“Set and forget” does not work when it comes to fissure roosts carved into live trees for bats

Interest in carving cavities directly into trees to provide habitat for hollow‐dependent wildlife is rapidly growing among researchers, conservation practitioners, community groups, and land managers. Monitoring programs have shown that some of the designs and approaches used to create these structures encourage uptake by fauna. However, evidence for occupancy of “bat specific” fissure cavities is lacking even though they are already being enthusiastically installed and advocated for by the arboriculture industry. To address this, we conducted a field trial to test the efficacy of carved bat fissure cavities (carved fissures), which had entrances designed to replicate the types of natural cracks and crevices that develop in live tree stems which are commonly used by bats. We found that the entrances to all 174 of the carved fissures we installed across 83 live trees were closed by wound wood growth within 6 years of installation, while some were closed by kino (sap produced by Eucalypteae spp.) flow within as little as 3 months. During surveys conducted while entrances to the carved fissures were still open, we did not record any direct or indirect evidence of bats (or any other vertebrates) using them as roosts. These results highlight the urgent need for systematic research, encompassing a broader range of carved designs, tree species, and environmental contexts to assess whether these types of fissure cavities that are carved into live trees can actually provide habitat for bats in the medium‐ to long‐term.

[1]  S. R. Griffiths,et al.  Occupancy of chainsaw-carved hollows by an Australian arboreal mammal is influenced by cavity attributes and surrounding habitat , 2022, Forest Ecology and Management.

[2]  P. Lentini,et al.  Climate and behaviour influence thermal suitability of artificial hollows for a critically endangered mammal , 2021, Animal Conservation.

[3]  R. van der Ree,et al.  Can chainsaw carved hollows provide an effective solution to the loss of natural tree cavities for arboreal mammals? , 2021 .

[4]  A. Bennett,et al.  Roosting behaviour and the tree-hollow requirements of bats: insights from the lesser long-eared bat (Nyctophilus geoffroyi) and Gould , 2021 .

[5]  S. R. Griffiths,et al.  Spout hollow nest boxes provide a drier and less stable microclimate than natural hollows , 2021, Conservation Science and Practice.

[6]  S. R. Griffiths.  Overheating turns a bat box into a death trap , 2021 .

[7]  J. O'Keefe,et al.  Avoiding a conservation pitfall: Considering the risks of unsuitably hot bat boxes , 2021, Conservation Science and Practice.

[8]  T. Kunz,et al.  Ecology of Cavity and Foliage Roosting Bats , 2021 .

[9]  S. R. Griffiths,et al.  Flexible roost selection by Gould’s wattled bats (Chalinolobus gouldii) using bat boxes in an urban landscape , 2020, Australian Journal of Zoology.

[10]  S. Watson,et al.  Installing chainsaw‐carved hollows in medium‐sized live trees increases rates of visitation by hollow‐dependent fauna , 2020, Restoration Ecology.

[11]  P. Lentini,et al.  Nest boxes do not cause a shift in bat community composition in an urbanised landscape , 2020, Scientific Reports.

[12]  P. Macak.  Nest boxes for wildlife in Victoria: An overview of nest box distribution and use , 2020 .

[13]  B. Law,et al.  Limited use of bat boxes in a rural landscape: implications for offsetting the clearing of hollow‐bearing trees , 2019, Restoration Ecology.

[14]  B. Law,et al.  Physical and microclimate characteristics of Nyctophilus gouldi and Vespadelus vulturnus maternity-roost cavities , 2018 .

[15]  W. Sutherland,et al.  Pre‐emptive action as a measure for conserving nomadic species , 2018, The Journal of Wildlife Management.

[16]  P. Lentini,et al.  Chainsaw-Carved Cavities Better Mimic the Thermal Properties of Natural Tree Hollows than Nest Boxes and Log Hollows , 2018 .

[17]  Niels Rueegger.  Artificial tree hollow creation for cavity-using wildlife – Trialling an alternative method to that of nest boxes , 2017 .

[18]  P. Lentini,et al.  Bat boxes are not a silver bullet conservation tool , 2017 .

