Content uploaded by Sumit Dookia
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Sumit Dookia on Feb 08, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
Heritage 2019, 2, 553–567; doi:10.3390/heritage2010036 www.mdpi.com/journal/heritage
Communication
The Monumental Mistake of Evicting Bats from
Archaeological Sites—A Reflection from New Delhi
Ravi Umadi 1, Sumit Dookia 2 and Jens Rydell 3,*
1 Independent Researcher, Basavanagar Road, Kagwad, Karnataka 591223, India; ravisumadi@gmail.com
2 University School of Environment Management, Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University, Sector 16 C,
Dwarka, Delhi 110078, India; sumitdookia@gmail.com
3 Biology Department, Lund University, 223 62 Lund, Sweden
* Correspondence: jens.rydell@telia.com; Tel.:+46-705181431
Received: 14 January 2019; Accepted: 03 February 2019; Published: 8 February 2019
Abstract: We highlight the importance of an integrated management policy for
archaeological monuments and the insect-eating bats that roost inside them. We
refer to India, but the issue is general and of worldwide significance. There is
increasing evidence that the ecosystem services provided by insect-eating bats in
agricultural fields are of vital economic importance, which is likely to increase as
chemical pest-control methods become inefficient due to evolving multi-resistance
in insects. We visited five archaeological sites in the city of New Delhi. We found
bats at all five locations, and three of them harbored large colonies (many
thousands) of mouse-tailed bats and tomb bats. These bats likely disperse over
extensive areas to feed, including agricultural fields in the vicinity and beyond. All
insect-eating bats should be protected and properly managed as a valuable
resource at the archaeological sites where they occur. We firmly believe that “fear”
of bats can be turned into curiosity by means of education and that their presence
should instead enhance the value of the sites. We suggest some means to protect
the bats roosting inside the buildings, while mitigating potential conflicts with
archaeological and touristic interests.
Keywords: agroecology; archaeological conservation; biological control; heritage;
ecosystem service; pest control
1. Introduction
Effective solutions to environmental issues often require constructive
interactions between experts from different scientific disciplines. Indeed,
cooperation across subject boundaries may give rise to new ideas, and it is in the
interface between subjects that new fields of research may sprout. In this article, we
aim to stimulate such interdisciplinary interactions, specifically involving
archaeologists, conservation biologists, and perhaps also agricultural scientists. The
root of the issue is the potential conflict arising because of the dualism inherent in
the human perception of bats; unappreciated, feared, or even hated on one side, but
Heritage 2019, 2, 36 554
high-profile conservation targets of economic significance on the other. In this note,
we call for an integrated management policy for ancient monuments and the bats
that live inside them.
There are several thousand historical temples and monuments in India, mostly
administrated by the Archaeological Survey of India [1]. Many of them are currently
being restored, and more are likely to undergo restoration efforts, partly to facilitate
the development of tourism—a rapidly growing sector in India [2]. The restoration
and preservation projects require the consideration of threats from different angles,
such as the chemical and biological degradation of the buildings [3], safety issues,
the presence of drug abuse, litter, and, last but not least, deliberate destruction and
vandalism [4–6]. In this note, we concentrate on the relationship between buildings
and bats.
Archaeological sites are essential parts of the cultural heritage of India and the
world, but we must not ignore the fact that they also harbor wild animals, notably
bats, which are valuable parts of the natural heritage. Buildings and the resident bats
should be managed wisely and sustainably for the benefit of both, and bats should
not be evicted or eradicated from archaeological sites without earnest consideration.
As we shall see, there is increasing evidence that bats are of considerable economic
value, because they increase agricultural yields by feeding on pest insects [7,8].
In 1962, bats were reported to be “extremely common” in India, particularly in
natural or artificial ”caves”, including dark corners of old monuments and temples
[9–11]. However, things may have changed since 1962, and there is now an urgent
need of a comprehensive update of the bat populations in India. Nevertheless, the
temples and monuments probably still house many bats, which may remove tons of
insects each night over adjacent and distant agricultural fields. Bats are incredibly
efficient consumers of flying insects [12,13] and can control and suppress
populations of pests [14,15]. To find food, some bats, including those considered in
this paper, hunt socially [16] and communicate over long distances [17–19], thereby
rapidly congregating at rich feeding sites [20,21], for example, where migrations or
outbreaks of pest insects occur [22,23].
Little research on this topic has been conducted in India, and indeed, bats remain
severely understudied and undervalued in this country. Also, they remain
essentially unprotected in India, which is a cause of grave concern in itself. By this
note, we attempt to highlight the central role of ancient monuments for the bat
populations therein, the pest control function maintained by bats in agriculture, and
ultimately, the sustainability of food production in India. We emphasize that the
ideas outlined here are based on evidence from other countries. They are speculative
with respect to India, only because relevant studies have not been carried out.
2. The Sites
During a week in October 2018, we visited five archaeological sites in central
New Delhi that still have bat colonies (Table 1). The visits were made in the daytime,
Heritage 2019, 2, 36 555
with the principal purpose of watching and photographing the resident bats in their
natural habitat.
Table 1. The archaeological sites visited in October 2018 and some basic information about them.
Site Type of
Building Location Time of
Construction
Comments on
Renovation, Lighting,
etc.
