LAUSR

Abstract Bat abundance, diversity, and behavior can be monitored by capturing bats for identification and measurement in the hand, but this has several disadvantages. These include disturbance to the bats, which limits the frequency with which captures can be made at an individual capture site, and potentially alters the behaviors being studied. Infrared video monitoring, passive acoustic recording and automated analysis and identification of bat calls offers an alternative set of noninvasive methods for monitoring bats. In this study, we examine the effectiveness of acoustic monitoring in comparison with capture‐based and video monitoring of seasonal swarming behavior among several species of Myotis bats in southern Britain. We applied these complementary approaches to describe seasonal, overnight, and species‐specific variation in swarming behavior in a multispecies community of Myotis bats. We show that the three monitoring approaches have advantages and disadvantages for different tasks, but can be viewed as highly complementary methods for addressing different types of research questions. In our study of swarming behavior, capture and examination of bats in the hand was necessary for measuring sex ratios, reproductive status, and even for confirmation of species identification for some difficult to separate taxa. Capture is also an essential aspect of tagging bats for individual identification and tracking studies. Video monitoring is useful for understanding the behavior of bats at swarming sites, and measuring the flux of individuals into and out of roosting or swarming sites. Passive acoustic monitoring is a valuable noninvasive method for continuous monitoring of within‐night, seasonal, and between‐year variation in the abundance of bat calls. These can be used as an index of variation in relative abundance within—but not between—bat species.