A comparison of two bat detectors: which is most likely to detect New Zealand’s Chalinolobus tuberculatus?

Abstract

ABSTRACT The presence of bat species is commonly determined by placing acoustic bat detectors that record bat echolocation calls in the habitat they are likely to use. Detection rates are affected by variables including type of detection unit used. We compared detection rates of long-tailed bat (Chalinolobus tuberculatus) echolocation calls between two types of automated bat detectors: Wildlife Acoustics SMZC Zero Crossing Bat Recorders (ZC), and Frequency Compression Automated Bat Monitoring units (FC) produced by New Zealand’s Department of Conservation. Units were placed in locations where bats were known to be present, but not all detected bats. The median number of bat passes recorded by FC units over 10 nights was 20 compared with a median of 3 bat passes for ZC units. ZC units also detected bats over significantly fewer nights than FC units. These results suggest FC units are more sensitive and therefore better to use where long-tailed bats are expected to be at low abundance or only present infrequently. Because of inconsistencies in detection rates, we recommend the use of only one model of the detector within a monitoring project. Our data also suggests that surveys should take place over long periods to maximise likelihood of detecting bats, if present.