Rationale (Changed due to New Information)

This species is widely but sparsely distributed throughout its range, but only known from three localities (Komatipoort, Malelane and Hectorspruit) in the northeast of the assessment region. These localities are on the outskirts of the Kruger National Park (KNP) alongside what is known as the Peripheral Development Zone, which may mean the localities are not subject to the same responsibility of environmental protection as the core area of KNP. However, all specimens have been collected from bat houses, which suggests the species may tolerate modified habitats and human habitation. It is uncertain whether the localities represent locations as the threats to this species are poorly understood. As such, we list the species as Near Threatened D2 (nearly qualifying for Vulnerable D2) and urge further field surveys to delimit distribution and population size within the assessment region more accurately and to quantify potential threats, as this species may qualify for a more threatened status. Additionally, molecular research may reveal this species to be endemic to southern Africa. Thus, reassessment is required once more comprehensive data are available.

Regional population effects: It is on the edge of the range but the population is discontinuously distributed between the assessment region and Mozambique/ Zimbabwe. While it is probably more evenly distributed than currently recorded (Monadjem et al. 2010), little is known about its dispersal capacity and thus we assume no rescue effects are possible.

Distribution

The Giant Yellow House Bat is sparsely, but widely, distributed in Africa, marginally entering southern Africa in the east. It is known from only a few scattered localities in Senegal, Côte d'Ivoire, Ghana, Togo and Nigeria in West Africa, from central Sudan, and from western Democratic Republic of the Congo, western Kenya and Tanzania, Mozambique, Malawi, eastern Zimbabwe and northeastern South Africa (Happold 2013, ACR 2015). This species is probably difficult to record and distribution gaps may be filled across most of its range (Happold 2013), but possibly not within the assessment region. A record from Botswana (Cotterill 1996, Taylor 2000) is erroneous (Happold 2013) as it actually refers to S. dinganii. This highlights a general problem where, since this species was once confused with S. dinganii, many references to S. nigrita in the literature constitute incorrect localities (for example, Hutton 1986). Robbins (1978) suggested that most specimens called nigrita prior to 1978 should be called dinganii. Additionally, ongoing molecular research may raise the southern African and West African subspecies to specific status (Vallo et al. 2015).

While previously not assessed in South Africa due to it being considered a vagrant (Friedmann and Daly 2004), the first South African records of the rare S. nigrita were discovered in bat houses in Komatipoort and Malelane in 2004 (Monadjem et al. 2010), and have since also been recorded from bat houses in Hectorspruit. It may have been around for a long time and was simply overlooked in the past even in inhabited areas. It could be that it adapts easily to artificial roosting sites like S. dinganii or that habitat destruction forced it to inhabit built areas including bat houses. It is unknown whether it extends deeper into Kruger National Park or other areas of the assessment region. Further field surveys and monitoring of bat houses are necessary.

Habitat View more ecological information

Population trend

Trend

Threats

Globally, this species is threatened by the conversion of its habitat to agricultural use in parts of its range. Within the assessment region, it is unknown whether there are significant threats facing the population. While there is agricultural intensification around all three localities, and thus a possible impact of pesticides reducing its prey base, this species can exist in human modified habitats and forages close to large river systems where its preferred insect prey is abundant. Quantifying the impacts of specific threats is required.

Uses and trade

Conservation

Given the close proximity of the known subpopulations to Kruger National Park (KNP), this species may occur in at least one protected area (but this remains to be verified). No direct conservation interventions are recommended until more is known about the threats facing the population. However, as it occurs in the Peripheral Development Zone (PDZ) of KNP, which is not subject to the same responsibility of environmental protection and management, several basic interventions are recommended until more detailed information is available: limiting disturbance to known roost sites and decreasing pesticide use and/or retaining buffer strips of natural vegetation in surrounding landscapes to sustain the insect prey base. This can be achieved through an education campaign in local communities to highlight the importance of ecosystem services and distribute best practice guidelines. As this species was first recorded from bat boxes, the installation of bat boxes may become a future intervention if community willingness and responsibility is nurtured.

Recommendations for land managers and practitioners:

• Maintenance of bat houses currently occupied. 
• Protect remaining natural habitat outside KNP.
• Minimise environmental pesticide/insecticide contamination (e.g., in agro-industry).

Research priorities: 

• Field surveys to identify further colonies and identify specific threats. 
• Investigating patterns of movement to establish level of demographic and genetic exchange between colonies and quantifying the effects on transformation/fragmentation on such processes. 
• Taxonomic resolution through ongoing molecular research.

Encouraged citizen actions: 

• Limit disturbance to roost sites. 
• Avoid or limit the use of pesticides/insecticides for household purposes.