ML18023A196
| ML18023A196 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Clinch River |
| Issue date: | 10/31/2015 |
| From: | Jonathan Evans, Giffen N, Guge B, Haines A, Mccracken M Oak Ridge |
| To: | Office of New Reactors |
| Fetter A | |
| References | |
| Download: ML18023A196 (32) | |
Text
ORNL/TM-2015/248 Bat Species Distribution on the Oak Ridge Reservation M. K. McCracken N. R. Giffen A. M. Haines B. J. Guge J. W. Evans October 2015 Approved for public release.
Distribution is unlimited.
DOCUMENT AVAILABILITY Reports produced after January 1, 1996, are generally available free via US Department of Energy (DOE) SciTech Connect.
Website http://www.osti.gov/scitech/
Reports produced before January 1, 1996, may be purchased by members of the public from the following source:
National Technical Information Service 5285 Port Royal Road Springfield, VA 22161 Telephone 703-605-6000 (1-800-553-6847)
TDD 703-487-4639 Fax 703-605-6900 E-mail info@ntis.gov Website http://www.ntis.gov/help/ordermethods.aspx Reports are available to DOE employees, DOE contractors, Energy Technology Data Exchange representatives, and International Nuclear Information System representatives from the following source:
Office of Scientific and Technical Information PO Box 62 Oak Ridge, TN 37831 Telephone 865-576-8401 Fax 865-576-5728 E-mail reports@osti.gov Website http://www.osti.gov/contact.html This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof.
ORNL/TM-2015/248 Environmental Sciences Division BAT SPECIES DISTRIBUTION ON THE OAK RIDGE RESERVATION M. K. McCracken1 N. R. Giffen1 A. M. Haines2 B. J. Guge3 J. W. Evans4 1
Oak Ridge National Laboratory; 2 Xcel Engineering, Inc.; 3 Tennessee Technological University; 4
Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency October 2015 Prepared by OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY Oak Ridge, TN 37831-6283 managed by UT-BATTELLE, LLC for the US DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY under contract DE-AC05-00OR22725
CONTENTS CONTENTS.................................................................................................................................. iii LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................................v LIST OF TABLES .........................................................................................................................v LIST OF ACRONYMS .............................................................................................................. vii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ........................................................................................................... ix EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
......................................................................................................... xi
- 1. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................1
- 2. MATERIALS AND METHODS ...........................................................................................3 2.1 SURVEY SITE SELECTION .................................................................................................... 3 2.2 ULTRASONIC ACOUSTIC ANALYSIS .................................................................................. 7
- 3. RESULTS ................................................................................................................................9
- 4. DISCUSSION........................................................................................................................13
- 5. CONCLUSIONS ...................................................................................................................15
- 6. REFERENCES .....................................................................................................................17 iii
LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Historical bat monitoring sites on the Oak Ridge Reservation..................................................... 2 Figure 2. Bat survey sites on the Oak Ridge Reservation. ............................................................................ 7 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Acoustic Monitoring Sites. ............................................................................................................. 3 Table 2. Bat Species Found in Tennessee. .................................................................................................... 8 Table 3. Results of Acoustic Monitoring. ..................................................................................................... 9 Table 4. Bat Surveys on the Oak Ridge Reservation and Surrounding Area: 1992 through 2015 results. ............................................................................................................................................ 14 v
LIST OF ACRONYMS DOE Department of Energy ETTP East Tennessee Technology Park ORNL Oak Ridge National Laboratory ORR Oak Ridge Reservation USFWS US Fish and Wildlife Service WMP Wildlife Management Plan WNS White Nose Syndrome vii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We thank the following people for their efforts in supporting bat population surveys on the US Department of Energy Oak Ridge Reservation over the past 23 years: Riley Bernard; BHE Environmental, Inc.; Eric Britzke; David Buhaly; James Elmore; P.A. Hamlett; Gary Hartman; Brian Henry; Allyson Jackson; A.L. King; Gary McCracken; Jason Mitchell; Pat Parr; David Pelren; Kelly Roy; Steven Sherwood; E.R. Vail; Warren Webb; Emma Wilcox; Shannon Young, and others. Most notably, we thank Michael (Mick) Harvey for his years of support with multiple surveys, advice and expertise in the study of bats. We also thank Tracy Clem for document preparation.
This research was supported by UT-Battelle, LLC, and previous contractors who managed the Oak Ridge National Laboratory for the US Department of Energy; Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency; The University of Tennessee; and US Fish and Wildlife Service.
ix
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
This report summarizes results of a three-year acoustic survey of bat species on the US Department of Energy (DOE) Oak Ridge Reservation (ORR) in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. The survey was implemented through the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) Natural Resources Management Program and included researchers from the ORNL Environmental Sciences Division and ORNL Facilities and Operations Directorate, Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agencys ORR wildlife manager, a student from Tennessee Technological University, and a technician contracted through Excel Corp. One hundred and twenty-six sites were surveyed reservation-wide using Wildlife Acoustics SM2+ Acoustic Bat Detectors.
These surveys were conducted in an effort to determine species diversity and distribution of bat populations as part of the approved Wildlife Management Plan for the ORR, and results will be added to historical inventory records. This survey effort was initiated in part to meet requirements of the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), which requested owners of federal lands to implement its Range-wide Indiana Bat Summer Survey Guidelines. The Department of Energys Oak Ridge Reservation consists of approximately 33,480 acres of land, including large forested areas, wetlands, stream and river watersheds and fields. There are also three major developed facilities with ancillary support areas, including power rights-of-way and substations, retention ponds and waste management facilities. The ORR is located within the species ranges of fourteen species of bats, among which are two species on the Federal Endangered Species list and one species newly listed as threatened. Survey sites were selected based on available suitable habitat. Acoustic surveys were conducted over several consecutive nights, and recorded data were analyzed using two different software packages, as recommended by the USFWS.
