Samuel L. Skalak’s research while affiliated with University of Regina and other places

What is this page?


This page lists works of an author who doesn't have a ResearchGate profile or hasn't added the works to their profile yet. It is automatically generated from public (personal) data to further our legitimate goal of comprehensive and accurate scientific recordkeeping. If you are this author and want this page removed, please let us know.

Publications (2)


Figure 1: Box-and-whisker plot showing mean (bold), median and 25th and 75th percentiles of the number of species detected per night from June 2008–August 2009. Vertical lines represent range from 10–90%. Data are cumulative averages of data from detectors that operated largely continuously between June 2008 and August 2009 (detectors 1–7, n nights = 2395).
Table 1 . Summary of identified echolocation events by season
Figure 2: Mean species richness in relation to time after sunset during summer (solid circles), fall (open circles), winter (solid triangles) and spring (open triangles). Summers (2008: n nights = 437, n detectors = 7; 2009: n nights = 624, n detectors = 9), fall (n nights = 637, n detectors = 7), winter (n nights = 606, n detectors = 7) and spring (n nights = 293, n detectors = 6) months from June 2008 to August 2009.
Table 2 . Per cent of detector locations various species were detected at by season
Sampling period, size and duration influence measures of bat species richness from acoustic surveys
  • Article
  • Full-text available

June 2012

·

800 Reads

·

112 Citations

Samuel L. Skalak

·

Richard E. Sherwin

·

1. Understanding animal ecology depends on an ability to accurately inventory species. However, there are few quantitative data available, which allow for an assessment of the effectiveness of acoustic sampling methods for determining bat species richness. 2. We assessed inventory efficiency, defined as the percentage of species detected per survey effort, using data from 7 to 9 Anabat bat detectors deployed concurrently between June 2008 and August 2009 at fixed locations. We examined sampling period and time of night to calculate the minimum duration of sampling effort required to detect the greatest percentage of species. 3. In all cases, multiple survey nights at multiple sampling locations were necessary to detect higher levels of species richness using acoustic detectors. Additionally, continuous sampling throughout the night was important for detecting more species, especially during summer, fall and spring months. 4. Species accumulation curves indicated that relatively few nights were needed to detect ‘ common ’ species at various sampling locations (2–5 nights on average); however, longer sample periods (>45 nights) were necessary to detect ‘ rare ’ species at some sampling locations. Accumulation curves indicated that the number of detector locations positively influenced the number of species detected during surveys periods. 5. A priori knowledge of sampling effort is fundamental for designing biologically robust inventories. We make recommendations for improving the efficiency of acoustic surveys using analytical methods that are broadly applicable to a range of survey methods and taxa.

Download

Citations (1)


... Recordings were performed for four nights at each of the subsites (total of 16 recording nights per site) continuously from sunset to sunrise. Our study duration was sufficient to sample the bat community according to previous studies (Skalak et al., 2012;Moir et al., 2020). ...

Reference:

Anthropogenic Effects on Bat Activity and Diversity along the Eerste River, South Africa
Sampling period, size and duration influence measures of bat species richness from acoustic surveys