References
Agrasen ki
Baoli Stepwell
Connaught
Place, New
Delhi
14th century None [24,25]
Feroz Shah
Kotla
Mughal fort,
mosque,
stepwell
Vikram Nagar,
New Delhi 14th century
Extensive outdoor
lighting, many visitors,
mosque still used
[26,27]
Qutb Minar
Complex
Mughal fort,
minar,
mosque
Mehrauli, New
Delhi
1192–1316 and
later
Extensive renovation,
many outdoor lights,
intensive tourism
[26,28,29]
Zafar
Mahal Mughal fort Mehrauli, New
Delhi
18th and 19th
centuries None [26,30]
Khirki
Mosque
Mughal fort,
mosque
Malviya Nagar,
New Delhi 14th century Renovation ongoing [25,31,32]
One of our sites was the Agrasen ki Baoli, a stepwell, constructed in the 14th
century to store rainwater [24]. The other four sites were mosques or forts,
constructed under Mughal power during either the Delhi Sultanate (1206–1526) or
the subsequent Mughal Empire (1565–1857) [25,26].
The Feroz Shah Kotla fortress mostly consists of ruins but includes Jami Masjid,
an old mosque which is still in use [27]. Many vaults and chambers inside the
mosque are intact and are frequented by religious people on a large scale on
Thursdays for the performance of rituals. [27]. There were several thousand
Thursday visitors at the mosque at the time of our first visit, and hundreds of
worshippers shared the space inside the vaults and chambers with thousands of
bats.
The Qutb Minar complex is also a famous tourist spot and, in fact, the most
visited archaeological site in India [28]. It is also a designated UNESCO World
Heritage site [29]. The 74-m-high Qutb Minar and the associated archaeological
complex include the beautiful Alai Darwaza Gate, the Tomb of Iltutmish, and the
Quwwatul Islam, which is the oldest mosque in India, then constructed with reused
material from several Brahman temples [29]. The entire complex has recently been
thoroughly renovated and extensively fitted with outdoor lights for esthetic and
safety purposes. Thereby, it has become quite unfriendly to bats, but some tomb bats
still roost in the unlit chambers (Figure 1).
Heritage 2019, 2, 36 556
Figure 1. A small group of naked-backed tomb bats (Taphozous nudiventris) in a chamber in Qutb
Minar area in New Delhi. Photo by J. Rydell 2018.
The remaining two sites are also open to tourists, but the number of visitors is
much lower. The Zafar Mahal monument was built during the 18th and 19th
centuries, toward the end of the Mughal Empire [30]. This monument has become
entirely enveloped by the surrounding city concrete and traffic over the years.
However, there is still room for many bats in several dark chambers and vaults
remaining inside (Figure 2). The site is so far untouched by recent renovation
attempts, and there are no esthetic lights installed in the premises. However, urban
lighting is prevalent in the surroundings.
Figure 2. A group of lesser mouse-tailed bats (Rhinopoma hardwickii) in Zafar Mahal in New Delhi.
Photo by J. Rydell 2018.
Heritage 2019, 2, 36 557
Finally, the Khirki Mosque, one of the most important Mughal monuments
[31,32], has also become encroached by the growing city, but, fortunately, there are
no lights installed in the fort. It harbors many bats of at least four different species,
most of them roosting in the dark chambers at ground level, which can be accessed
from the outside (Figure 3). Renovation work is ongoing, and it seems likely that it
will affect the colony of fruit bats that reside in the main part of the mosque, but
hopefully, the chambers at the ground level, where most of the insectivorous bats
live, will escape this fate.
Figure 3. A greater mouse-tailed bat (Rhinopoma microphyllum) in a dark chamber in the Khirki
Mosque, New Delhi. Photo by J. Rydell 2018.
A common factor which made these forts attractive to bats is the presence of
several dark and undisturbed vaults or chambers. Smaller groups of bats are usually
less selective and were also found in more exposed sites. Darkness is an essential
habitat feature for bats, particularly at the roost, because it is their principal
protection against predation [33]. Proximity to good feeding sites is another
important feature of a good bat roost. Although the forts are all located in urban
settings, this has not always been the case, and the distances to the nearest
agricultural fields, where the bats may feed, are no more than 2–5 km, a distance
that they cover each night easily.
The mouse-tailed bats roosting in the vaults of Feroz Shah Kotla mosque showed
a surprising tolerance to visitors even at close range, at least as long as they were
ignored by the crowd. This suggests that the bats are seldom harassed in this place.
Indeed, it was quite clear that they were tolerated by the crowd and considered as a
natural feature of the place. In contrast, the bats reacted defensively to our torches
and cameras, a situation they were not accustomed to (Figure 4).
Heritage 2019, 2, 36 558
Figure 4. Part of a colony of greater mouse-tailed bats (R. microphyllum) in the Feroz Shah Kotla
mosque in New Delhi. The tight clustering is a defensive behavior in response to our disturbance with
torch and camera. Interestingly, the bats never responded in this way to the crowd of worshippers
just a meter or two away. Photo by J. Rydell 2018.
3. The Bats
Bats were found in all the visited sites, although their numbers varied,
depending on the availability of undisturbed dark spaces for roosting. At each site,
we did a quick survey to record the species present and obtain a rough idea of their
numbers (Table 2).
Table 2. The sites visited and the bat species observed during a one-week field trip to some New Delhi
monuments in October 2018.
Site Estimated no. of
Bats Species Roosting Location
Agrasen Ki Baoli 10,000+ Fruit bats Rousettus leschenaulti High in the ceiling
Zafar Mahul 1000+
100+
Mouse-tailed bats
Tomb bats
Rhinopoma spp.
T. nudiventris
In dark vaults
Small groups in vaults
Feroz Shah Kotla
Mosque
10,000+
100+
Mouse-tailed bats
Tomb bats
Rhinopoma spp.