Calls from fourteen species of bats were recorded during 2013-15 summer surveys. Nine of these species have been confirmed through previous mist net captures. These are: big brown bat, eastern red bat, silver-haired bat, little brown bat, evening bat, tri-colored bat, gray bat (endangered), Indiana bat (endangered),
and northern long-eared bat (threatened). One additional species, Seminole bat, has been captured by mist net, but its calls have not been definitively recorded on the ORR. Verification of the presence five additional species whose calls have been recorded will need to be done through mist net captures in the future. The species not yet verified via capture are: Townsends big-eared bat, Rafinesques big-eared bat, Brazilian free-tailed bat, hoary bat and eastern small-footed bat. It is important to note that the ORR is not within species range for Townsends big-eared bat.
xi
- 1. INTRODUCTION The approved Wildlife Management Plan (WMP) for the US DOE ORR (Giffen et al. 2012) includes surveying wildlife species across the ORR to determine species diversity and population density. The results of these surveys are then used to manage habitats and resources in order to maintain the health and safety of wildlife, as well as people, on the ORR. In particular, preservation and protection of species which are endangered, threatened or in need of management and their habitats is an important aspect of the WMP (Webb 2000). Bat surveys on the ORR have been done sporadically, with records beginning in 1992 (Harvey 1992). For the most part, survey efforts were done to provide information on bat species presence relating to areas where disturbance of habitat was planned, such as construction of the Haul Road from East Tennessee Technology Park (ETTP) to the Bear Creek Environmental Management Waste Management Facility (EMWMF) (BHE Environmental, Inc. 2005), the remediation efforts on the K1009 ponds, and the K1007 P1 Pond (Harvey and Britzke 2004) and ORR Parcel ED-1 (BHE Environmental, Inc. 2008; Harvey 1997). Figure 1 shows the sampling locations by year for historical records from 1992 through 2012.
Beginning in 2006, bats overwintering in caves in the northeastern US were found dead in large numbers.
Upon examination, these bats were found to have white, fuzzy growths on their noses, ears and wings, giving them a white appearance. The growth was later found to be Pseudogymnoascus destructans, a fungus inadvertently introduced to the US from caves in Europe (McCracken 2010). The fungal disease, White Nose Syndrome (WNS), has continued to spread to new areas, including Tennessee, causing the deaths of millions of bats. Among affected species, endangered Indiana bat populations have fallen drastically, and the USFWS requested that federal landowners conduct surveys of Indiana bats on their properties (USFWS 2009; USFWS 2012). The reasons for this are two-fold: establish summer movement and habitat use patterns of Indiana bats within the southern portions of their range, and provide data to be used in habitat management and Indiana bat recovery efforts (USFWS 2013).
Bats can be found in a variety of habitats across the landscape. Although some species roost in large cave colonies year-round, some species use caves only during winter months for hibernation. Several species roost singly or in small groups in caves, trees, shrubs, buildings, mines or under bridges for all or parts of the year. For example, gray bats are known to be cave dwelling bats which roost in large gatherings throughout the year, whereas eastern red bats generally roost singly or in small groups in trees the entire year, and they may burrow into leaf litter at the base of roost trees during particularly cold winter weather.
Some bats may migrate hundreds of miles to reach foraging areas where insects are abundant, then return to hibernacula in the fall (Harvey et al. 1999).
Bats of east Tennessee generally are nocturnal, leaving their roosts at sunset to forage for insects during the night and return to their roosts before dawn. Traditionally, mist nets and harp traps have been used to capture bats as they emerge from roosts and as they forage nightly. However, these methods give a limited snapshot of total bats present, as some bat species are adept at net detection and avoidance, and some species travel and forage at greater altitude or in areas not conducive to mist netting. Acoustic detectors can be used to record bat calls over multiple nights, and software programs which compare unidentified recorded calls with libraries of known species calls give a more complete record of bat species population diversity and density. Microphones can be raised to greater heights and be placed in a wide variety of locations, allowing for the potential to record more bat species. The AnaBat acoustic recorder was used for surveys on the ORR from 2003 through 2012. Call data was analyzed using AnaLook W software (Harvey and Brizke 2003; Harvey and Britzke 2004; Giffen and Evans 2011).
Recent improvements in recording equipment and call analysis software have led to more acutely sensitive detection and more accurate call identification. In this report we present the results from acoustic surveys conducted at sites across the ORR during the 3-year term of this project. Historical records of bats are presented as well.
1
Figure 1. Historical bat monitoring sites on the Oak Ridge Reservation.
The map depicts the Oak Ridge Reservation and surrounding area with bat survey sites from 1992 to 2012 indicated as follows:
Symbol Year Survey type Reference 1992 Mist net Harvey 1992 1996 Mist net Mitchell et al. 1996 1997 Mist net, cave census Harvey 1997 2003 Mist net Harvey and Britzke 2003 2003 Acoustic (Anabat) Harvey and Britzke 2003 2004 Acoustic (Anabat) Harvey and Britzke 2004 2005 Mist net BHE Environmental, Inc. 2005 2006 Mist net Giffen et al. 2006 2008 Mist net BHE Environmental, Inc. 2008 2008 Acoustic (Anabat) BHE Environmental, Inc. 2008 2011 Mist net Jackson 2011 2011 Acoustic (Anabat) Giffen et al. 2011 2012 Acoustic (Anabat) Giffen and Evans 2012 2
- 2. MATERIALS AND METHODS 2.1 SURVEY SITE SELECTION Previous studies on Indiana bats describe roosting and foraging habitat preferences. Aerial photographs of the ORR first were used to locate habitat similar to that described in the literature, then specific sites for deployment of bat call detectors were selected during site visits. The USFWS Indiana Bat Summer Survey Plan describes potential roosting habitat as trees with a minimum diameter at breast height (dbh) of 5 inches, either living or dead snags, with peeling bark and/or crevices (USFWS 2013). Roost trees generally are exposed to direct sunlight, south-facing along forest or wetland edges, or rise above the canopy; stands of several trees form maternity colonies, while single trees provide roosts for males or temporary roosts for females. Flight corridors go from roosts to foraging areas and are often along narrow roadways or streams. Interior forests, open fields and wetlands provide abundant insect forage (Callahan et al. 1997; Kurta et al. 2002).
