=
Information
Note
^ìíÜçêë=W=p ¨íê~=
` bqb =ÇÉ=äDbëí=
` bqb= kçêã~åÇáÉJ`ÉåíêÉ
åçî ÉãÄÉ ê=O MMV=
íê~åëä~íÉÇ=ã~ó=OMNN
=
_~íë=~åÇ=êç~Ç=íê~åëéçêí==
áåÑê~ëíêìÅíìêÉ=
bÅçåçãáÅë=
båîáêçåãÉåí=
aÉëáÖå=
qÜêÉ~íë=~åÇ=éêÉëÉêî~íáçå=ãÉ~ëìêÉë=
VN=
Metropolitan France is home to 34 species of bat. They are all protected at national and
international level (Bonn and Berne Conventions, EUROBATS Agreement, species of
community interest).
Bats are the only mammals that are able to fly and they constitute a particularly
remarkable group of species many of which are currently endangered.
The main factors responsible for their decline are no doubt the destruction and
modification of habitats. Although collisions involving transport infrastructure are the
factor with the most visible impact on bats, habitat fragmentation probably also has major
impacts on bat populations.
In response to the need to implement conservation measures for the species present in
France, a national bat restoration plan was launched in 2007 for the period 2009-2013. In
the framework of this plan, Sétra has been asked to take stock of the available knowledge
about bats and transport infrastructure, and, based on this survey and the monitoring of
sites where collisions have occurred and systems that are designed to reduce such
impacts, to propose technical recommendations for road designers in order to ensure that
projects take account of bats.
This information note presents the principal elements of the first phase on the survey of
existing knowledge about bats and linear infrastructure. It summarizes the
information obtained in the course of our analysis of the national French and
international literature and meetings with French subject experts [1].
Contents
1.
About bats ........................................................................................................................ 2
2.
Protected endangered species .......................................................................................... 4
3.
Measures to take account of the bats in infrastructure .................................................. 8
4.
Current and future knowledge ...................................................................................... 17
Appendix ...................................................................................................................................... 21
Sétra Information notes – Economics Environment Design Serie n° 91
Bats and road transport infrastructure - Threats and preservation measures
2
1. About bats
Bats, which are the only mammals that are capable of true flight, are distinctive in that they possess genuine membranous
wings.
Thirty-four species, belonging to four families, are currently found in France, and they are all protected (see the list of
protected species and protection status in the Appendix).
Bats: a brief description
Common name
Scientific name
(a few species)
Bats
(see the list of the common name of each species in the Appendix)
Greater horseshoe bat (Rhinolophus ferrumequinum), Daubenton’s bat (Myotis daubentonii), Greater
mouse-eared bat (Myotis myotis), Soprano pipistrelle (Pipistrellus pygmaeus), Brown long-eared bat
(Plecotus auritus), European free-tailed bat (Tadarida teniotis), …
(see the complete list of scientific names in the Appendix)
Class
Mammals
Order
Chiroptera
Families
Horseshoe bats, Long-winged bats, Vesper bats, Free-tailed bats
Code Natura 2000
1302 - Mehely’s horseshoe bat (Rhinolophus mehelyi): 3 sites
1303 - Lesser horseshoe bat (Rhinolophus hipposideros): 424 sites
1304 - Greater horseshoe bat (Rhinolophus ferrumequinum): 453 sites
1305 - Mediterranean horseshoe bat (Rhinolophus euryale): 120 sites
1307 - Lesser mouse-eared bat (Myotis blythii): 142 sites
1308 - Barbastelle bat (Barbastella barbastellus): 263 sites
1310 - Common bent-wing bat (Miniopterus schreibersii): 176 sites
1316 - Long-fingered bat (Myotis capaccinii): 48 sites
1318 - Pond bat (Myotis dasycneme): 7 sites
1321 - Geoffroy’s bat (Myotis emarginatus): 337 sites
1323 - Bechstein’s bat (Myotis bechsteinii): 226 sites
1324 - Greater mouse-eared bat (Myotis myotis): 432 sites
Protection status:
Photo: Greater mouse-eared bat
(L. Arthur, MHN Bourges)
Bonn convention: Appendix II
International
Bern convention: Appendix II and III
Community
Habitats and Species Directive: Appendix II and IV
National
Ministerial decree of 23 April 2007
Description:
Bats are the only mammals that can fly and they have a very thin light wing membrane that stretches
from their flank to their arms and hands and joins their fingers to their rear legs and tail. This varies in
size according to the species. Their clawed feet lock in a sheath allowing them to hang upside down.
They have a very hairy body and the teeth of an insectivoran.
Morphology
The form of the head differs across species: the ears can vary in length (between 9 and 40 mm); the
size and shape of their auricle and snout also vary a great deal. In some species the nose is horseshoe
shaped (greater horseshoe bat, lesser horseshoe bat), and their eyes are generally small.
Size and weight
Lifespan
The different species vary in size between 20 and 50 cm and weigh between 4.5 and 50 g.
Common pipistrelles are extremely small, measuring only between 3 and 5 cm.
Relatively long, between 5 years to more than 40.
Sétra Information notes – Economics Environment Design Serie n° 91
Bats and road transport infrastructure - Threats and preservation measures
3
An annual biological cycle
Bats have a number of characteristics, which include the ability to
hibernate in the cold season. This is because insects are scarce in
winter so there is likely to be a shortage of food. Bats therefore
return to their roost and live at a lower rate (hypothermia, lower
heart rate), and draw on the reserves they have built up in the
other three seasons of the year.
At the end of winter, they leave their winter roosts and move to
their summer roosting sites. A specific characteristic of this
group of mammals is that during the summer months the males
are generally solitary, living apart from the females in separate
roosts. Females move to separate roosting sites in order to give
birth.
When the young are born and how long they are fed depends on
the species (from May to July). A sign of their limited energy
budget is that every year females produce only one, or
exceptionally two, pups. During this period, the females need to
hunt intensely and generally return to the roost several times a
night to feed their young.
Figure 1: the cycle of activities and roost changes
At the end of the summer, the young gradually learn to fly. Initially they fly with their mother, travelling further and further
from the roost as their flight improves until they disperse in the autumn.
Unlike the majority of French mammals, male and female bats share breeding roosts in the autumn in order to mate before
gradually returning to their hibernation roosts. Female gestation is temporarily halted, by delaying fertilization (storage of
sperm) or by halting the development of the embryo until the next spring.
A living area that has three principal components
While the presence of bats is frequently associated just with a winter or summer roost, bats have large territories, which are
occasionally at some distance from their resting zone. Their living area has three principal components:
□ roosts
These are of several types:
•
hibernation roosts: in winter, bats seek out areas with low constant temperatures, where the air is almost saturated; and
which are quiet before entering into a long period of lethargy. Although some species may use bridges (gaps, drains),
cavities in trees (woodland species) or attics, most bats usually spend the winter in caves, mine shafts, military forts or
cellars;
•
summer roosts: in summer, bats look for roosts that are fairly warm, in particular in order to give birth and raise their
young. Suitable sites include underground locations (mines, caves, tunnels), roofs, belfries, cracks in walls, behind
shutters, cavities in trees, under bark, in woodpiles, under bridges, or in flue liners;
•
transit roosts: in the course of the year, particularly during migration between winter and summer roosts, bats may rest
in transit roosts in much the same way as migrating birds (some species of Noctule or Nathusius’s pipistrelle can
travel 1,000 or even 2,000 km);
•
mating roosts (or swarming roosts): are the roosts were males and females group together in order to mate.