T. nudiventris
In dark vaults
Small groups in vaults
Khirki Mosque
1000+
10,000+
10+
Fruit bats
Mouse-tailed bats
Tomb bats
R. leschenaulti
Rhinopoma spp.
T. nudiventris
In the ceiling
In dark vaults
Small groups in vaults
Qutb Minar Complex 100+ Tomb bats T. nudiventris Small groups in vaults, a bigger
group in the tower
Although there were many individual bats at the sites, they belonged to no more
than four species (Table 2), which is just a tiny fraction of the over 100 bat species
known from the Indian subcontinent [34]. The sample represents species that are
relatively tolerant to the presence of people and perhaps other forms of disturbance.
Heritage 2019, 2, 36 559
The mouse-tailed bats, of which we found two species, the greater Rhinopoma
microphyllum and the lesser Rhinopoma hardwickii, live either in small groups in
relatively exposed corners or in big groups (several thousand individuals) in dark
vaults outside the main tourist areas. These bats were by far the most numerous. The
larger naked-backed tomb bats (Taphozous nudiventris) typically roosted in small
groups in cracks and relatively exposed positions on the walls and ceilings in vaults
and rooms. There was also a relatively big colony of what we think was this species,
emerging from a high position (ca. 40–50 m) on the Qutb Minar in the evening.
In Table 2 we provide rough estimates of the number of individuals of each
species that we observed. The three insectivorous species are all specialized for a
nocturnal life in the free aerospace, where they are seldom seen from the ground.
The mouse-tailed bats have somewhat short and blunt wings and are weak but
persistent fliers [9]. They usually feed at high altitude and 10 km or more from the
roost [16]. In contrast, the tomb bats have longer and narrower wings, which
facilitate faster and straighter flight, and they probably fly much further [35].
Although they find their insect food using echolocation, just as most other bats, they
use vision to navigate over long distances [36].
Two of the sites that we visited also harbored big colonies of fruit bats, Rousettus
leschenaulti, (Table 2). Fruit bats are important as seed dispersers and pollinators of
fruiting trees and offer a host of ecological services [37] but they sometimes raise
concern in tourist sites because of their noisy presence and odorous excretions.
However, in this paper, we will not discuss the fruit bats any further. It is the insect-
eating bats that are the focus of this note.
4. Insect Pests of Rice
Rice (Oryza sativa) is by far the most important crop in Asia and the world, and
we will use it as an illustrative example. However, the pest situation is comparable
for all major crops in India, including wheat (Triticum aestivum), cotton (Gossypium
hirsutum), soybean (Glycine max), potatoes (Solanum tuberosum), sugarcane
(Zaccharum officinarum), and maize (Zea mays) [38].
Pest outbreaks are a significant constraint on rice production in India and
elsewhere [39,40]. The industrial pesticide production and application on cash crops
in India is poorly regulated [41], and, at the same time, the use of chemical pesticides
in agriculture has dramatically increased over the last decades [42]. The adverse
effects of pesticide usage in food crops have been well documented [43], and it is
evident that such methods of pest control are unsustainable [44]. In place of chemical
pest control agents, other, mostly biological, means are currently being developed,
such as mating disruption by use of pheromones or sterile males [45,46]. However,
such biological agents represent only a minor proportion of the options available on
the market at present [47]. In light of this, the viability of natural pest control agents,
such as bats [48,49], will become more and more critical as multi-resistant pests
evolve, and chemical control becomes increasingly inefficient.
Heritage 2019, 2, 36 560
The economic value of the ecosystem service rendered by bats by feeding on
pest insects has never been estimated with respect to India. However, there is
growing evidence from other parts of the world, including southern USA [50–52],
Southeast Asia [53], the Mediterranean [54], China [55], and Madagascar [56], that
bats are major consumers of pest insects with a potential or proven capacity to
reduce or control their populations. The sustainability aspect of rice cultivation and
food security directly attributable to the conservation of bats is already evident in
Southeast Asia [57]. It is noteworthy that such studies make financial projections that
closely follow the current economic trends and, hence, should serve as a basis for
the economics of conservation policies.
There are about 20 species of insects regarded as major pests of rice in India
(Table 3). The adult stages of most of them are active at night or dusk and dawn, and
this is usually also the time when their migratory flights take place [58]. This means
that the pests are potential food for bats, which are active and search for food at the
same time of the day. Indeed, some of the pests, including the most problematic of
them all, the brown planthopper (Nilaparvata lugens) and the white-backed
planthopper (Sogatella furcifer) are the most important food sources for insectivorous
bats feeding over paddy fields in Thailand [59,60] and presumably elsewhere as
well.
Table 3. Some of the most important pests of rice in India and notes on the life habits of the adult
stage. The species list is partly adopted from reference [61]. Species marked * are known to be
consumed extensively by bats in Thailand (wrinkle-lipped free-tailed bat, Chaerephon plicatus
[53,60]).
