Conservation of bats 687
TABLE 2 Mean ± SD total number of bats counted per day during the 12 survey days in the five caves at Gupteswar cave tourism and pilgrimage site (Fig. 1) during September 2016–August 2017.
Family
Rhinolophidae Hipposideridae Emballonuridae Megadermatidae Total
Gupteswar
388.08 ± 23.58 11.08 ± 1.56
399.17 ± 23.14
Swargadwara 8.42 ± 6.44
136.67 ± 19.14 77.58 ± 4.98
222.67 ± 20.43
Parabhadi 1 9.25 ± 5.71
8.67 ± 1.67 84.42 ± 5.33 15.75 ± 12.15 118.08 ± 19.62
Parabhadi 2
Dhabaleswar 4.33 ± 2.46
67.33 ± 9.19 67.33 ± 9.19
26.55 ± 23.43 30.83 ± 23.54
Total
410.08 ± 24.95 156.42 ± 18.45 162.00 ± 6.71 109.58 ± 24.63 838.08 ± 48.97
during February–April and females carrying non-volant pups were recorded during April–July.
Visitation
A total 15,942 visitor in 1,248 groups (Group size range 1–88; mean 12.77 ± SD 8.67) were recorded (Table 3). Groups com- prising 1–15 people were most frequent (73% of all visits), followed by 16–30 people (25%), 31–45 people (1.5%) and .45 people (0.5%). On average each cave was visited by 3,188.4 ± SD 326.6 individual tourists during the 12 survey days. Visits were significantly higher during local cultural fes- tivals associated with the caves, during February–July (t = 2.66. df = 6,P,0.05; Fig. 2), coinciding with the reproductive per- iod of R. lepidus, H. ater, H. galeritus, M. lyra and T. melano- pogon. The overallmonthly bat count was not correlated with
FIG. 2 (a) Reproductive phenology (numbers of females pregnant and with pups) amongst the 140 bats captured, and (b) number of visitors at Gupteswar cave tourism and pilgrimage site (Fig. 1), during September 2016–August 2017.
spasma) inDhabaleswar cave, and one (M. lyra)inParabhadi cave 2. The total number of bats counted on each survey day (all cavesand speciescombined; Table 2) did not vary sig- nificantly between months (F = 0.02,df = 11, 48,P.0.05)or seasons (summer, monsoon and winter; F = 0.49,df = 2, 12, P.0.05). The number of bats counted on each survey day and in each cave are provided in Supplementary Table 1.
Reproductive phenology
Of the eight species, breeding of five species (R. lepidus, H. ater, H. galeritus, M. lyra and T. melanopogon) was recorded, during February–July (Fig. 2). Pregnancy in R. lepidus was first observed during February–April and females carrying non-volant pups were recorded during April–June. Pregnancy was observed in H. ater and H. galeritus during February and females carrying non- volant pups were recorded during April and June–July. Pregnancy in M. lyra was observed during March–April and females carrying non-volant pups were recorded during May and July. Pregnancy in T. melanopogon was observed
number of visitors (r =−0.29,df = 10,P.0.05). Each tourist group spent amean of 15.7 ± SD 9.4 minutes
in the caves. The duration of cave visits by tourists was positively correlated with visitor group size (r = 0.53,df= 34, P,0.01). The mean time spent by tourists inside each cave was highest (1.86 minutes) in Gupteswar, followed by Swargadwara (1.77), Parabhadi 1 (0.88), Parabhadi 2 (0.77) and Dhabaleswar (0.67). The activities of tourists inside the caves included religious and spiritual practices, photog- raphy and talking. The main purpose of the visits were cul- tural (317 respondents) and for leisure (49).
Knowledge and attitudes
A total of 76 local villagers and 366 tourists were inter- viewed. Information on their responses and demographic profiles are given in Table 1 and Table 4, respectively. Nearly 86% of respondents were not aware that bats are mammals, with 79%(62% of tourists and 93% of local people) indicating they are birds. Only 23%(27% of tourists and one local person) were aware that bats are ecologically important as controllers of insect pests, and 77% of the respondents believed bats are a nuisance, feeding in the fruit orchards and home gardens. Sixty-four per cent of all respondents (58%of tourists and 91%of local people) agreed that caves are important habitat for bats. Amongst all the respondents, only 11% agreed that human activities inside
Oryx, 2021, 55(5), 684–691 © The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S003060531900098X
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162 |
Page 163 |
Page 164