Sétra Information notes – Economics Environment Design Serie n° 91
Bats and road transport infrastructure - Threats and preservation measures
4
□ movement corridors
When they travel between different roosts or in order to go foraging, the flyways used by bats usually consist of linear
landscape structures. Thus, they generally follow lines formed by bushes and trees, hedges, watercourses, walls, fences, the
edges of forests, ditches and even sometimes roads.
Foraging areas may be at some distance from the roost and the daily distance covered varies according to the species and
the local environment (5 to 10, or even 30 km from the roost).
□ foraging areas
Deciduous forests, pastured fields and wetlands with a wealth of insect life are the favoured foraging areas for bats. They
generally tend to avoid zones of cereal monoculture. Pipistrelles, serotines and long-winged bats nevertheless take
advantage of locations where insects are attracted to urban lighting in order to feed.
A diet which is of prime ecological importance
In spite of the fact that the different species have very different ecological requirements, all French bats are predominantly
insectivorous. Their ability to consume up to 800 insects in the course of a single night’s foraging means they play a vital
role in controlling insect populations in ecosystems and are an ally in the fight against insect pests.
Nocturnal activity
One of the characteristics of this group of mammals is linked to the fact that they are active at night. They have developed a
mode of nocturnal travel and foraging that relies on echolocation (by emitting ultrasounds). This system means they can fly
and target their prey in complete darkness. Each species emits specific frequencies of ultrasounds, which in most cases, can
be used to identify it.
2. Protected endangered species
The bat restoration plan
Bats are a threatened group of species some of which have experienced a particularly alarming decline in numbers. As a
result of this vulnerability all French bat species are protected at national, European and international level.
France also wished to put in place a more comprehensive strategy for bat conservation and protection via a programme of
targeted measures. The "restoration plan for bats in metropolitan France" was thus drafted for the period 2009-2013 and
includes a series of measures that aim to maintain the population in a favourable state of conservation. Twenty-six
measures that were listed and ranked according to their level of priority were thus laid down to meet the challenges faced in
France. This plan followed on from an initial process that ran from 1999-2003 that was part of a more general European
programme based on an international agreement on bats entered into by France (EUROBATS) [33].
Two of the measures of the current restoration plan are specifically concerned with infrastructure and are coordinated by
SETRA:
•
the development and implementation of a methodology in order to consider bats during the construction and
maintenance of infrastucture and other engineering structures (measure No.6 in the plan);
•
an appraisal of the effectiveness of systems aimed at reducing the impact of transport infrastructure (action 7 in the
plan).
Sétra Information notes – Economics Environment Design Serie n° 91
Bats and road transport infrastructure - Threats and preservation measures
5
The threats
This group of species faces a very large number of threats, of which disruption caused by humans is without any doubt the
greatest. These threats include not only the destruction of roosts, the modification of habitats but also disturbance, the use
of pesticides and toxic products, collisions with road vehicles and mortality caused by wind farms.
Our lack of knowledge about bat population dynamics, the difficulty of studying them and the wide range of habitats they
frequent however make it problematic to rank the threats they face in a precise order.
The disappearance or modification of roosts and the transformation of their living areas nevertheless appear to be the two
main threats facing bats.
Transport infrastructure, one of the causes of mortality
In spite of our imperfect knowledge about the impact of a given piece of transport infrastructure on bats, in particular due to
the difficulties involved in studying this group of animals (they are nocturnal, they move in three dimensions, different
species behave in very different ways), it is nevertheless apparent that the impacts of the construction of transport
infrastructure are mainly the result of three principal factors: the destruction of foraging areas, the destruction of flyways,
and collisions.
By destroying roosts, habitats and flyways
By directly destroying roosts, clearance activities and earthworks within the right of way are probably the phases of
construction that cause the most harm to the resting, rearing and reproduction habitats of bats (underground roosts, trees,
buildings, etc.) [2, 3, 4, 5]. The level of impacts nevertheless varies a great deal according to the period at which these
works are conducted. Thus, the periods when the young are being reared or adults are wintering are particularly sensitive as
individuals are unable to escape [3].
In the same way, the destruction of natural environments such as forests, wetlands, hedged farmland or uncultivated land in
the right of way or in order to facilitate the works (tracks, stockpile areas) can lead to the destruction of foraging areas
and/or create very large new areas of open land that can constitute physical barriers preventing the movement of bats [4, 6,
12, 13].
Last, earthworks or changes in working practices generated by the project (intensification of farming activities due to land
consolidation) may also lead to the destruction of structures in the landscape that are used by bats as flyways. A break, even
a few metres long, in the linear structures that form flyways is likely to reduce or prevent access to foraging areas or more
remote roosts [6, 31].
By collision with traffic
Although it is difficult to estimate, direct destruction of bats by collision with a vehicle would appear to be the most visible
effect. For bats that fly along structures in the landscape (hedges, lines of trees, edges of woodland, etc.) and, for some lowflying species, the intersection between these landscape structures and infrastructure creates genuine blackspots.
References of the study
Type of road
Duration Observations
(month)
(number)
Km
Bodies
Species
(number) (number)
Capo et al. (2006) [7]
Ring road
24
120
2
104
15
Vaine (2005) [8]
Motorway
3
14
22
24
7
Néri-ENMP (2004) [9]
Motorway
6
9
40
44
7
Lemaire and Arthur (1998) [10]
Trunk road
16
64
1,5
19
7
Girons (1981) [11]
Trunk road
6
4
2
9
2
Table 1: mortality data from the French literature– Source: [1]
Sétra Information notes – Economics Environment Design Serie n° 91
Bats and road transport infrastructure - Threats and preservation measures
6
The findings of bat collision mortality studies are fairly variable, with mortality rates varying between 1 and 30% [12, 2,
13, 10]. In fact, it would seem that the number collisions and the affected species depend on a number of factors:
□ the period and age of the individuals
There are two peaks in collision mortality, during May and during August and September, when bats travel a great deal.
During the first period bats have just come out of hibernation and need to feed a great deal, and during the second they need
to build up their reserves before hibernating again [2, 9, 14, 15, 13].
The end of summer and the beginning of autumn also corresponds to the period of natal dispersal. Inexperienced juveniles
seem particularly vulnerable. Accidents are therefore particularly common near maternity roosts.
□ a specific type of flight for each species [15, 10]
Although all species are potentially vulnerable, horseshoe bats and long-eared bats are probably the most affected by
collisions. It would appear that their short-range sonar often leads them to fly at low heights and cross roads near ground
level.
The other species that are the most frequently affected are pipistrelles (the common pipistrelle and anthropophilic species),
long-eared bats, Daubenton’s bat, the whiskered bat and Natterer’s bat.
Noctules and Serotines generally fly at greater heights.
□ the longitudinal profile of the infrastructure [16]
The impact seems to be greater when the infrastructure is on an embankment as the bats are forced to fly higher and tend to
fly at a height near that of the structure and therefore vehicles.