Table 1 lists the sites selected for acoustic surveys during the three-year bat monitoring effort; GPS coordinates, deployment date and number of nights deployed are indicated. Figure 2 provides an overview of the ORR with the acoustic monitoring sites from 2013, 2014 and 2015 indicated on the map.
Table 1. Acoustic Monitoring Sites. Each location listed represents a multi-acre tract of the Oak Ridge Reservation. Site IDs are grouped together to provide survey information of each location. Deployment dates and number of nights deployed are indicated for each site. Acoustic recording began each night 30 minutes before dusk and ended 30 minutes after dawn. Please note that FBR-1 is the site used by Dr. Riley Bernard during her doctoral research at University of Tennessee, and it was monitored every night during the summers of 2013 (site number 6-13), 2014 (site number 66-14) and 2015 (site number 3-15).
Table 1A. Acoustic Monitoring SiteSummer 2013 Site Latitude Longitude Altitu Date Nights Location Site ID Number (N) (W) de (ft.) Deployed Deployed Scarboro Creek 1-13 SCK-1 35.98285 -84.21676 859 5/28/2013 9 2-13 SCK-2 35.98462 -84.21528 849 6/14/2013 4 Solway Bend 3-13 SOL-1 35.97668 -84.21829 780 6/24/2013 5 4-13 SOL-2 35.98623 -84.19717 807 7/8/2013 4 5-13 SOL-3 35.97767 -84.21356 830 6/28/2013 4 Freels Bend Causeway 6-13 FBR-1 35.96150 -84.22437 825 5/24/2013 95 Freels Bend 7-13 FBT-1 35.96241 -84.22880 829 6/28/2013 5 8-13 FBL-1 35.94935 -84.21881 910 5/24/2013 18 9-13 FBL-2 35.95244 -84.22489 849 6/14/2013 4 Gallaher Bend 10-13 GBR-1 35.95620 -84.25036 782 7/30/2013 4 11-13 GBR-2 35.94768 -84.25106 810 7/30/2013 5 12-13 GBR-3 35.93552 -84.24639 854 7/30/2013 5 McCoy Branch Creek 13-13 MCU-1 35.97117 -84.24962 882 7/17/2013 6 14-13 MCL-1 35.96566 -84.25047 852 7/17/2013 6 15-13 MCL-2 35.96332 -84.24928 811 9/16/2013 4 Melton Valley Road 16-13 MVR-1 35.93329 -84.28306 803 8/6/2013 3 ROW at Bearden Ck.Rd 17-13 PCK-1 35.92315 -84.28425 854 7/19/2013 4 Price Road 18-13 PRR-1 35.92297 -84.27050 1031 8/22/2013 5 19-13 PRR-2 35.92383 -84.26015 1034 8/22/2013 5 Ponds at Bldg. 1504 20-13 POND-1 35.92209 -84.32178 829 7/23/2013 6 21-13 POND-2 35.92214 -84.32111 782 7/23/2013 6 Y12 Storm damage area 22-13 Y12-1 35.97314 -84.28447 959 6/11/2013 2 23-13 Y12-2 35.97491 -84.28514 1046 6/11/2013 2 3
Table 1A. (continued)
Site Latitude Longitude Altitude Date Nights Location Site ID Number (N) (W) (ft.)` Deployed Deployed 25-13 Y12-4 35.97621 -84.28638 1282 8/13/2013 3 26-13 Y12-5 35.97619 -84.27852 1020 8/13/2013 3 27-13 Y12-6 35.98198 -84.28351 922 8/13/2013 3 White Oak Creek 28-13 WOC-1 35.91666 -84.31617 824 7/30/2013 6 29-13 WOC-2 35.91357 -84.31599 795 8/6/2013 3 30-13 WOC-3 35.91281 -84.32175 869 8/23/2013 4 31-13 WOC-4 35.91144 -84.31583 790 8/23/2013 4 ETTP P1 Pond 32-13 P1P-1 35.92485 -84.39650 769 9/11/2013 2 33-13 P1P-2 35.92483 -84.39329 739 9/11/2013 2 34-13 P1P-3 35.92437 -84.39760 739 9/13/2013 5 35-13 P1P-4 35.92295 -84.39404 775 9/13/2013 5 Table 1B. Acoustic Monitoring SitesSummer 2014 Site Latitude Longitude Altitude Date Nights Location Site ID Number (N) (W) (ft.) Deployed Deployed Jones Island Rd. 1-14 RC-1 35.90152 -84.35488 -- 5/28/2014 4 2-14 JI-1 35.90125 -84.35423 -- 7/14/2014 4 3-14 JI-2 35.90354 -84.34558 -- 5/28/2014 4 4-14 JI-3 35.90178 -84.33996 -- 5/28/2014 4 5-14 JIA-1 35.90064 -84.33293 806 6/23/2014 3 6-14 ONZ-1 35.90898 -84.34558 778 7/14/2014 4 7-14 FACE-1 35.90375 -84.33708 756 6/2/2014 3 8-14 FACE-2 35.90391 -84.33627 744 6/2/2014 3 9-14 FACE-3 35.90023 -84.33423 795 6/23/2014 3 10-14 WOO-1 35.89845 -84.32833 788 6/23/2014 3 11-14 WOO-2 35.89721 -84.33076 795 6/23/2014 3 Melton Branch /WBG 12-14 ME-1 35.91579 -84.30051 898 7/10/2014 4 13-14 ME-2 35.91564 -84.30171 842 7/10/2014 4 14-14 ME-3 35.91395 -84.30534 867 7/10/2014 4 15-14 ME-4 35.91230 -84.31031 803 7/10/2014 4 16-14 HFIR-1 35.91665 -84.30413 877 7/1/2014 6 17-14 NRR-1 35.91556 -84.30874 824 7/1/2014 6 18-14 NRR-2 35.91871 -84.30865 818 7/1/2014 6 19-14 WOC-5 35.90912 -84.31810 826 7/1/2014 6 OST area 20-14 OST-1 35.92366 -84.36148 874 7/7/2014 3 21-14 OST-2 35.92453 -84.36106 874 7/7/2014 