Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Biodiversity Data Journal logoLink to Biodiversity Data Journal
. 2021 Dec 29;9:e77400. doi: 10.3897/BDJ.9.e77400

Bats from the Pedra Branca Forest, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

Jonatas Amorim Tavares 1,2, Roberto Leonan Morim Novaes 1, Iuri Veríssimo 1, Maria Alice do Amaral Kuzel 1, Sócrates Fraga da Costa-Neto 1, Caroline Lacorte Rangel 1, Mylena Borges 1, Helena Medrado 1, Bruno Alves 3, Renan de França Souza 4, Ana Carolina Duarte Pinto Menezes 5, Luis Fernando Menezes-Júnior 5, Daniela Dias 6, Cecilia Siliansky de Andreazzi 6, Rosana Gentile 6, Ricardo Moratelli 1,✉
PMCID: PMC8732876  PMID: 35002368

Abstract

The Pedra Branca Forest is located in a highly-urbanised region of the central portion of Rio de Janeiro City, comprises the largest urban forest on the continent and is isolated from other Atlantic Forest remnants. The local flora and fauna are protected by three conservation units (Pedra Branca State Park, Prainha Municipal Natural Park and Guaratiba State Biological Reserve) and one biological station (Fiocruz Atlantic Forest Biological Station—EFMA). Here, we provide an updated list of the bat fauna for the remnant. The results are based on samplings at EFMA and literature data from Pedra Branca State Park and Prainha Natural Park. The three sampling sites combined resulted in 31 species, 23 genera and four families. Phyllostomidae was the richest family with 24 species, followed by Vespertilionidae with five species (3%) and Molossidae and Noctilionidae with one species. The local bat fauna was predominantly composed of species with a broad geographic distribution.

Keywords: bat survey, Chiroptera, urban forest, urban wildlife

Introduction

Bats provide important ecosystem services as pollinators, seed dispersers and controllers of insect populations (Kunz et al. 2011). On the other hand, they have been implicated in many public health emergencies (e.g. SARS, Nipah, Hendra, Ebola and possibly COVID-19) as potential reservoirs of zoonotic deadly pathogens (Moratelli and Calisher 2015, Tang et al. 2020). Thus, understanding the structure of local bat faunas is essential for conservation programmes and the development of strategies in the One Health approach, particularly in areas under high anthropogenic pressure and social vulnerabilities, such as tropical forest remnants close to large urban centres (Lu et al. 2016; Beltz 2017; Kading and Kingston 2020).

The Brazilian Atlantic Forest is severely fragmented, particularly in large cities, such as Rio de Janeiro—the second largest City in Brazil, with more than 6.7 million people (IBGE 2020). The largest Atlantic Forest remnants in the City are in the massifs of Gericinó-Mendanha, Pedra Branca and Tijuca. These remnants are geographically isolated from each other, under severe anthropogenic pressure and mostly surrounded by an urban matrix. The Pedra Branca Forest covers most of the homonym Massif and extends to the adjacent lowlands on the eastern, western and southern slopes, comprising the largest urban forest in the world (Rocha et al. 2003). Most of the remnant is preserved by conservation units, amongst which Pedra Branca State Park (PEPB) is the largest conservation unit in the City of Rio de Janeiro, encompassing all areas above 100 m of elevation. The Fiocruz Atlantic Forest Biological Station (EFMA) is on the eastern slope of the Massif, encompassing lowland to submontane forests and overlapping partially with PEPB, in an area of high anthropogenic pressure, whose biological diversity, including mammals, is still little known compared to other localities (e.g. Tijuca, Reserva Biológica de Guapiaçu, Costa Verde Islands) in the State of Rio de Janeiro (Esberard 2003;Bolzan et al. 2010).

Here, we report the results of an extensive bat survey carried out at the Fiocruz Atlantic Forest Biological Station. As two other surveys have been conducted for bats in different regions of the remnant, we also provide an updated list of bats from the Pedra Branca Forest.

Material and methods

Study area

The Pedra Branca Forest (Fig. 1) comprises a locality of mountainous relief, with a maximum altitude of 1,024 m a.s.l. and is in a highly-urbanised region of the central portion of Rio de Janeiro City. The remnant is geographically isolated from other forest remnants and surrounded by an urban matrix, some plantations and shanty towns. Most of the territory is protected by conservation units (INEA 2013). Amongst them, Pedra Branca State Park (PEPB: 23°52'–23°04' S, 43°23'–43°32' W, ca. 12,400 hectares) encompasses all areas above 100 m of elevation. Other conservation units in the remnant and surroundings include Prainha Natural Park (PNMP: 23º01'–23º02' S, 43º30'–43º30' W, 147 ha) in the south; and Guaratiba State Biological Reserve (Reserva Biológica Estadual de Guaratiba [RBEG], 3,360 ha) in the west. The Fiocruz Atlantic Forest Biological Station (EFMA: 22°56'25" S; 43°24'18" W; 430 ha) is on the eastern slope of the Massif and overlaps partially with PEPB (261 ha), comprising a natural laboratory for biodiversity and health research.

Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Open in a new tab

Pedra Branca Forest with indication of bat sampling sites (circles) at Fiocruz Atlantic Forest Biological Station (EFMA), Pedra Branca State Park (PEPB) and Prainha Natural Municipal Park (PNMP).

Pedra Branca is predominantly classified as an ombrophilous dense forest (IBGE 2011), although there are also stretches of restinga shrubland in coastal areas within the PNMP. The cold and dry season extends from April–September and the warm rainy season extends from October–March. Köppen’s climate is Aw, with warm and rainy summers and dry winters, with annual mean temperatures ranging from 22–24°C and annual mean rainfall between 1300–1600 mm (Alvares et al. 2013). The Pedra Branca Forest has undergone an intense and complex history of land occupation and use. It started in the 16th century with the agricultural cycles of sugarcane and coffee monocultures. Later in the 19th century, there was intense use of natural areas for charcoal production. Since the 20th century, the area has suffered unplanned urban occupation (Oliveira and Fernandez 2020). Consequently, the current vegetation cover is formed mainly by secondary forests in different stages of regeneration, including stretches of mature forest with a canopy reaching 20 m high, a diverse native flora and the presence of bromeliad epiphytes, orchids and adult palms (INEA 2013).

Sampling and data survey

At EFMA, bat sampling was carried out for 55 nights using 10 mist-nets (polyester, 9 × 3 m, 20 mm mesh) that were placed in clearings in the vegetation, along trails, over water bodies and near flowering or fruiting plants (Kunz and Kurta 1988). Mist-nets were opened at sunset and closed after four hours. Sampling effort totalled 59,400 m².h. Captured animals were kept in cotton bags until being measured and identified. Most of the animals were released at the end of each sampling night. Some individuals were collected as a record of the species' existence and occurrence in the territory and for pathogen surveys. Specimens collected were deposited at the EFMA and animals were labelled FMA (Fiocruz Mata Atlântica; see Data resources). Individuals were identified by external and cranial traits, using identification characters described by Gardner (2008), Díaz et al. (2016) and Reis et al. (2017). Myotis, Molossus and Lonchophylla were identified according to Moratelli et al. (2011), Gregorin et al. (2011) and Dias et al. (2013), respectively. Nomenclature and classification followed Garbino et al. (2020).

This extensive list of bats from the Pedra Branca Forest was compiled, based on sampling efforts carried out by the Fiocruz Research Group from Oct 2013 to Dec 2017 in the EFMA and literature data from two other surveys carried out at the PEPB (Dias et al. 2002, Dias et al. 2003) and PNMP (Pinto 2008), totalling a sampling effort of 114,180 m².h. Other information on the occurrence of bat species for the Pedra Branca Forest was obtained from literature and used to complement the species list.

Data analyses

Bats were classified into trophic guilds following Kalko et al. (1996). Sampling effort was calculated following Straube and Bianconi (2002). Capture success was considered the ratio between the number of captures and the total effort employed. Estimation of maximum species richness was calculated using Jackknife-1 and Chao-1 in the software EstimateS 9.1 (Colwell 2013). Species accumulation curves were built for each sampling locality and for all localities combined to evaluate the adequacy of the sampling effort. The curves were built using the collector method, considering a descending order from the highest to the lowest value of bat species richness in the 'vegan' package for R software (Oksanen et al. 2018).

Data resources

Voucher specimens (Suppl. material 1) collected at Fiocruz Atlantic Forest Biological Station (FMA), Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil - Carolliaperspicillata (N = 10): FMA434, FMA435, FMA436, FMA438, FMA439, FMA440, FMA441, FMA443, FMA444, FMA445. Tonatiabidens (7): FMA437, FMA484, FMA488, FMA1570, FMA1576, FMA1584, FMA1656. Micronycterismicrotis (4): FMA446, FMA535, FMA561, FMA1517. Desmodusrotundus (10): FMA447, FMA448, FMA449, FMA453, FMA454, FMA455, FMA463, FMA472, FMA482, FMA483. Glossophagasoricina (7): FMA450, FMA467, FMA480, FMA503, FMA511, FMA518, FMA1521. Myotisnigricans (12): FMA452, FMA462, FMA476, FMA1557, FMA1562, FMA1564, FMA1566, FMA1569, FMA1574, FMA1575, FMA1606, FMA1644. Artibeusfimbriatus (7): FMA456, FMA485, FMA499, FMA515, FMA524, FMA897, FMA1578. Artibeuslituratus (12): FMA457, FMA464, FMA470, FMA471, FMA473, FMA477, FMA479, FMA481, FMA493, FMA498, FMA504, FMA514. Sturniralilium (8): FMA458, FMA461, FMA506, FMA516, FMA525, FMA532, FMA539, FMA1502. Platyrrhinusrecifinus (2): FMA475, FMA1540. Vampyressapusilla (9): FMA489, FMA495, FMA500, FMA527, FMA533, FMA1518, FMA1616, FMA1652, FMA1653. Artibeusobscurus (7): FMA490, FMA529, FMA1508, FMA1509, FMA1550, FMA1581, FMA1605. Platyrrhinuslineatus (1): FMA565. Mimonbennetti (2): FMA491, FMA501. Phyllostomushastatus (6): FMA492, FMA494, FMA558, FMA1511, FMA1551, FMA1637. Myotisriparius (6): FMA496, FMA1556, FMA1558, FMA1559, FMA1560, FMA1561. Glyphonycterissylvestris (1): FMA502. Sturniratildae (4): FMA507, FMA509, FMA554, FMA1531. Micronycterisminuta (3): FMA519, FMA541, FMA1610. Lonchophyllaperacchii (3): FMA526, FMA891, FMA1631. Anouracaudifer (3): FMA555, FMA900, FMA1659. Molossusmolossus (2): FMA1628, FMA1629.

Results

Bats from EFMA

A total of 558 individuals were captured at EFMA (success of 0.009 captures/m².h), representing 25 species from three families (Table 1). Phyllostomidae was the most abundant and richest family, representing 95% of the total sampling (530 individuals) and 20 species. Vespertilionidae was represented by 26 individuals (4.5% of sampling) and four species and Molossidae was represented by two individuals (0.5%) and one species. Artibeuslituratus (N = 217), Carolliaperspicillata (N = 153) and Desmodusrotundus (N = 42) were the most abundant species.

Table 1.

Checklist of bat species from the Pedra Branca Forest, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, including information on number of captures by locality and diet. Localities include Fiocruz Atlantic Forest Biological Station (EFMA; present study), Pedra Branca State Park (PEPB; Dias et al. 2002) and Prainha Municipal Natural Park (PNMP; Pinto 2008). Species, whose presence in the locality is marked with an “X”, were obtained from Silva et al. (2019).

Taxon Diet Individuals per locality Total
EFMA PEPB PNMP
Phyllostomidae, Micronycterinae
Micronycterismicrotis Gleaning insectivore 2 1 0 3
Micronycetrisminuta Gleaning insectivore 7 1 3 12
Phyllostomidae, Desmodontinae
Desmodusrotundus Sanguivore 42 41 2 85
Diphyllaecaudata Sanguivore 0 4 0 4
Phyllostomidae, Phyllostominae
Chrotopterusauritus Carnivore 0 3 0 3
Mimonbennettii Gleaning insectivore 2 1 0 3
Phyllostomushastatus Omnivore 10 6 0 16
Tonatiabidens Omnivore 8 2 3 13
Trachopscirrhosus Carnivore 1 0 3 4
Phyllostomidae, Glossophaginae
Anouracaudifer Nectarivore 4 11 9 24
Anourageoffroyi Nectarivore - X - X
Glossophagasoricina Omnivore 9 17 18 44
Phyllostomidae, Lonchophyllinae
Lonchophyllaperacchii Nectarivore 3 3 0 6
Phyllostomidae, Carolliinae
Carolliaperspicillata Frugivore 153 100 96 350
Phyllostomidae, Glyphonycterinae
Glyphonycteryssylvestris Gleaning insectivore 1 1 0 1
Phyllostomidae, Stenodermatinae
Artibeusfimbriatus Frugivore 25 139 75 239
Artibeuslituratus Frugivore 217 265 114 596
Artibeusobscurus Frugivore 10 20 23 53
Chirodermadoriae Frugivore 0 5 3 8
Platyrrhinuslineatus Frugivore 1 5 23 29
Platyrrhinusrecifinus Frugivore 2 2 6 10
Sturniralilium Frugivore 20 27 3 50
Sturniratildae Frugivore 4 0 0 4
Vampyressapusilla Frugivore 9 7 6 22
Noctilionidae
Noctilioleporinus Piscivore - X - X
Molossidae
Molossusmolossus Aerial insectivore 2 8 5 15
Vespertilionidae
Vespertilioninae
Eptesicusbrasiliensis Aerial insectivore 1 1 2 3
Histiotusvelatus Aerial insectivore 0 0 2 2
Myotinae
Myotisizecksohni Aerial insectivore 2 0 0 2
Myotisnigricans Aerial insectivore 13 11 6 32
Myotisriparius Aerial insectivore 10 0 0 10
Total of captures 558 681 402 1,644
Open in a new tab

Bats from the Pedra Branca Forest

Our sampling site, combined with the two extra localities, resulted in an effort of 123 sampling nights and 114,180 m².h, with 1,644 individuals captured (Table 1). The capture success combined was 0.014, varying per locality from 0.009 to 0.025 captures/m².h (Table 2). In total, 29 species from 22 genera and three families were recorded at the three study sites (Table 1). Phyllostomidae was the most sampled and richest family, with 1,582 individuals representing 24 species (96% of the total sampling); followed by Vespertilionidae, with 47 individuals and five species (3%); and Molossidae, with 15 individuals and one species (1%; Table 1). Artibeuslituratus (N = 596, 37%), Carolliaperspicillata (N = 350, 22%) and Artibeusfimbriatus (N = 239, 15%) were the most abundant species in the Pedra Branca Forest. Silva et al. (2019) reported the occurrence of Anourageoffroyi (Phyllostomidae) and Noctilioleporinus (Noctilionidae) in the region. Thus, 31 species have been recorded for the Pedra Branca Forest so far. Amongst them, 16 were registered at EFMA, PEPB and PNMP. Four species (D.ecaudata, C.auritus, A.geoffroyi and N.leporinus) were found only at PEPB, four only at EFMA (M.microtis, S.tildae, M.izecksohni and M.riparius) and one (H.velatus) only at PNMP.

Table 2.

Species richness, capture effort and capture success of bats in three surveys in Pedra Branca Forest, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil. Localities: EFMA = Fiocruz Atlantic Forest Biological Station (present study); PEPB = Pedra Branca State Park (Dias et al. 2002) and PNMP = Prainha Municipal Natural Park (Pinto 2008).

Localities Sampling nights Captures (N) Species richness Sampling
Effort (m².h) 		Capture success
EFMA 55 558 25 59,400 0.009
PEPB 45 681 24 38,880 0.017
PNMP 23 402 19 15,900 0.025
Total 123 1,639 31 114,180 0.014
Open in a new tab

Species accumulation curves did not show stabilisation, neither for each locality (Fig. 2A) nor for all localities combined (Fig. 2B), indicating insufficient sampling. In addition, Jackknife-1 and Chao-1 estimators of species richness indicated that our samplings corresponded to 85–90% of the expected species for each locality and for all localities combined (Table 3).

Figure 2.

Figure 2.

Open in a new tab

Species accumulation curves for each sampled area (A) and for the three studies gathered (B) in Pedra Branca Forest, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.

Table 3.

Estimated species richness of bats using Jackknife1 and Chao1 indices for each sampled area and for the three studies gathered in Pedra Branca Forest, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.

Localities N Species Jackknife-1 Chao-1
EFMA 25 28 26
PEPB 24 26 27
PNMP 19 22 20
Total 31 33 30
Open in a new tab

Discussion

Species richness and composition

The three localities in the Pedra Branca remnant altogether revealed 31 species of bats, which represents 40% of the 80 species reported for the State of Rio de Janeiro (Dias et al. 2003, Peracchi and Nogueira 2010, Moratelli et al. 2011, Dias et al. 2013, Delciellos et al. 2018) and 31% of the 98 species reported for the Atlantic Forest in Brazil (Muylaert et al. 2017). The phyllostomids, Artibeuslituratus, A.fimbriatus and Carolliaperspicillata, were the most abundant species, comprising 73% of the sampling. These three species are amongst the most abundant in Atlantic Forest surveys (see Faria 1997, Faria 2006, Souza et al. 2014, Muylaert et al. 2017, Novaes et al. 2017). The species accumulation curves corroborated the results of the estimated species richness, indicating that there might be species not sampled in the study area and that the number of species may increase with more sampling effort.

Dias et al. (2002) reported the occurrence of Lonchophyllamordax and Lonchophyllabokermanni at Pedra Branca Forest. However, a subsequent review of Lonchophylla from South-eastern Brazil by Dias et al. (2013) re-assigned those specimens to L.peracchii. Currently, Lonchophyllamordax seems to be restricted to the Caatinga of Northeast Brazil, whereas L.bokermanni is restricted to the semi-deciduous forest and savannah areas of the Espinhaço Mountain Range, with no records of these two species for the Atlantic Forest of Rio de Janeiro (Dias et al. 2013, Moratelli and Dias 2015, Cláudio et al. 2018).

The record of Micronycterismegalotis for the Pedra Branca Forest by Dias et al. (2002) represents misidentifications of Micronycterismicrotis (see Dias and Peracchi 2008). Silva et al. (2019) reported the occurrence of Artibeusplanirostris at the Pedra Branca Forest. However, an unpublished revision of Artibeus specimens from the Atlantic Forest of Rio de Janeiro (including material from Pedra Branca) conducted by one of us (D. Dias) did not find evidence of the occurrence of the species in the State.

Future directions

In general, bat surveys in the Atlantic Forest are based on ground-level mist-nets only. Although this method is widely used throughout the Neotropical Region (Kunz and Kurta 1988, Trevelin et al. 2017), it has selective efficiency. Some phyllostomid bats (particularly Stenodermatinae and Carolliinae) are more easily captured in ground-level mist-nets than other taxa (Nowak 1994). This explains the high species richness of this family in the study area, although phyllostomids represent less than 50% of all known species for Rio de Janeiro (Peracchi and Nogueira 2010). Bats from other families, especially Emballonuridae, Molossidae and Vespertilionidae, are more difficult to capture because they are generally aerial insectivores that capture their prey during flight in open areas or above the tree canopy (Nowak 1994, Marques et al. 2015). Furthermore, these bats can detect and avoid nets easier than others due to their more efficient echolocation and great manoeuvrability (Marques et al. 2015). These additional methods include the use of canopy mist nets and bioacoustic surveys. These methods have been shown to be especially effective for detecting aerial insectivores in tropical forests (Marques et al. 2015, Hintze et al. 2016, Gregorin et al. 2016). As an example, an extensive sampling was carried out over water bodies in the Tijuca Forest, which favoured the record of six species of molosids (Esberard 2003) against only one molosid in Pedra Branca, which were mainly collected along existing trails.

We expect an increase in the species list for the Pedra Branca Forest by sampling in localities not previously surveyed and using different and complementary methods. Considering that the study area is under high anthropogenic pressure, is located in an urban area with the second largest population density in Brazil and that bats are one of the most important groups to host zoonotic pathogens, the high species richness found highlights the importance of long-term monitoring in these areas within the One Health approach.

Supplementary Material

Supplementary material 1

Linked data table of Bats of the Pedra Branca Forest

Amorim et al.

Data type

Occurrence records

File: oo_624891.xlsx

bdj-09-e77400-s001.xlsx (20.9KB, xlsx)

Acknowledgements

Don Wilson (Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History, USA) revised a previous version of the manuscript. JAT and RLMN received Masters and PhD scholarships from Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES), Brazil. RG has received researcher grants from Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq 304355/2018-6) and financial support from Fundação Carlos Chagas Filho de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado do Rio de Janeiro (FAPERJ; E-26/010.001597/2019), Brazil. RM has received support from CNPq (313963/2018-5) and FAPERJ (E-26/203.274/2017, E-26/210.254/2018, E-26/200.967/2021), Brazil. This study was financed in part by the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior, Brazil (CAPES) – Finance Code 001.

Hosting institution

Fundação Oswaldo Cruz - Fiocruz

Ethics and security

Sampling was carried out under SISBio permit 19037-1 and SisGen authorisation A46B0E1. Fieldwork followed protocols defined by the American Society of Mammalogists (Sikes et al. 2011) and Oswaldo Cruz Foundation's Animal Use Ethics Committee (CEUA/Fiocruz) LM-2/18.

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interests regarding the publication of this paper.

Hosting institution

Fundação Oswaldo Cruz - Fiocruz

Ethics and security

Sampling was carried out under SISBio permit 19037-1 and SisGen authorisation A46B0E1. Fieldwork followed protocols defined by the American Society of Mammalogists (Sikes et al. 2011) and Oswaldo Cruz Foundation's Animal Use Ethics Committee (CEUA/Fiocruz) LM-2/18.

Author contributions

RM, RG, CA and JAT designed the project; JAT, IV, RLMN, ACDPM, LFMJ, MAAK, CLR, MB, GCA, BA and SFCN performed field and laboratory work; JAT, RLMN and DD identified specimens; JAT and RLMN contributed in data analyses; JAT, RLMN, RFS and RM wrote the first draft; all authors read and approved the final version.

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interests regarding the publication of this paper.

References

  1. Alvares Clayton Alcarde, Stape José Luiz, Sentelhas Paulo Cesar, de Moraes Gonçalves José Leonardo, Sparovek Gerd. Köppen's climate classification map for Brazil. Meteorologische Zeitschrift. 2013;22(6):711–728. doi: 10.1127/0941-2948/2013/0507. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  2. Beltz Lisa A. Bats and human health. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.; 2017. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  3. Bolzan Dayana Paula, Lourenço Elizabete Captivo, Costa Luciana de Moraes, Luz Júlia Lins, Nogueira Tássia Jordão, Dias Daniela, Esbérard Carlos Eduardo Lustosa, Peracchi Adriano Lúcio. Morcegos da região da Costa Verde e adjacências, litoral sul do estado do Rio de Janeiro. Chiroptera Neotropical. 2010;16(1):586–595. [Google Scholar]
  4. Cláudio Vinícius C., Silveira Gustavo C., Farias Solange G., Maas Andrea S., Oliveira Marcione B., Lapenta Marina J., Alvarez Martín R., Dias Daniela, Moratelli Ricardo. First record of Lonchophylla bokermanni (Chiroptera, Phyllostomidae) for the Caatinga biome. Mastozoología Neotropical. 2018;25(1):043–051. doi: 10.31687/saremmn.18.25.1.0.05. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  5. Colwell Robert K. EstimateS: Statistical estimation of species richness and shared species from samples. http://purl.oclc.org/estimates
  6. Delciellos Ana Cláudia, Barros Camila dos Santos de, Prevedello Jayme Augusto, Ferreira Mariana Silva, Cerqueira Rui, Vieira Marcus Vinícius. Habitat fragmentation affects individual condition: evidence from small mammals of the Brazilian Atlantic Forest. Journal of Mammalogy. 2018;99(4):936–945. doi: 10.1093/jmammal/gyy078. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  7. Dias Daniela, Peracchi Adriano Lúcio, Silva Shirley Seixas Pereira da. Quirópteros do Parque Estadual da Pedra Branca, Rio de Janeiro, Brasil (Mammalia, Chiroptera) Revista Brasileira de Zoologia. 2002;19:113–140. doi: 10.1590/s0101-81752002000600012. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  8. Dias Daniela, Silva Shirley Seixas Pereira da, Peracchi Adriano Lúcio. Ocorrência de Glyphonycterissylvestris Thomas (Chiroptera, Phyllostomidae) no Estado do Rio de Janeiro, sudeste do Brasil. Revista Brasileira de Zoologia. 2003;20(2):365–366. doi: 10.1590/s0101-81752003000200030. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  9. Dias Daniela, Peracchi Adriano Lúcio. Quirópteros da Reserva Biológica do Tinguá, estado do Rio de Janeiro, sudeste do Brasil (Mammalia: Chiroptera) Revista Brasileira de Zoologia. 2008;25(2):333–369. doi: 10.1590/s0101-81752008000200023. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  10. Dias Daniela, Esberard Carlos Eduardo L., Moratelli Ricardo. A new species of Lonchophylla (Chiroptera, Phyllostomidae) from the Atlantic Forest of southeastern Brazil, with comments on L.bokermanni. Zootaxa. 2013;3722(3) doi: 10.11646/zootaxa.3722.3.4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Díaz D., Solari S., Aguirre L. F., Aguiar L. M.S., Barquez R. M. Clave de identificación de los murciélagos de Sud América. Programa de Conservación de los Murciélagos de Argentina; Tucumán: 2016. 160. [Google Scholar]
  12. Esberard Carlos Eduardo Lustrosa. Diversidade de morcegos em área de Mata Atlântica regenerada no sudeste do Brasil. Revista Brasileira de Zoociências. 2003;5(2):189–204. [Google Scholar]
  13. Faria Deborah. Phyllostomid bats of a fragmented landscape in the north-eastern Atlantic forest, Brazil. Journal of Tropical Ecology. 2006;22(5):531–542. doi: 10.1017/s0266467406003385. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  14. Faria D M. In: Ecologia e preservação de uma floresta tropical urbana – Reserva de Santa Genebra. Morellato P C, Leitão Filho H F, editors. Editora da Unicamp; Campinas: 1997. Os morcegos de Santa Genebra.100-106 [Google Scholar]
  15. Garbino G. S.T., Gregorin R., Lima I. P., Loureiro L., Moras L., Moratelli R., Nogueira M. R., Pavan A. C., Tavares A. C., Nascimento M. C., Peracchi A. L. Updated checklist of Brazilian bats: versão 2020. Comitê da Lista de Morcegos do Brasil—CLMB. Sociedade Brasileira para o Estudo de Quirópteros. https://www.sbeq.net/lista-de-especies. [2021-10-29T00:00:00+03:00];
  16. Gardner A L. Mammals of South America. V1. Chicago Press; Chicago: 2008. 690. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  17. Gregorin Renato, Tahara Arthur Setsuo, Buzzato Debora Ferrari. Molossusaztecus and other small Molossus (Chiroptera: Molossidae) in Brazil. Acta Chiropterologica. 2011;13(2):311–317. doi: 10.3161/150811011x624794. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  18. Gregorin Renato, Moras Ligiane Martins, Acosta Luis Hernán, Vasconcellos Karina Lobão, Poma José Luis, dos Santos Fabrício Rodrigues, Paca Roberto Carlos. A new species of Eumops (Chiroptera: Molossidae) from southeastern Brazil and Bolivia. Mammalian Biology. 2016;81(3):235–246. doi: 10.1016/j.mambio.2016.01.002. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  19. Hintze Frederico, Arias-Aguilar Adriana, Aguiar Ludmilla M. S., Pereira Maria João Ramos, Bernard Enrico. Uma nota de precaução sobre a identificação automática de chamados de ecolocalização de morcegos no Brasil. Boletim da Sociedade Brasileira de Mastozoologia. 2016;77:163–171. [Google Scholar]
  20. IBGE . Manual técnico da vegetação brasileira. Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística; Rio de Janeiro: 2011. 271. [Google Scholar]
  21. IBGE Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística. https://www.ibge.gov.br. [2021-10-29T00:00:00+03:00];
  22. INEA . INEA; 2013. Plano de Manejo do Parque Estadual da Pedra Branca. Access in Dez 17, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  23. Kading Rebekah C., Kingston Tigga. Common ground: the foundation of interdisciplinary research on bat disease emergence. PLOS Biology. 2020;18(11) doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3000947. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Kalko E. K.V., Handley C. O., Handley D. Organization, diversity, and long-term dynamics of a Neotropical bat community. Long-Term Studies of Vertebrate Communities. 1996:503–553. doi: 10.1016/b978-012178075-3/50017-9. [DOI]
  25. Kunz Thomas H., Braun de Torrez Elizabeth, Bauer Dana, Lobova Tatyana, Fleming Theodore H. Ecosystem services provided by bats. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. 2011;1223(1):1–38. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-6632.2011.06004.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Kunz T. H., Kurta A. In: Ecology and behavioral methods for the study of bats. Kunz T. H., editor. Smithsonian Institution Press; Washington, DC.: 1988. Capture methods and holding devices.533 [Google Scholar]
  27. Lu Hang, McComas Katherine A., Buttke Danielle E., Roh Sungjong, Wild Margaret A. A one health message about bats increases intentions to follow public health guidance on bat rabies. PLOS One. 2016;11(5) doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0156205. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Marques J. Tiago, Ramos Pereira M. J., Palmeirim J. M. Patterns in the use of rainforest vertical space by Neotropical aerial insectivorous bats: all the action is up in the canopy. Ecography. 2015;39(5):476–486. doi: 10.1111/ecog.01453. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  29. Moratelli Ricardo, Peracchi Adriano L., Dias Daniela, de Oliveira João A. Geographic variation in South American populations of Myotisnigricans (Chiroptera, Vespertilionidae), with the description of two new species. Mammalian Biology. 2011;76(5):592–607. doi: 10.1016/j.mambio.2011.01.003. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  30. Moratelli Ricardo, Calisher Charles H. Bats and zoonotic viruses: can we confidently link bats with emerging deadly viruses? Memórias do Instituto Oswaldo Cruz. 2015;110(1):1–22. doi: 10.1590/0074-02760150048. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Moratelli Ricardo, Dias Daniela. A new species of nectar-feeding bat, genus Lonchophylla, from the Caatinga of Brazil (Chiroptera, Phyllostomidae) ZooKeys. 2015;514:73–91. doi: 10.3897/zookeys.514.10013. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Muylaert Renata d. L., Stevens Richard D., Esbérard Carlos E. L., Mello Marco A. R., Garbino Guilherme S. T., Varzinczak Luiz H., Faria Deborah, Weber Marcelo d. M., Kerches Rogeri Patricia, Regolin André L., Oliveira Hernani F. M. d., Costa Luciana d. M., Barros Marília A. S., Sabino-Santos Gilberto, Crepaldi de Morais Mara Ariane, Kavagutti Vinicius S., Passos Fernando C., Marjakangas Emma-Liina, Maia Felipe G. M., Ribeiro Milton C., Galetti Mauro. Atlantic bats: a data set of bat communities from the Atlantic Forests of South America. Ecology. 2017;98(12):3227–3227. doi: 10.1002/ecy.2007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Novaes Roberto Leonan M., Souza Renan F., Felix Saulo, Siqueira André C., Laurindo Rafael S., Menezes Luis Fernando, Shapiro Julie T. Seasonality and habitat influence on bat assemblage structure in an urban Atlantic Forest remnant from southeastern Brazil. Mammalia . 2017;81(3) doi: 10.1515/mammalia-2015-0115. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  34. Nowak R. M. Walker's bats of the World. Johns Hopkins University Press; Baltimore: 1994. 296 [Google Scholar]
  35. Oksanen J., Blanche F. G., Friendly M., Kindt R., Legendre P., D. McGlinn., Minchin P. R., O'Hara R. B., Simpson G. L., Solymos P., Stevens M. H.H., Szoecs E., Wagner H. 'Vegan': a community ecology package to R. https://github.com/vegandevs/vegan. [2020-10-29T00:00:00+02:00];
  36. Oliveira Rogério, Fernandez Annelise., editors. Paisagens do Sertão Carioca: floresta e cidade. PUC-Rio; Rio de Janeiro: 2020. 310. [Google Scholar]
  37. Peracchi A. L., Nogueira M. R. Lista anotada dos morcegos do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, sudeste do Brasil. Chiroptera Neotropical. 2010;16(1):673–693. [Google Scholar]
  38. Pinto A. C.D. Comunidade de quiropteros (Mammalia, Chiroptera) do Parque Natural Municipal da Prainha, RJ, Brasil. M.Sc. thesis. Universidade Federal Rural do Rio de Janeiro; Seropédica: 2008. 194 [Google Scholar]
  39. Reis N. R., Peracchi A. L., Batista C. B., Lima I. P., Pereira A. D., editors. História natural dos morcegos brasileiros: chave de identificação. Technical Books Editora; Rio de Janeiro: 2017. 416 [Google Scholar]
  40. Rocha C. F.D., Bergallo HG, Alves M. A.S., Van Sluys M. A biodiversidade nos grandes remanescentes florestais do Estado do Rio de Janeiro e nas restingas da Mata Atlântica. RiMa Editora; São Carlos: 2003. 160. [Google Scholar]
  41. Silva S. S.P., Guedes P. G., Almeida J. C., Cruz A. P. Bionomics and biology of bats (Mammalia - Chiroptera) in an Atlantic forest remnant: Parque Estadual da Pedra Branca (Rio de Janeiro, Brazil) Natureza Online. 2019;17(2):1–15. [Google Scholar]
  42. Souza Renan De França, Novaes Roberto Leonan Morim, Siqueira André, Sauwen Cristal, Jacob Gabriella, Santos Carlos Eduardo Lopes, Felix Saulo, Ribeiro Edvandro, Sant'Anna Camila, Vrcibradic Davor, Avilla Leonardo, Sbragia Isabel, Santori Ricardo Tadeu. Morcegos (Mammalia, Chiroptera) em remanescente de Floresta Atlântica, Rio de Janeiro, sudeste do Brasil. Neotropical Biology and Conservation. 2014;10(1) doi: 10.4013/nbc.2015.101.02. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  43. Straube F., Bianconi G. V. Sobre a grandeza e a unidade utilizada para estimar esforço de captura com utilização de redes-de-neblina. Chiroptera Neotropical. 2002;8(1-2):150–152. [Google Scholar]
  44. Tang Xiaolu, Wu Changcheng, Li Xiang, Song Yuhe, Yao Xinmin, Wu Xinkai, Duan Yuange, Zhang Hong, Wang Yirong, Qian Zhaohui, Cui Jie, Lu Jian. On the origin and continuing evolution of SARS-CoV-2. National Science Review. 2020;7(6):1012–1023. doi: 10.1093/nsr/nwaa036. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Trevelin Leonardo Carreira, Novaes Roberto Leonan Morim, Colas-Rosas Paul François, Benathar Thayse Cristhina Melo, Peres Carlos A. Enhancing sampling design in mist-net bat surveys by accounting for sample size optimization. PLOS One. 2017;12(3) doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0174067. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Supplementary material 1

Linked data table of Bats of the Pedra Branca Forest

Amorim et al.

Data type

Occurrence records

File: oo_624891.xlsx

bdj-09-e77400-s001.xlsx (20.9KB, xlsx)

Articles from Biodiversity Data Journal are provided here courtesy of Pensoft Publishers

RESOURCES