Major Insect Pests of Rice in India Migratory Outbreak
Species Flies at Night Reference
Hemiptera Brown planthopper (Nilaparvata lugens) Yes* Yes [62,59]
White-backed planthopper (Sogatella
furcifer) Yes* Yes [63]
Green leafhopper (Nephotettix virescens) Yes [64]
Green leafhopper (Nephotettix nigropictus) Yes [63]
Zigzag leafhopper (Recilia dorsalis) Yes [65]
Mealy bug (Brevennia rehi) No No(?) [65]
Orthoptera Rice grasshopper (Hieroglyphus banian) Yes No [66]
Mole cricket (Gryllus orientalis) No Yes [65]
Diptera Rice gall midge (Orseolia oryzae) Yes [67]
Lepidoptera Yellow stem borer (Scirpophaga incertulas) Yes [68]
Dark-headed stem borer (Chilo polychrysus) Yes [69]
Striped stem borer (Chilo suppressalis) Yes [63]
Pink stem borer (Sesamia inferens) Yes [66]
Heritage 2019, 2, 36 561
Rice leaf folder (Cnaphalocrocis medinalis) Yes Yes [70]
Armyworm (Spodoptera mauritia) Yes Yes [71]
Rice caseworm (Nymphula depunctalis) Yes [66]
Coleoptera Rice hispa (Dicladispa armigera) Yes Yes [65]
4. Discussion
Will it be practically possible to conserve and manage the tourists and the old
buildings as well as the bats therein in a sustainable and non-destructive way? We
certainly think so and, indeed, we believe that the bats themselves may even
enhance the touristic quality and excitement [72,73]. For example, an evening exodus
of thousands of bats from an old monument is a spectacular sight, which probably
would be appreciated by many visitors [74], particularly if the show is combined
with high-quality information about the ecological importance of the building and
the bats. And what could be a better setting for an evening lecture or a public bat-
watch excursion than an Indian 14th century Mughal monument?
The presence of many bats residing in old buildings sometimes raises concern
because of known or suspected weathering effects on the buildings. Degradation
and staining of monuments due to bat excretions certainly occur, but serious
weathering effects are unusual and depend critically on the chemical composition of
the building material and the excretions [75,76]. Decaying bat guano is usually acidic
[77] and therefore affects some limestones and sandstones [75]. However, Indian
monuments and temples are constructed from many different materials, depending
on the local geology and, although most rocks may be stained, they are not degraded
by bat guano or urine [76]. It is essential that the eviction of bats be restricted to cases
where it is considered absolutely necessary to prevent irreversible damage, on the
basis of authentic scientific information [78].
Large accumulations of bat guano and urine from bats sometimes have a strong
smell, and this could indeed repel visitors from compartments used by bats. More
seriously, however, dry accumulations of feces can lead to allergic reactions [79] or
histoplasmosis [80] infections in humans, particularly if the infected air is inhaled
frequently. Hence, it may be wise to remove accumulated bat feces (while using a
breathing mask) now and then from spots frequented by tourists, to minimize the
smell and the health risk. For the protection of tourists and bats, visitors should be
discouraged from entering poorly ventilated compartments with large bat colonies
(thousands of bats) and accumulations of feces. If necessary, such compartments can
be gated to give bats free passage in and out, while stopping humans from entering.
How such bat gates should be designed and constructed is critically important and
is described in [81]. Gating could be a suitable measure at some of the ground level
compartments of the Khirki mosque, for example (Figure 3).
There is a rich folklore about bats in India, just as in Europe and elsewhere [82],
generally depicting bats in a bad light, and this often results in a “fear” of bats [83].
However, in contrast to Europe, there is usually no religious mandate to persecute
Heritage 2019, 2, 36 562
bats in India, where particularly the Hindu philosophy rather emphasizes the value
of life in harmony with nature [84]. In the Feroz Shah Kotla, we observed what
seemed to be a tight but peaceful coexistence of bats and humans, mainly Muslims
in this case, which must have persisted for a very long time, perhaps for centuries.
We do not believe that the average tourist, whether Indian or European, is afraid of
bats in the strict sense, but it is very important that this sensitive issue is handled
with due respect [83]. European bats, including those in churches and houses, are
now seen in a much more positive light than they were just a decade or two ago,
thanks to education and enlightenment activities in combination with legal
protection. In the case of bats, “fear” is partly an expression of curiosity and
fascination, which can be turned into excitement by means of education, perhaps
through cooperation with bat scientists. In our view, graffiti and other signs of
vandalism [4,5], in combination with an accumulation of plastic bags and other
garbage [6] in and around the buildings, almost certainly affect the appeal of the
place. Signaling neglect and poor management, the piles of rubbish probably have a
much stronger repelling effect on tourists than the presence of bats.
There are very few studies where the fates of bat colonies have been monitored
at archaeological sites, following renovations and light installations. However, a
recently published long-term (30 years) study of bat colonies (brown long-eared
bats, Plecotus auritus) in 115 historical churches in Sweden [85] shows that major
renovation work may cause the disappearance of bats, but more likely they will be
back when conditions return to normal after the renovation. More importantly, the
installation of esthetic and/or safety lights, usually done simultaneously with the
renovations, is a more serious problem, particularly if the bats´ roost and emergence
sites become illuminated. In such cases, the bats usually disappear slowly but
permanently, most likely because of starvation [86]. Hence, while renovation work
is not necessarily harmful to resident bats in the long run if done with care, the
installation of lights often has a catastrophic effect on the bat population.
Reported cases of declining populations of wrinkle-lipped free-tailed bats
(Chaerephon plicatus) roosting in Buddhist temple caves in Cambodia are quite
alarming, although the reason behind the decline remains unknown [87]. One
possible explanation is that the use of pesticides in rice fields, where the bats feed,
has affected their reproduction and survival over a long time. Bats eat a lot and often
live for decades and, if the prey on insects containing pesticides, they may
accumulate dangerous concentrations of such chemicals [88]. The scenario predicted
by this hypothesis is worrying indeed, as it probably means a severe decline in the
ecosystem service now provided by bats.
