Lasiurus borealis - (Muller, 1776)
Eastern Red Bat
Other English Common Names: eastern red bat
Synonym(s): Nycteris borealis
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Lasiurus borealis (Müller, 1776) (TSN 180016)
French Common Names: chauve-souris rousse, chauve-souris rousse de l'Est
Spanish Common Names: Un Murciélago
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.799416
Element Code: AMACC05010
Informal Taxonomy: Animals, Vertebrates - Mammals - Bats
 
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus
Animalia Craniata Mammalia Chiroptera Vespertilionidae Lasiurus
Genus Size: C - Small genus (6-20 species)
Check this box to expand all report sections:
Concept Reference
Help
Concept Reference: Wilson, D. E., and D. M. Reeder (editors). 2005. Mammal species of the world: a taxonomic and geographic reference. Third edition. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore. Two volumes. 2,142 pp. Available online at: https://www.departments.bucknell.edu/biology/resources/msw3/
Concept Reference Code: B05WIL01NAUS
Name Used in Concept Reference: Lasiurus borealis
Taxonomic Comments: New World Lasiurus were placed in the genus Nycteris by Hall (1981), who based the change on nomenclatural (rather than biological) concerns; few if any other authors have followed this change.

Here the forms in the Caribbean (L. degelidus, L. minor and L. pfeiferi), Argentina (L. varius), and the Western US through southern South America (L. blossevillii) are all considered distinct species (Rodríguez-Durán and Kunz 2001, Barquez et al. 1999, Tirira 1999, Bruce Patterson, pers. comm.).

Baker et al. (1988) divided L. borealis into multiple species: L. borealis (corresponding with subspecies borealis), L. blossevillii (combining former L. borealis subspecies teliotus and frantzii; western U.S., Mexico, Central America, and South America), L. degelidus (Jamaica), and others on Caribbean islands (additional study needed). Jones et al. (1992) accepted L. blossevillii as a distinct species, but Koopman (in Wilson and Reeder 1993) and Koopman and McCracken (1998) thought it best to keep blossevillii (and degelidus, minor, and pfeifferi) in L. borealis until taxonomic relationships are better resolved. Shump (in Wilson and Ruff 1999) also did not recognize L. blossevillii as a valid species. MtDNA data support the recognition of L. borealis and L. blossevillii as distinct species (Morales and Bickham 1995), and the mammal checklists by Baker et al. (2003) and Simmons (in Wilson and Reeder 2005), as well as most subsequent authors, accepted L. blossevillii as valid. MtDNA data indicate that Cuban L. pfeifferi, sometimes regarded as a subspecies of L. borealis, is closer to L. seminolus and possibly is a subspecies of the latter (Morales and Bickham 1995). Koopman and McCracken (1998) included L. brachyotis of the Galapagos Islands in L. borealis.
Conservation Status
Help

NatureServe Status

Global Status: G3G4
Global Status Last Reviewed: 04Apr2016
Global Status Last Changed: 17Mar2015
Ranking Methodology Used: Ranked by calculator
Rounded Global Status: G3 - Vulnerable
Reasons: Large range in much of the eastern and central United States and adjacent southern Canada and northeastern Mexico; high availability of roost sites (primarily in trees), but these represent solitary individuals or single females with young; habitat availability has been reduced through historical deforestation, but much habitat remains, and species uses managed forest landscapes and urbanized areas with large trees; population size is probably still large but substantially declining; abundant mortality caused by turbines at wind energy facilities appears to be the major threat, and this threat is expected to greatly increase in the near future; reproductive rate of this species is low, and its ability to sustain the current and anticipated level of wind-energy impact is doubtful.
Nation: United States
National Status: N5 (05Sep1996)
Nation: Canada
National Status: N5B,NUM (01Jan2018)