□ the characteristics of the infrastructure – the density and the speed of road traffic
The collision mortality rate varies according to the speed and density of the
traffic [12]. Continuous traffic seems to be more dissuasive than isolated
vehicles and the faster the vehicle is travelling the less able the bat is to
avoid it.
In order of decreasing danger, we therefore have: fast isolated vehicles >
fast dense traffic > slow isolated vehicles > slow dense traffic.
+ dangerous
Fast isolated vehicles
Fast dense traffic
Slow isolated vehicles
- dangerous
Slow dense traffic
Small roads with low traffic also seem extremely deadly. Some experts even state that small hedge-lined roads are more
deadly than motorways for bats. As the level of traffic is low and there are plants, they are attractive for foraging while bats
keep away from dense traffic because of the noise and light.
□ bad weather [10]
Bad weather also seems to have an effect, reducing the number of accidents.
□ vehicle category
Because of the large number of night journeys they make, their size and the turbulence they generate which draws in bats,
trucks seem to be the vehicles responsible for most collisions [2, 17, 13, 14].
Sétra Information notes – Economics Environment Design Serie n° 91
Bats and road transport infrastructure - Threats and preservation measures
7
By disturbance
Although the sensitivity of bats to light varies somewhat from species to species, they seem to avoid it systematically when
not foraging [2]. Bats seem to make use of unlit areas around roads in order to cross them. Some species seem to avoid
light more than others (in particular, long-eared bats and horseshoe bats). Road lighting and headlights can also act as
visual barriers for these species [13, 18]. During foraging periods, other species such as serotines and pipistrelles
nevertheless take advantage of streetlights in order to hunt the insects that are attracted by the light they give out.
The impacts of noise and vibrations from a road are more difficult to assess but supplement those of light. The most
affected species are those that hunt by ear, by direct audition (for example the greater mouse-eared bat).
As they are nocturnal, during works bats are potentially only affected by nighttime activities. Light, odours and noise
generated by the works can also delay or discourage bats from leaving their roosts, or even in certain cases, lead them to
abandon a site. As is the case with earthworks, disturbance of this type can also create a barrier that prevents species from
moving and lead to the loss of a customary foraging area.
Construction activities can also lead to some indirect disturbances. One example is when a project improves the
accessibility of roosts to the public who then disturb the bats [18, 19].
During the maintenance and modification of existing infrastructure
The repair and maintenance of structures by strengthening, the filling of hollows (manually or by spraying), pouring
concrete into empty spaces imprison bats and lead to their death. Works of this type are also likely to create noise pollution
and vibrations in addition to modifying the thermal conditions and humidity in the roosts [2, 20, 27]. The combination of
these factors can create adverse conditions that lead the population to move.
Occasional positive impacts
The principal beneficial impact of a piece of infrastructure is due to the fact that it involves the construction of a large
number of structures some of which provide very suitable roosts for bats: the spaces between the cornice and slab, gaps,
expansion joints, drains, the inner surface of arch stones, etc. [20, 23]
Figure 2: examples of features that are suitable for bat roosts: the free space between the cornice and the
bridge deck (on the left), the gap between two stone blocks (on the right) - Source: Sétra [30]
Sétra Information notes – Economics Environment Design Serie n° 91
Bats and road transport infrastructure - Threats and preservation measures
8
3. Measures to take account of the bats in infrastructure
The following sections set out the variety of measures that are proposed in the national and, in particular, international
literature. These measures are described for information only and do not constitute recommendations that are
directly applicable in France. This is because the implementations of certain foreign practices may be incompatible with
French national constraints, in particular as regards aesthetics and road user safety. All the constraints must therefore be
considered before any measure is implemented.
The different ways bats can be taken into account in construction or
modification projects
A survey of knowledge and the organization of inventories
Whatever the type of project and the level of study, it is essential to conduct a preliminary literature search. In some cases,
this is sufficient, in particular in the case of preliminary studies. Data of two types must be collected in order to assess the
potential the zone in question has for bats: local bat data (species, presence of roosts in the surrounding areas (10-15 km))
and the types of habitats (mapping).
Based on this preliminary analysis, and in particular depending on the amount of available data on the zone, the type of
project, the habitats that it crosses and the importance of the issues (priority species or outstanding sites), the project owner
can conduct a valid evaluation of the level of the additional field studies that are required. The organization of these
inventories should therefore identify the three major types of location their environment must provide for bats, namely
roosts, flyways and foraging areas. A satisfactory inventory often takes a minimum of one year to perform.
The search for roosts
At this stage, and in the framework of a preliminary study, the search is conducted 1 km on either side of the route of the
road, which may be increased to 3 km, or even more if particularly sensitive species are present [21].
Although it is frequently possible to find out about the presence and location of the major bat roosts by conducting a
literature search, it is often necessary to look for favourable roosts in the field. The search for winter roosts and summer
roosts is given priority, which means it is usually necessary to conduct investigations during the summer (the best time
being between May and September) and during hibernation (the best period being between November and February).
As bats are likely to visit a large range of habitats (depending on their ecological characteristics, the available habitats and
the season), it will be necessary to conduct the search in various types of potentially favourable environments: ancient
deciduous forests (tree roosts), old farms, military structures, bridges, churches, barns, country homes, castles, karstic
environments or areas with a large number of underground spaces (cavities, mines, tunnels, caves and pits), etc. [18, 21, 13,
22, 3, 23, 24].
When the presence of bats is observed in the study area and their roosts are unknown, a variety of techniques can be used to
discover their cavities (See Table 2):
•
searching for roosts by following the different stages of bat journeys (this requires several surveyors) in zones which
they may potentially use a great deal (corridors, linear structures, etc.) [18, 24];
•
radiotracking: after a bat has been caught in flight and fitted with a transmitter, individuals are followed to their roosts
by radiotracking. This method is very effective but relatively costly and disrupting for the animals [24].
Sétra Information notes – Economics Environment Design Serie n° 91
Bats and road transport infrastructure - Threats and preservation measures
9
Identifying foraging areas and flyways
This stage usually follows from a preliminary landscape analysis, based in particular on aerial photographs, the location of
roosts and a field visit to identify the landscape features which are potentially favourable to the presence or transit of bats:
mature forests, large hedges and small fields, areas with a high proportion of pasture, the presence of areas of water and
watercourses (rivers, canals, lakes, pools, reservoirs, wetlands, ponds, wet grasslands, etc.)
Once the favourable zones have been identified, a study of bat activity in these areas is conducted in order to validate or
refute the initial analysis. Several methods are used to conduct this study of bat activity (see Table 2).
Measures in order to remove, mitigate or compensate for impacts
While bat conservation primarily requires the conservation of their habitats (wet valleys, grassland, forests, hedgerows,
underground environments, etc.), a large number of measures are now available to overcome the local impacts of a piece of
infrastructure.
Taking account of bats in construction projects is, however, fairly recent. In addition, most current proposals are still very
often merely recommendations, which so far have been too rarely applied. Nevertheless, the majority of authors stress that
the measures proposed below must be put in place before roosts, foraging areas or flyways are destroyed [6, 18].