5. Conclusion
There is a long line of reasoning between the management of old monuments in
Delhi for the facilitation of tourism, the welfare of the roosting bats therein, and their
presumed pest control service over the surrounding agricultural fields. Bats are
living components of old monuments, where they may have roosted for centuries,
Heritage 2019, 2, 36 563
and should be treated as such whenever possible. The ecosystem service they
provide by feeding on agricultural pests is considerable (worth 3.7 billion dollars
annually in the USA [7]; no figure exists for India). In comparison, the budget for the
Archaeological Survey of India for 2018 was 140 million dollars [1,2], which is only
a small fraction of the presumed value of the bats. Darkness is the bats´ principal
protection against predators [89]. We emphasize that lights must be used
restrictively and with great care [90]. Clearly, the pivotal role of old monuments
harboring bats in tourism, sustainable farming, food safety, and the economic well-
being of the society cannot be ignored considering the evidence at hand.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization and field observations: All authors; first draft: J.R.; reviewing,
editing, and approval: All authors.
Funding: We had no external funding for this project. However, we acknowledge the Ekman Foundations for
general support of studies on the environmental effects of light pollution (to J.R.).
Acknowledgments: We appreciate the help of Rajlakshmi Jha for the information about roosting sites of bats
in Delhi monuments and of Johan Eklöf for advice and comments on the manuscript. R.U. extends his
gratitude to Subhas and Geeta Umadi for tolerance and support, and to Kiko for moral support during the
preparation of this manuscript.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1. Archaeological Survey of India. Available online: http://asi.nic.in/about-us/ (accessed on 31 December
2018).
2. Government of India. India tourism statistics at a glance2018. Available online:
http://tourism.gov.in/sites/default/files/Other/ITS_Glance_2018_Eng_Version_for_Mail.pdf (accessed on
26 January 2019).
3. Anonymous. Revenue generated through entry fee for ticketed monuments of ASI trebles in three years.
Available online: https://www.business-standard.com/article/news-cm/revenue-generated-through-entry-
fee-for-ticketed-monuments-of-asi-trebles-in-three-years-118121800761_1.html (accessed on 26 January
2019).
4. Verma, R. 13 more monuments may be ticketed to stop vandals. Available online:
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/delhi/13-more-monuments-may-be-ticketed-to-stop-
vandals/articleshow/7892253.cms (accessed on 24 January 2019).
5. Divya, A. Amid encroachments and vandalism, 18th century Zafar Mahal in sorry state. Available online:
https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/delhi/amid-encroachments-and-vandalism-18th-century-zafar-
mahal-in-sorry-state-2767644/ (accessed on 24 January 2019).
6. Anonymous. Running short of attendants, protected monuments in city fall prey to vandals. Available
online: https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/delhi/running-short-of-attendants-protected-monuments-
in-city-fall-prey-to-vandals/ (accessed on 24 January 2019).
7. Boyles, J.G.; Cryan, P.M.; McCracken, G.F.; Kunz, T.H. Economic importance of bats in agriculture. Science
2011, 332, 41–42, doi:10.1126/science.1201366
8. Maas, B.; Cough, Y.; Tscharntke, T. Bats and birds increase crop yield in tropical agroforestry landscapes.
Ecol. Lett. 2013, 16, 1480–1487.
9. Brosset, A. The bats of Central and Western India part I. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 1962, 59, 2–61.
10. Brosset, A. The bats of Central and Western India part II. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 1962, 59, 583–625.
11. Brosset, A. The bats of Central and Western India part III. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 1962, 59, 707–746.
12. Anonymous. Bats can pack a punch in pest control. Calif. Agric. 1998, 52, 6–7. Available online:
http://calag.ucanr.edu/Archive/?article=ca.v052n01p6b (accessed on 31 December 2018).
13. Buckhurst, A. S. Moths destroyed by a long eared bat. Entomologist 1930, 63, 238.
14. Maine, J.J.; Boyles, J.G. Bats initiate vital agroecological interactions in corn. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA 2015,
112, 12 438–12 443, doi:10.1073/pnas.1505413112
Heritage 2019, 2, 36 564
15. Maas, B.; Karp, D.S.; Bumrungsri, S.; Darras, K.; Gonthier, D.; Huang, J.C.-C.; Lindell, C.A.; Maine, J.J.;
Mestre, L.; Michel, N.L.; et al. Bird and bat predation services in tropical forests and agroforestry landscapes
Biol. Rev. 2016, 91, 1081–1101.
16. Egbert-Berg, K.; Hurme, E.R.; Greif, S.; Goldsthein, A.; Harten, L.; Herrera, M.L.G.; Flores-Martinez, J.J.;
Valdés, A.T.; Johnston, D.S.; Eitan, O.; et al. Resource ephemerality drives social foraging in bats. Curr. Biol.
2018, 28, 3667–3673, doi:10.1016/j.cub.2018.09.064
17. Barclay, R.M.R. Interindividual use of echolocation calls: Eavesdropping by bats. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 1982,
10, 271–275. Available online: www.jstor.org/stable/4599495 (accessed on 5 January 2019).
18. Gilliam, E.H. Eavesdropping by bats on the feeding buzzes of conspecifics. Can. J. Zool. 2007, 85, 795–801,
doi:10.1139/Z07-060.
19. Cvikel, N.; Egbert-Berg, K.; Levin, E.; Hurme, E.; Borissov, I.; Boonman, A.; Amichai, E.; Yovel, Y. Bats
aggregate to improve prey search but might be impaired when their density becomes too high. Curr. Biol.
2015, 25, 206–211, doi:10.1016/j.cub.2014.11.010.
20. Fenton, M.B.; Morris, G.K. Opportunistic feeding by desert bats (Myotis spp.). Can. J. Zool. 1976, 54, 526–
530, doi:10.1139/z76-059.
21. Freeman Long, R.; Simpson, T.; Ding, T.-S.; Heydon, S.; Reiul, W. Bats feed on crop pests in Sacramento
Valley. Calif. Agric. 1998, 52, 8–10, doi:10.3733/ca.v052n01p8.
22. McCracken, G.F.; Westbrook, J.K.; Eldridge, M.; Federico, P.; Kunz, T.H. Bats track and exploit changes in
insect pest populations. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e43839, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0043839.
23. Krauel, J.J.; Ratcliffe, J.M.; Westbrook, J.K.; McCracken, G.F. Brazilian free-tailed bats (Tadarida brasiliensis)
adjust foraging behaviour in response to migratory moths. Can. J. Zool. 2018, 96, 513–520, doi:10.1139/cjz-
2018-0060.
24. Anonymous. Agrasen ki Baoli. Available online: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agrasen_ki_Baoli (accessed
on 26 January 2019).
25. Mittal, J.P. History of Ancient India: From 4250 BC to 637 AD; Atlantic Publishers and Distributors: New
Delhi, India 2014; p. 320, ISBN 978-81-269-0616-1, 675.
26. Schimmel, A. The Empire of the Great Mughals; Reaktion Books: London, UK, 2004; p. 352.
27. Anonymous. Feroz Shah Kotla. Available online: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feroz_Shah_Kotla
(accessed on 4 January 2019).
28. Anonymous. Qutb Minar Complex. Available online: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qutb_Minar_complex
(accessed on 4 January 2019).
29. UNESCO World Heritage Sites. Available online: https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/233 (accessed on 31
December 2018).
30. Smith, R.V. The Delhi That No-One Knows, Zafar Mahal and Sardgha; Orient Blackswan: Hyderabad, India,
2005; pp. 11–15.
31. Welch, A.; Crane, H. The Tughluqs: Master builders of the Delhi Sultanate. Muqarnas (Brill) 1983, 1, 123–
166.
32. Peck, L. Delhi—A Thousand Years of Building; Roli Books: New Delhi, India, 2005; p. 328.
33. Kunz, T.H. Roosting ecology of bats. In Ecology of Bats. Kunz, T.H., Eds.; Springer: Boston, MA; 1982, pp.
1–55, doi:10.1007/978-1-4613-3421-7_1.
34. Bates, P.J.J.; Harrison, D.L. Bats of the Indian Subcontinent; Harrison Zoological Museum: Sevenoaks, UK,
1997; p. 258.
35. Roeleke, M.; Bumrungsri, S.; Voigt, C.C. Bats probe the aerosphere during landscape-guided altitudinal
flights. Mammal Rev. 2018, 48, 7–11, doi:10.1111/mam.12109.
36. Boonman, A.; Bar-On, Y.; Cvickel, N.; Yovel, Y. 2013. It´s not black or white—on the range of vision and
echolocation in echolocating bats. Front. Physiol. 2013, 11, 248, doi:10.3389/fphys.2013.00248.
37. Kunz, T.H.; Braun de Torrez, E.; Bauer, D.; Lobova, T.; Fleming, T.H. Ecosystem services provided by bats.
Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 2011, 1223, 1–38, doi:10.1111/j.1749-6632.2011.06004.x.
38. Oerke, E.C. Crop losses to pests. J. Agric. Sci. 2005, 144, 31, doi:10.1017/s0021859605005708.
39. Oerke, E.C. Crop Production and Crop Protection: Estimated Losses in Major Food and Cash Crops; Elsevier:
Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1994; p. 808.
40. Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations. Rice Market Monitor; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2015;
Volume 18, pp. 1–6.
Heritage 2019, 2, 36 565
41. Abhilash, P.C.; Singh, N. Pesticide use and application: An Indian scenario. J. Hazard. Mater. 2009, 165, 1–
12. doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2008.10.061.
42. Gupta, P. Pesticide exposure—Indian scene. Toxicology 2004, 198, 83–90, doi:10.1016/j.tox.2004.01.021.
43. Pimentel, D.; Acquay, H.; Biltonen, M.; Rice, P.; Silva, M.; Nelson, J.; Lipner, V.; Giordano, S.; Horowitz, A.;
D’Amore, M. Environmental and economic costs of pesticide use. Bioscience 1992, 42, 750–760,
doi:10.2307/1311994.
44. Jeyaratnam, J. Acute pesticide poisoning: A major global health problem. World Health Stat. Q 1990, 43, 139–
144.
45. Foster, S.P.; Harris, M.O. Behavioral manipulation methods for insect pest-management. Ann. Rev. Entomol.
1997, 42, 123–146, doi:10.1146/annurev.ento.42.1.123.
46. Silverstein, R.M. Pheromones: Background and potential for use in insect pest control. Science 1981, 213,
1326–1332, doi:10.1126/science.213.4514.1326.
47. Fravel, D.R. Commercialization and implementation of biocontrol. Ann. Rev. Phytopathol. 2005, 43, 337–359,
doi:10.1146/annurev.phyto.43.032904.092924.
48. Riccucci, M.; Lanza, B. Bats and insect pest control: A review. Vespertilio 2014, 17, 161–169.
49. Kasso, M.; Balakrishnan, M. Ecological and economic importance of bats (Order Chiroptera). ISRN
Biodivers. 2013, 2013, 1–9, doi:10.1155/2013/187415.
