiversity, contacted additional partners, such as “Bayerischer Naturschutzfonds,” “Bundesanstalt für Immobilienaufgaben,” and “Naturpark Hirschwald,” to reach the critical financial needs for achieving the conservation plan. 14 Bats and Buildings: The Conservation … 451 Fig. 14.6 Building complex that hosts the last maternity roost of the greater horseshoe bat, Rhinolophus ferrumequinum, in Germany (a). Bats most often use the attic of the largest backyard building (b). The attic ceiling functions as a heat trap where warm, upward moving air is trapped; this is the preferred roosting area for the colony (c) Based on an initial investment made by the German government in support of small and intermediate companies during the 2011 bank crisis, it was first decided to renovate the complex of buildings after bats left for hibernation in nearby caves. Developers were faced with the difficult task of renovating a building complex that was protected by law, while at the same time keeping the roosting requirements of greater horseshoe bats in mind. The majority of space inside the building complex was designated for the exclusive use by bats. The ground floor level of the main buildings was transformed into an education center and some office space for the project coordinator. The fact that several attics and rooms with variable microclimatic conditions were available to the colony likely contributed to the success of the project. This is consistent with observations of roost use by greater horseshoe bats elsewhere. For example, Maltagliati et al. (2013) pointed out that the largest nursery colony of Rhinolophus ferrumequinum in Italy uses several buildings. The Hohenburg house was carefully modified to include some further beneficial structures for bats. For example, workers built a so-called heat dome inside the attic where warm, upward moving air is trapped in a structure that is used by bats as a roosting site (Fig. 14.6b, c). Furthermore, they created a 1-m2 pool of water (3 cm depth) at which bats may drink. Finally, roost exits were constructed in a way that prevents predators, e.g., stone martens and domestic cats, from entering the building. Second, it was understood that horseshoe bats would not survive if adjacent habitat structures degenerate by forest succession. Therefore, they designed a strategy to protect and indeed improve habitat structures for Rhinolophus ferrumequinum, a strategy that has proven successful for other synanthropic bats as well 452 C.C. Voigt et al. (Murphy et al. 2012). Accordingly, a strategic plan was developed to protect foraging habitats and enhance the quality of landscape elements. Efforts are currently underway to convert forests into so-called Hutewald, which is an extensive forest used by livestock as pasture that resembles a landscape park. Furthermore, nearby hibernacula in natural caves were protected by fences to minimize disturbance of roosting bats. Finally, the project includes an outreach program in which local people are informed about the progress of the project and engaged in fulfilling the working plan. The education center is equipped with monitors to provide real-time views into the bat colony. Project workers explain the goals of the project and show visitors the emergence of colony members at dusk. By using bat detectors and by direction observation, visitors learn firsthand about the biology of this fascinating species. Lastly, interested people might also visit the Web page of the project and observe bats using the Webcam (http://www.lbv.de/unsere-arbeit/life-natur-projekte/life-projekt-hufeisennase.html). Local hotels and restaurants in Hohenburg and adjacent villages have benefited from tourists and bat enthusiasts who come to this area for the single purpose of learning more about the Hohenburg colony of Rhinolophus ferrumequinum. Since its discovery, the size of the colony has increased fourfold, numbering 94 adult Rhinolophus ferrumequinum and 37 juveniles in 2013 (pers. comm. Rudolf Leitl). Currently, efforts are underway to provide appropriate roosting structures in buildings and protected hibernacula in the nearby area to offer a suite of habitats for the expanding Hohenburg colony with the ultimate goal to establish further colonies in the larger region. 14.8 Synthesis and Outlook Synanthropic bats are, by definition, in close contact with humans. Although this contact bears some risks to both humans and bats, it also provides opportunities to promote bat conservation. Practical aspects regarding the conservation of synanthropic bats in buildings, such as how to construct a new roost or enhancement of an existing building roost, should be one part of conservation efforts. From our point of view, it is equally important to engage in outreach programs and communicate with building owners about the conservation value of synanthropic bats (see also Kingston et al. 2016). With respect to research directions, we identify the following questions that need to be addressed: 1. What sensory cues do bats use to explore buildings as potential night or day roosts? 