U.S. & Canada State/Province Status
Due to latency between updates made in state, provincial or other NatureServe Network databases and when they appear on NatureServe Explorer, for state or provincial information you may wish to contact the data steward in your jurisdiction to obtain the most current data. Please refer to our Distribution Data Sources to find contact information for your jurisdiction.
United States Alabama (S5), Arkansas (S5), Colorado (S2S3B), Connecticut (S3), Delaware (S5), District of Columbia (S4), Florida (SNR), Georgia (S5), Illinois (S5), Indiana (S4), Iowa (S4), Kansas (S5B), Kentucky (S5), Louisiana (S4), Maine (SU), Maryland (S5B,S5N), Massachusetts (S3), Michigan (S5), Minnesota (SNR), Mississippi (S4S5), Missouri (S4), Montana (S2S3), Nebraska (S3), New Hampshire (S3?B), New Jersey (SU), New Mexico (S3N), New York (S3S4B), North Carolina (S5), North Dakota (SNR), Ohio (SNR), Oklahoma (S4), Pennsylvania (S5B), Rhode Island (SNR), South Carolina (S4S5), South Dakota (S5), Tennessee (S5), Texas (S4), Vermont (S4B), Virginia (S4), West Virginia (S3), Wisconsin (S3)
Canada Alberta (S1), Manitoba (S3B), New Brunswick (SUB,S2?M), Newfoundland Island (SNA), Nova Scotia (SUB,S1M), Nunavut (SNR), Ontario (S4), Quebec (S3), Saskatchewan (S4B)

Other Statuses

IUCN Red List Category: LC - Least concern

NatureServe Global Conservation Status Factors

Range Extent: >2,500,000 square km (greater than 1,000,000 square miles)
Range Extent Comments: Range includes the central and eastern United States and adjacent southern Canada (west to British Columbia; Nagorsen and Paterson 2012) and northeastern Mexico, with occasional occurrences on Atlantic/Caribbean islands (Baker et al. 1988, Cryan 2003, Patriquin 2004, Reid 2006). Winter range is smaller than summer range and is mainly in the southeastern United States and northeastern Mexico, with the highest concentrations in coastal Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico regions (Cryan 2003). Individuals in the most northerly portions of the winter range usually are males (Cryan 2003, Mormann and Robbins 2007).

Number of Occurrences:  
Number of Occurrences Comments: The number of distinct occurrences has not been determined using standardized/meaningful criteria, but this species is represented by a widely distributed and large number of collection and observation sites and locations (as defined by IUCN).

Population Size: 100,000 - 1,000,000 individuals
Population Size Comments: Total adult population size is unknown but large (presumably exceeds 100,000). This species is common in much of its range.

Overall Threat Impact: High - medium
Overall Threat Impact Comments: Over the long term, deforestation undoubtedly has reduced the available habitat for this species. However, much suitable forest habitat remains, eastern red bats do not require pristine habitat, and they inhabit urban and semi-urban areas that have ample large hardwood trees.

In British Columbia, "This species continues to be threatened by habitat loss as remaining riparian woodlands are cleared for development. Conservation of riparian areas, which support a diversity of insects, is an important factor." (http://wlapwww.gov.bc.ca/sir/fwh/wld/atlas/species/redbat.html).

This is one of the bat species most commonly killed by turbines at wind energy facilities (Gruver 2002; Johnson et al. 2003; Fiedler 2004; Johnson 2005; Baerwald and Barclay 2009, 2011; Arnett et al. 2008; Cryan 2011; Cryan et al. 2012; Ellison 2012; Jameson and Willis 2012). Arnett and Baerwald (2013) estimated that about 143,000-287,400 eastern red bats were killed at wind energy facilities in the United States and Canada during the period from 2000 to 2011 (22 percent of total bat fatalities). Wind energy is expected to expand from 61,000 MW in 2014 to 350,000 MW by 2030, so the cumulative impact from wind turbines on this species could be devastating. Although the size of the overall eastern red bat population is unknown, the reproductive rate for this species is low, and its ability to sustain the current and anticipated level of impact is doubtful, particularly in light of the additional stressors experienced by this species.

Broadcast application of pesticides to combat forest/tree insect pests potentially has a detrimental impact on this species and its food resources; range-wide population impact is uncertain.

This species is unlikely to be affected by white-nose syndrome (a cold-loving fungus that afflicts bats hibernating in caves and mines).

Short-term Trend: Decline of 10-50%
Short-term Trend Comments: Trend over the past 10 years or three generations is uncertain, but abundance probably declined to some degree. Multiple lines of evidence suggest a significant and ongoing range-wide decline (Winhold et al. 2008).

Long-term Trend: Decline of 10-70%
Long-term Trend Comments: Based on habitat loss (e.g., historical deforestation) and recent mortalities at wind energy facilities, area of occupancy and population size probably have declined substantially over the long term (Winhold et al. 2008), but the specific degree of decline is uncertain.

