Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-c52kr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-08T22:01:53.472Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Bats in Britain – a Status Report

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 April 2009

P. A. Racey  and
R. E. Stebbings
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the 'Save PDF' action button.

A survey has been carried out on the status of bats in Britain. Of the 14 species, the status of two, the greater horseshoe and mouse-eared bats, is precarious. The survival of these and other cavernicolous species depends on the availability of underground roosts, many of which are being destroyed, or rendered uninhabitable by extensive disturbance during hibernation. Where such disturbance is prevented by a grille at the cave entrance, the number of bats using the roost increases. There is a trade in cave-dwelling bats for museums, schools and research. Large numbers of pipistrelles and other species are killed each year in buildings. In many cases, the slaughter is fruitless because the roost is subsequently reoccupied. Ignorance and fear of bats is widespread among members of the public. With the decrease in deciduous trees, fewer roosts are available for tree-dwelling species.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Oryx , Volume 11 , Issue 5 , May 1972 , pp. 319 - 327
Copyright
Copyright © Fauna and Flora International 1972

References

American Society of Mammalogists 1964 Resolution. J. Mammal. 45, 669–670.Google Scholar
Beaucornu, J.C. 1962 Observations sur le baguage des chiroptères. Résultats et dangers. Mammalia, 26. 539–565.Google Scholar
Corbet, G.B. 1971 Provisional distribution maps of British mammals. Mammal Rev. 1. 95–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cranbrook, , Earl of & Barrett, H.G. 1965 Observations on noctule bats (Nyctalus noctula) captured while feeding. Proc. zool. Soc. Lond. 144. 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanak, V. & Gaisler, J. 1970 Comments on the protection of bats in Czechoslovakia and some suggestions on the research on bat populations. Bijdr. Dierk. 40. 5–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harmata, W. 1968. Notes on the protection of bats in Poland. Chronmy Przyr. ojcz. 24. 35.Google Scholar
Herreid, C.F., Davis, R.B. & Short, H.L. 1960 Injuries due to bat banding. J. Mammal. 41. 398–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hooper, J. 1964 Bats and the amateur naturalist. Stud, speleol 1, 9–15.Google Scholar
Jefferies, D. J. 1972 Organochlorine insecticide residues in British bats and their significance. J. Zool., Lond. 166. 245–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krzanowski, A. 1959 On the need for safeguarding cave dwelling bats in Poland. Chronmy. Przyr. ojcz. 15. 17–18.Google Scholar
Kulczynska, W. 1968 On the protection of bats. Chronmy Przyr. ojcz. 24. 31–32.Google Scholar
Phillips, W.W.A. & Blackmore, M. 1970 Mouse-eared bats Myotis myotis in Sussex. J. Zool. Lond. 162. 520–521.Google Scholar
Punt, A. 1971 Round table discussion on bat-conservation – Summary. Bijdr. Dierk 40. 3–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Randik, A. 1969 The protection of bats in Slovakia, Lynx, 10, 79–84.Google Scholar
Ransome, R.D. 1968 The distribution of the greater horseshoe bat, Rhinolophus ferrumequinum during hibernation, in relation to environmental factors. J. Zool. Lond. 154. 77–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sluiter, J.W. & Van Heerdt, P.F. 1957 Distribution and decline of bat populations in S. Limburg from 1942 till 1957. Natuurh. Maandbl., 46. 134–143.Google Scholar
Sluiter, J.W. & Van Heerdt, P.F. 1964 Distribution and abundance of bats in S. Limburg from 1958 till 1962. Natuurh. Maandbl. 53. 164–173.Google Scholar
Stebbings, R.E. 1969 Observer influence on bat behaviour. Lynx, 10. 93–100.Google Scholar
Stebbings, R.E. 1970 Comparative study of Plecotus auritus and P. austriacus (Chiroptera: Vespertilionidae) inhabiting one roost. Bijdr. Dierk. 40. 91–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stebbings, R.E. 1971 Bats, their life and conservation. J. Devon. Trust. Nat. Conserv., 3. 29–36.Google Scholar