Measures to remove or avoid impacts
Bat conservation first of all requires the conservation of existing environments and structures that are favourable to the
different species [6, 18, 21, 12]. To do this, it is necessary to conduct studies that are as comprehensive as possible and
select a route, which as far as possible avoids destroying or disrupting roosts, flyways and foraging areas.
Maintaining landscape structures
Very often, in order facilitate the manoeuvres of worksite machinery, a few hedges, trees and other structures are destroyed.
To avoid the accidental destruction of structures that are essential for bats (hedges, roosts) these may be marked on the site
(flags, fences, tags, etc.) [6, 13]. It is also recommended for works to be monitored by an environmental officer.
Limiting the attractiveness of roadside vegetation
The location of roadside vegetation and other structures that are likely to attract bats, such as highly trafficked bridges,
should be considered at an early stage to avoid the risk of additional collisions [18, 2, 17].
It is also necessary to prevent species that attract insects and hence indirectly bats from being planted at roadsides. For
example, the use of certain conifers is preferable to nectar plants. [13].
Some authors recommend [25, 9] leaving a strip approximately 10m wide without woody vegetation on either side of the
road.
Impact reduction methods
Mitigating the destruction of roosts
The destruction of roosts is an extreme situation, which is to be avoided as far as absolutely possible. It should be carried
out in the periods when the bats are the least vulnerable (i.e. outside birthing periods and hibernation). It is therefore
generally recommended for this to be done in autumn, after the young have dispersed and individuals have not yet started
to hibernate.
Sétra Information notes – Economics Environment Design Serie n° 91
Bats and road transport infrastructure - Threats and preservation measures
Localisation
technique
Ultrasound
detector
Automatic
systems
General principle
The device makes the
ultrasounds emitted by bats
audible to humans
Objectives
10
Advantages
- Ascertaining the presence of
bats
- Identifying species
- No individuals are captured,
- Quantifying the bats and
identifying their activities
(foraging, movement)
- Relatively easy to implement
- Identifying zones or periods
(times and seasons) when bat
activity is high
Coupling of a presence detector
(ultrasonic or infrared) with a
recording system (video camera,
- Assessing the level of bat
still camera or audio recorder)
activity
Radiotracking
Micro-transmitters are fitted to
the backs of bats and their
locations are determined by
following their route
- Species with weak sonar or
that fly very high are underrepresented.
- The direction bats are
moving is not determined
- Operates independently for a
relatively long time
- Lengthy process of
identifying species on a
computer
- Subject to vandalism
- Makes great demands on
human and material
resources
- Finding roosts
- Discovering the movements
made by individual bats
between their roosts and their
foraging areas
Disadvantages
- Provides a great wealth of data
- Ascertaining the extent of living
areas
- Detailed analysis of sensitive
sites
- Highly invasive, traumatic
for the animals
- Considerable amount of
time required for data
analysis
- Difficult to obtain
representative results
- Operates for only a brief
period
Chemical
fluorescent
capsules
Luminous capsule fitted to the
bat’s back
Light amplifier
Equipment that makes it easier
to see bats in the dark
Infrared camera
Filming in complete darkness by
lighting bats without disturbing
them
- Filming bats
- Observations do not disturb the - Very energy consuming
bats
- Expensive to purchase
Thermal camera
Recording the temperature
difference between the animal
and its environment
- Filming bats
- Observations do not disturb the
- Expensive to purchase
bats
- Monitoring movement in flight
- Observing behaviour in flight
(flyway, crossing the road),
counting individuals
- Observing bats in their roosts
- Very useful for studying
behaviour
- $Facilité de repérage limitée
- Observations do not disturb the
bats
- Relatively expensive
- Useful for roost exit counts
Table 2:Summary of location techniques for bat foraging areas and flyways – Source: [1]
Localisation
technique
General principle
Objectives
Placing a ring on the bat’s forearm
Monitoring overall displacement - Assessing distances covered
of individuals by comparing the
location of marking (capture) and
re-capture
Ringing
Transponders
Microchips implanted under the
skin which make it possible to
identify an animal with a receiver - Identifying an animal
($capture – marking – re-capture
device)
Table 2a: Additional techniques for studying bats – Source: [1]
Advantages
Disadvantages
- Highly durable marking
- Useful for evaluating
migrations and the different
roosts used by an individual in
the course of its life
- Long-term monitoring
- The bats only need to be
handled once
- Often badly carried out,
highly regulated nowadays
Sétra Information notes – Economics Environment Design Serie n° 91
Bats and road transport infrastructure - Threats and preservation measures
11
A roost can only be destroyed with a permit. This is difficult to obtain, and requires extremely strong justifications
(exemption from the prohibition of destroying the habitat of a protected species after a decision on the part of the CNPN 1 ,
art. L411-1 and 2 of the French Environment Code).
It is preferable to make sure the known or potential roost is unoccupied by bats immediately before any action is taken on
the structure. The presence of a bat expert is also indispensable when known or potential roosts are destroyed in order to
take any emergency measures that are necessary to save the animals [6, 18, 12]. If bats are found, exclusion procedures
should be put in place, either by preventing them from returning to the roost or by disturbing them so they leave of their
own volition [6, 18, 17, 22, 26, 27].
In forests, it is recommended to cut the trees down and leave them on the ground for two days while the bats leave the
roost. Moving the trees in which the bats roost may also be considered [12, 13, 18].
Reducing disturbance
During works
In order to avoid disturbance to bat movements, night-time works in the vicinity of flyways and roosts should be avoided,
at least during the periods when bats are the most sensitive (especially the birthing period) [12, 13, 18].
If nighttime works are inevitable, it is advisable to install very localized lighting in the worksite zone, avoiding surrounding
areas in order to reduce the barrier effect [12]. The temporary installation of noise barriers and/or light screens may also be
considered.
Temporary works infrastructure (stockpile areas, roads for construction traffic) should also be constructed at a distance
from roosts.
After the road has been opened
The construction of a road can also make it easier for the general public to reach some roosts. The number of visits can be
limited by installing warning signs [3] or by protecting the site by installing railings to prevent access [13]. In the latter
case, care must be taken not to alter the physical conditions that are indispensable for the bats to remain (temperature and
humidity) [28]. The closure of the site can nevertheless encourage some visitors to enter it and damage the protection
equipment. To prevent access to the site it is sometimes better not to prohibit access to the site but to make it difficult by
installing a series of obstacles such as ditches, low walls and waterholes.
Making road crossing points safe
The experts are unanimously agreed about the need to connect safe crossing points with the surrounding habitats. To
achieve this, there are a large number of proposals involving the installation of linear structures or fences that bats
instinctively follow to the crossing point.
Hedges and double hedges
Installing hedges along the road can also guide bats to safe
crossing points. These hedges may be either single or double.
In the case of double hedges, [17], the first hedge should be
broken in order to guide bats into the space between the two
hedges and the second hedge should be continuous, acting as a
barrier, dissuading bats from crossing the road. These hedges
may be quite long.
When a new road cuts across a linear structure which bats follow,
it is also possible to modify the initial design of the plant corridor
and guide the bats to a new safe crossing point (a bridge,
footbridge or tunnel [12].