3 22-14 OST-3 35.92317 -84.36085 874 7/7/2014 3 23-14 OST-4 35.92449 -84.35924 880 7/7/2014 3 West End Trail 24-14 WET-1 35.91994 -84.32778 926 7/24/2014 4 25-14 WET-2 35.91761 -84.33055 864 7/24/2014 4 26-14 WRSF-1 35.92161 -84.32415 838 7/14/2014 4 27-14 PINE-1 35.89415 -84.32342 816 7/14/2014 4 Park City/Price Rds. 28-14 PCK-1 35.92296 -84.27288 961 7/18/2014 4 29-14 PCK-2 35.91527 -84.26704 829 7/18/2014 4 30-14 PCK-3 35.91393 -84.27093 864 7/18/2014 4 31-14 PCK-4 35.92251 -84.32136 808 7/18/2014 4 Park City/Price Rds. 32-14 PRC-3 35.92100 -84.25746 856 8/15/2014 3 33-14 PRC-4 35.92109 -84.25743 885 8/15/2014 3 34-14 PRC-5 35.92758 -84.25835 885 8/15/2014 3 4
Table 1B. (continued)
Site Latitude Longitude Altitude Date Nights Location Site ID Number (N) (W) (ft.) Deployed Deployed SNS Area 36-14 SNS-1 35.94041 -84.30064 880 7/28/2014 4 37-14 SNS-2 35.94432 -84.30339 970 7/28/2014 4 38-14 SNS-3 35.95154 -84.29333 929 7/28/2014 4 39-14 SNS-4 35.95108 -84.29786 1056 8/5/2014 3 40-14 SNS-5 35.95471 -84.29776 1118 8/1/2014 3 41-14 SNS-6 35.95368 -84.30317 1131 8/1/2014 3 42-14 SNS-7 35.94702 -84.31037 987 8/1/2014 3 43-14 SNS-8 35.94920 -84.30198 974 8/8/2014 3 44-14 SNS-9 35.94800 -84.30454 985 8/8/2014 3 45-14 SNS-10 35.94324 -84.30525 998 8/8/2014 3 Tower Shielding 46-14 CRC-1 35.89836 -84.31881 1133 8/4/2014 3 47-14 TS-1 35.89983 -84.31787 1174 8/4/2014 3 48-14 TS-2 35.89985 -84.31783 1184 8/4/2014 3 49-14 TS-3 35.90998 -84.30240 1256 9/5/2014 4 50-14 TS-4 35.90474 -84.29740 1302 9/5/2014 4 51-14 TS-5 35.90335 -84.29214 1194 9/5/2014 4 52-14 TS-6 35.89243 -84.29944 1064 9/5/2014 4 Walker Branch 53-14 WB-1 35.95653 -84.28914 1071 8/11/2014 4 54-14 WB-2 35.95958 -84.28763 1174 8/11/2014 4 55-14 WB-3 35.96298 -84.28452 1141 8/11/2014 4 56-14 WB-4 35.96428 -84.28010 1154 8/11/2014 4 ORNL Cabin 57-14 NA14-1 35.93584 -84.27265 1207 8/8/2014 3 Bear Cr./Midway Rd. 58-14 BCK-1 35.93765 -84.33934 767 8/22/2014 3 59-14 BCK-2 35.94556 -84.32546 826 8/22/2014 3 60-14 BCK-3 35.95069 -84.32660 908 8/22/2014 3 61-14 BCK-4 35.95755 -84.32274 1043 8/22/2014 3 62-14 BCK-5 35.96235 -84.32998 944 8/25/2014 4 63-14 BCK-6 35.96191 -84.31672 985 8/25/2014 4 64-14 BCK-7 35.95076 -84.33592 946 8/25/2014 4 65-14 BCK-8 35.94442 -84.34527 828 8/25/2014 4 Freels Bend Causeway 66-14 FBR-1 35.96150 -84.22437 825 5/15/2014 122 Bldg. 1504 67-14 1504-1 35.92209 -84.32178 829 5/22/2014 2 68-14 1504-2 35.92214 -84.32111 782 5/22/2014 2 Table 1C. Acoustic Monitoring SiteSummer 2015 Site Latitude Longitude Altitude Date Nights Location Site ID Number (N) (W) (ft.) Deployed Deployed Freels Bend 1-15 C49 35.95750 -84.2275 826 6/12/2015 6 2-15 FBL-3 35.95684 -84.2302 974 6/12/2015 6 Freels Bend Causeway 3-15 FBR-1 35.98303 -84.2422 849 6/16/2015 86 Gallaher Bend 4-15 CPE 35.95829 -84.2323 749 6/16/2015 6 Price Rd. 5-15 C03 35.92402 -84.2705 830 6/24/2015 5 6-15 C04 35.92728 -84.2632 825 6/25/2015 5 7-15 C05 35.92702 -84.2649 961 6/24/2015 4 WOL Weir 8-15 HWY95-1 35.91144 -84.3160 821 6/30/2015 6 ETTP Beaver Ponds 9-15 K25-2 35.93400 -84.4121 847 7/1/2015 5 10-15 K25-3 35.92637 -84.4053 815 7/1/2015 5 11-15 K25-4 35.92558 -84.4004 760 7/1/2015 5 Black Oak Ridge CE 12-15 BORCE-1 35.95198 -84.3977 733 7/7/2015 6 13-15 BORCE-2 35.94994 -84.4046 1374 7/7/2015 6 14-15 BORCE-3 35.94288 -84.4232 1513 7/7/2015 6 15-15 BORCE-4 35.92438 -84.4306 1353 7/7/2015 6 5
Table 1C. (continued)
Location Site Site ID Latitude Longitude Altitude Date Nights Number (N) (W) (ft.) Deployed Deployed Black Oak Ridge CE 16-15 BORCE-5 35.94335 -84.4180 1066 7/14/2015 7 17-15 BORCE-6 35.95070 -84.5070 1028 7/14/2015 7 Bear Creek Rd. West 18-15 BP-1 35.90846 -84.3897 754 7/14/2015 7 19-15 BP-2 35.91604 -84.4066 774 7/14/2015 7 DOSAR Rd. 20-15 DOS-1 35.94184 -84.3868 808 7/20/2015 8 Bearden Ck. Rd. 21-15 BCR-1 35.92505 -84.2811 820 7/20/2015 8 22-15 BCR-2 35.92929 -84.2842 829 7/20/2015 8 Quarry near Blair Rd. 23-15 QAR 35.94181 -84.3867 808 7/20/2015 8 6
Figure 2. Bat survey sites on the Oak Ridge Reservation. Yellow stars indicate sites monitored in 2013, red stars indicate sites monitored in 2014 and blue stars indicate sites monitored in 2015.