2. What are the differences in microclimate between natural and building roost sites, particularly in tropical and subtropical regions? 3. Is use of building roosts a learned behavior? Do local populations establish a tradition of inhabiting buildings? 14 Bats and Buildings: The Conservation … 453 4. Is swarming behavior unique to European bats? 5. Are there differences in the way bats use buildings between areas or continents where buildings have been in place for many centuries compared with areas where humans have only built houses recently. 6. Do tropical and subtropical bats also use buildings for extended periods of torpor, similar to hibernation of temperate zone bats? 7. What is the selective benefit for synanthropic bats inhabiting roosts in buildings compared with conspecifics inhabiting natural roosts? Why do some species commonly hibernate in buildings and others do not (see also Rintoul and Brigham 2014)? 8. Do tropical and subtropical bats exhibit similar expansions of geographic ranges when thermal benefits of using buildings as roosts are not the predominant driving benefit? 9. Is it possible to estimate the monetary value of ecosystem services provided by synanthropic bats? 10. To what extent have the geographic ranges of synanthropic bats changed in response to the coinhabitation of buildings? Apart from these basic research questions, we need to engage in larger conservation efforts to protect synanthropic bats in developing countries, taking into account their ecological and economic value. Synanthropic bats face an uncertain future in many temperate countries due to political measures and specific programs to improve building standards, e.g., building modernization in the European Union that involves increased insulation of exterior walls has led to the large-scale eviction of synanthropic bats from buildings. We also see a strong incentive to coordinate conservation efforts to protect populations of synanthropic bats. Bats that live in the same buildings as humans could be ambassadors for the conservation of bats if other successful outcomes are replicated and publicized to a general audience. We conclude that synanthropic bats coinhabiting buildings with humans may provide good opportunities to teach humans in both urban and rural environments about wildlife species, particularly bats. Acknowledgments We thank Drs. Mark Brigham, Scott Reynolds, and Allen Kurta for constructive comments that helped improve the chapter. Open Access This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License, which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited. References Aguirre LF, Moya MI, Arteaga BLL, Galarza MMI, Vargas EA, Barboza Marquez K, Peñaranda DA, Pérez-Zubieta JC, Terán VMF and Tarifa T (2010) Plan de acción para la conservación de los murciélagos amenazados de Bolivia. BIOTA-PCMB, MMAA-VBCC-DGB, UICNSSC-BSG, CBG-UMSS. Cochabamba, Bolivia 454 C.C. Voigt et al. Ahlen I, Bach L, Johansson T (2004) Första kolonin av pipistrell funnen i Sverige: a common pipistrelle Pipistrellus pipistrellus colony found in Sweden. Fauna och Flora 99:16–17 Alberico M, Saavedra-R CA, Paredes HG (2004) Criterios para el diseno e istalacion de casas para murcielagos: Proyecto CPM (Cali, Valle del Cauca, Colombia). Actualidades Biologicas 26:5–11 Allen JA, Lang H, Chapin JP (1917) The American Museum Congo expedition collection of bats. Am Mus Nat Hist 37:405–478 Alonso A, Irañeta SG, Rodríguez SM, Scavini LM, Rodríguez SR (1998) Bat feces as an indoor allergen. J Investig Allergol Clin Immunol 8:365–369 Altringham JD (1996) Bats: biology and behavior. Oxford University Press, United Kingdom Ancillotto L, Serangeli MT, Russo D (2013) Curiosity killed the bat: domestic cats as bat predators. Mamm Biol 78:369–373 Andrianaivoarivelo AR, Ranaivoson N, Racey PA, Jenkins RKB (2006) The diet of three synanthropic bats (Chiroptera: Molossidae) from eastern Madagascar. Acta Chiropterol 8:439–444 Anonymous (2006) A review of the success of bat boxes in houses. Scottish Natural Heritage commissioned report 160:1–41 Aspetsberger F, Brandsen D, Jacobs DS (2003) Geographic variation in the morphology, echolocation and diet of the little free-tailed bat, Chaerephon pumilus (Molossidae). Afr Zool 38:245–254 Barclay RMR (1980) Comparison of methods used for controlling bats in buildings. J Wildl Manage 44:502–506 Barclay RMR, Harder LD (2003) Life histories of bat: life in the slow lane. In: Kunz TH, Fenton MB (eds) Bat ecology. Chicago University Press, pp 209–25 Bartlett PC, Vonbehren LA, Tewari RP, Martin RJ, Eagleton L, Isaac MJ, Kulkarni PS (1982) Bats in the belfry: an outbreak of histoplasmosis. Am J Pubic Health 72:1369–1372 Bayat S, Geiser F, Kristiansen P, Wilson SC (2014) Organic contaminants in bats: trends and new issues. Env Intern 63:40–52 Beck A, Schelbert B (1999) Fledermauskästen als Ersatz für zerstörte Quartiere an Bauten. Mitt der