Figure 3: joining habitats using double hedges - Source: [1]
1
CNPN: Conseil National de Protection de la Nature
Sétra Information notes – Economics Environment Design Serie n° 91
Bats and road transport infrastructure - Threats and preservation measures
12
In this case, the advice is to retain the length of hedge
for as long as possible in order to limit the
abandonment of the flyway. Furthermore, the detour
should not exceed 50m.
This can be a highly effective measure, but some
species appear not to change their habits and still cross
the road at the same point.
The time that is required for hedges to grow also
reduces the effectiveness of the measure. Temporary
netting or fencing can therefore be installed to avoid
gaps [6, 13, 8].
Figure 4: leading bats to a safe crossing point – Source: [1]]
Wire netting, fences and walls
A 2 metre high wire netting fence or a mound of earth at the sides of the road in order to guide bats towards a crossing may
also be sufficient to make the zone safe [13]. However, this type of measure does not seem suitable for horseshoe bats that
generally continue to fly across the road at low level.
In forests, another possibility is to build a wall or a fence
at the points where the maximum activity has been
recorded (see drawing opposite) [12]. In France, it is
nevertheless necessary not to lose sight of aesthetic and
road safety issues. Roadside features (walls, poles,
vegetation, etc.) must be positioned in such a way as to
ensure they do not endanger road safety by providing
new obstacles for road users. The regulations concerning
distances and or safety barriers must be complied with
[32].
Figure 5: guiding bats towards a safe crossing– Source: [1]
Light barriers
The use of lighting as a barrier or to increase the height at
which bats fly is also occasionally recommended [21]. The
lights are frequently vandalized and require maintenance
(the area must be mowed so they are not covered by
vegetation) and consume energy. The use of lighting is
occasional and it has not always been shown to be
effective.
This type of measure is recommended at road crossing
points that are used by bats, in particular when the bats’
flyway lies between two lines of trees whose tops join
forming a kind of “green tunnel”. According to the
experts, this type of facility is only effective for certain
species.
Figure 6: bat scarers – Source: [1]
In Wales, 1 metre high lighting bollards have been installed at 10 metre intervals on either side of a road. The first
observations show that scarers of this type are effective for horseshoe bats even if some individuals still cross the road in
the lit section [21, 2, 13].
Sétra Information notes – Economics Environment Design Serie n° 91
Bats and road transport infrastructure - Threats and preservation measures
13
Hop-overs
These are created by means of tall trees or wire netting (6
metres) with dense low vegetation to encourage bats to fly
higher [12, 21].
In the case of a 2x2 lane dual carriageway, the literature
recommends planting a tree (which does not attract insects)
in the central reservation to ensure the bats continue to fly
high. To prevent bats from crossing to the side of the hopover it is recommended to install wire netting along the road.
It should be noted that in France, it is nevertheless necessary
not to lose sight of aesthetic and road safety issues. Roadside
features (walls, poles, vegetation, etc.) must be positioned in
such a way as to ensure they do not endanger road safety by
providing new obstacles for road users. The regulations
concerning minimum distances and or safety barriers must be
complied with [32].
Figure 7: encouraging bats to fly high – Source: [1]
More specific types of crossing can also be envisaged in
order to guide bats across the road above vehicle level.
When designing the southern bypass of the French city of
Bourges, Arthur and Lemaire created a crossing structure
(see diagram opposite) to guide bats and raise their height of
flight.
This system should avoid collisions and re-establish bat
movements.
Figure 8: guiding bats and increasing their height of flight: [30]
The design of overpasses
Overpasses, which were originally designed to enable wild animals, pedestrians, farm machinery and service vehicles to
cross roads, overpasses are frequently used by bats when they do not appear to be too open and when they are connected to
landscape structures. In order to encourage the use of such overpasses it is possible to consider additional measures [2, 21,
12, 9]. For example, it is beneficial to design wider structures than the traffic on its own would require in order to be able to
plant a hedge of shrubs along the entire length of one side. A wooden fence or an opaque windbreak may be sufficient for
some species (pipistrelle and lesser mouse-eared bats). The recommended height for the fence or the hedge is between 1.5m
and 3-4m depending on the species.
Figure 9: overpass design features that encourage use by bats – Source: [1]
Sétra Information notes – Economics Environment Design Serie n° 91
Bats and road transport infrastructure - Threats and preservation measures
14
Underpasses
Whether intended for wildlife or for a
watercourse, it is useful to plant a funnelshaped line of vegetation at the side and the
top of the tunnel entrance in order to
encourage use by bats. Wire netting or a screen
in front of the road can also lead bats to use the
tunnel or fly above the traffic.
Bats can also be encouraged to pass through an
underpass by gradually reducing the height of
the vegetation in the approach to the entrance.
As bats generally fly at leaf height they will Figure 10: planting of the underpass entrance to encourage bats to fly through the
tend to lower their height of flight and pass structure – Source: [1]
through the underpass.
In addition, lighting should not be installed in underpasses intended for wildlife to avoid discouraging bats and leading
them to use a more dangerous flyway.
The passage of a watercourse through the underpass provides a very great incentive for bats.
Although all species use underpasses, occasionally even very narrow ones, some authors have determined the minimum
advisable dimensions of an underpass in order to encourage its use by the greatest number of species and individuals [18,
12, 2, 13].
In general, the recommendations of the experts all agree on one principle: the wider the passage the more it will be used by
bats. A height of as much as 4.5m and a width of 4-6m has been advised in order to ensure that all species are able to use
the underpass. The minimum size for a culvert is 1.5m, and the experts consider 3m is the optimum. When underpasses
exceed 10m in length, it is recommended to double the diameter every 10m (comm. pers. Laurent Arthur, MHN Bourges).
Insubstantial overpass structures
Easily dismountable structures, often consisting of wires or wire netting stretched horizontally between two masts on either
side of the road, have been trialled abroad.
They may be installed either temporarily, in order to appraise the suitability of a location before installing more substantial
structures, or as a permanent mitigation measure.
This is a recent type of structure and its effectiveness is not yet proven, but it seems to have had some success already [2].
Figure 11: insubstantial overpass structures - Source: Billington [2], Sirhowy Enterprise [2]
In France, such roadside features must be positioned so as to ensure they do not endanger road safety by providing new
obstacles for road users. [32].
Sétra Information notes – Economics Environment Design Serie n° 91
Bats and road transport infrastructure - Threats and preservation measures
15
Perches for horseshoe bats
According to some experts, planting groups of trees on roadside embankments may create areas where horseshoe bats wait
until the traffic becomes lighter before crossing [17, 14].
Reducing collisions
By optimizing the longitudinal profile
As roads built on embankments are more dangerous, longitudinal profiles should be optimized in areas where bats are at
risk. A road in a cutting thus provides a safer crossing point for bats (comm. pers. CPEPESC Lorraine, 2008).
By not lighting roadsides
In order not to attract insects and therefore bats, a few precautions should be taken with regard to road lighting:
•
diffuse lighting should be avoided, lamps with a focused beam are to be preferred;
•
lighting should be directed downwards and not shine on the surrounding vegetation [12];
•
sodium lamps, which are less attractive, should be used instead of mercury vapour lamps, and placed at the greatest
possible height (6-8 m) and at some distance from the carriageway [17, 25].
