Effects of free-ranging cattle and landscape complexity on bat foraging: Implications for bat conservation and livestock management

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2017.03.001Get rights and content

Highlights

  • Bats select free-ranging livestock for foraging, potentially acting as important pest controllers, and their activity increases with herd size.

  • Higher landscape complexity around livestock supports higher bat species richness.

  • Promoting bat presence in farms might mitigate the detrimental effects of pests on livestock.

Abstract

Traditional agropastoralism increases biodiversity by maintaining habitats whose existence depends on human practices as well as by providing wildlife, including bats, with key spatial and trophic resources. Bats in farmland are crucial predators of crop pests, thus offering an economically important ecosystem service. It seems possible that bats may also provide services by feeding on insects associated with livestock. We tested whether bats forage over cattle in a traditionally managed pastoral area of central Italy, i.e. setting the bases for providing pest control services. We found that small bat species (mostly Pipistrellus spp.) foraged preferentially over livestock, and that their activity increased, but then reached a plateau or slightly decreased, for progressively larger herds. Landscape complexity also led to an increase in bat activity over livestock. Since insects attracted to cattle at night typically include flies such as mosquitoes (Culicidae) and biting midges (Ceratopogonidae), which are potentially harmful to cattle and may carry serious diseases, and that bats such as Pipistrellus spp. are important predators of such flies, we argue that bats may play a valuable pest-suppression role.

Introduction

One of the main consequences of human impact over half of the Earth’s land surface (Hooke et al., 2012) is the existence of a complex network of interactions with wildlife, some conspicuous, others subtle, whose comprehensive understanding plays a pivotal role in tailoring effective conservation practices (Caro et al., 2012). Loss of habitat due to replacement of natural land cover with urban and agricultural areas is one of the main drivers of the current biodiversity loss worldwide (Singh, 2002, Turner et al., 2007). While most species succumb, a limited number of adaptable species tolerate or even benefit from large-scale habitat disappearance or alteration (Parker and Nilon, 2012), at the expense of community diversity and the ecosystem services it provides (e.g. Morelli et al., 2016).

Agriculture is one of the most powerful drivers of land use change. An estimated 13% and 26% of the planet’s land surface have been converted to cropland and permanent meadows and pastures, respectively (Hooke et al., 2012). Livestock farming is the most widespread human activity, dominating rangeland ecosystems worldwide (Fleischner, 1994, Alkemade et al., 2013). The negative ecological effects of free-range livestock farming comprise biomass removal, vegetation trampling, root destruction, competition with wild ungulates (e.g. Alkemade et al., 2013) and transmission of diseases to wildlife (Smith et al., 2009). However, the type and magnitude of these effects vary according to the extent of habitat grazed, the type of land management applied and whether grazed areas result from conversion of former forest (Alkemade et al., 2013). While intensive farming is responsible for a large-scale decline of biodiversity, low-intensity farming systems, including traditional agricultural and pastoral practices, have rather played a chief role in creating a diverse range of landscapes that sustain rich biological communities including many wildlife species at risk throughout Europe (Moreira et al., 2005). For example, some eastern Mediterranean pastures have actually survived thanks to uninterrupted livestock grazing for over 5000 years (Blondel and Aronson, 1999). Land abandonment – i.e. the cessation of agriculture and pastoralism in previously farmed landscapes driven by major socio-economical changes − is recognised as a major driver of the disappearance of important habitats and species whose existence depends on human action (Moreira and Russo, 2007).

Grazing by free-ranging domestic stock has taken over the ecological role of the extinct large herbivores such as aurochs (Bos primigenius) and wild horses (Equus ferus) that dominated Europe in late Pleistocene and early Holocene in creating and maintaining open landscapes of great value for biodiversity (Hearn, 2015). Besides having direct effects on habitat structure, livestock also represent a direct food source for vertebrates such as large predators (Boitani, 2000) and scavengers (Donázar et al., 2002). Moreover, many coprophagous insects feed on dung (Lumaret and Kirk, 1987), providing prey to insectivorous vertebrates such as birds (Wilson et al., 1999) and bats (Duvergé and Jones, 2003). In some cases, the mere presence or activity of livestock may favour prey availability to insectivores. A familiar example is the cattle egret (Bubulcus ibis), often feeding among cattle on insects set in motion by grazing (Heatwole, 1965, Wahungu et al., 2003), so that the presence of livestock has helped this bird to increase its geographical range (Petretti, 2003).

