| Literature DB >> 28030640 |
Jennifer J Krauel1, Gretchen LeBuhn1.
Abstract
Understanding how to manage biodiversity in urban areas will become increasingly important as density of humans residing in urban centers increases and urban areas expand. While considerable research has documented the shifts in biodiversity along urbanization gradients, much less work has focused on how characteristics of dense urban centers, effectively novel environments, influence behavior and biodiversity. Urban bats in San Francisco provide an opportunity to document changes in behavior and biodiversity to very high-density development. We studied (1) the distribution and abundance of bat foraging activity in natural areas; and (2) characteristics of natural areas that influence the observed patterns of distribution and foraging activity. We conducted acoustic surveys of twenty-two parks during 2008-2009. We confirmed the presence of four species of bats (Tadarida brasiliensis, Myotis yumanensis, Lasiurus blossevillii, and M. lucifugus). T. brasiliensis were found in all parks, while M. yumanensis occurred in 36% of parks. Results indicate that proximity to water, park size, and amount of forest edge best explained overall foraging activity. Proximity to water best explained species richness. M. yumanensis activity was best explained by reduced proportion of native vegetation as well as proximity to water. Activity was year round but diminished in December. We show that although bats are present even in very densely populated urban centers, there is a large reduction in species richness compared to that of outlying areas, and that most habitat factors explaining their community composition and activity patterns are similar to those documented in less urbanized environments.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 28030640 PMCID: PMC5193347 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0168927
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Regional bat species pool for San Francisco and surrounding counties.
| Bat Species | Alameda | Contra Costa | Marin | San Francisco | San Mateo |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A, B | A, B | A, B | A, B, E | ||
| A, B | B | A, B, C, D | C, D, F | A, B, E, G | |
| A, B | B | A, B, D | D | G | |
| A, B | A, B | A, B, D | A, B, D, F, H | A, B, C, E, G | |
| A, B | A, B | A, B, D | A, C, D, F | A, B, E, G | |
| A, B | B | A, B, C, D | B, D | B, E, G | |
| B | B | A, B, E | |||
| D | D, H | E | |||
| B | B, D | D | A, B, E, G | ||
| A | A, B, E | ||||
| A, B | B | B, D | A, B, D | A, B, E, G | |
| A | A, B | A, E | |||
| A | |||||
| B | B | ||||
| A, B | A, B | A, B, D | A, B, C, D, F, H | A, B, E, G |
Species records for San Francisco and surrounding counties. In December 2009, we searched the electronic databases of the following natural history collections for additional voucher records from San Francisco and surrounding counties: (A) California Academy of Sciences, San Francisco, California, (B) the Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, Berkeley, California, and (C) the National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC. Species presence is also noted from the following studies: (D) [44], (E) [45], (F) [46], (G) [47], and (H) Present study.
* Study did not distinguish acoustically between M. californicus and M. yumanensis.
Fig 1Map of San Francisco, California parks surveyed in 2008–2009.
Model QAICc values and weights.
| Model | QAICc | Δ QAICc | Wi | D2 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total activity | |||||
| Water | 46.45 | 0 | 0.21 | 0.61 | |
| Pk Size | 47.21 | 0.76 | 0.14 | 0.55 | |
| Edge | 47.96 | 1.51 | 0.10 | 0.49 | |
| Edge | 47.64 | 0 | 0.18 | 0.63 | |
| Pk Size | 47.81 | 0.17 | 0.17 | 0.62 | |
| Water | 48.18 | 0.54 | 0.14 | 0.60 | |
| (Intercept) | 33.93 | 0 | 0.21 | ||
| Native | 34.27 | 0.34 | 0.18 | 0.37 | |
| Water | 34.95 | 1.01 | 0.13 | 0.29 | |
| Species Richness | |||||
| Water | 33.29 | 0 | 0.26 | ||
| Edge + Lg Pk | 34.95 | 1.66 | 0.11 | ||
QAICc values, weights, and D2 values for the top-ranking models explaining the influence of habitat variables on bat activity for all species, T. brasiliensis only, and M. yumanensis only and species richness for 22 parks in San Francisco, California, in 2008–2009. Model rankings were based on Akaike’s Information Criterion corrected for small sample size and overdispersion (QAICc). ΔQAICc is the difference in value between QAICc of the current model versus the best-approximating model (QAICmin) for each set of models. Wi, Akaike weight, is the probability that the current model (i) is the best approximating among those considered for each group [80]. The full set of model results is available in S3 Table.
Relative importance (and sign of relationship) of model variables for different measures of activity and species richness.
| Total Activity | Species Richness | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Distance to water | 0.49 (-) | 0.38 (-) | 0.26 (-) | 0.66 |
| Park Size | 0.33 | 0.35 | 0.21 | 0.26 |
| Forest Edge | 0.26 | 0.38 | 0.16 | 0.36 |
| Distance to Lg Park | 0.18 (-) | 0.19 (-) | 0.19 | 0.36 |
| Pct Native Vegetation | 0.19 (-) | 0.16 (-) | 0.35 (-) | 0.21 |
Relative importance of predictor variables across all models explaining influence of habitat variables on bat activity for all species, T. brasiliensis only, and M. yumanensis only, and species richness. Values are the sum of Akaike weights across all 11 models where each variable occurs. Relationships were positive unless designated (-).
Fig 2Seasonal activity by park size for all species combined.
Total number of bat passes recorded by season. Parks are grouped by size, where large parks > 1,000 ha, medium parks > 100 ha, and small parks < 100 ha.