By limiting access to vehicles
Under normal traffic conditions, lethal collisions can occur even at low speeds so speed reduction would not seem to be a
valid solution [12]. Nevertheless, installing speed reduction measures such as an interchange or a roundabout appears to be
more effective [7, 18]. In France, the design of such measures should also take account of associated traffic management
issues, the purpose of the road and road safety.
Sétra Information notes – Economics Environment Design Serie n° 91
Bats and road transport infrastructure - Threats and preservation measures
16
Auditory and magnetic scarers: proscribed measures
The first tests of auditory scarers that used bat-warning cries seem inconclusive. Distressed bats appear to attract the
curiosity of other bats, of all species. When positioned in a dangerous area such as the mast of a wind turbine or at the side
of a road they seem to act as traps and have the opposite effect from what is intended.
Impact compensation measures
Alternative roosts
We lack precise knowledge about the factors that determine whether bats accept or reject a roost. It is therefore very
difficult to replace a roost that has been destroyed by an artificial one.
They should in all cases be positioned where they do not place the bats in danger (avoid sites near a road) and match the
needs of the species that is present in order to replace the original functions of the roosts that have been destroyed
(hibernation, summer occupation, etc.).
By replacing tree roosts [18, 12, 13] (comm. pers. CPEPESC Lorraine, 2008)
The use of "bat boxes" is one possibility while a permanent alternative roost is under construction. It is best to improve
their effectiveness by installing them two years before the start of the works. However, they are too frequently perceived as
a miracle measure and some experts prefer bat boxes to be used only for prevention or study purposes. In addition their use
may introduce constraints due to the need for maintenance and monitoring and their limited life span.
Horseshoe bats do not use bat boxes (long-winged bats neither), or alternative roosts.
In bridges [12, 3]
Some bat species can easily form colonies in bridges, so modifying
bridges to receive bats is straightforward and effective. Several
possible measures are possible:
•
fitting bridges with cornices with a space of 20 mm ± 5 mm
between them;
•
leaving spaces between the bridge and its supporting pillars;
•
using expansion joints;
•
creating hollow spaces under bridges.
Figure 12: making the box girders of large structures accessible
from the outside through formwork holes, inspection holes, etc.
Source: [30]
In buildings near the construction site [2, 12, 13]
Modifying or making new openings in the roofs and attics of suitable buildings (churches). It is important to ensure that
access to these sites is unlit.
Alternative habitats
To compensate for the loss of foraging areas, it is generally recommended to purchase and manage areas near those that
have been destroyed. The main aim is to create habitats whose structure is favourable to flight and echolocation, to increase
the variety and quantity of insects (forests, banks and ecotones), and increase the number of corridors in order to increase
the areas, which bats can explore for food.
In the context of these modifications, and in order to increase the abundance of associated insects, it is recommended to
plant local non-resinous species preferentially. In addition, grassland should be mowed late in the season and the use of
crop protection products reduced.
When implementing these measures it is important to take account of the accessibility of the zone for bats, and in particular
ensure that their flyways provide access to them.
Sétra Information notes – Economics Environment Design Serie n° 91
Bats and road transport infrastructure - Threats and preservation measures
17
The measures in more detail
Type of measure
Measure
Removal or avoidance
measures
Examples
(more details are given in the text)
Maintaining landscape structures
Marking structures that are essential for bats with flags, fences or tags,
etc.
Monitoring works
Limiting the attractiveness of roadside vegetation
No attractive plant species at roadsides
Mitigating the destruction of roosts
Reducing disturbance
Impact mitigation
measures
Making crossing points safe
Reducing collisions
Alternative roosts
Compensation measures
Alternative habitats
Action should be taken in the least sensitive periods
Make sure the known or potential roost is unoccupied by bats just before
any action. If bats are found exclusion measures should be put in place
etc.
Nighttime working should be avoided, temporary sites should not be
located near roosts, etc.
Limit the number of visits, avoid altering the physical conditions of roosts,
etc.
Hedges and double hedges
Wire netting, fences and walls
Light barriers
Hop-overs
The design of overpasses
Underpasses
Insubstantial overpass structures
Perches for horseshoe bats
By optimizing the longitudinal profile
By not lighting roadsides
By limiting vehicle speeds
By replacing tree roosts
In bridges
In buildings near the construction site
By purchasing and managing areas near those that have been destroyed
Table 3: Summary of the measures proposed in the literature that are intended to protect bats from the impacts
of land transport infrastructure– Source: [1]
4. Current and future knowledge
Overall summary
The impacts of facilities on bats are a relatively large topic. Interest has nevertheless focused in recent years on the impacts
of wind farms.
However, gaps remain in our knowledge with regard to the impact of transport infrastructures on bats. This is probably due
to the difficulty of studying this group of animals, which, in addition to being nocturnal, move, like birds, in three
dimensions and whose different species exhibit considerable differences in behaviour.
Our analysis of some sixty national and international bibliographical references [1], many of which related to roads, has
shown that transport infrastructure is responsible for the death of a large number of bats and that the impacts are mainly
due to two factors:
•
mortality as a result of collisions;
•
environmental threats due to the destruction of flyways and foraging areas.
Sétra Information notes – Economics Environment Design Serie n° 91
Bats and road transport infrastructure - Threats and preservation measures
18
As these factors have now been fairly clearly identified, they already frequently provide the basis for analyses that are
conducted in the framework of environmental studies. Although our current knowledge is incomplete, it generally seems
able to identify the impacts of a project even if it contains some recurrent gaps (impacts in forests, impacts on certain
species – horseshoe bats, etc.).
At the same time, because of our increasing knowledge about species, and also probably as a result of changes in the
regulations, more and more measures are being implemented to take account of bats in transport infrastructure design.
However, it is apparent that the proposals, which are often taken from the same publications, are frequently confined to
measures that have either never been implemented or whose effectiveness has never been evaluated.
The situation in France
The situation in France as described in the literature (general studies on bats, population monitoring, studies conducted in
the framework of road, motorway and railway design projects, surveys required by the LOTI (Domestic Transport Policy
Act) and interviews with bat experts (in particular MHN Bourges and CPEPESC), highlights how little experience we have on
bats and transport infrastructure [1].
The information in the bibliography essentially relates to potential impacts and proposed measures. While monitoring is
almost systematically recommended in impact documents, very little feedback is received.
The increasing amount of attention given to this issue in transport infrastructure construction or modification projects
should however fill some of the gaps in our current knowledge.
Outlook
The publication of this information note, which summarizes present-day knowledge, and the preparation of a technical
guide on infrastructure and bats help further the goals of the bat restoration plan. However, it would be worthwhile to carry
out a considerable amount of additional research, in particular on collisions and monitoring the effectiveness of crossings
with a view to:
•
understanding the behaviour of juveniles when crossing roads;
•
identifying the real influence of speed and traffic density;
•
evaluating the effectiveness of structures according to their size;
•
evaluating the effectiveness of insubstantial overpass structures;
•
taking account of forest bats;
•
use and impacts of pavement runoff water treatment basins;
•
identifying and investigating scarer systems.