Bats are a biodiverse mammal order providing crucial ecosystem services in both natural and agricultural ecosystems including seed dispersal or pest suppression (Kunz et al., 2011). Given the high sensitivity of bats to human interferences (Jones et al., 2009, Russo and Jones, 2015) many bat populations have shown marked declines in response to land use change and, as for many other taxa, agricultural intensification constitutes a powerful driver of habitat reduction and fragmentation (Heim et al., 2016, Park, 2015). Low-intensity agriculture such as organic farming (Wickramasinghe et al., 2003) or traditionally managed cultivations (Russo et al., 2002, Russo et al., 2005), instead, host higher levels of bat abundance, diversity and foraging activity (Park, 2015). Although the mechanisms generating such patterns are unclear (Park, 2015), several potentially important causal factors may be identified, e.g.: the persistence of high spatio-temporal habitat heterogeneity (Benton et al., 2003); the partial or complete avoidance of pesticides that are widespread in intensive agriculture, where they affect bats through both biomagnification (Jefferies, 1972) and prey depletion (Wickramasinghe et al., 2004); and the presence of small-scale habitats such as hedgerows (Downs and Racey, 2006, Boughey et al., 2011) and water bodies (Korine et al., 2015).

In contrast to intensive farming practices (Park, 2015), moderate livestock grazing may favour bats by maintaining semi-open habitats favoured by many species (Duvergè and Jones, 2003; Lòpez-González et al., 2015), increasing availability of prey (Shiel et al., 1991, Catto et al., 1996, Ransome, 1996) such as dung-dwelling insects (Duvergé and Jones, 2003), and providing artificial drinking sites (Korine et al., 2015, Russo et al., 2016). That several species of bats feed extensively on dung-beetles (Scarabaeidae) and other insects in pastures has been known for a long time (Rydell, 1986) but only recently has it become apparent that bats also feed around the cows themselves (Downs and Sanderson, 2010).

The foraging activity of insectivorous bats may increase crop yields through pest suppression, a vital service in agroecosystems (e.g. Federico et al., 2008, Boyles et al., 2011, McCracken et al., 2012, Maine and Boyles, 2015, Heim et al., 2015, Puig-Montserrat et al., 2015). Although quantitative studies on nocturnal or crepuscular insects parasitizing cattle are missing, it is well known that mosquitoes, biting midges or blackflies have a considerable negative effect on livestock productivity (Davies, 1957, Steelman, 1976, Kazek and Jezierski, 2014): in 1981 an estimated 10% of cattle productivity was lost due to ectoparasites in the US, almost 70% of which was caused by dipterans (Byford et al., 1992). Bats might therefore potentially play an important role in suppressing such pests, acting as mutualists of livestock rather than commensals.

The aim of this study was to investigate if insectivorous bats in a Mediterranean landscape routinely feed over free-ranging cattle, rather than over the dung, as suggested by Downs and Sanderson (2010). We then developed this aspect further by investigating the responses of bat activity and species richness to increasing herd sizes (corresponding to more parasitic insects; Schmidtmann and Valla, 1982) and landscape heterogeneity (whose growth typically has positive effects on bat assemblages; Heim et al., 2015), predicting a positive relationship in both cases.

Section snippets

Study area

Fieldwork took place in a Site of Community Importance in Castel di Guido, central Italy (41.89 N, 12.31 E, altitude ca 75 m a.s.l.). Part of the area is a bird reserve of the Italian League for Bird Protection (“Oasi Lipu Castel di Guido”). The landscape is characterised by a mosaic of Mediterranean scrublands and oak woodlands (mainly made of Quercus pubescens and Q. suber standings) interspersed with organic agricultural crops (cereals, alfalfa) and pastures. A few isolated buildings and one

Results

We recorded a total of 156 h of bat activity, comprising 3963 bat passes of 11 species, or species groups, and 549 feeding buzzes (Table 1). The most abundant species were Pipistrellus kuhlii, Hypsugo savii and P. pipistrellus, followed by Tadarida teniotis, Eptesicus serotinus and Rhinolophus ferrumequinum. Numbers of feeding buzzes were positively correlated with numbers of bat passes (total bat activity: Pearson r = 0.80, p < 0.01, P. kuhlii: r = 0.61, p < 0.01, H. savii: r = 0.74, p < 0.01, P.