50. Cleveland, C.J.; Betke, M.; Federico, P.; Frank, J.D.; Hallman, T.G.; Horn, J.; Lopez, J.D. Jr.; McCracken, G.F.;
Medellin, R.A.; Moreno-Valdez, A.; et al. The economic value of pest control services provided by the
Brazilian free-tailed bats in south-central Texas. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2006, 4, 238–243, doi:10.1890/1540-
9295(2006)004[0238:EVOTPC]2.0.CO;2.
51. Krauel, J.J.; Ratcliffe, J.M.; Westbrook, J.K.; McCracken, G.F. Brazilian free-tailed bats (Tadarida brasiliensis)
adjust foraging behaviour in response to migratory moths. Can. J. Zool. 2018, 96, 513–520, doi:10.1139/cjz-
2018-0060.
52. Federico, P.; Hallam, T.G.; McCracken, G.F.; Purucker, S.T.; Grant, W.E.; Correa-Sandoval, A.N.;
Westbrook, J.K.; Medellin, R.A.; Cleveland, C.J.; Sansone, C.G.; et al. Brazilian free-tailed bats as insect pest
regulators in transgenic and conventional cotton crops. Ecol. Appl. 2008, 18, 826–837, doi:10.1890/07-0556.1.
53. Leelapaibul, W.; Bumrungsri, S.; Pattanawiboon, A. Diet of wrinkle-lipped free-tailed bat (Tadarida plicata
Buchannan, 1800) in central Thailand: Insectivorous bats potentially act as biological pest control agents.
Acta Chiropterol. 2005, 7, 111–119, doi:10.3161/1733-5329(2005)7[111:DOWFBT]2.0.CO;2.
54. Puig-Montserrat, X.; Torre, I.; López-Baucells, A.; Guerrieri, E.; Monti, M.M.; Ràfols-García, R.; Ferrer, X.;
Gisbert, D.; Flaquer, C. Pest control service provided by bats in Mediterranean rice paddies: Linking
agroecosystems structure to ecological functions. Mamm. Biol. 2015, 80, 237–245,
doi:10.1016/j.mambio.2015.03.008.
55. Malmqvist, E.; Jansson, S.; Zhu, S.; Li, W.; Svanberg, K.; Svanberg, S.; Rydell, J.; Song, Z.; Bood, J.;
Brydegaard, M.; et al. The bat–bird–bug battle: Daily flight activity of insects and their predators over a
rice field revealed by high-resolution Scheimpflug Lidar. R. Soc. Open Sci. 2018, 5, 172–303,
doi:10.1098/rsos.172303.
56. Kemp, J.; Lopez-Baucells, A.; Rocha, R.; Vangensteen, O.S.; Andriatafika, Z.; Nair, A.; Cabeza, M. Bats as
potential suppressors of multiple agricultural pests. A case study from Madagascar. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ.
2019, 269, 88–96, doi:10.1016/j.agee.2018.09.027.
57. Wanger, T.C.; Darras, K.; Bumrungsri, S.; Tscharntke, T.; Klein, A.M. Bat pest control contributes to food
security in Thailand. Biol. Cons. 2014, 171, 220–223, doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2014.01.030.
58. Ohkubo, N.; Kisimoto, R. Diurnal periodicity of flight behaviour of the brown planthopper, Nilaparvata
lugens STÅL, in the 4th and 5th emergence periods. Jap. J. Appl. Entomol. Zool. 1971, 15, 8–16,
doi:10.1303/jjaez.15.8.
59. Nguyen, T.N.; Ruangwiset, A.; Bumrungsri, S. Vertical stratification in foraging activity of Chaerephon
plicatus (Molossidae, Chiroptera) in central Thailand. Mamm. Biol. 2019, in press.
60. Srilopan, S.; Bumrungsri, S.; Jantarit, S. The wrinkle-lipped free-tailed bat (Chaerephon plicatus Buchannan,
1800) feeds mainly on brown planthoppers in rice fields of central Thailand. Acta Chiropterol. 2018, 20, 207–
219, doi:10.3161/15081109ACC2018.20.1.016.
61. Ul Ane, N.; Hussein, M. Diversity of insect pests in major rice growing areas of the world. J. Entomol. Zool.
Studies 2016, 4, 36–41.
Heritage 2019, 2, 36 566
62. Preap, V.; Zalucki, M.P.; Jahn, G.C. Brown planthopper outbreaks and management. Cambodian J. Agri.
2006, 7, 17–25..
63. Pathak, M.D. Ecology of rice pests. Ann. Rev. Entomol. 1968, 13, 257–294.
64. Begum, M.A.; Nur, A.; Haq, M. Abundance and species composition of rice green leafhopper (Hemiptera:
Cicadelladae) in different ecosystems. Int. J. Biosci. 2014, 4, 74–79.
65. Singh, B.B.; Singh, R. Major rice insect pests in northeastern UP. Int. J. Life Sci. Biotechn. Pharma Res. 2014, 3,
124–143.
66. Das, A.; Das, S.; Haldar, P. Effect of food plants on the growth rate and survivability of Hieroglyphus banian
(Fabricius) (Orthoptera: Acridoidea), a major paddy pest in India. Appl. Entomol. Zool. 2002, 37, 207–212.
67. Jagadeesha Kumar, B.D.; Chakravarthy, A.K.; Doddabasappa, B.; Basavaraju, B.S. Biology of the rice gall
midge, Orseolia oryzae (Wood-Mason) in southern Karnataka. Karnataka J. Agric. Sci. 2009, 22, 535–537.