2.2 ULTRASONIC ACOUSTIC ANALYSIS The acoustic detector used for recording ultrasonic bat calls was Wildlife Acoustics SM2Bat+ Ultrasonic Bat Song Detector with an SMX Ultrasonic Microphone attached to an approximately 1.5 meter pole, collectively referred to as SM2 (Wildlife Acoustics, Inc.). When deployed, the SM2 was attached to a tree, telephone pole or other structure, and the microphone was raised to a height of approximately 3 meters. SM2s were set up to record nightly, beginning 30 minutes prior to sunset and ending 30 minutes after sunrise. Other sounds within the specified frequency range were recorded; these may include insect prey ultrasonic sounds, some of which may be used to jam bat foraging calls, and other non-bat-call noise.
Kaleidoscope Pro Software, Version 1 (Wildlife Acoustics) was used to analyze data from all monitoring sites (Lausen 2015). Data were analyzed as WAV files, which display full spectrum details of each call, including the frequency sweep of each portion of the call, as well as the amplitude, or loudness, of each sweep and the time between each call sweep. Kaleidoscope software compared each call file to a library of known calls for each species. Using these comparisons, data were sorted into categories: noise (NOISE); bat call of indeterminate species (NO ID), and bat call of specific species. Certainty of call identification accuracy was determined along with the number of calls recorded for each bat species.
Sonabat 2 Software (Bat Conservation and Management, Inc.) was also used to identify calls; this software indicates probability of call identification accuracy. Table 2 lists each bat species found in Tennessee by scientific and common name as well as a standard 4-letter code used to refer to each species.
7
Table 2. Bat Species Found in Tennessee.
Species Code Species Common Name CORA Corynorhinus rafinesquii Rafinesques Big-eared Bat COTO Corynorhinus townsendii Townsends Big-eared Batendangered EPFU Eptesicus fuscus Big brown Bat LABO Lasiurus borealis Eastern Red Bat LACI Lasiurus cinereus Hoary Bat LANO Lasionycteris noctivagans Silver-haired Bat LASE Lasiurus seminolus Seminole Bat MYAS Myotis austroriparius Southeastern Bat MYGR Myotis grisescens Gray Batendangered MYLE Myotis leibii Eastern Small-footed Bat MYLU Myotis lucifugus Little Brown Bat MYSE Myotis septentrionalis Northern Long-eared Batthreatened MYSO Myotis sodalis Indiana Batendangered NYHU Nycticeius humeralis Evening Bat PESU Perimyotis subflavus Tri-colored Bat (formerly Eastern Pipistrelle)
TABR Tadarida brasiliensis Brazilian Free-tailed Bat 8
- 3. RESULTS During this three-year study, one hundred and twenty-six sites were selected across the ORR to be monitored for bat ultrasonic calls, and each site was monitored a minimum of 2 consecutive nights.
Thirty-five sites were surveyed from May 24th through October 1st, 2013, sixty-eight sites were surveyed from May 28th through September 10th, 2014, and twenty-three sites were surveyed from June 12th through September 8th, 2015. Table 3 presents the number of calls identified to species at each site using Kaleidoscope software. Species recorded were big brown bat, eastern red bat, hoary bat, silver-haired bat, gray bat, eastern small-footed bat, little brown bat, northern long-eared bat, Indiana bat, evening bat, tri-colored bat and Townsends big-eared bat. Two additional bat species were detected using Sonabat 2 software: Rafinesques big-eared bat and Brazilian free-tailed bat. It is important to note that number of calls does not equate with number of bats, as each bat makes multiple calls while foraging and may pass through the same area several times, thus the number of bats per species recorded at each site cannot be quantified. Surveys at several of the sites did not result in any identified bat calls.
Table 3. Results of Acoustic Monitoring. Number of calls recorded per Site Number by Bat Species: Ultrasonic bat calls identified to species. Each site surveyed lists the number of calls recorded per species identified using Kaleidoscope software. Results for CORA and TABR are from Sonabat software. Results from Freels Bend Causeway were provided by Dr. Riley Bernard, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN. (2013, 2014, 2015).
Table 3A. Results for summer 2013.
