Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-lrblm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-11T16:46:10.575Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Post-release survival of hand-reared pipistrelle bats Pipistrellus spp)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2023

A Kelly ,
S Goodwin ,
A Grogan  and
F Mathews
A Kelly*
Affiliation:
RSPCA Stapeley Grange Wildlife Centre, London Rd, Stapeley, Nantwich, Cheshire CW5 7JW, UK Institute of Biomedical and Life Sciences, Division of Environmental and Evolutionary Biology, Graham Kerr Building, University of Glasgow G12 8QQ, UK
S Goodwin
Affiliation:
RSPCA Stapeley Grange Wildlife Centre, London Rd, Stapeley, Nantwich, Cheshire CW5 7JW, UK
A Grogan
Affiliation:
RSPCA, Wildlife Department, Wilberforce Way, Southwater, Horsham, West Sussex RHI3 9RS, UK
F Mathews
Affiliation:
School of Biosciences, University of Exeter, Hatherley Laboratories, Prince of Wales Road, Exeter EX4 4PS, UK
*
* Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: ankelly@RSPCA.org.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

There is very little known about the post-release survival of hand-reared pipistrelle bats Pipistrellus spp). We radio-tracked 12 pipistrelle bats, hand-reared and released under three different protocols: i) limited pre-release flight training and overwintering (n = 5); ii) prolonged pre-release flight training, but with limited space (n = 2) and iii) prolonged pre-release flight training in large flight cage (n = 5). Of the five bats reared under the first protocol, four were recovered, grounded, within 48 h and the signal from the fifth bat lost on day two, due either to tag failure or from the bat flying out of the study area. Both bats in the second group flew strongly on the night of release but on the second and third nights only one emerged and flew briefly. The signals from both bats remained stationary on subsequent nights. In contrast, bats from the third group were tracked for between five and ten nights, indicating that they were able to survive independently following release. These preliminary results suggest that post-release survival depends on extensive pre-release conditioning in a large flight cage, rather than the limited flight opportunities traditionally provided within domestic houses by bat carers. Other factors that may affect post-release survival are discussed and further work is encouraged to determine whether rehabilitated bats integrate with the local population.

