Bats show responses to anthropogenic stressors linked to changes in other ecosystem components such as insects, and as K-selected mammals, exhibit fast population declines. This speciose, widespread mammal group shows an impressive trophic diversity and provides key ecosystem services. For these and other reasons, bats might act as suitable bioindicators in many environmental contexts. However, few studies have explicitly tested this potential, and in some cases, stating that bats are useful bioindicators more closely resembles a slogan to support conservation than a well-grounded piece of scientific evidence. Here, we review the available information and highlight the limitations that arise in using bats as bioindicators. Based on the limited number of studies available, the use of bats as bioindicators is highly promising and warrants further investigation in specific contexts such as river quality, urbanisation, farming practices, forestry, bioaccumulation, and climate change. Whether bats may also serve as surrogate taxa remains a controversial yet highly interesting matter. Some limitations to using bats as bioindicators include taxonomical issues, sampling problems, difficulties in associating responses with specific stressors, and geographically biased or delayed responses. Overall, we urge the scientific community to test bat responses to specific stressors in selected ecosystem types and develop research networks to explore the geographic consistency of such responses. The high cost of sampling equipment (ultrasound detectors) is being greatly reduced by technological advances, and the legal obligation to monitor bat populations already existing in many countries such as those in the EU offers an important opportunity to accomplish two objectives (conservation and bioindication) with one action.

One serious concern associated with the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic is that the virus might spill back from humans to wildlife, which would render some animal species reservoirs of the human virus. We assessed the potential circulation of SARS-CoV-2 caused by reverse infection from humans to bats, by performing bat surveillance from different sites in Central–Southern Italy. We restricted our survey to sampling techniques that are minimally invasive and can therefore be broadly applied by non-medical operators such as bat workers. We collected 240 droppings or saliva from 129 bats and tested them using specific and general primers for SARS-CoV-2 and coronaviruses, respectively. All samples (127 nasal swabs and 113 faecal droppings) were negative for SARS-CoV-2, and these results were confirmed by testing the samples with the Droplet Digital PCR. Additionally, pancoronavirus end-point RT-PCR was performed, and no sample showed specific bands. This outcome is a first step towards a better understanding of the reverse transmission of this virus to bats. Although the occurrence of a reverse zoonotic pattern can only be fully established by serological testing, the latter might represent an in-depth follow-up to a broad-scale preliminary assessment performed with our approach. We encourage the systematic surveillance of bats to help prevent reverse zoonotic episodes that would jeopardize human health, as well as biodiversity conservation and management.