Aargauischen Naturforschenden Ges 35:115–127 Bennet BS, Thies ML (2007) Organochlorine pesticide residues in guano of Brazilian freetailed bats, Tadarida brasiliensis Saint-Hilaire, from east Texas. B Environ Contam Tox 78:191–194 Betts BJ (2010) Thermoregulatory mechanisms used in a maternity colony of Townsend’s bigeared bats in northeastern Oregon. Northwest Nat 91:288–298 Bielby J, Mace GM, Binina-Emonds OR, Cardillo M, Gittleman JL, Jones KE, Orme CD, Purvis A (2007) The fast-slow continuum in mammalian life history: an empirical reevaluation. Am Nat 169:748–757 Bihari Z (2004) The roost preference of Nyctalus noctula (Chiroptera, Vespertilionidae) in summer and the ecological background of their urbanization. Mammalia 68:329–336 Bihari Z, Bakos J (2001) Roost selection of Nyctalus noctula (Chiroptera, Vespertilionidae) in urban habitat. In: Woloszyn BW (ed) Proceedings of the European Bat Research Symposium, Poland, pp 29–39 Boehm SM, Wells K, Kalko EKV (2011) Top-down control of herbivory by birds and bats in the canopy of temperate broad-leaved oaks (Quercus robur). PLoS ONE 6(4):e17857 Boldogh S, Dobrosi D, Samu P (2007) The effects of the illumination of buildings on housedwelling bats and its conservation consequences. Acta Chiropterol 9:527–534 Boyd IL, Myhill DG (1988) Uptake of gamma-HCH (lindane) by pipistrelle bats and its effect on survival. Environ Pollut 51:95–111 Bradbury JW, Emmons L (1974) Social organization of some Trinidad bats. I Emballonuridae Z Tierpsychol 36:137–183 Bradbury JW, Vehrencamp SL (1976) Social organization and foraging in Emballonurid bats. I. Field studies. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 1:337–381 Briggs P (2004) Effect of barn conversion on bat roost sites in Hertfordshire, England. Mammalia 68:353–364 14 Bats and Buildings: The Conservation … 455 Brigham RM, Fenton MB (1986) The influence of roost closure on the roosting and foraging behaviour of Eptesicus fuscus (Chiroptera: Vespertilionidae). Can J Zool 64:1128–1133 Brittingham MC, Williams LM (2000) Bat boxes as alternative roosts for displaced bat maternity colonies. Wildlife Soc B 28:197–207 Bronner G, Maloney SK, Buffenstein R (1999) Survival tactics within thermally-challenging roosts: heat tolerance and cold sensitivity in the Angolan free-tailed bat, Mops condylurus. S Afr J Zool 34:1–10 Bruijn Z (1990) Domestic cat Felis catus as a predator of bats. Lutra 33:30–34 Carvalho-Costa FA, Tedesqui VL, Monteiro MDN, Bóia MN (2012) Outbreaks of attacks by hematophagous bats in isolated riverine communities in the Brazilian Amazon: a challenge to rabies control. Zoonoses Public Health 59:272–277 Cel’uch M, Kaňuch P (2005) Winter activity and roosts of the noctule (Nyctalus noctula) in an urban area (central Slovakia). Lynx 36:39–45 Cel’uch M, Danko Š, Kaňuch P (2006) On urbanisaton of and Pipistrellus pygmaeus in Slovakia. Vespertilio 9–10:219–221 Christe P, Arlettaz R, Vogel P (2000) Variation in intensity of a parasitic mite (Spinturnix myoti) in relation to the reproductive cycle and immunocompetence of its bat host (Myotis myotis). Ecol Lett 3:207–212 Clark DR, Shore RF (2001) Chiroptera. In: Shore RF, Rattner BA (eds) Ecotoxicology of wild mammals. Wiley, pp 159–214 Clark DR, Lollar A, Cowman DF (1996) Dead and dying Brazilian free-tailed bats (Tadarida brasiliensis) from Texas: rabies and pesticide exposure. Southwest Nat 41:275–278 Coleman JL, Barclay RMR (2012a) Urbanization and the abundance and diversity of prairie bats. Urban Ecosyst 15:87–102 Coleman JL, Barclay RMR (2012b) Influence of urbanization on demography of little brown bats (Myotis lucifugus) in the prairies of North America. PLoS ONE 6(5):e20483 Corman V, Ithete NL, Richards LE, Schoeman MC, Preisler W, Drosten C, Drexler JF (2014) Rooting the phylogenetic tree of MERS-Coronavirus by characterization of an ancestral virus from an African Bat. J Virol. doi:10.1128/JVI.01498-14 Corrao A, Catalano E, Zava B (1985) Destructive effects of chlorinated pesticides on a bats colony (Chiroptera). Mammalia 49:125–130 Daver SR (1953) Eradicating bats from bungalows. J Bombay Nat Hist Soc 51:734–735 de Almeida MF, Favoretto SR, Martorelli LFA, Trezza-Netto J, Campos ACD, Ozahata CH, Sodre MM, Kataoka APAG, Sacramento DRV, Durigon EL (2011) Characterization of rabies virus isolated from a colony of Eptesicus furinalis bats in Brazil. Rev Inst Med Trop Sao Paulo 53:31–37 de Boer WF, van de Koppel S, de Knegt HJ, Dekker JJA (2013) Hibernation site requirements of bats in man-made hibernacula in a spatial context. Ecol Appl 23:502–514 Dekker JJA, Regelink JR, Jansen EA, Bringkmann R, Limpens HJGA (2013) Habitat use by female Geoffroy’s bats (Myotis emarginatus) at its two northernmost maternity roosts and the implications for their conservation. Lutra 56:111–120 Delpietro HA, Marchevsky N, Simonetti E (1992) Relative population densities and predation of the common vampire bat (Desmodus rotundus) in natural and cattle-raising areas in northeast Argentina. Prev Vet