Conservation of bats 689
vocalization intensity and energy expenditure (Song et al., 2000; Mann et al., 2002; Cardiff et al., 2012). Structural modification and artificial lighting can weaken the ability to avoid obstacles during flight, and affect roost use pat- tern, emergence time, and growth and development of juveniles (Srinivasulu & Srinivasulu, 2003; Boldogh et al., 2007; McGuire & Fenton, 2010). Human activities can also cause marked fluctuations in microclimatic condition of the caves by altering the temperature, relative humidity and carbon dioxide concentration (Pulido-Bosch et al., 1997; Gunn, 2004), the requirements for which are specific to individual bat species. Disturbances in breeding and ma- ternity colonies can also cause adults to drop their young, from stress, and it is difficult for the young to be retrieved (Sheffield et al., 1992; Petit et al., 2006). At Gupteswar caves visitation was highest during the reproductive period of several of the bat species present. Similarly, in Cambodia the time of year with greatest visitation to caves coincided with the breeding of several cave dwelling insectivorous bats (Lim et al., 2018). A study using an index of bat cave vulnerability revealed
that caves with high species diversity are more vulnerable to anthropogenic activities than caves with low species di- versity (Tanalgo et al., 2018). At Gupteswar, tourism related human disturbance is the major threat to bats; without ap- propriate management the bat populations may potentially decline or abandon these caves. Protection of roosting sites from anthropogenic disturbances should be an essential component of any conservation strategy (Furey & Racey, 2016). In India, however, there are no laws or guidelines to protect and conserve caves and their biodiversity (Walker & Molur, 2003; Biswas, 2016). Bats inhabiting caves opened for tourism may be persecuted, as in Borra cave in southern India (author, pers. obs.). Although none of the bats at Gupteswar appear to be harmed, because of the sacred be- liefs associated with the caves, the uncontrolled human dis- turbance is a major challenge. Installation of gates at entry points and scheduling of visits to control overcrowding are required, and illumination inside the cave system should be turned off at night, when there are no visitors and during non-visiting daylight hours. The areas of the caves used as maternity colonies (Fig. 1b) should not be open for visitation during breeding seasons. Such initiatives have, for example, proved effective at a cave in the Rocky Mountains of Canada (Olson et al., 2011) and at the Dupnisa cave system in Turkey (Paksuz & Özkan, 2012). However, prior to installation of any gates it is important to understand the ecology and behaviour of the bat species present, as poorly designed and improperly placed gates can be detrimental to bats (Ludlow & Gore, 2000; Pugh & Altringham, 2005; Alcalde et al., 2012). Sharing of knowledge regarding the importance of bats can help to improve attitudes towards them and make people more aware of the species’ conservation needs (Pennisi & Confer, 2005; Trewhella et al., 2005; Kingston,
2016; García-Cegarra & Pacheco, 2017). Bat watching has become a popular recreational activity in some European countries (Pennisi et al., 2004). Educational display boards on the conservation importance of cave dwelling bats have already been installed at the entry area of each cave at Gupteswar, to sensitize visitors. In addition, long-term monitoring of the behaviour and population dynamics of the bats of the Gupteswar cave system is required, in par- ticular in relation to tourism activities.
Acknowledgements This study was carried out with financial sup- port from Bat Conservation International, Austin, USA. I thank the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest and Chief Wildlife Warden, Odisha, for providing permission to carry out the study; T. Kar, S.K. Jena, S. Nanda, A.K. Das, S. Purohit, K.T. Samal and the local villagers for their generous help; H.S. Palei for developing the study area map; and the reviewers for their valuable suggestions.
Conflicts of interest None.
Ethical standards Interviews followed the ethical guidelines of the Indian Council of Medial Research, India (Mathur, 2017), and this re- search otherwise abided by the Oryx guidelines on ethical standards.
References
ALCALDE, J.T.,ARTÁCOZ,A.&MEIJIDE,F.(2012)Recovery of a colony of Miniopterus schreibersii from a cave, Cueva de Ágreda, in Soria. Barbastella, 5, 32–35.
BAT CONSERVATION INTERNATIONAL (2013) A Five-Year Strategy for Global Bat Conservation. Bat Conservation International, Austin, USA.
BATES, P.J.J.&HARRISON, D.L. (1997) Bats of the Indian Subcontinent. Harrison Zoological Museum, Sevenoaks, UK.
BISWAS,J.(2016) Caving in.
downtoearth.org.in/news/environment/ caving-in-52339 [accessed 15 March 2019].
BISWAS, J., SHROTRIYA, S., RAJPUT,Y. & SASMAL,S.(2011) Impacts of ecotourism on bat habitats in caves of Kanger Valley National Park, India. Research Journal of Environmental Sciences, 5, 752–762.
BOLDOGH, S., DOBROSI,D.& SAMU,P.(2007) The effects of the illumination of buildings on house-dwelling bats and its conservation consequences. Acta Chiropterologica, 9, 527–534.
BOYLES, J.G., CRYAN, P.M., MCCRACKEN, G.F. & KUNZ, T.H. (2011) Economic importance of bats in agriculture. Science, 332, 41–42.
CARDIFF, S.G., RATRIMOMANARIVO, F.H. & GOODMAN, S.M. (2012) The effect of tourist visits on the behavior of Rousettus madagascariensis (Chiroptera: Pteropodidae) in the caves of Ankarana, northern Madagascar. Acta Chiropterologica, 14, 479–490.
CHAMPION, H.G. & SETH, S.K. (1968) The Forest Types of India. Government of India Press, Nasik, India.
CIGNA, A.A.&FORTI,P.(2013) Caves: the most important geotouristic feature in the world. Tourism and Karst Areas, 6, 9–26.
CONWAY, A.L., HERNANDEZ, S.A., CARROLL, J.P., GREEN, G.T. & LARSON,L.(2015) Local awareness of and attitudes towards the pygmy hippopotamus Choeropsis liberiensis in the Moa River Island Complex, Sierra Leone. Oryx, 49, 550–558.
COUSINS, J.A. & COMPTON, S.G. (2005) The Tongan flying fox Pteropus tonganus: status, public attitudes and conservation in the Cook Islands. Oryx, 39, 196–203.
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