Sétra Information notes – Economics Environment Design Serie n° 91
Bats and road transport infrastructure - Threats and preservation measures
19
Bibliographie
[1]
Sétra / Cete, 2008. Routes et chiroptères. Etat des connaissances. Rapport bibliographique. 67 p + 180 p de fiches
bibliographiques annexes. http://www.setra.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/Routes-et-chiropteres-Etat-des.html
[2]
Highways Agency, 2006. Best practice in enhancement of highway design for bats. Revue de littérature. Halcrow
Group Limited. 52 p.
[3]
Keeley B.W., Tuttle M.D, 1999. Bats in American bridges. Scientific article, Resource Publication No.4. 6 p.
[4]
ECOCONSEIL - CPEPESC Franche-Comté, 2004. Étude d’incidence de la LGV Rhin-Rhône sur le site Natura 2000
"Mine d’Ougney". Rapport final s’inscrivant dans l’APD du projet. 52 p.
[5]
Roué S.Y. - CPEPESC Franche-Comté (1999). Étude biologique sur la bande du projet routier Lure-Vesoul (RN19) Les chiroptères et leurs gîtes. Rapport. 22 p.
[6]
National Road Authority, 2005. Guidelines for the treatment of bats during the construction of national road
schemes. 13 p.
[7]
Capo G., Chaut J.-J. et Arthur L, 2006. Quatre ans d’étude de mortalité des chiroptères sur deux kilomètres routiers
proches d’un site d’hibernation. Article scientifique. Symbioses n°15. pp.45-46. 2 p.
[8]
Vaine A, 2005. Études et suivis des chiroptères du Gouffre de La Fage. Rapport de stage de BTSA GPN. 56 p.
[9]
Néri F., 2004. Chauve-souris et aménagement routier. Bulletin de liaison "KAWA SORIX" du Groupe chiroptères
Midi-Pyrénées. 1 p.
[10]
Lemaire M. et Arthur L., 1998. Les chauves-souris et les routes. Actes des 3èmes rencontres "Routes et Faune
Sauvage". 460 p.. pp.139-150. 12 p.
[11]
Girons M.-C., 1981. Notes sur les mammifères de France. Les Pipistrelles et la circulation routière. Note –
Mammalia tome 45, n°1. pp.131. 1 p.
[12]
Limpens H.J.G.A., Tweesk P. et Veenbaas G., 2005. Bats and Road Construction - Brochure about bats and the
ways in which practical mesures can be taken to observe the legal duty of care for bats in planning, constructing,
reconstructing and managing roads. Technical handbook. 24 p.
[13]
Bickmore C. et Wyatt L., 2003. Review of work carried out on the trunk road network in Wales for bats.
Bibliographic study. 65 p.
[14]
Bickmore C. et Wyatt, (Traduction Laurent Arthur)., 2006. Synthèse des travaux conduits pour les chauves-souris
sur une route nationale au Pays de Galles (Country Council of Wales, juillet 2003). Scientific article. Symbiose,
n°15. pp. 39-42. 4 p.
[15]
Lesiński G., 2007. Bat road casualties and factors determining their number. Scientific article. Mammalia (2007).
pp.138-142. 5 p.
[16]
CPEPESC Lorraine, 2006. Étude d’incidences du projet de mise à 2x2 voies de la RN 59/159 entre Rémomeix et
Frapelle (88) en rapport au site Natura 2000 FR4100246 "Gîtes à chiroptères autour de Saint Dié (88)". Rapport.
40 p.
[17]
Lemaire M. et Arthur L., 1999. Les chauves-souris, maîtresses de la nuit. Livre – Ed. Delachaux et Niestlé (réed.
2005). 265 p.
[18]
Highway Agency, 1999. Nature conservation advice in relation to bats. Design manual for roads and bridges. Guide
technique. 34 p.
[19]
Devos S., Raevel P., Govaere A., Vaillant J.C. et Devos R. - Greet Ingénierie / E.E.D. – France, 2005. Nouvelles
techniques d’investigation par radar des peuplements de chiroptères. 5 p.
[20]
Arthur L., Lemaire M., Souchet C., Brazillier D., Duteil D., Anisensel F., 1996. Ponts et chauves-souris. Article du
Bulletin de liaison n°24 "Ouvrages d’art". 7 p - Sétra
[21]
National Road Authority, 2005. Best Practice Guidelines for the Conservation of Bats in the Planning of National
Road Schemes. Technical handbook. 44 p.
[22]
Maugard J-P. - DDE Cher, 1995. Les chiroptères et les ouvrages d’art dans le département du Cher. Rapport
d’étude. 31 p.
[23]
Arthur L. et Lemaire M., 1994. Résultats des premiers aménagements d’ouvrages d’art pour les chiroptères dans le
département du Cher. Acte du colloque "Gestion et protection des chauves-souris : de la connaissance aux
aménagements". 4 p.
Sétra Information notes – Economics Environment Design Serie n° 91
Bats and road transport infrastructure - Threats and preservation measures
20
[24]
Bat Conservation Trust, 2007. Bat Surveys – Good Practice Guidelines. Technical handbook. 83 p.
[25]
ECOLOR, Conservatoire du patrimoine naturel de Champagne Ardenne, 2004. Document d’incidences Natura 2000
"Fort de la Bonnelle". Rapport 22 p.
[26]
Pénicaud P., 2000. Les chauves-souris et les arbres : connaissance et protection. Plaquette d’information MATE. 2 p.
[27]
Magnin B., 1994. Sauvetage de la colonie de Grands Murins du pont de Corbières. Acte du colloque gestion et
protection des chauves-souris : de la connaissance aux aménagements. 4 p.
[28]
Harouet M. et Monfort D., 1995. La protection des chauves-souris. Bulletin de la société des sciences naturelles de
l’Ouest de la France - n°3 - Tome 17. 12 p.
[29]
Kiefer A., Merz H., Rackow W., Roer H. et Schlegel D. (1995). Bats as traffic casualties in Germany. Article
scientifique. Myotis n°32-33, pp. 215-220.
[30]
Sétra-Medd, 2005. Aménagements et mesures pour la petite faune, Guide technique. 264 p.
[31]
Néomys, 2005. Projet d’aménagement de la RN 66 dans la vallée de la Moselle entre Ferdrupt et Fresse-sur-Moselle
(88). Dossier d’évaluation des incidences au titre de l’Article L414-4 du Code de l’Environnement (Chap. IV,
Section 1) - Complément à l’étude d’impacts - Expertise chiroptérologique. Rapport. 20 p.
[32]
Sétra, 2002. Traitement des obstacles latéraux sur les routes principales hors agglomération. Guide technique. 131p.
[33]
EUROBATS, 2000. Mise en œuvre de l’accord relatif à la conservation des chauves-souris en Europe. Rapport
national de la France. http://www.eurobats.org/documents/pdf/National_Reports/nat_rep_F_2000.pdf
Regulations and action plan
Order of 23 April 2007 setting out the list of mammals that are protected in all parts of France and the terms of their
protection (Journal Officiel de la République Française of 10/05/2007).
Bonn Convention of 23 June 1979 on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (Journal Officiel de la
République Française of 30/10/1990).