Med 14:13–20 Dietz C, von Helversen O, Nill D (2009) Bats of Britain, Europe and northwest Africa. A & C Black, London Douangboupha B, Bumrungsri S, Satasook C, Soisook P, Bu SSH, Aul B, Harrison DL, Pearch MJ, Thomas NM, Bates PJJ (2012) A new species of small Hipposideros (Chiroptera: Hipposideridae) from Myanmar and a reevaluation of the taxon H. nicobarulae Miller, 1902 from the Nicobar islands. Acta Chiropterol 13:61–78 Down NC, Beaton V, Guest J, Polanski J, Robinson SL, Racey PA (2003) The effects of illuminating the roost entrance on emergence behavior of Pipistells pygmaeus. Biol Conserv 111:247–252 456 C.C. Voigt et al. Duvergé PL, Jones G, Rydell R, Ransome RD (2008) Functional significance of emergence timing in bats. Ecography 23:32–40 Ellison LE, O’Shea TJ, Neubaum DJ, Bowen RA (2007) Factors influencing movement probabilities of big brown bats () in buildings. Ecol Appl 17:620–627 Entwistle AC, Racey PA, Speakman JR (1997) Roost selection by the brown long-eared bat Plecotus auritus. J Appl Ecol 34:399–408 Esbérard CEL, Vrcibradic D (2007) Snakes preying on bats: new records from Brazil and a review of recorded cases in the Neotropical region. Rev Bras Zool 24:848–853 Favi M, Bassaletti A, Lopez J, Rodriguez L, Yung V (2012) Epidemiological description of rabies reservoir in bats in the metropolitan region: Chile 2000–2009. Rev Chil de Infectologia 28:223–228 Fenton MB, Swanepoel CM, Brigham RM, Cebek J, Hickey MBC (1990) Foraging behaviour and prey selection by large slit-faced bats (Nycteris grandis; Chiroptera: Nycteridae). Biotropica 22:2–8 Fenton MB, Rautenbach IL, Smith SE, Swanepoel CM, Grosell J, van Jaarsveld J (1994) Raptors and bats: threats and opportunities. Anim Behav 48:9–18 Fenton MN, Taylor PJ, Jacobs DS, Richardson EJ, Bernard E, Bouchard S, Debaeremaeker KR, ter Hofstede H, Hollis L, Lausen CL, Lister JS, Rambaldini D, Ratcliffe JM, Reddy E (2002) Researching little-known species: the African bat Otomops martiensseni (Chiroptera: Molossidae). Biodivs Conserv 11:1583–1606 Fischer E, Munin RL, Longo JM, Fischer W, De Souza PR (2010) Predation on bats by great kiskadees. J Field Ornithol 81:17–20 Foggin CM (1988) Rabies and rabies-related viruses in Zimbabwe: historical, virological and ecological aspects. Dissertation, University of Zimbabwe Frafjord K (2007) Foretrekker nordflaggermus Eptesicus nilssonii oppvarma hus? Do northern bats Eptesicus nilssonii prefer heated building as roosts? Fauna 60:239–245 Gaisler J (1998) Bat thanatocenosis with Eptesicus serotinus, Vespertilio murinus and Nyctalus leisleri in a building. Folia Zool 47:313–315 Gareca E, Rey-Ortiz G, Aguirre LF (2007) Relación entre el conocimiento acerca de los murciélagos y las actitudes de cinco grupos sociales de Cochabamba. In: Aguirre LF (ed) Historia natural, distribución y conservación de los murciélagos de Bolivia. Fundación Simón I, Patiño, Santa Cruz, pp 99–103 Geiser F (2004) Metabolic rate and body temperature reduction during hibernation and daily torpor. Annu Rev Physiol 66:239–274 Geiser F, Drury RL (2003) Radiant heat affects thermoregulation and energy expenditure during from torpor. J Comp Physiol 173:55–60 Ghanem SJ, Voigt CC (2012) Increasing awareness of ecosystem services provided by bats. Adv Stud Behav 44:279–302 Gillam EH, O’Shea TH, Brigham RM (2011) Nonrandom patterns of roosts emergence in big brown bats, Eptesicus fuscus. J Mammal 92:1253–1260 Gillette DD, Kimbrough JD (1970) Chiropteran morality. In: Slaughter BH, Walton DW (eds) About bats. Southern Methodist University Press, pp 262–283 Goodman SM, Jansen van Vuuren B, Ratrimomanarivo F, Probst J-M, Bowie RCK (2008a) Specific status of populations in the Mascarene Islands referred to Mormopterus acetabulosus (Chiroptera: Molossidae), with description of a new species. J Mammal 89:1316–1327 Goodman SM, Ratrimomanarivo FH, Ranivo J, Cardiff SG (2008b) The hunting of microchiropteran bats in different portions of Madagascar. Afr Bat Con News 16:4–7 Halsall AL, Boyles JG, Whitaker JO (2012) Body temperature patterns of big brown bats during winter in a building hibernaculum. J Mammal 93:497–503 Harbusch C, Racey PA (2006) The sessile serotine: the influence of roost temperature on philopatry and reproduction phenology of Eptesicus serotinus (Schreber, 1774)(Mammalia: Chiroptera). Acta Chiropterol 8:213–229 Hosono T, Uchida E, Suda C, Ueno A, Nagagawa T (2006) Salt weathering of sandstone at the Angkor monuments, Cambodia: identification of the origins of salts using sulfur and strontium isotopes. J Archeol Sci 33:1541–1551 14 Bats and Buildings: The Conservation … 457 Irwin NR, Speakman JR (2003) Azorean bats Nyctalus azoreum, cluster as they emerge from roosts, despite the lack of avian predators. Acta Chriopterol 5:185–192 Jenkins EV, Laine T, Morgan SE, Cole KR, Speakman JR (1998) Roost selection in the pipistrelle bat, Pipistrellus pipistrellus (Chiroptera: Vespertilionidae), in northeast Scotland. Anim Behav 56:909–917 Jones G, Jacobs DS, Kunz TH, Willig