next message in archive
no next message in thread
previous message in archive
Index of Subjects
--=====================_4078421==.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi there,
I have been catching up on the=20
newspapers and just got around to reading the=20
same article which David Webster mentioned,=20
"Protect wildlife routes, biologist=20
urges". Most of the article concerns the=20
Isthmus of Chignecto, and states that "Nova=20
Scotia wildlife could become genetically=20
endangered unless animals can continue to migrate=20
through the Isthmus of Chignecto and mix with=20
their New Brunswick counterparts." That wIldlife=20
corridors ensure genetic diversity etc. is a=20
familiar enough idea, but I too was surprised by=20
the statement by Bob Bancroft that "even bats=20
need such a link because research has shown that=20
they will not fly over clearcuts."
My curiosity was piqued by David's=20
earlier remark, so I did a little digging and=20
found there is a growing interest in studies that=20
compare habitat selection by bats in various=20
forest types, and how bats may be affected by=20
timber management practices. Partial thinning in=20
forests doesn't seem to diminish bat numbers, and=20
is in fact attractive; insect abundance and=20
diversity increases in the open patches, and it=20
easier for the bats to manoeuvre through the=20
trees. However while clearcuts may provide good=20
foraging areas, the absence of roosting sites=20
makes them less attractive as breeding areas. So=20
I can see that large clearcuts might be an=20
impediment to wider species distribution and free movement of populations.
If you want to read more, there are a=20
lot of articles on the web. The proceedings of a=20
conference sponsored by the British Columbia=20
Ministry of Forests, Bats and Forests Symposium =AD=20
October 19=9621, 1995, online at=20
http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfd/pubs/Docs/Wp/Wp23.htm , is quite wide-ranging.
Cheers,
Patricia L. Chalmers
Halifax
At 08:59 PM 30/11/2008, Dave Webster wrote:
>Dear All, Nov 30, 2008
> According to an aside in a newspaper=20
> article (Protect wildlife...urges; Chr. Hrld.,=20
> Nov 30, p. A3) bats...will not fly over clearcuts.
>
> Really ? I wonder if these are recent=20
> clearcuts and thus relatively insect free as=20
> opposed to clearcuts with significant rotting wood and associated Diptera.
>
> I recall having seen only one bat in=20
> woodland as opposed to thousands in habitats=20
> other than woodland; running water, meadows & lawns.
--=====================_4078421==.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<html>
<body>
Hi there,<br><br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>I have
been catching up on the newspapers and just got around to reading the
same article which David Webster mentioned, "Protect wildlife
routes, biologist urges". Most of the article concerns
the Isthmus of Chignecto, and states that "Nova Scotia wildlife
could become genetically endangered unless animals can continue to
migrate through the Isthmus of Chignecto and mix with their New Brunswick
counterparts." That wIldlife corridors ensure genetic
diversity etc. is a familiar enough idea, but I too was surprised
by the statement by Bob Bancroft that "even bats need such a link
because research has shown that they will not fly over
clearcuts." <br><br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>My
curiosity was piqued by David's earlier remark, so I did a little digging
and found there is a growing interest in studies that compare habitat
selection by bats in various forest types, and how bats may be affected
by timber management practices. Partial thinning in forests doesn't
seem to diminish bat numbers, and is in fact attractive; insect abundance
and diversity increases in the open patches, and it easier for the bats
to manoeuvre through the trees. However while clearcuts may provide
good foraging areas, the absence of roosting sites makes them less
attractive as breeding areas. So I can see that large
clearcuts might be an impediment to wider species distribution and free
movement of populations. <br><br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>If you
want to read more, there are a lot of articles on the web. The
proceedings of a conference sponsored by the British Columbia Ministry of
Forests, <u>Bats and Forests Symposium =AD October 19=9621, 1995</u>, online
at
<a href=3D"http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfd/pubs/Docs/Wp/Wp23.htm" eudora=3D"aut=
ourl">
http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfd/pubs/Docs/Wp/Wp23.htm</a> , is quite
wide-ranging.<br><br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>Cheers,<br>
<br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>Patricia
L. Chalmers<br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>Halifax<br>
<br>
<br><br>
At 08:59 PM 30/11/2008, <font size=3D2>Dave Webster</font> wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=3Dcite class=3Dcite cite=3D""><font size=3D2>Dear
All,
Nov 30, 2008<br>
According to an aside in a newspaper article (Protect
wildlife...urges; Chr. Hrld., Nov 30, p. A3) bats...will not fly over
clearcuts.<br>
</font> <br>
<font size=3D2> Really ? I wonder if these are recent
clearcuts and thus relatively insect free as opposed to clearcuts with
significant rotting wood and associated Diptera. <br>
</font> <br>
<font size=3D2> I recall having seen only one bat in
woodland as opposed to thousands in habitats other than woodland; running
water, meadows & lawns.</font></blockquote></body>
</html>
--=====================_4078421==.ALT--
next message in archive
no next message in thread
previous message in archive
Index of Subjects