Asian Journal of Conservation Biology, July 2020. Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 143-150 AJCB: FP0132 ISSN 2278-7666 ©TCRP Foundation 2020 Influence of urbanization on roost selection of Asiatic Lesser Yellow bat, Scotophilus kuhlii (Leach, 1821) in Uttar Pradesh, India Shani Kumar Bhartiy * and Vadamalai Elangovan Department of Zoology, Babasaheb Bhimaro Ambedkar University, Lucknow-226025, India (Received: May 04, 2020; Revised: June 12, 2020 ; Accepted: July 05, 2020) ABSTRACT Urbanization in Uttar Pradesh has replaced many pre-existing natural habitats with artificial, human-populous environments. Nevertheless, some bat species have persisted in urban habitats, the overall abundance and diversi- ty of bats within them is low. Therefore, we examined urbanization factors that influence roosting of bats such as house density, abandoned buildings, obstruction, lighting, roost height, water and vegetative resource distance in three different habitats such as urban, suburban and rural areas of Uttar Pradesh. We compared among the factors with colony size of S. kuhlii in the urban, suburban and rural. In this study, it was observed that house density, roost height, obstruction and distance of water and vegetative resource negative effect on the colony size or roost selection of S kuhlii in among the habitats. While in number of insect, abandoned building, number of street light pole and age of building shown positive correlation in among habitats except age of building in rural. Showed significantly different between colony size and factors in urban, suburban and rural (p < 0.05) except roost height. The present study signifies preference of intermediate level of urbanization by S. kuhlii. Key words: Conservation, Microclimate, Obstruction, Roost selection, Urban ecology, Urbanization factors INTRODUCTION Urbanization is anthropogenic pressure which gradually change vegetative lands into settlements (Grimm et al., 2008) such kind of changes supports too few species and also harmful impact on some species (McKinney, 2002; Shochat et al., 2006). Moderate level of urbanization including suburban areas, there excess amount of foods were available at roosting sites (Blair & Launer, 1997) which supports heterogeneity biodiversity (Mooney, 2011). As compare to urban, suburban and rural area supports higher biodiversity (Merotto & Francis, 2017). Many studies reported that lower biodiversity in urban environments of different organism such as insects (Blair & Launer, 1997), amphibians (Scheffers & Pasz- kowski, 2012), birds (Marzluff, 2001) and few mammals (Villasenor et al., 2014). Urban areas also play some profound effect such as additional stress (Isaksson, 2010), increased infection and parasitism rates (Giraudeau et al., 2014). Bats make a significant contribution to mammali- an species richness and biomass in the tropics. The roost structure is one of the most important features of a bat ’s environment, and the selections made by bats with re- spect to the type and location of roost sites are likely to have a decisive impact on their survival and fitness (Vonhof & Barclay, 1997). Many factors such as; water resource, lighting, food availability, house density, vegetation and abstrac- tion in urban, suburban and in rural influence change in behaviours for choosing roosts of bats (Altringham, 1996). High housing density areas support low bat spe- cies richness while low-density housing areas have been support high bat richness (Threlfall et al., 2011). Bats may avoid sound pollution environments, presumably *Corresponding Author’s E-mail: shanikumarbhartiy@gmail.com 143 because the noise affects their ability to effectively for- age, communicate and spatially orient themselves (Mackey & Barclay, 1989; Schaub et al., 2008; Arnett et al., 2013). Bats may also avoid noisy areas for roost sites to reduce disruption during torpor or hibernation (Thomas, 1995; Luo et al., 2014). Microclimate is an important factor in only of buildings roost (Racey & Swift, 1981; Hamilton & Bar- clay, 1994). Many authors reported that water resource and lightings are vital for bats (Furlonger et al., 1987; Gehrt & Chelsvig, 2003; Kurta & Teramino, 1992). Availability of water and roost temperature increased the reproductive success of female insectivorous bats (Adam & Hayes, 2008) which directly impact on bats population. Higher light intensity may reduce the forag- ing success of bats and most of bats distracts their trav- eling routs (Downs et al., 2003; Stone et al., 2012). Few report suggested that insectivorous bats mostly forage near the high density of insect that found near the white light lamps (Furlonger et al., 1987). In rural areas light- ing also play important role on some bats by attracting insect as food resources (Fenton et al., 1983; Rydell, 1992; Van Langevelde et al., 2011). Lasiurus cinereus, L. borealis roost among the foliage of trees, whereas Lasionycteris noctivagans roosts in cavities of tree bark (Kunz & Lumsden, 2003). Removing of tree for urban development, which simultaneously also damage roost- ing sites, which is opportunistic site for roosting in ur- ban (Duchamp & Swihart, 2008; Dixon, 2012). Anthropogenic destruction was main factor, which leads to loss of foraging as well as roosting site as a result decline in bats population (Mickleburgh et al., 2002). Several kinds of disturbance in urban habi- tats may reduce the bats abundance and diversity where (Russell et al., 2009; Kitzes & Merenlender, 2014).