Keywords

animal welfarepipistrelle batradio-tracking rehabilitationsurvivalwildlife rehabilitation
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 17 , Issue 4 , November 2008 , pp. 375 - 382
Copyright
© 2008 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aldridge, HDJN and Brigham, RM 1988 Load carrying and manoeuvrability in an insectivorous bat: a test of the 5% ‘rule’ of radio-telemetry. Journal of Mammalogy 69: 379–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barlow, K and Jones, G 1997 Function of pipistrelle social calls: field data and a playback experiment. Animal Behaviour 53: 991–999CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barratt, EM, Deaville, R, Burland, TM, Bruford, MW, Jones, G, Racey, PA and Wayne, RK 1997 DNA answers the call of pipistrelle bat species. Nature 387: 138–140CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bat Conservation Trust 2006 National Bat Monitoring Programme, Annual Report, 2005. Joint Nature Conservation Committee: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Beck, BB, Rapaport, LG, Price, MRS and Wilson, AC 1994 Reintroduction of captive-born animals. In: Olney, PJS, Mace, GM and Fiesnte, ATC (eds) Creative Conservation: Interactive Management of Wild and Captive Animals. Chapman and Hall: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Bohn, KM, Wilkinson, GS and Moss, CF 2007 Discrimination of infant isolation calls by female greater spear-nosed bats, Phyllostomus hastatus. Animal Behaviour 73: 423–432CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bontadina, F, Schofield, H and Naef-Daenzer, B 2002 Radiotracking reveals that lesser horseshoe bats (Rhinolophus hipposideros) forage in woodland. Journal of Zoology 258: 281–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, M and Brown, B 2006 Bat Rescue Manual: Rescue and First Aid for Grounded Bats and General Bat Care. Bat Care News: Otley, West Yorkshire, UKGoogle Scholar
Caccamise, DF and Hedin, RS 1985 An aerodynamic basis for selecting transmitter loads in birds. Wilson Bulletin 97: 306–318Google Scholar
Cayford, J and Percival, S 1992 Born captive, die free. New Scientist 1807: 29–33Google Scholar
Davidson-Watts, I and Jones, G 2006 Differences in foraging behaviour between Pipistrellus pipistrellus (Schreber, 1774) and Pipistrellus pygmaeus (Leach, 1825). Journal of Zoology 268: 55–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de, Fanis E and Jones, G 1995 Post-natal growth, mother-infant interactions and development of vocalisations in the Vespertilionid bat Plecotus auritus. Journal of Zoology 235: 85–97Google Scholar
Esser, KH and Schmidt, U 1989 Mother-infant communication in the lesser spear-nosed bat Phyllostomus discolor (Chiroptera: Phyllostomidae) evidence for acoustic learning. Ethology 82: 156–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fenton, MB 2003 Eavesdropping on the echolocation and social calls of bats. Mammal Review 33: 193–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ginsberg, JR 1994 Captive breeding, reintroduction and the conservation of canids. In: Olney, PJS, Mace, GM and Fiesnte, ATC (eds) Creative Conservation: Interactive Management of Wild and Captive Animals. Chapman and Hall: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Hughes, PM and Rayner, JMV 1991 Addition of artificial loads to long-eared bats, Plecotus auritus, handicapping flight performance. Journal of Experimental Biology 161: 285–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hughes, PM and Rayner, JMV 1993 The flight of pipistrelle bats, Pipistrellus pipistrellus during pregnancy and lactation. Journal of Zoology 230: 541–555CrossRefGoogle Scholar
International Academy of Animal Welfare Sciences 1992 Welfare Guidelines for the Reintroduction of Captive-Bred Mammals to the Wild. The Universities Federation for Animal Welfare: Wheathampstead, Herts, UKGoogle Scholar
International Wildlife Rehabilitation Council 2005 <http://www.iwrc-online.org/>>Google Scholar
Jones, G, Hughes, PM and Rayner, JMV 1991 The development of vocalisations in Pipistrellus pipistrellus (Chiroptera: Vespertilionidae) during post-natal growth and the maintenance of individual signatures. Journal of Zoology 225: 71–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, G and Ransome, RD 1993 Echolocation calls of bats are influenced by maternal effects and change over a lifetime. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B, Biological Sciences 252: 125–128Google ScholarPubMed
Jule, KR, Leaver, LA and Lea, SEG 2008 The effects of captive experience on reintroduction survival in carnivores: A review and analysis. Biological Conservation doi:10.1016/j.bio-con.2007.11.007, in pressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kierulff, MCM and Rylands, AB 2003 Census and distribution of the golden lion tamarin (Leontopithecus rosalia). American Journal of Primatology 59: 29–44CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kurta, A and Kunz, TH 1987 Size of bats at birth and maternal investment during pregnancy. Symposium of the Zoological Society of London 58: 79–106Google Scholar
Leighton, K, Chilvers, D, Charles, A and Kelly, A 2008 Postrelease survival of hand-reared tawny owls, Strix aluco, based on radio-tracking and leg band return data. Animal Welfare 17: 207–214Google Scholar
Mathews, F, Orros, M, McLaren, G, Gelling, M and Forster, R 2005 Keeping fit on the ark: assessing the suitability of captive-bred animals for release. Biological Conservation 121: 569–577CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mathews, F, Moro, D, Strachan, R, Gelling, M and Buller, N 2006 Health surveillance in wildlife reintroductions. Biological Conservation 131: 338–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Molony, SE, Baker, PJ, Garland, L, Cuthill, IC and Harris, S 2007 Factors that can be used to predict release rates for wildlife casualties. Animal Welfare 16: 361–367Google Scholar
Moorhouse, T 2004 Factors affecting the success of reintroduction as a species tool for the water vole (Arvicola terrestris). Environment Agency Science Report W1-040/TR. Environment Agency: Bristol, UKGoogle Scholar
Moorhouse, T, Gelling, M, McLaren, GW, Mian, R and MacDonald, DW 2007 Physiological consequences of captive conditions in water voles (Arvicola terrestris). Journal of Zoology 271: 19–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mukhida, M, Orprecio, J and Fenton, MB 2004 Echolocation calls of Myotis lucifugus and M. leibii (Vespertilionidae) flying inside a room and outside. Acta Chiropterologica 6: 91–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicholls, B and Racey, PA 2006 Habitat selection as a mechanism of resource partitioning in two cryptic bat species Pipistrellus pipistrellus and Pipistrellus pygmaeus. Ecography 29: 697CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norberg, RM and Rayner, JMV 1987 Ecological morphology and flight in bats (Mammalia: Chiroptera): wing adaptations, flight performance, foraging strategy and echolocation. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series B, Biological Sciences 316: 335–427Google Scholar
Racy, PA 1999 Bats. In: Poole, TB (ed) The UFAW Handbook on the Care and Management of Laboratory Animals, Volume 1: Mammals, Seventh Edition. Blackwell Science Ltd: Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
Robertson, CPJ and Harris, S 1995 The behaviour after release of captive-reared fox cubs. Animal Welfare 4: 295–306 Swift S 1998 Long-eared Bats. Poyser: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Teixeira, CP, Schetini, de Azevedo C, Mendl, M, Cipreste, CF and Young, RJ 2007 Revisiting translocation and reintroduction programmes: the importance of considering stress. Animal Behaviour 73: 1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walsh, ST and Stebbings, RE 1988 Care and Rehabilitation of Wild Bats. The Robert Stebbings Consultancy Ltd: Peterborough, Cambridgeshire, UKGoogle Scholar
Wolf, CM, Griffith, B, Reed, C and Temple, SA 1996 Avian and mammalian translocations: update and reanalysis of 1987 survey data. Conservation Biology 10: 1142–1154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wund, MA 2005 Learning and the development of habitat-specific bat echolocation. Animal Behaviour 70: 441–450CrossRefGoogle Scholar