MR, Racey PA (2009) Carpe noctem: the importance of bats as bioindicators. Endangered Species Res 8:93–115 Kalka MB, Smith AR, Kalko EKV (2008) Bats limit arthropods and herbivory in a tropical forest. Science 320:71 Kanuch P, Fornuskova A, Bartonicka T, Bryja J, Rehak Z (2010) Do two cryptic pipistrelle bat species differ in their autumn and winter roosting strategies within the range of sympatry? Folia Zool 59:102–107 Kerth G (2008) Causes and consequences of sociality in bats. Bioscience 58:737–755 Kerth G, Perony N, Schweitzer F (2011) Bats are able to maintain long-term social relationships despite the high fission-fusion dynamics of groups. P Zool Soc Lond. doi:10.1098/ rspb.2010.2718 Kingston (2016) Cute, Creepy, or crsipy- how values, attitudes and norms shape human behavior toward bats. In: Voigt CC, Kingston T (eds) Bats in the anthropocene: conservation of bats in a changing world. Springer International AG, Cham, pp 571–588 Kingston T, Aguirre L, Armstrong K, Mies R, Racey P, Rodríguez-Herrera, Waldien D (2016) Networking networks for global bat conservation. In: Voigt CC, Kingston T (eds) Bats in the anthropocene: conservation of bats in a changing world. Springer International AG, Cham, pp 539–566 Knight T, Jones G (2009) Importance of night roosts for bat conservation: roosting behaviour of the lesser horseshoe bat Rhinolophus hipposideros. Endangered Species Res 8:79–86 König H, Neumann F (1996) Drahtgitter zur Taubenabwehr als Fledermausfallen. Wire mesh as unintentional bat traps. Fauna und Flora (Rheinland-Pfalz) 21:141–143 Kovats D, Habarics B, Urban H (2008) Épületlakó denevérfajok populációdinamikai vizsgálata gyöngybaglyok jelenlétében, a Szatmár-Beregi Tájvédelmi Körzet területén. The changes of population of house-dwelling bat colonies in the presence of barn owls (Tyto alba) in the Szatmar-Bereg landscape protection area (Hungary). Deneverkutatas 4:59–73 Kozhurina EI, Gorbunova YA (2004) Hibernation of bats in the Volga Delta. Plecotus 7:104–105 Kunz TH (1982) Roosting ecology of bats. In: Kunz TH (ed) Ecology of bats. Plenum Press, New York, pp 1–56 Kunz TH, Lumsden LF (2003) Ecology of cavity and foliage roosting bats. In: Kunz TH, Fenton MB (eds) Bat ecology. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 3–90 Kunz TH, Reynolds DS (2003) Bat colonies in buildings. In: O’Shea TJ, Bogan MA (eds) Monitoring trends in bat populations of the United States and territories: problems and prospects. US Geological Survey, Biological resources discipline, information and technology report, pp 91–102 Kunz TH, Anthony ELP, Rumage WT III (1977) Mortality of little brown bats following multipiple pesticide applications. J Wildl Manag 41:476–483 Kunz TH, Braun de Torrez E, Bauer DM, Lobova TA, Fleming TH (2011) Ecosystem services provided by bats. Ann Ny Acad Sci 1223:1–38 Kurta A (2010) Reproductive timing, distribution, and sex ratios of tree bats in Lower Michigan. J Mammal 91:586–592 Labruna MB, Marcilia A, Ogrzewalska M, Barros-Attesti DM, Dantas-Torres F, Fernandes AA, Leite RC, Venzal JM (2014) New records and human parasitism by Ornithodoros mimon (Acari: Argasidae) in Brazil. J Med Entomol 51:283–287 Lausen CL, Barclay RMR (2006) Benefits of living in a building: big brown bats (Eptesicus fuscus) in rocks versus buildings. J Mammal 87:362–370 Lesiński G, Kasprzyk K, Gryz J (2013) Bats taken by the tawny owl in relation to its roosting sites. North-west J Zool 8:247–251 Lewis SE (1994) Night roosting ecology of pallid bats (Antrozous pallidus) in Oregon. Am Midl Nat 132:219–226 458 C.C. Voigt et al. Lilley TM, Stauffer J, Kanerva M, Eeva T (2014) Interspecific variation in redox status regulation and immune defense in five bat species: the role of ectoparasites. Oecologia 175:811–823 Lisón F, Palazón JA, Calvo JF (2013) Effectiveness of the natura 2000 network for the conservation of cave-dwelling bats in a Mediterranean region. Anim Conserv 16:528–537 Loeb SC, Zarnoch SJ (2011) Seasonal and multiannual roost use by Rafinesque’s big-eared bats in the coastal plain of South Carolina. Conserv Manage East Big-Eared Bats—US Forest Serv Gen Techn Rep SRS 145:111–121 Loftis AD, Gill JS, Schriefer ME, Levin ML, Eremeeva ME, Gilchrist MJR, Dasch GA (2005) Detection of Rickettsia, Borrelia, and Bartonella in Carios kelleyi (Acari: Argasidae). J Med Entomol 43:473–480 Lyster S (1989) The convention on the conservation of migratory species of wild animals (the “Bonn Convention”). Nat Resour J 29:979–1000 Maas B, Cough Y, Tscharntke T (2013) Bats and birds increase crop yield in tropical agroforestry landscapes. Ecol Lett 16:1480–1487 Maloney SK, Bronner G, Buffenstein R (1999) Thermoregulation in the Angolan free-tailed bat Mops condylurus: a small mammal that uses hot roosts. Physiol Zool 72:385–396 Maltagliati G, Agenlli P, Cannicci S (2013) Where and at what time? Multiple roost use and emergence time in greater horseshow bats (Rhinolophus ferrumequinum). Acta Chiropterol 15:113–120 Marnell F, Prsetnik P (2010) Protection of overground roosts for bats. Eurobats Publication Series 4, pp 1–57 Martins P, Neves C, Lopes AA, Santos Q, Araújo NN, Pereira M (2000) Histoplasmosis presenting as acute respiratory distress syndrome after exposure to bat feces in a home. Braz J Infect Dis 4:103–106 Mazurska K, Ruczynski I (2008) Bats select buildings in clearings in Bialowieza Primeval forest. Acta Chiropterol 10:331–338 McAlpine DF, Muldoon F, Forbes GJ, Wandeler AI, Makepeace S, Broders HG, Goltz JP (2002) Over-wintering and reproduction by the big brown bat, Eptesicus fuscus, in New Brunswick. Can Field Nat 116:645–647 McNab BK (2002) The physiological ecology of vertebrates: a view from energetics. Cornell University Press, New York Merzlikin IR (2002) On some causes of bat mortality in Sumy region (Northeastern Ukraine). Plecotus 113–115 Mialhe PJ (2013) Characterization of Desmodus rotundus (E. Goeffroy, 1810) (Chiroptera, Phyllostomidae) shelters in the municipality of Sao Pedro—SP. Braz J Biol 73:521–526 Michaelsen TC, Tore C, Grimstad KJ, Anonby JE (2004) Noen interessant funn av dagoppholdssted for flaggermus. Some interesting discoveries of day roosts for bats in Norway. Fauna (Oslo) 57:54–61 Michaelsen TC, Olsen O, Grimstad KJ (2013) Roosts used by bats in late autumn and winter at northern latitudes in Norway. Folia Zool 62:297–303 Mickleburgh SP, Hutson AM, Racey PA (2002) A review of the global conservation status of bats. Oryx 36:18–34 Mikula P, Hromada M, Tryjanowski P (2013) Bats and swifts a food of the European kestrel (Falco tinnunculus) in a small town in Slovakia. Ornis Fennica 90:178–185 Mildenstein T, Tanshi I (2016) Direct exploitation of bats. In: Voigt CC, Kingston T (eds) Bats in the anthropocene: conservation of bats in a changing world. Springer International AG, Cham, pp 325–363 Mitchell-Jones AJ, Cooke AS, Boyd IL, Stebbings RE (1989) Bats and remedial timber treatment chemicals. Mammal Rev 18:93–110 Molinari J, Gutiérrez EE, Asecencão AA, Nassar JM, Arends A, Márquez RJ (2005) Predation by giant centipedes, Scolopendra gigantea, on three species of bats in a Venezuelan cave. Carribean J Sci 41:340–346 Monadjem A, Taylor PJ, Cotterill FPD, Schoeman MC (2010) Bats of central and southern Africa: a biogeographic and taxonomic synthesis. Wits University Press, Johannesburg 14 Bats and Buildings: The Conservation … 459 Moussy C (2011) Selection of old stone buildings as summer day roost by the brown long-eared bat Plecotus auritus. Acta Chiropterol 13:101–111 Mühldorfer K, Speck S, Wibbelt G (2011) Diseases in free-ranging bats from Germany. BMC Vet Res 7:61 Mühldorfer K, Speck S, Kurth A, Lesnik R, Freuling C, Müller T, Kramer-Schadt S, Wibbelt G (2012) Diseases and causes of death in European bats: dynamics in disease susceptibility and infection rates. PLoS ONE 6:e29773 Munshi-South J, Wilkinson GS (2010) Bats and birds: exceptional longevity despite high metabolic rates. Ageing Res Rev 9:12–19 Murphy SE, Greenaway F, Hill DA (2012) Patterns of habitat use by female brown long-eared bats presage negative impacts of woodland conservation management. J Zool (Lond) 288:177–183 Neilson AL, Fenton MB (1994) Responses of little brown myotis to exclusion and to bat houses. Wildl Soc Bull 22:8–14 Neubaum DJ, Wilson JR, O’Shea TJ (2007) Urban maternity roost selection by big brown bats in Colorado. J Wildl Manage 71:728–736 Nyffeler M, Knörnschild M (2013) Bat predation by spiders. PLoS ONE 8:e58120 O’Keefe JM, LaVoie M (2011) Maternity colony of eastern small-footed myotis (Myotis leibii) in a historic building. Southeast Nat 10:381–383 O’Shea TJ, Neubaum DJ, Neubaum MA, Cryan PM, Ellison LE, Stanley TR, Rupprecht CE, Pape WH, Bowen RA (2012) Bat ecology and public health surveillance for rabies in an urbanizing region of Colorado. Urban Ecosyst 14:665–697 Ormsbee PC, Kiser J, Perlmeter SI (2007) The importance of night roosts to the ecology of forest bats. In: Lacki MJ, Hayes JP, Kurta A (eds) Bats in forests: conservation and management. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, pp 129–152 Passos EC, Carrieri ML, Dainovskas E, Camara M, Silva MMS (1998) Isolamento do virus rabico em morcego insectivoro, Nyctinomops macrotis, no municipo de Diadema, SP (Brasil)— Isolation of rabies virus in an insectivorous bat Nyctinomops macrotis, in southeastern Brazil. Rev Saude Publica 32:74–76 Patterson BD, Dick CW, Dittmar K (2007) Roosting habits of bats affect their parasitism by bat flies (Diptera: Streblidae). J Trop Ecol 23:177–189 Pavey CR (1999) Foraging ecology of the two taxa of large-eared horseshoe bat, Rhinolophus philippinensis, on Cape York Peninsula. Australian Mammal 21:135–138 Pearce RD, O’Shea TJ (2007) Ectoparasites in an urban population of big brown bats (Eptesicus fuscus) in Colorado. J Parasitol 83:518–530 Pfalzer G, Weber C (2007) Invasionen der Zwergfledermaus (Pipistrellus pipistrellus) im Stadtgebiet von Kaiserslautern (BRD, Rheinland-Pfalz). Mass invasions of the common pipistrelle bat (Pipistrellus pipistrellus) in the city of Kaiserslautern (Germany, RhinelandPalatine). Fauna und Flora in Rheinland-Pfalz Beiheft 35:212–219 Poché RM (1975) The bats of National Park W, Niger, Africa. Mammalia 39:39–50 Racey P, Swift SM (1986) The residual effects of remedial timber treatments on bats. Biol Conserv 35:205–214 Racey PA, Hutson AM, Lina PHC (2013) Bat rabies, public health and European bat conservation. Zoonoses Public Health 60:58 Ransome R, Hutson AM (2000) Action plan for the conservation of the greater horseshoe bat in Europe (Rhinolophus ferrumequinum). Nature and environment 109, Council of Europe Publishing, Strasbourg Razafindrakoto N, Harwll A, Jenkins R (2011) Bats roosting in public buildings: a preliminary assessment from Moramang, Eastern Madagascar. Madagascar Conserv Dev 5:85–88 Reichel-Jung K, Threlfall CG (2016) Urbanization and its effects on bats—a global meta-analysis approach. In: Voigt CC, Kingston T (eds) Bats in the anthropocene: conservation of bats in a changing world. Springer International AG, Cham, pp 13–28 Rintoul JLP, Brigham RM (2014) The influence of reproductive condition and concurrent environmental factors on torpor and foraging patterns in female big brown bats (Eptesicus fuscus). J Comp Physiol B 184:777–787 460 C.C. Voigt et al. Roby PL, Gumbert MW, Sewell PL, Brewer SW (2011) Characteristics of roosts used by Rafinesque’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus rafinesquii) on camp Mackall, North Carolina. Conserv Manage East Big-Eared Bats—US For Serv Gen Tech Rep SRS 145:101–110 Rowse EG, Lewanzik D, Stone EL, Harris S, Jones G (2016) Dark matters: the effects of artificial lighting on bats. In: Voigt CC, Kingston T (eds) Bats in the anthropocene: conservation of bats in a changing world. Springer International AG, Cham, pp 187–207 Ruczyński I, Kalko EKV, Siemers BM (2007) The sensory basis of roost finding in a forest bat, Nyctalus noctula. J Exp Biol 217:3607–3615 Rydell J (1991) Seasonal use of illuminated areas by foraging northern bats Eptesicus nilssoni. Ecography 14:203–207 Rydell J (1992) Exploitation of insects around streetlamps by bats in Sweden. Funct Ecol 6:744–750 Rydell J, Racey PA (1995) Street lamps and the feeding ecology of insectivorous bats. Sym Zool S 67:291–307 Sachanowicz K, Wower A (2013) Assemblage structure and use of anthropogenic roosts by bats in the eastern Carpathians: case study in the Bieszczady National Park (SE Poland). Ital J Zool 80:139–148 Saenz VL, Maggi RG, Breitschwerdt EB, Kim J, Vargo EL, Schal C (2013) Survey of Bartonella spp. in US bed bugs detects Burholderia multivorans but not Bartonella. PLoS ONE 8:e73661 Salvati L, Manganaro A, Fattorini S, Piattella E (1999) Density, nest spacing, breeding success and diet of a kestrel Falco tinnunculus urban population. Alauda 67:47–52 Santos M, Aguirre LF, Vázquez LB, Ortega J (2003) Phyllostomus hastatus. Mamm Species Acc 722:1–6 Schneeberger K, Voigt CC (2016) Zoonotic viruses and conservation of bats. In: Voigt CC, Kingston T (eds) Bats in the anthropocene: conservation of bats in a changing world. Springer International AG, Cham, pp 263–282 Schneeberger K, Czirják GÁ, Voigt CC (2013) Inflammatory challenge increases measures of oxidative stress in a free-ranging long-lived mammal. J Exp Biol 216:414–4519 Schneider MC, Aron J, Santos-Burgoa C, Uieda W, Ruiz-Velazco S (2001) Common vampire bat attacks on humans in a village of the Amazon region of Brazil. Pan Am J Pub Hlth 25:260–268 Shapiro JT, de Costa Lima Junior MS, Dorval ME, de Oliveira França A, Cepa Matos Mde F, Bordignon MO (2013) First record of Leishmania braziliensis presence detected in bats, Mato Gross do Sul, southwest Brazil. Acta Tropica 128:171–174 Shiel CB, Shiel RE, Fairley JS (1999) Seasonal changes in the foraging behaviour of Leisler’s bats (Nyctalus leisleri) in Ireland as revealed by radio-telemetry. J Zool 249:347–358 Shore RF, Boyd IL, Leach DV, Stebbings RE, Myhill DG (1990) Organochlorine residues in roof timber treatments and possible implications for bats. Environ Pollut 64:179–188 Shore RF, Myhill DG, French MC, Leach DV, Stebbings RE (1991) Toxicity and tissue distribution of pentachlorophenol and permethrin in pipistrelle bats experimentally exposed to treated timber. Envioron Pollut 73:101–118 Sibly RM, Brown JH (2007) Effets of body size and lifestyle on evolution of mammal life histories. Proc Nat Acad Sci 104:17707–17712 Silver J (1935) Eliminating bats from buildings, vol 109. United States Department of Agricultural leaflet, pp 1–5 Smit-Viergutz K, Simon M (2000) Eine vergleichende Analyse des sommerlichen Schwärmverhaltens der Zwergfledermaus (45 kHz Ruftyp, Pipistrellus pipistrellus Schreber, 1774) an den Invasionsorten und am Winterquartier. A comparative analysis of the summertime swarming behavior of the common pipistrelle (Pipistrellus pipistrellus Schreber, 1774, 45 kHz call type) at the sites of the invasion and in the hibernaculum. Myotis 38:69–89 Socolovschi C, Kernif T, Raoult