Site ID COTO EPFU LABO LACI LANO MYGR MYLE MYLU MYSE MYSO NYHU PESU TABR CORA 1 - 8 - 2 49 - 3 5 2 4 79 1 2 17 - - 1 7 - - 25 2 - 2 -
3 - - - - 1 - 2 - - - 1 -
4 - 1 - - 1 - 1 - - - 1 -
5 - - - - 1 1 1 2 - - - -
6-13 135 693 2843 175 131 5599 101 1283 25 249 670 14071 -
7 5 353 - - 1 - 3 47 - 58 5757 -
8 20 51 - 11 15 - 1 2 - - 699 1 9 - 1 - - - - - 3 - 4 - 2 10 - - - - - - - 1 - - 1 -
11-13 2 17 3 - 3 9 - 3 2 3 - 63 2 12 1 45 - 45 187 5 66 55 - - 215 1 13 - - - - - - - - - - 1 -
14 1 7 - - - - 2 5 - 1 4 -
15 - - - - - - - - - - - -
16 - 75 1 - 126 1 3 3 - 4 612 1 17 1 - - - 1 3 - - - - - -
18 1 5 - - 35 1 24 71 4 - 12 -
19 15 5 - 1 2 - - - - 12 3 -
20 - 20 - 1 1 - 2 5 1 3 41 -
21 - 26 - - 4 - - 23 - 3 47 -
22-13 - - - - - 1 1 4 2 - - - -
23-13 - - - - - - - - 1 - - - -
24-13 - - - - - - - - 1 - - - -
25-13 - - - - - - - - - - - 2 -
26-13 - 22 8 - - - 1 6 7 - - 6 -
27-13 - 3 2 - - - - - - - - 2 -
28-13 - 2 9 - - 9 1 1 4 - 1 55 -
29-13 - - 116 1 - 1837 - 1 1 - 1 2040 -
9
Table 3A. (continued)
Site ID COTO EPFU LABO LACI LANO MYGR MYLE MYLU MYSE MYSO NYHU PESU TABR CORA 30 - 2 - - - - - - - - 2 -
31 2 23 1 - 20 - 20 35 1 4 58 -
32 - - - - - - - - - - - -
33 - - - - - - - - - - - -
34 - - - - 2 - - 1 - - 3 -
35 - 4 - 1 - - 1 - - - 7 -
Table 3B. Results from summer 2014.
Site ID COTO/ EPFU LABO LACI LANO MYGR MYLE MYLU MYSE MYSO NYHU PESU TABR CORA 1 - - - - - - - 1 3 - 5 -
2 2 - - 5 - - 1 2 - 1 - -
3 12 12 - 1 24 - 9 56 3 15 125 -
4 - 48 1 2 6 1 10 14 - 1 19 -
5-14 6 144 4 - 33 - - 1 4 - - 2 -
6-14 1 371 4 1 1 2 1 7 17 1 - 5 -
7 56 2 1 3 - - 3 16 - - - -
8 17 2 - - - - - 2 - 3 1 -
9 11 3 - 6 - - - 1 - - - -
10 3 1 - 3 4 - 1 - 1 - 1 -
11 20 1 - 5 3 - 6 2 3 - 18 -
12 4 - 1 - 2 - 1 1 1 - 7 -
13 6 - 1 - 2 - - 2 - 1 3 -
14 - - - - - 2 - - - - - -
15 2 2 - - - - - 3 1 - - -
16 4 - - 1 - - 2 23 - 2 1 -
17-14 3 37 1 - 1 2 - 1 - - - 101 -
18 1 7 1 1 - - 1 32 - 10 - -
19 - 1 - - 1 - - - - - 2 -
20 - - - - - - - - - - - -
21 - - - 1 - - - - - - - -
22-14 10 123 1 - 4 3 - - 4 - - 5 1 23-14 1 59 - - 2 1 - - 4 - - - -
24 - - - - - - - - - - - -
25 1 4 - - 4 - 2 3 1 4 6 -
26 4 1 - 1 - - - - - 1 - -
27 25 1 - 2 - - - - - - - 1 28 - - - - - - - - - - - -
29 2 1 - - 1 - 1 1 - - - 1 30-14 1 75 8 - 1 3 - 2 16 - - 5 -
31-14 3 6 1 - 2 1 - - 13 - - 2 -
32 - 1 - - - - - 2 - - - -
33 - 4 - - - - 1 - - - - -
34 9 43 - 3 35 - 63 23 1 12 - -
35 - 2 - - - 1 1 3 - - 1 -
36 - 4 1 2 - - - - - - - -
37 2 11 - 13 1 1 3 22 - - 1 -
38-14 1 - 1 - - - - - - - - 1 -
39 - 3 - - - - - 1 - 8 1 -
10
Table 3B. (continued)
Site ID COTO/ EPFU LABO LACI LANO MYGR MYLE MYLU MYSE MYSO NYHU PESU TABR CORA 40 - - - - - - - - - 1 3 -
41 1 - 2 - - - - 1 - 4 5 -
42 - 10 - - 3 - - - - 6 5 -
43 - 1 - - - - - - - - 3 -
44 1 26 - - 400 1 3 1 - 6 118 -
45 - 2 - - - - - - - - - -
46 - 6 - - 6 3 23 18 - - 28 -
47 - 3 - - 5 - - - - - 12 2 48-14 1 51 15 - - 11 - 22 13 2 2 55 -
49 - 1 - - - - - 1 - - 1 -
50 6 51 - 1 25 - 4 5 - - 23 -
51 - 28 - - 31 - 3 1 - - 149 -
52 - - - - 16 - 58 62 1 - - -
53 3 3 - - - - - 5 - - 5 -
54 - - - - - - - 1 - - - -
55 17 - - - 1 - - 2 - - 7 -
56 1 4 - - 4 - 2 3 1 4 6 -
57 1 9 - - 4 - 4 4 - 1 5 -
58 - - - 1 - - - - - - - -
59 1 - 2 - - - 1 - - - 1 -
60 7 5 - - 13 - 2 5 - - 51 -
61 1 - - - - 1 - 3 - - 20 -
62 34 6 - - 13 - 4 1 - 1 7 -
63 - 3 - - - - - 5 - - - -
64 - - - - - - - 1 - 2 - -
65-14 2 31 2 - 10 6 2 12 4 1 8 23 -
66-14 120 452 1124 140 79 3603 98 193 22 71 128 2119 -
67 - - - - - - - - - - - -
68 - - - - - - - - - - - -
11
Table 3C. Results from summer 2015 Site ID COTO/ EPFU LABO LACI LANO MYGR MYLE MYLU MYSE MYSO NYHU PESU TABR CORA 1 1 2 - - - 1 2 3 - - 2 -
2 - - - - - - 11 15 - - 9 -
3 3 9 - 2 47 - 41 32 1 - 3 -
4 - 1 1 1 2 - - 1 - - 2 -
5 - - - - - 1 1 4 - - - 1 6 6 - - - 6 - 4 6 - - 1 1 7 3 3 - 3 20 - 29 11 - - - -
8 1 7 - - 19 - 5 9 - - - -
9-15 1 4 - - 2 1 - 1 - - - 2 -
10 7 9 1 10 - - 1 - 3 11-15 1 14 1 - 3 2 - 2 3 - 4 1 -
12 4 5 - 2 1 - 3 6 - 6 3 -
13-15 2 5 30 - - 1 - 4 60 5 22 7 1 14-15 8 101 4 - 9 5 - 9 19 2 1 24 -
15 11 3 2 - - - 2 7 - - - -
16 - - - - - - - - - - - -