Bern Convention of 19 September 1979 on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats (Journal Officiel
de la République Française of 28/08/1990 and 20/08/1996).
European Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and of Wild Fauna and flora (Habitats and
Species Directive) (Journal Officiel de la République Française of 22/07/1992).
Bat restoration plan 2008-2012 for metropolitan France. September 2007 – SFEPM –Ministère de l’Ecologie, de l ’
Energie, du Développement Durable et de l ’Aménagement du Territoire.
To find out more…
A more complete bibliography is available in the report, which provided the basis for this Information Note [1]
(http://www.setra.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/Routes-et-chiropteres-Etat-des.html).
Sétra Information notes – Economics Environment Design Serie n° 91
Bats and road transport infrastructure - Threats and preservation measures
21
Appendix
Family
Species
Status
Horseshoe bats
Greater horseshoe bat [Rhinolophus ferrumequinum]
NP, HSD+IV, BernII, BonnII
France counts four members of this family
whose members are recognized by the
horseshoe-shaped protuberances on their noses
from which ultrasounds are emitted.
Lesser horseshoe bat [Rhinolophus hipposideros]
NP, HSD+IV, BernII, BonnII
Mediterranean horseshoe bat [Rhinolophus euryale]
NP, HSD+IV, BernII, BonnII
Méhely’s horseshoe bat [Rhinolophus mehelyi]
NP, HSD+IV, BernII, BonnII
Vesper bats
This is the largest family of bats in France, with
a total of 28 species. Their distinctive feature is
their tragus (a projection inside the auricle) but
their morphology varies considerably from one
species to another. The species are in fact often
identified on the basis of the length of their
forearm and the shape of their ears.
Barbastelle [Barbastella barbastellus]
NP, HSD+IV, BernII, BonnII
Daubenton’s bat [Myotis daubentonii]
NP, DHIV, BernII, BonnII
Long-fingered bat [Myotis capaccini]
NP, HSD+IV, BernII, BonnII
Pond bat [Myotis dasycneme]
NP, HSD+IV, BernII, BonnII
Whiskered bat [Myotis mystacinus]
NP, HSD V, BernII, BonnII
Brandt’s bat [Myotis brandtii]
NP, HSD V, BernII, BonnII
Alcathoe bat [Myotis alcathoe]
NP, HSD V, BernII
Bechstein’s bat [Myotis bechsteinii]
NP, HSD+IV, BernII, BonnII
Natterer’s bat [Myotis nattereri]
NP, HSD V, BernII, BonnII
Long-eared myotis [Myotis escalerai]
Species newly discovered in
France (2009)
Geoffroy’s bat [Myotis emarginatus]
NP, HSD+IV, BernII, BonnII
Greater mouse-eared bat [Myotis myotis]
NP, HSD+IV, BernII, BonnII
Lesser mouse-eared bat [Myotis blythii]
NP, HSD+IV, BernII, BonnII
Maghrebian bat [Myotis punicus]
NP, HSD V
Common noctule bat [Nyctalus noctula]
NP, HSD V, BernII, BonnII
Greater noctule bat[Nyctalus lasiopterus]
NP, HSD V, BernII, BonnII
Leisler’s bat [Nyctalus leisleri]
NP, HSD V, BernII, BonnII
Northern serotine bat [Eptesicus nilssonii]
NP, HSD V, BernII, BonnII
Serotine bat [Eptesicus serotinus]
NP, HSD V, BernII, BonnII
Parti-coloured bat [Vespertilio murinus]
NP, HSD V, BernII, BonnII
Kuhl’s pipistrelle [Pipistrellus kuhlii]
NP, HSD V, BernII, BonnII
Nathusius’s pipistrelle [Pipistrellus nathusii]
NP, HSD V, BernII, BonnII
Common pipistrelle [Pipistrellus pipistrellus]
NP, HSD V, BernIII, BonnII
Soprano pipistrelle [Pipistrellus pygmaeus]
NP, HSD V
Brown long-eared bat [Plecotus auritus]
NP, HSD V, BernII, BonnII
Grey long-eared bat [Plecotus austriacus]
NP, HSD V, BernII, BonnII
Alpine long-eared bat [Plecotus macrobullaris]
NP, HSD V
Savi’s pipistrelle [Hypsugo savii]
NP, HSD V, BernII, BonnII
Common bent-wing bat [Miniopterus schreibersii]
NP, HSD+IV, BernII, BonnII
European free-tailed bat [Tadarida teniotis]
NP, DHIV, BernII, BonnII
Long-winged bats
There is only one species of this family in
France, which is characterized by its short snout
and arched forehead.
Free-tailed bats
These are distinguished by the fact that their tail
is considerably longer than the posterior part of
their wing. Only one species is found in France,
the European free-tailed bat .
The 34 species of bat and their protection status
Status: NP (Nationally protected), HSD+IV (EEC Habitats and Species Directive - Appendix IV), BernII (Bern Convention - Appendix
II), BonnII (Bonn Convention - Appendix II)
Authors
François NOWICKI – CETE de l'Est
téléphone : 33 (0)3 87 20 46 09 – télécopie : 33 (0)3 87 20 46 49
mél : [email protected]
Liza DADU – CETE de l'Est
téléphone : 33 (0)3 87 20 46 12 – télécopie : 33 (0)3 87 20 46 49
Jean CARSIGNOL – CETE de l'Est
téléphone : 33 (0)3 87 20 46 14 – télécopie : 33 (0)3 87 20 46 49
mél : [email protected]
Jean-François BRETAUD – CETE Normandie-Centre
téléphone : 33 (0)2 35 68 89 58 – télécopie : 33 (0)2 35 68 82 19
mél : [email protected]
Sabine BIELSA – Sétra
téléphone : 33 (0)1 46 11 30 49 – télécopie : 33 (0)1 45 36 81 49
mél : [email protected]
Document validé par le Muséum d'Histoire Naturelle de Bourges (Laurent ARTHUR)
Technical information
Sabine BIELSA – Sétra
téléphone : 33 (0)1 46 11 30 49 – télécopie : 33 (0)1 45 36 81 49
mél : [email protected]
Warning
The series of the Setra Information Notes is
meant to supply a rapid information. The
counterpart to this swiftness is a risk of error
and, or, a lack of exhaustiveness. This
document cannot involve the liability of its
author nor that of the Service.
The companies, the names of which appear in
this serie, are mentioned as examples of
applications that are deemed as necessary to a
good understanding of the text and a good
implementation in practice. Sétra belongs to
the scientific and technical network of the
French Public Works Ministry.
Service d'études sur les transports, les routes et leurs aménagements
46, avenue Aristide Briand – BP 100 – 92225 Bagneux Cedex – France
téléphone : 33 (0)1 46 11 31 31 – télécopie : 33 (0)1 46 11 31 69
This document is available on the Sétra's website:
• Internet : http://www.setra.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/
• Intranet (Réseau ministère) : http://intra.setra.i2
Sétra authorization is required even for partial reproduction of this document.
Référence : 1120w – ISSN : 1250-8675
The Sétra belongs
to the scientific and
technical network
of the French Public
Work Ministry (RST)
Le Sétra appartient
au Réseau Scientifique
et Technique
du MEDDTL