D, Parola P (2012) Borrelia, Rickettsia, and Ehrlichia species in bat ticks, France, 2010. Emer Infect Dis 18:1966–1975 14 Bats and Buildings: The Conservation … 461 Soulé ME (1985) What is conservation biology? Bioscience 35:727–734 Speakman JR (1991) The impact of predation by birds on bat populations in the British Isles. Mammal Rev 21:123–142 Speakman JR, Thomas DW (2003) Physiological ecology and energetics of bats: In: Kunz TH, Fenton MB (eds) Bat ecology. Chicago University Press, pp 430–409 Speakman JR, Stone RE, Kerslake JL (1995) Temporal patterns in the emergence behaviour of pipistrelle bats, Pipistrellus pipistrellus, from maternity colonies are consistent with an antipredator response. Anim Behav 50:1147–1156 Speakman JR, Irwin N, Tallach N, Stone R (1999) Effect of roost size on the emergence behaviour of pipistrelle bats. Anim Behav 58:787–795 Spitzenberger F, Weiss E, Sackl P (2010) Massive population decline of the critically endangered greater horseshoe bat, Rhinolophus ferrumequinum (Schreber, 1774) in Styria, south-eastern Austria, between the mid-1990s and 2009 (Mammalia, Chiroptera). Joannea Zool 11:5–17 Streicker DG, Franka R, Jackson FR, Rupprecht CE (2013) Anthropogenic roost switching and rabies virus dynamics in house-roosting big brown bats. Vector-borne Zoonot 13:498–504 Strelkov PP (2002) Material on wintering of migratory bat species (Chiroptera) on the territory of the former USSR and adjacent regions, Part 2. Nyctalus noctula. Plecotus 5:35–56 Šuba J, Vietniece D, Petērsons G (2010) The parti-coloured bat Vespertilio murinus in Riga (Latvia) during autumn and winter. Environ Exp Biol 8:93–96 Subbaraj R, Balasingh J (1996) Night roosting and lunar phobia in Indian false vampire bat Megaderma lyra. J Bombay Nat Hist Soc 93:1–7 Szodoray-Parádi F, Szodoray-Parádi A, Sike T (2004) Building dwelling bats survey in Satu Mare County, Romania. Sau Mare, Studii şi Comunicăre, Seria Ştiinţele Naturale 4–5:196–200 Takumi K, Lina PHC, van der Poel WHM, Kramps JA, Van Der Giessen JWB (2009) Public health risk analysis of European bat lyssavirus infection in the Netherlands. Epidemiol Infect 137:803–809 Tong S, Conrardy C, Ruone S, Kuzmin IV, Guo X, Tao Y, Niezgoda M, Haynes L, Agwanda B, Breiman RF, Anderson LJ, Rupprecht CE (2009) Detection of novel SARS-like and other coronaviruses in bats from Kenya. Emerg Infect Dis 15:482–485 Turbill C, Körtner G, Geiser F (2003) Natural use of heterothermy by a small, tree-roosting bat during summer. Physiol Biochem Zool 76:868–876 Uieda W (1998) Rabies in the insectivorous bat Tadarida brasiliensis in southeastern Brazil. Rev Saude Publ 23:484–485 Van der Poel WH, Van der Heide R, Verstraten ERAM, Takumi K, Lina PHC, Kramps JA (2005) European bat lyssaviruses, the Netherlands. Emerg Infect Dis 11:1854–1859 Vandzurova A, Backor P, Jarvorsky P, Pristas P (2013) Staphylococcus nepalensis in the guano of bats (Mammalia). Vet Microbiol 164:116–121 Vivier L, van der Merwe M (2001) Aspects of the histology of reproduction in the female Angolan free-tailed bat Mops condylurus (Microchiroptera: Molossidae) in Mpumalanga, South Africa. J Zool 254:495–504 Vivier L, van der Merwe M (2007) The incidence of torpor in winter and summer in the Angolan free-tailed bat, Mops condylurus (Microchiroptera: Molossidae), in a subtropical environment, Mpumulanga, South Africa. Afr Zool 42:50–58 Voigt CC, Kelm DH (2006) Host preference of the common vampire bat (Desmodus rotundus; Chiroptera) assessed by stable isotopes. J Mammal 87:1–6 Whitaker JO Jr (1998) Life history and roost switching in six summer colonies of eastern pipistrelles in buildings. J Mammal 79:651–659 Whitaker JO Jr, Gummer SL (1992) Hibernation of the big brown bat, Eptesicus fuscus, in buildings. J Mammal 73:312–316 Wilkinson GS, South JM (2002) Life history, ecology and longevity in bats. Aging Cell 1:124–131 462 C.C. Voigt et al. Williams LM, Brittingham MC (1997) Selection of maternity roosts by big brown bats. J Wildl Manage 61:359–368 Williams-Guillén K, Perfecto I, Vandermeer J (2008) Bats limit insects in a neotropical agroforestry system. Science 320:70 Willis CKR, Brigham RM, Geiser F (2006) Deep, prolonged torpor by pregnant, free-ranging bats. Naturwissenschaften 93:80–83 Zahn A (1999) Reproductive success, colony size and roost temperature in attic-dwelling bat Myotis myotis. J Zool 247:275–280 Zahn A, Christoph C, Christoph L, Kredler M, Reitmeier A, Reitmeier F, Schachenmeier C, Schott T (2000) Die Nutzung von Spaltenquartieren an Gebaeuden durch Abendsegler (Nyctalus noctula) in Suedostbayern. The use of crevices in buildings as roosts by the noctule (Nyctalus noctula) in southeast Bavaria. Myotis 37:61–76 Zhang LB, Zhu GH, Jones G, Zhang SY (2009) Conservation of bats in China: problems and recommendations. Oryx 43:179–182 Zorya AV (2002) Contribution of bats to spreading rabies on the territory of Kharkov region and prevention of conflict sutations “man-bat”. Plecotus et al. Supplement: pars specialis 118–120