Biotic and abiotic factors shaping bat activity in Maryland soybean fields
Abstract Bats are important pest control agents in agriculture. Yet, the underlying fine‐scale biotic and abiotic mechanisms that drive their foraging behaviors and responses to insect outbreaks are unclear. Herbivore‐induced plant volatiles (HIPVs) can attract both invertebrate and vertebrate natur...
Main Authors: | , , , |
---|---|
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Published: |
Wiley
2023-07-01
|
Series: | Ecosphere |
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.4575 |
_version_ | 1797770716140011520 |
---|---|
author | Lauren D. Maynard W. Mark Ford John D. Parker Susan R. Whitehead |
author_facet | Lauren D. Maynard W. Mark Ford John D. Parker Susan R. Whitehead |
author_sort | Lauren D. Maynard |
collection | DOAJ |
description | Abstract Bats are important pest control agents in agriculture. Yet, the underlying fine‐scale biotic and abiotic mechanisms that drive their foraging behaviors and responses to insect outbreaks are unclear. Herbivore‐induced plant volatiles (HIPVs) can attract both invertebrate and vertebrate natural enemies that use the chemical plant cues to locate insect prey. The ability of HIPVs to attract multiple species raises the question of whether they may also be a biotic factor influencing insectivorous bat activity. Additionally, abiotic factors, such as weather conditions, can affect bat activity in agricultural settings, but little is known about how bats respond to shifting environmental conditions on short timescales in this landscape context. Using a model crop system, soybean (Glycine max), our study asked three questions: (1) Which bat species are active in eastern Maryland soybean fields? (2) Is insectivorous bat activity affected by naturally occurring soybean HIPVs and/or synthetic soybean HIPVs (indole or farnesene)? (3) How is insectivorous bat activity affected by hourly weather conditions in this landscape? In soybean fields in eastern Maryland, we created paired treatment plots: HIPV plots (damaged plants or synthetic HIPV dispensers) and control plots (undamaged plants or empty dispensers). We measured bat activity using ultrasonic recorders, summarizing hourly and nightly activity, and detected 10 total species. The most abundant species were big brown/silver‐haired bats (Eptesicus fuscus/Lasionycteris noctivagans). Bat activity did not significantly differ between control and HIPV plots in any of the three experiments. Thus, our results do not support our expectation that bats in eastern Maryland use soybean HIPVs to locate insect prey. However, bat activity did increase with increasing average hourly temperature and wind speed. This initial study of bats and HIPVs, as well as the fine‐scale examination of weather conditions on bat activity, may serve as a guide for future research on bat–plant interactions that can support the development of new strategies for sustainable pest management. |
first_indexed | 2024-03-12T21:27:12Z |
format | Article |
id | doaj.art-00a56310a79a4809b6051acbec09759b |
institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
issn | 2150-8925 |
language | English |
last_indexed | 2024-03-12T21:27:12Z |
publishDate | 2023-07-01 |
publisher | Wiley |
record_format | Article |
series | Ecosphere |
spelling | doaj.art-00a56310a79a4809b6051acbec09759b2023-07-28T05:34:33ZengWileyEcosphere2150-89252023-07-01147n/an/a10.1002/ecs2.4575Biotic and abiotic factors shaping bat activity in Maryland soybean fieldsLauren D. Maynard0W. Mark Ford1John D. Parker2Susan R. Whitehead3Department of Biological Sciences Virginia Tech Blacksburg Virginia USAU.S. Geological Survey, Virginia Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit Blacksburg Virginia USASmithsonian Environmental Research Center Edgewater Maryland USADepartment of Biological Sciences Virginia Tech Blacksburg Virginia USAAbstract Bats are important pest control agents in agriculture. Yet, the underlying fine‐scale biotic and abiotic mechanisms that drive their foraging behaviors and responses to insect outbreaks are unclear. Herbivore‐induced plant volatiles (HIPVs) can attract both invertebrate and vertebrate natural enemies that use the chemical plant cues to locate insect prey. The ability of HIPVs to attract multiple species raises the question of whether they may also be a biotic factor influencing insectivorous bat activity. Additionally, abiotic factors, such as weather conditions, can affect bat activity in agricultural settings, but little is known about how bats respond to shifting environmental conditions on short timescales in this landscape context. Using a model crop system, soybean (Glycine max), our study asked three questions: (1) Which bat species are active in eastern Maryland soybean fields? (2) Is insectivorous bat activity affected by naturally occurring soybean HIPVs and/or synthetic soybean HIPVs (indole or farnesene)? (3) How is insectivorous bat activity affected by hourly weather conditions in this landscape? In soybean fields in eastern Maryland, we created paired treatment plots: HIPV plots (damaged plants or synthetic HIPV dispensers) and control plots (undamaged plants or empty dispensers). We measured bat activity using ultrasonic recorders, summarizing hourly and nightly activity, and detected 10 total species. The most abundant species were big brown/silver‐haired bats (Eptesicus fuscus/Lasionycteris noctivagans). Bat activity did not significantly differ between control and HIPV plots in any of the three experiments. Thus, our results do not support our expectation that bats in eastern Maryland use soybean HIPVs to locate insect prey. However, bat activity did increase with increasing average hourly temperature and wind speed. This initial study of bats and HIPVs, as well as the fine‐scale examination of weather conditions on bat activity, may serve as a guide for future research on bat–plant interactions that can support the development of new strategies for sustainable pest management.https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.4575acoustic bat samplingEptesicus fuscusherbivore‐induced plant volatilesintegrated pest managementspecies interactionsweather conditions |
spellingShingle | Lauren D. Maynard W. Mark Ford John D. Parker Susan R. Whitehead Biotic and abiotic factors shaping bat activity in Maryland soybean fields Ecosphere acoustic bat sampling Eptesicus fuscus herbivore‐induced plant volatiles integrated pest management species interactions weather conditions |
title | Biotic and abiotic factors shaping bat activity in Maryland soybean fields |
title_full | Biotic and abiotic factors shaping bat activity in Maryland soybean fields |
title_fullStr | Biotic and abiotic factors shaping bat activity in Maryland soybean fields |
title_full_unstemmed | Biotic and abiotic factors shaping bat activity in Maryland soybean fields |
title_short | Biotic and abiotic factors shaping bat activity in Maryland soybean fields |
title_sort | biotic and abiotic factors shaping bat activity in maryland soybean fields |
topic | acoustic bat sampling Eptesicus fuscus herbivore‐induced plant volatiles integrated pest management species interactions weather conditions |
url | https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.4575 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT laurendmaynard bioticandabioticfactorsshapingbatactivityinmarylandsoybeanfields AT wmarkford bioticandabioticfactorsshapingbatactivityinmarylandsoybeanfields AT johndparker bioticandabioticfactorsshapingbatactivityinmarylandsoybeanfields AT susanrwhitehead bioticandabioticfactorsshapingbatactivityinmarylandsoybeanfields |