[19]  M. Mas,et al.  Bat boxes in urban non-native forests: a popular practice that should be reconsidered , 2017, Urban Ecosystems.

[20]  P. Lentini,et al.  Urban bat communities are affected by wetland size, quality, and pollution levels , 2016, Ecology and evolution.

[21]  Kirsty J. Park,et al.  Insectivorous Bats and Silviculture: Balancing Timber Production and Bat Conservation , 2016 .

[22]  D. Treby,et al.  The impacts of historical land-use and landscape variables on hollow-bearing trees along an urbanisation gradient , 2016 .

[23]  David L. Anderson,et al.  Review of rope‐based access methods for the forest canopy: safe and unsafe practices in published information sources and a summary of current methods , 2015 .

[24]  E. Guerrieri,et al.  Pest control service provided by bats in Mediterranean rice paddies: linking agroecosystems structure to ecological functions , 2015 .

[25]  L. Ancillotto,et al.  Sensitivity of bats to urbanization: a review , 2014, Mammalian biology = Zeitschrift fur Saugetierkunde.

[26]  D. Treby,et al.  Distribution and abundance of hollow-bearing trees in urban forest fragments. , 2015 .

[27]  A. Campanaro,et al.  The Habitat-Trees experiment: using exotic tree species as new microhabitats for the native fauna , 2014 .

[28]  Keiron Hart,et al.  Tree risk assessment manual , 2014 .

[29]  C. Flaquer,et al.  El calentamiento excesivo puede convertir las cajas-refugio en trampas letales? Could overheating turn bat boxes into death traps? , 2014 .

[30]  B. Law,et al.  Mosquito Consumption by Insectivorous Bats: Does Size Matter? , 2013, PloS one.

[31]  M. Mahony,et al.  Mangroves as maternity roosts for a colony of the rare east-coast free-tailed bat (Mormopterus norfolkensis) in south-eastern Australia , 2013, Wildlife Research.

[32]  G. McCracken,et al.  Economic Importance of Bats in Agriculture , 2011, Science.

[33]  R. Bender.  Bat roost boxes at Organ Pipes National Park, Victoria: seasonal and annual usage patterns , 2011 .

[34]  Darryl N. Jones,et al.  The use of bat boxes by insectivorous bats and other fauna in the greater Brisbane region , 2011 .

[35]  S. Cannicci,et al.  ARTIFICIAL ROOSTS FOR BATS: EDUCATION AND RESEARCH. THE "BE A BAT'S FRIEND" PROJECT OF THE NATURAL HISTORY MUSEUM OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORENCE , 2011 .

[36]  R. Goldingay,et al.  Characteristics of tree hollows used by Australian birds and bats , 2009 .

[37]  R. Baker,et al.  Squirrels: the animal answer guide , 2007 .

[38]  C. McCain.  Could temperature and water availability drive elevational species richness patterns? A global case study for bats , 2006 .

[39]  B. Raymond,et al.  Applying Network Analysis to the Conservation of Habitat Trees in Urban Environments: a Case Study from Brisbane, Australia , 2006, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[40]  R. Brigham,et al.  Tree roost selection by bats: an empirical synthesis using meta-analysis , 2005 .

[41]  J. H. Langenheim,et al.  Plant Resins: Chemistry, Evolution, Ecology, and Ethnobotany , 2003 .

[42]  D. Lindenmayer,et al.  Cavity sizes and types in Australian eucalypts from wet and dry forest types–a simple of rule of thumb for estimating size and number of cavities , 2000 .

[43]  E. Thomas Smiley,et al.  Determining Strength Loss from Decay , 1992, Arboriculture & Urban Forestry.

[44]  C. K. Copeyon.  A technique for constructing cavities for the red-cockaded woodpecker. , 1990 .

[45]  C. Tidemann,et al.  Factors Affecting Choice of Diurnal Roost Site by Tree-Hole Bats (Microchiroptera) in Southeastern Australia , 1987 .

[46]  Alex L. Shigo,et al.  Compartmentalization: A Conceptual Framework for Understanding How Trees Grow and Defend Themselves , 1984 .

[47]  Maxwell R. Jacobs,et al.  Growth habits of the Eucalypts. , 1955 .