Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Reveals roost selection and habitat use patterns in bats, highlighting conservation needs in oak forests.
Forest-dwelling bats rely heavily on cavity-bearing trees, making them sensitive to silvicultural practices that modify stand structure and microhabitat availability. This study investigated roost selection and seasonal habitat use in a Hungarian oak (Quercus frainetto) forest in northwestern Türkiye using box-transect surveys, direct cavity inspections, full-spectrum acoustic monitoring, descriptive and exploratory analyses across Hungarian oak stand types. Potential roost structures (n = 378) were recorded exclusively in degraded and high-canopy mature oak stands, which contained the largest and most structurally complex trees. Microhabitat abundance differed significantly between these stand types (Mann – Whitney U, p = 0.028), with mature stands supporting higher structural availability. Fourteen active roosts belonging to Pipistrellus nathusii, P. pipistrellus, and Nyctalus noctula were confirmed during the autumn. Across all seasons, 11 bat species were acoustically detected, although no winter activity was recorded. Exploratory analyses indicated that bat acoustic activity duration varied seasonally, with activity peaking during the summer, particularly in younger and structurally open stands. By integrating roost observations with spatial fire-risk assessment and other disturbance layers, the study identifies mature oak stands as structurally important yet spatially vulnerable habitat components within the landscape. These findings underscore the need to retain cavity-bearing trees, incorporate pre-harvest roost assessments, and align silvicultural operations with seasonal patterns of bat activity. Overall, the study provides one of the first integrated assessments of roost availability, seasonal habitat use, and spatial risk exposure for bats in Türkiye’s oak forests, offering a practical framework for integrating bat conservation into forest management planning.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ürker et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: