SANBI

Rationale

Widespread in the assessment region with an extent of occurrence of 501,718 km² and more than 35 recorded subpopulations. Although this species may be experiencing localised declines due to disturbances to roost sites and loss of foraging habitat due to conversion of natural areas for agriculture, it remains sufficiently widespread to not qualify for a threatened category. There are no major identified threats to the species and thus we list as Least Concern in the absence of evidence to the contrary. However, the emerging threat of collisions with wind power turbines and disruption to migration routes should be monitored. Additionally, ongoing molecular research may reveal this species to be endemic to the assessment region and subpopulation estimates are needed to determine overall population size. Thus, this species should be reassessed once such data are available.

Regional population effects: This species occurs as one continuous population within the assessment region and into neighbouring countries of Mozambique and Zimbabwe. However, dispersal rates are unknown and thus rescue effects are uncertain. It has low wing-loading (M. Happold unpubl. data) and may be endemic or near endemic to the assessment region, thus limiting rescue effects.

Distribution

Although formerly thought to be present in Central Africa, East Africa and southern Africa in discrete ranges (ACR 2015), the largest of which stretches down southeastern Africa, from Malawi, Mozambique and Zimbabwe, down to South Africa (where it extends along the south coast), recent molecular work suggests that it may be endemic to the assessment region (Miller-Butterworth et al. 2005; Goodman et al. 2007; Monadjem et al. 2013).

Within the assessment region, it occurs widely in the eastern parts of South Africa and in Swaziland (Monadjem et al. 2010), having been recorded from Knysna in the Western Cape, east and north along the coast to southern and western KwaZulu-Natal, in western Swaziland and north along the Drakensberg to Limpopo and Mpumalanga provinces. Although historically recorded from Gauteng there are no recent records from this province. Indeed, these outliers from Krugersdrop (three specimens collected in 1944 and deposited in the Amathole Museum) belong to M. fraterculus on the basis of skull length but there is still the possibility that these specimens have been misidentified (Monadjem et al. 2010). Further vetting of museum records is necessary to delimit distribution more accurately.

Habitat View more ecological information

Population trend

Trend

The species is widespread but uncommonly recorded and is not well represented in museums, with 55 specimens examined in Monadjem et al. (2010). Like M. inflatus, it occurs alongside M. natalensis but congregates in far smaller numbers (Taylor 2000). Although Friedmann and Daly (2004) listed this species as Near Threatened C1 based on presumed small population but uncertainty of continuing decline, there is no evidence that the population is fewer than 10,000 mature individuals. Subpopulation estimates are needed.

Threats

Although there are no major identified threats that could cause range-wide declines, this species is threatened by disturbances to roost sites (maternity and winter roosts) as a result of religious and traditional ceremonies by local communities, as well as tourist activities, carried out in caves in South Africa. The tendency of this species to roost in a few localised sites places it at risk of future population declines (Friedmann & Daly 2004). Extensive transformation of natural habitat, particularly in KwaZulu-Natal (Jewitt et al. 2015), is likely to be causing declines where the insect prey base is depleted as a result of loss of native vegetation or the use of pesticides. Wind farms pose an emerging threat as Miniopterus species are prone to collisions with turbine blades, particularly as wind farm sites overlap with primary habitat for these species.

Uses and trade

Not known to be traded or utilised in any form.

Conservation

Known from many protected areas in the assessment region, including large parks such as Kruger National Park, iSimangaliso Wetland Park and Serala Wilderness Area. No direct conservation interventions are necessary at present. However, to mitigate mortalities from turbine collisions on wind farms, interventions such as using ultrasound to deter bats and curtailing turbines at low wind speeds could be employed (Baerwald et al. 2009; Berthinussen et al. 2010; Arnett et al. 2011).

Recommendations for land managers and practitioners:

Data sharing by wind farm managers into a national database, to be able to calculate cumulative impacts and thereafter implement collaborative mitigation and management efforts, is needed.

Research priorities:

Monitoring mortalities linked with wind farm. operations and assessing impact on populations.
Systematic monitoring to identify key roost sites and delimit geographical distribution more accurately.
Molecular analysis and vetting of museum records to delimit distribution more accurately and to resolve taxonomic status.

Encouraged citizen actions:

Limit disturbance to roost sites.
Deposit any dead specimens to the Durban Natural Science Museum or KwaZulu-Natal Bat Interest Group.

References

[@book{275,
 address = {Cambridge},
 author = {Skinner, J.D. and Chimimba, C.T.},
 publisher = {Cambridge University Press, United Kingdom},
 title = {The Mammals of the Southern African Subregion},
 year = {2005}
}
,@book{6236,
 author = {Friedmann, Y. and Daly, B.},
 publisher = {CBSG Southern Africa, IUCN SSC Conservation Breeding Specialist Group, Endangered Wildlife Trust, South Africa},
 title = {Red Data Book of the Mammals of South Africa: A Conservation Assessment.},
 year = {2004}
}
,@book{9077,
 address = {Pietermaritzburg, South Africa},
 author = {Taylor, P.J.},
 publisher = {University of Natal Press},
 title = {The Smaller Mammals of KwaZulu-Natal},
 year = {1998}
}
,@book{19529,
 address = {Pietermaritzburg, South Africa},
 author = {Taylor, P.J.},
 publisher = {University of Natal Press},
 title = {Bats of Southern Africa: Guide to Biology, Identification, and Conservation},
 year = {2000}
}
,@book{19529,
 address = {Johannesburg},
 author = {Monadjem, A., Taylor, P.J., Cotterill, F.P.D. and Schoeman M.C.},
 publisher = {University of Witwatersrand Press},
 title = {Bats of Southern and Central Africa: a biogeographic and taxonomic synthesis},
 year = {2010}
}
,@article{64587154,
 author = {Boyles, J.G., Cryan, P.M., McCracken, G.F. and Kunz, T.H.},
 journal = {Science},
 pages = {41–42},
 title = {Economic importance of bats in agriculture},
 volume = {332},
 year = {2011}
}
,@article{4221,
 author = {Jewitt D, Goodman P.S., Erasmus B.F.N., O’Connor T.G.; and Witkowski E.T.F.},
 journal = {South African Journal of Science },
 pages = {1–9.},
 title = {Systematic land-cover change in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa: implications for biodiversity},
 volume = {111},
 year = {2015}
}
,@techreport{4306,
 address = {Pretoria, South Africa},
 author = {ACR},
 title = {African Chiroptera Report 2015},
 year = {2015}
}
,@article{4317,
 author = {Kunz TH, Braun de Torrez E, Bauer D, Lobova T, Fleming TH},
 journal = { Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences},
 pages = {1–38},
 title = { Ecosystem services provided by bats},
 volume = { 1223},
 year = {2011}
}
,@techreport{6269,
 address = {Pretoria, South Africa},
 author = {Driver A, Sink KJ, Nel JN, Holness S, van Niekerk L, Daniels F, Jonas Z, Majiedt PA, Harris L, Maze K},
 institution = {South African National Biodiversity Institute and Department of Environmental Affairs},
 title = { National Biodiversity Assessment 2011: An Assessment of South Africa’s Biodiversity and Ecosystems. Synthesis Report},
 year = {2012}
}
,@article{7906,
 author = {Arnett EB, Huso MM, Schirmacher MR, Hayes JP.},
 journal = {Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment},
 pages = {209–214},
 title = {Altering turbine speed reduces bat mortality at wind-energy facilities},
 volume = {9},
 year = {2011}
}
,@article{7906,
 author = {Baerwald EF, Edworthy J, Holder M, Barclay RM.},
 journal = {Journal of Wildlife Management},
 pages = {1077–1081},
 title = {A large-scale mitigation experiment to reduce bat fatalities at wind energy facilities},
 volume = {73},
 year = {2009}
}
,@book{7906,
 address = {Exeter},
 author = {Berthinussen, A., Richardson, O.C. and Altringham, J.D.},
 publisher = {Pelagic Publishing},
 title = {Bat Conservation: Global Evidence for the Effects of Interventions. Synopses of Conservation Evidence},
 year = {2010}
}
,@article{13563,
 author = {Goodman, S. M., Ryan, K. E., Maminirina, C. P., Fahr, J., Christidis, L. and Appleton, B.},
 journal = {Journal of Mammalogy},
 pages = {1216--1229},
 title = {Specific status of populations on Madagascar referred to <i>Miniopterus fraterculus</i> (Chiroptera: Vespertilionidae), with description of a new species},
 volume = {88},
 year = {2007}
}
,@article{13563,
 author = {Monadjem, A., Goodman, S.M., Stanley, W.T. and Appleton, B.},
 journal = {Zootaxa},
 number = {1},
 pages = {123--142},
 title = {A cryptic new species of <i>Miniopterus</i> from south-eastern Africa based on molecular and morphological characters.},
 volume = {3746},
 year = {2013}
}
,@article{13563,
 author = {Miller-Butterworth CM, Eick G, Jacobs DS, Schoeman MC, Harley EH},
 journal = {Journal of Mammalogy},
 pages = {1121–1135},
 title = {Genetic and phenotypic differences between South African long-fingered bats, with a global miniopterine phylogeny},
 volume = {86},
 year = {2005}
}
,@article{13563,
 author = {Stoffberg, S., Jacobs, D.S. and Miller-Butterworth, C.M.},
 journal = {African Zoology},
 pages = {47–53},
 title = {Field identification of two morphologically similar bats, <i>Miniopterus schreibersii natalensis</i> and <i>Miniopterus fraterculus</i> (Chiroptera: Vespertilionidae)},
 volume = {39},
 year = {2004}
}
,]

How to cite this assessment

See the partners page

Send feedback about this assessment to SANBI

Red List of South African Species