ABSTRACT The presence of bat species is commonly determined by placing acoustic bat detectors that record bat echolocation calls in the habitat they are likely to use. Detection rates are affected by variables including type of detection unit used. We compared detection rates of long-tailed bat (Chalinolobus tuberculatus) echolocation calls between two types of automated bat detectors: Wildlife Acoustics SMZC Zero Crossing Bat Recorders (ZC), and Frequency Compression Automated Bat Monitoring units (FC) produced by New Zealand’s Department of Conservation. Units were placed in locations where bats were known to be present, but not all detected bats. The median number of bat passes recorded by FC units over 10 nights was 20 compared with a median of 3 bat passes for ZC units. ZC units also detected bats over significantly fewer nights than FC units. These results suggest FC units are more sensitive and therefore better to use where long-tailed bats are expected to be at low abundance or only present infrequently. Because of inconsistencies in detection rates, we recommend the use of only one model of the detector within a monitoring project. Our data also suggests that surveys should take place over long periods to maximise likelihood of detecting bats, if present.

中文翻译：

---

两种蝙蝠探测器的比较：哪个最有可能探测到新西兰的结核杆菌？

摘要蝙蝠物种的存在通常是通过放置声学蝙蝠探测器来确定的，这些探测器记录蝙蝠在它们可能使用的栖息地中的回声定位呼叫。检测率受变量影响，包括使用的检测单元类型。我们比较了两种自动蝙蝠检测器之间长尾蝙蝠（Chalinolobus tuberculatus）回声定位呼叫的检测率：Wildlife Acoustics SMZC 过零蝙蝠记录器 (ZC) 和新西兰卫生部生产的频率压缩自动蝙蝠监测装置 (FC)保护。单位被放置在已知存在蝙蝠的位置，但并非所有检测到的蝙蝠。FC 单位在 10 晚内记录的蝙蝠传球次数中位数为 20，而 ZC 单位记录的蝙蝠传球次数中位数为 3。与 FC 单位相比，ZC 单位在明显更少的夜晚检测到蝙蝠。这些结果表明 FC 单位更敏感，因此更适合在预计长尾蝙蝠数量较少或很少出现的情况下使用。由于检测率不一致，我们建议在监测项目中仅使用一种型号的检测器。我们的数据还表明，应该进行长时间的调查，以最大限度地检测蝙蝠（如果存在）的可能性。