17 - 4 1 - - - 24 16 8 5 - -
18 - 4 1 - 3 - - 1 - 4 4 -
19 - - - - - - - - - - - -
20 - - - - - - - - - - - -
21 - - - - 1 - - - - - - -
22 - - - - - - - - - 1 2 -
23 - - 1 - - - - - - 1 - -
12
- 4. DISCUSSION One focus of this study has been to establish the presence of the endangered Indiana bat on the ORR during summer months. As reported previously, one Indiana bat was captured during mist-netting on June 23, 2013, and species identification was verified by Dr. Riley Bernard, (Ecology and Evolutionary Biology Department, University of Tennessee, Knoxville). Using Kaleidoscope software, Indiana bat ultrasonic calls were identified at 7 of 35 sites monitored during the summer of 2013, at 14 of 68 sites monitored during the summer of 2014, and at 4 of 23 sites monitored during the summer of 2015.
In summary, fourteen species of bats were detected acoustically on the ORR. Identification of ultrasonic bat calls to species using comparisons with libraries of known bat calls is complex. Software-based species decisions on unknown calls should be considered suggested classifications only (Lausen 2015).
Bats may vary their calls to cover different situations, such as foraging in open fields, avoiding obstacles while flying through a forest, etc. Additionally, loudness of call, multiple concurrent bat calls, echos reflected off water, position of microphone in relation to the calling bat and other situations can result in an inability of software to accurately categorize each unknown call. Some bat species have overlapping acoustic characteristics as well. Species such as little brown bat and Indiana bat have very similar calls.
All of these factors can contribute to call misidentification or rejection from identification altogether (Agranat 2012; Allen et al. 2015). Both software systems we used can identify most bat species found on the ORR; however, Kaleidoscope software version 1 could identify Townsends big-eared bat calls but not Rafinesques big eared bat calls, and Sonabat 2 software version could identify Rafinesques big-eared bat calls but not Townsends big-eared bat calls. Both software systems could identify Brazilian free-tailed bat calls, but only Sonabat 2 positively identified Brazilian free-tailed bat calls on the ORR.
Neither software included Seminole bat identification capabilities, yet that species has been captured on the ORR in the past, and the ORR is within the extended range of the Seminole bat.
Bat captures are used to confirm bat species presence, and mist net surveys are included in Phase II of the USFWS Range-wide Indiana Bat Summer Survey Guidelines. Once species presence is confirmed by physical capture, acoustic analysis can be used more confidently to establish which bat species are present within a given area. Knowledge of the physical characteristics of an area along with literature reviews of habitat specificity for each species can suggest which species may be present within an area. Historical records of bat mist netting on the ORR have confirmed the presence of ten bat species: big brown bat, eastern red bat, silvered-haired bat, gray bat, little brown bat, northern long-eared bat, Indiana bat, evening bat, tri-colored bat and Seminole bat. Several bat species have been identified acoustically, but have not been captured. These are Rafinesques big-eared bat, Townsends big-eared bat, Brazilian free-tailed bat, hoary bat and eastern small-footed bat. The species ranges of Rafinesques big-eared bat, hoary bat, eastern small-footed bat, and Brazilian free-tailed bat include the ORR, whereas Townsends big-eared bats known range does not include the ORR. The southeastern bat, Myotis austroriparius, whose range includes some counties in southern Tennessee, has not been trapped or recorded acoustically on the ORR. Table 4 summarizes bat species found on the ORR, either through mist net captures or acoustic call identification from 1992 through 2015.
13
Table 4. Bat Surveys on the Oak Ridge Reservation and Surrounding Area: 1992 through 2015 results.