68. Malhi, B.S.; Brar, D.S. Biology of yellow stem borer, Scirpophaga incertulas. J. Insect Sci. 1998, 11, 27–129.
69. Dale, D. Insect Pests of the Rice Plant—their Biology and Ecology. In: Biology and Management of Rice Insects;
Heinrichs, E.A., Ed.; IRRI: Los-Banos, Philippines 1994; pp. 363–485.
70. Fu, X.-W.; Li, C.; Feng, H.-Q.; Liu, Z.-F.; Chapman, J.W.; Reynolds, D.R.; Wu, K.M. Seasonal migration of
Cnaphalocrocis medinalis (Lepidoptera: Crambidae) over the Bohai Sea in northern China. Bull. Ent. Res. 2014,
104, 601–609, doi:10.1017/S0007485314000376.
71. Tanwar, R.K.; Prakash, A.; Panda, S.K.; Swain, N.C.; Garg, D.K.; Singh, S.P.; Kumar, S.S.; Bambawale, O.M.
Rice Swarming Caterpillar (Spodoptera Mauritia) and its Management Strategies. In Technical Bulletin 24.;
National Centre for Integrated Pest Management: New Delhi, India, 2010; p. 20.
72. Pennisi, L.A.; Holland, S.M.; Stein, T.V. Achieving bat conservation through tourism. J. Ecotourism 2009, 3,
195–207, doi:10.1080/14664200508668432.
73. Bagstad. K.J. Toursim value for mexican free-tailed bat viewing. Hum. Dim. Wildl. 2013, 18, 307–311.
doi:10.1080/10871209.2013.789573.
74. Bat Conservation International. Congress Avenue Bridge. Available online:
http://www.batcon.org/index.php/our-work/regions/usa-canada/protect-mega-populations/cab-intro
(accessed on 25 January 2019).
75. Hosono, T.; Uchida, T.; Suda, C.; Ueno, A.; Nakagawa, T. Salt weathering of sandstone at the Angkor
monuments, Cambodia: Identification of the origins of salts using sulfur and strontium isotopes. J. Archaeol.
Sci. 2006, 33, 1541–1551, doi:10.1016/j.jas.2006.01.018.
76. Feilden, B. Conservation of Historic Buildings, 3rd ed.; Routledge: London, UK, 2007; p. 404.
77. Shahack-Gross, R.; Berna, F.; Karkanas, P.; Weiner, S. Bat guano and preservation of archaeological remains
in cave sites. J. Archaeol. Sci. 2004, 31, 1259–1272.
78. Howard, J. Bats and historic buildings. The importance of making informed decisions. J. Architect. Cons.
2009, 15, 81–100, doi: 10.1080/13556207.2009.10785056.
79. Alonso, A.; Irañeta, S.G.; Rodríguez, S.M.; Scavini, L.M.; Rodríguez, S.R. Bat feces as an indoor allergen.
J. Investig. Allergol. Clin. Immunol. 1998, 8, 365–369.
80. Bartlett, P.C.; Vonbehren, L.A.; Tewari, R.P.; Martin, R.J.; Eagleton, L.; Isaac, M.J.; Kulkarni, P.S. Bats in
the belfry: An outbreak of histoplasmosis. Am. J. Public Health 1982, 72, 1369–1372.
81. Mitchell-Jones, A.J.; McLeish, A.P. (Eds). Bat Worker’s Manual, 3rd ed.; Joint Nature Conservation
Committee: Peterborough, UK., 2004; p. 178.
82. Tupinier, D. La Chauve-Souris et L’homme. L’Harmattan: Paris, France 1989; p. 218.
83. Tuttle, M.D. Fear of bats and its consequences. J. Bat Res. Cons. 2018, 10, 66–69,
doi:10.14709/BarbJ.10.1.2017.09.
84. Parashar, S. Religious Belief and Ethical Values of Rigveda: A book on Rigveda, 1st ed.; Notion Press: Chennai,
India, 2018; p. 276.
85. Rydell, J.; Eklöf, J.; Sánchez-Navarro, S. Age of enlightenment: Long-term effects of outdoor aesthetic lights
on bats in churches. R. Soc. Open Sci. 2017, 4, 1077, doi:10.1098/rsos.161077.
86. Zeale, M.R.K.; Bennitt, E.; Newson, S.; Packman, C.; Browne, W.J.; Harris, S.; Jones, G.; Stone, E.L.
Mitigating the impact of bats in historic churches: The response of Natterer’s bats Myotis nattereri to
artificial roosts and deterrence. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0146782, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.014678.
87. Furey, N.; Racey, P.; Ith, S.; Touch, V.; Cappelle, J. Reproductive ecology of wrinkle-lipped free-tailed bats
Chaerephon plicatus (Buchannan, 1800) in relation to guano production in Cambodia. Diversity (Pnom Penh)
2018, 10, 91, doi:10.3390/d10030091.
Heritage 2019, 2, 36 567
88. Thies, M.L.; Thies, K.; McBee, K. Organochlorine pesticide accumulation and genotoxicity in Mexican free-
tailed bats from Oklahoma and New Mexico. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 1996, 30, 178–87.
89. Rydell, J.; Speakman, J.R. Evolution of nocturnality in bats: Potential competitors and predators during
their early history. Biol. J. Lin. Soc. 1995, 54, 183–191.
90. Voigt, C.C.; Azam, C.; Dekker, J.; Ferguson, J.; Fritze, M.; Gazaryan, S.; Hölker, F.; Jones, G.; Leader, N.;
Lewanzik, D.; et al. Guidelines for Consideration of Bats in Outdoor Lighting Projects; UNEP: Bonn, Germany,
2018; p.67.
© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