Discussion

In agreement with Downs and Sanderson (2010) we show that the presence of cattle rather than that of dung is responsible for the high foraging activity bats exhibit over livestock. This difference is most likely explained by the abundance of flies (Diptera) attracted to large herbivores, specifically cattle, including nocturnal or crepuscular blood-sucking forms such as mosquitoes (Culicidae), blackflies (Simuliidae) and biting midges (Ceratopogonidae) (Davies, 1957, Steelman, 1976). In

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to Alessia De Lorenzis for her fundamental support during all fieldwork activities, to the Azienda Agricola “Castel di Guido” and Roma Capitale for providing accommodation and access to the study area. Thanks also go to two anonymous reviewers whose comments helped us to improve substantially a first ms version. LA was funded by Lega Italiana Protezione Uccelli (LIPU onlus). IB was funded by the Erasmus+ Programme within the framework of an agreement between University of Naples

References (90)

  • X. Puig-Montserrat et al.

    Pest control service provided by bats in Mediterranean rice paddies: linking agroecosystems structure to ecological functions

    Mamm. Biol.

    (2015)
  • D. Russo et al.

    Bats as bioindicators: an introduction

    Mammal. Biol.

    (2015)
  • D. Russo et al.

    The use of automated identification of bat echolocation calls in acoustic monitoring: a cautionary note for a sound analysis

    Ecol. Indic.

    (2016)
  • D. Russo et al.

    Habitat selection by the Mediterranean horseshoe bat, Rhinolophus euryale (Chiroptera: Rhinolophidae) in a rural area of southern Italy and implications for conservation

    Biol. Conserv.

    (2002)
  • E.T. Schmidtmann et al.

    Face-fly pest intensity, fly-avoidance behavior (bunching) and grazing time in Holstein heifers

    Appl. Anim. Ethol.

    (1982)
  • J.D. Wilson et al.

    A review of the abundance and diversity of invertebrate and plant foods of granivorous birds in northern Europe in relation to agricultural change

    Agric. Ecosyst. Environ.

    (1999)
  • R. Alkemade et al.

    Assessing the impacts of livestock production on biodiversity in rangeland ecosystems

    PNAS

    (2013)
  • L.D. Avila-Cabadilla et al.

    Local and landscape factors determining occurrence of phyllostomid bats in tropical secondary forests

    PLoS One

    (2012)
  • R.M.R. Barclay

    Interindividual use of echolocation calls – eavesdropping by bats

    Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol.

    (1982)
  • K. Barlow

    The diets of two phonic types of the bat Pipistrellus pipistrellus in Britain

    J. Zool. Lond.

    (1997)
  • G.P. Bell

    Habitat use and response to patches of prey by desert insectivorous bats

    Can. J. Zool.

    (1980)
  • J. Blondel et al.

    Biology and Wildlife of the Mediterranean Region

    (1999)
  • L. Boitani

    Carnivore introductions and invasions: their success and management

  • J.G. Boyles et al.

    Economic importance of bats in agriculture

    Science

    (2011)
  • R.L. Byford et al.

    A review of ectoparasites and their effect on cattle production

    J. Anim. Sci.

    (1992)
  • T. Caro et al.

    Conservation in the anthropocene

    Conserv. Biol.

    (2012)
  • C.M.C. Catto et al.

    Foraging behaviour and habitat use of the serotine bat (Eptesicus serotinus) in southern England

    J. Zool.

    (1996)
  • L. Davies

    A Study of the blackfly, Simulium ornatum Mg. (Diptera), with particular reference to its activity on grazing cattle

    Bull. Entomol. Res.

    (1957)
  • A.M. Dorado-Correa et al.

    Interspecific acoustic recognition in two European bat communities

    Front. Physiol.

    (2013)
  • N.C. Downs et al.

    The use by bats of habitat features in mixed farmland in Scotland

    Acta Chiropterol.

    (2006)
  • N.C. Downs et al.

    Do bats forage over cattle dung or over cattle?

    Acta Chiropterol.

    (2010)
  • P.L. Duvergé et al.

    Use of farmland habitats by greater horseshoe bats

  • P. Federico et al.

    Brazilian free-tailed bat as insect pest regulators in transgenic and conventional cotton crops

    Ecol. Appl.

    (2008)
  • T.L. Fleischner

    Ecological costs of livestock grazing in Western North America

    Conserv. Biol.

    (1994)
  • S.D. Fuhlendorf et al.

    Should heterogeneity be the basis for conservation? Grassland bird response to fire and grazing

    Ecol. Appl.

    (2006)
  • K. Futami et al.