Year Method COTO CORA EPFU LABO LACI LANO LASE MYGR MYLE MYLU MYSE MYSO NYHU PESU TABR 1992 net x x x x 1996 net x x 1997 net x x x x x x 2003 net x x x 2003 acoustic x x x x 2004 acoustic x x x x 2005 net x x x 2006 net x x x x x x 2008 net x x x x 2011 net x x x x x x x 2011 acoustic x x x x x 2012 acoustic x x x 2013 net x x x x x x x 14 2013 acoustic x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 2014 acoustic x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 2015 acoustic x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
- 5. CONCLUSIONS Acoustic surveys provide a good baseline for monitoring the presence of bat species populations in a given area. However, software used to identify bats to species base identification verification on species-specific libraries of calls unique to each software provider and even to each version of the software leading to possible questions concerning species identification accuracy in some cases. This is complicated by similarity in calls between certain species and variation in calls within species based on bat flight behavior, physical variations in habitat and positioning of the acoustic device in relation to the bat flight patterns. Therefore, bat capture through mist netting, other trapping methods or cave census ultimately should be the measure for confirmation of bat species presence in an area. Through both acoustic surveys and mist netting, the Oak Ridge Reservation has proven to be home to both endangered Indiana bats and gray bats, as well as the threatened northern long-eared bat. Seven additional species have been mist netted and recorded on the ORR. Bats identified acoustically, but as yet not had their presence confirmed through capture are the endangered Townsends big-eared bat, Rafinesques big-eared bat, eastern small-footed bat, Brazilian free-tailed bat and hoary bat. These data point to the need for future mist netting events to confirm the presence of all species of bats thus far recorded acoustically on the ORR. Further surveys will add to information on bat diversity and population locations across the ORR, and acoustic surveys at cave entrances need to be done in order to investigate the potential for hibernacula of endangered bats.
15
- 6. REFERENCES Agranat, I. (2012). Bat species identification from zero crossing and full spectrum echolocation calls using HMMs, Fisher scores, unsupervised clustering and balanced winnow pairwise classifiers. Wildlife Acoustics, Inc., Maynard, Mass.
Allen, C. R., et al. (2015). Acoustic monitoring and sampling technology. Acoustic Monitoring Technology, 1-19. Http://batcallid.com/SamplingTechnology.html.
Bat Conservation and Management, Inc. Carlisle, Mass. Sonabat bat call analysis software.
Bernard, R. (2015). Acoustic results for ORNL site FBR-1: summer 2013 and summer 2014. Personal communication.
BHE Environmental, Inc. (2005). A mist net survey for the Indiana bat at the proposed Oak Ridge Reservation EMWMF Haul Road, Roane County, Tennessee. Prepared for the East Tennessee Mechanical Corp., Oak Ridge, Tenn.
BHE Environmental, Inc. (2008). Mist net survey for the Indiana bat and the gray bat in selected holdings within the East Tennessee Technology Par, Roan County, Tennessee. Prepared for Science Applications International Corp., Oak Ridge, Tenn.
Britzke, E. R., et al. (2003). Indiana bat, Myotis sodalist, maternity roosts in the southern United States.
Southeastern Naturalist 2(2), 235-242.
Callahan, E. V., et al. (1997). Selection of summer roosting sites by Indiana bats (Myotis sodalist) in Missouri. Journal of Mammalogy 78, 818-825.
Giffen, N. R., et al. (2006). Mist netting survey of bats at caves on the Oak Ridge Reservation. Prepared for the U. S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge, Tenn.
Giffen, N. R. and J. W. Evans. (2011). Bat monitoring on the Oak Ridge Reservation. Prepared for the U. S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge, Tenn.
Giffen, N. R., et al. (2012). Wildlife management plan for the Oak Ridge Reservation. ORNL/TM-2011/323. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tenn.
Harvey, M. J. (1992). Survey for endangered Indiana and gray bats along East Fork Poplar Creek in the vicinity of Oak Ridge, Tennessee. Prepared for Science Application International Corp., Oak Ridge, Tenn.
Harvey, M. J. (1997). Survey for endangered and threatened bats on Parcel ED-1, Oak Ridge Reservation. Prepared for the Environmental Sciences Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tenn.
Harvey, M. J. et al. (1999). Bats of the United States. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Asheville, AK.
Harvey, M. J. and E. R. Britzke. (2003). Survey of bats on the Oak Ridge Reservation. Prepared for the Environmental Sciences Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tenn.
17
Harvey, M. J. and E. R. Britzke. (2004). Anabat survey for bats at Pond K1007 P1 on the Oak Ridge Reservation. Prepared for the Environmental Sciences Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tenn.
Harvey, M. J., et al. (2006). Mist netting survey of bats at caves on the Oak Ridge Reservation.
Prepared for the Environmental Sciences Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tenn.
Jackson, A. (2011). Invertivore (birds and bats) sampling records for Oak Ridge, Tennessee. Prepared for the Biodiversity Research Institute, Gorham, Maine.
Jackson, A. (2011). Invertivore (birds and bats) sampling records for Oak Ridge, Tennessee.
Biodiversity Research Institute, Gorham, ME.
Kurta, A., et al. (2002). Roost selection and movements across the summer landscape. The Indiana bat:
biology and management of an endangered species. (A. Kurta and J. Kennedy, eds.) Bat Conservation International, Austin, Texas.
Lausen, K. (2015). Wildlife Acoustics bat acoustics training. Training class held in Phoenix, Arizona, April 13-16, 2015. Wildlife Acoustics, Inc.
McCracken, G. (2010). White-Nose Syndrome in Bats of the Eastern United States: Informational Seminar. Knoxville, TN.
Mitchell, J. M., et al. (1996). Survey of protected terrestrial vertebrates on the Oak Ridge Reservation.
ES/ER/TM-188/R1. U. S. Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Management.
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (2009). White-nose syndrome in bats. U. S. Department of Interior, Washington, D. C.
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (2012). Letter from Jennings, M. E. to J. Elmore, U. S. Department of Energy, 20 September, 2012.
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (2013). Range-wide Indiana bat summer survey guidelines. U. S.
Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C.
Webb, J. W. (2000). Gray and Indiana bats: assessment and evaluation of potential roosting and foraging habitats: Anderson and Roane Counties, Tennessee. Environmental Assessment for Selection and Operation of the Proposed Field Research Centers for the NABIR Program. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tenn.
Wildlife Acoustics, Inc. Maynard, Mass. SM2+Bat acoustic monitoring equipment and Kaleidoscope bat call analysis software.
18