    Impacts of insecticide treated bed nets on Anopheles gambiae s.l. populations in Mbita district and Suba district, Western Kenya

    Parasites Vectors

    (2014)
  • E.H. Gillam

    Eavesdropping by bats on the feeding buzzes of conspecifics

    Can. J. Zool.

    (2007)
  • U. Goiti et al.

    Diet and prey selection in Kuhl’s pipistrelle Pipistrellus kuhlii (Chiroptera: Vespertilionidae) in south-western Europe

    Acta Theriol.

    (2003)
  • L. Gonsalves et al.

    Mosquito consumption by insectivorous bats: does size matter?

    PLoS One

    (2013)
  • M.E. Hayes et al.

    Comparison of Culicoides spp. (Diptera: Ceratopogonidae) attracted to cattle in an open pasture and bordering woodland

    Mosq. News

    (1984)
  • R. Hearn

    Gains and losses in the European mammals

  • O. Heim et al.

    The importance of landscape elements for bat activity and species richness in agricultural areas

    PLoS One

    (2015)
  • C.S. Holling

    The components of predation as revealed by a study of small-mammal predation of the European pine sawfly

    Can. Entomol.

    (1959)
  • R.L. Hooke et al.

    Land transformation by humans: a review

    GSA Today

    (2012)
  • D.J. Jefferies

    Organochlorine insecticide residues in British bats and their significance

    J. Zool. Lond.

    (1972)
  • Cited by (44)

    • What drives bat activity at field boundaries?

      2023, Journal of Environmental Management
      Citation Excerpt :

      Dung beetles (Geotrupidae, Scarabaeidae) comprise a significant portion of the diet of this group, which likely explains this finding (Jones, 1995; Shiel et al., 1998; Waters et al., 1999; Whitaker and Karataş, 2009). Activity of both Pipistrellus species was also higher in fields with livestock, likely because livestock attract prey items such as midges and mosquitoes that are important for Pipistrellus species (Ancillotto et al., 2017, 2021). Activity of R. ferrumequinum and P. pipistrellus activity was negatively associated with arable fields (either in current crop production or fallow), a finding reported in previous studies (Dietz et al., 2013; Flanders and Jones, 2009; Walsh and Harris, 1996; Wickramasinghe et al., 2003).

    • Residues of pesticides in dairy cow rations and fly treatments reduce the number of Coleoptera in dung

      2023, Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment
      Citation Excerpt :

      Although the number of earthworms measured was lower than in Deru et al. (2018), we did not find a negative effect of deltamethrin on earthworms in Experiment 2, which may explain why we measured no difference in dung pat disappearance between the four treatments. Regarding the food web, the negative effects of pesticides in dung on Coleoptera may not only pose a risk to birds and the survival of the chicks who feed on Coleoptera (Wilson et al., 1999; Benton et al., 2002), but also to other taxa that feed on Coleoptera, such as bats (Catto et al., 1996; Downs and Sanderson, 2010; Ancillotto et al., 2017). Research has shown that the diets of swallow and sparrow chicks in the Netherlands contain less Coleoptera breeding and foraging on dungs pats than in neighbouring countries in Europe (Turner, 1982; Orlowski et al., 2014; Hofland, 2022).

    • Organic farming sustains bats in Mediterranean farmland

      2023, Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment
    • Tree size, microhabitat diversity and landscape structure determine the value of isolated trees for bats in farmland

      2022, Biological Conservation
      Citation Excerpt :

      At the local scale, tree-related microhabitats (TreMs) may favour bats either through enhancing the abundance of insect prey or by providing suitable diurnal and maternity roosting sites – even though the influence of TreMs on bats has so far only been assessed in forests (Regnery et al., 2013; Paillet et al., 2018; Larrieu et al., 2019; Basile et al., 2020). At the landscape level, the diversity of habitat types in the surrounding matrix irrespective of their spatial arrangement (i.e. landscape compositional heterogeneity) and the spatial arrangement of patches irrespective of habitat types (i.e. landscape configurational heterogeneity) influence bat activity and species richness in farmland through several processes including landscape complementation (Ancillotto et al., 2017; Monck-Whipp et al., 2018; Rodríguez-San Pedro et al., 2019; Laforge et al., 2021). In contrast to less human-altered landscapes, intensively managed farmland is relatively homogeneous, so improving landscape compositional and/or configurational heterogeneity at different spatial scales through farming systems and management practices represents a great opportunity for biodiversity conservation (Tscharntke et al., 2021).

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    1

    These authors contributed equally to this work.

    View full text