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Distribution
Help
Global Range: (>2,500,000 square km (greater than 1,000,000 square miles)) Range includes the central and eastern United States and adjacent southern Canada (west to British Columbia; Nagorsen and Paterson 2012) and northeastern Mexico, with occasional occurrences on Atlantic/Caribbean islands (Baker et al. 1988, Cryan 2003, Patriquin 2004, Reid 2006). Winter range is smaller than summer range and is mainly in the southeastern United States and northeastern Mexico, with the highest concentrations in coastal Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico regions (Cryan 2003). Individuals in the most northerly portions of the winter range usually are males (Cryan 2003, Mormann and Robbins 2007).

U.S. States and Canadian Provinces

Due to latency between updates made in state, provincial or other NatureServe Network databases and when they appear on NatureServe Explorer, for state or provincial information you may wish to contact the data steward in your jurisdiction to obtain the most current data. Please refer to our Distribution Data Sources to find contact information for your jurisdiction.
Color legend for Distribution Map
Endemism: occurs (regularly, as a native taxon) in multiple nations

U.S. & Canada State/Province Distribution
United States AL, AR, CO, CT, DC, DE, FL, GA, IA, IL, IN, KS, KY, LA, MA, MD, ME, MI, MN, MO, MS, MT, NC, ND, NE, NH, NJ, NM, NY, OH, OK, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, VA, VT, WI, WV
Canada AB, MB, NB, NF, NS, NU, ON, QC, SK

Range Map
No map available.


U.S. Distribution by County Help
State County Name (FIPS Code)
CT Fairfield (09001), Hartford (09003), Litchfield (09005), Middlesex (09007), New Haven (09009), New London (09011), Tolland (09013), Windham (09015)
IN Bartholomew (18005), Benton (18007), Boone (18011), Brown (18013), Daviess (18027), De Kalb (18033), Gibson (18051), Greene (18055), Hamilton (18057), Hendricks (18063), Johnson (18081), La Porte (18091), Lake (18089), Marion (18097), Monroe (18105), Morgan (18109), Pike (18125), Porter (18127), Tippecanoe (18157), Vigo (18167), Warren (18171), Warrick (18173)
MS Adams (28001), Attala (28007), Bolivar (28011), Grenada (28043), Jasper (28061), Kemper (28069), Lauderdale (28075), Neshoba (28099), Perry (28111), Rankin (28121), Scott (28123), Stone (28131), Tallahatchie (28135), Wayne (28153), Wilkinson (28157)
NE Banner (31007), Boyd (31015), Brown (31017), Cass (31025), Chase (31029), Cherry (31031), Dawes (31045), Dixon (31051), Dundy (31057), Franklin (31061), Hall (31079), Harlan (31083), Hitchcock (31087), Kearney (31099), Keya Paha (31103), Kimball (31105), Knox (31107), Merrick (31121), Red Willow (31145), Sarpy (31153), Scotts Bluff (31157), Sheridan (31161), Sherman (31163), Sioux (31165)*, Washington (31177), Webster (31181)
NM Hidalgo (35023)
SC Beaufort (45013), Georgetown (45043), Greenville (45045), Jasper (45053), Lancaster (45057), Laurens (45059), Oconee (45073), Orangeburg (45075), Sumter (45085)
WV Boone (54005)
WY Albany (56001), Carbon (56007), Converse (56009), Crook (56011), Hot Springs (56017), Johnson (56019), Platte (56031), Sheridan (56033), Sweetwater (56037), Washakie (56043), Weston (56045)
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed Help
Watershed Region Help Watershed Name (Watershed Code)
01 Lower Connecticut (01080205)+, Farmington (01080207)+, Pawcatuck-Wood (01090005)+, Quinebaug (01100001)+, Shetucket (01100002)+, Thames (01100003)+, Quinnipiac (01100004)+, Housatonic (01100005)+, Saugatuck (01100006)+
02 Lower Hudson (02030101)+, Long Island Sound (02030203)+
03 Black (03040205)+, Wateree (03050104)+, Upper Broad (03050105)+, Saluda (03050109)+, Lake Marion (03050111)+, Santee (03050112)+, South Fork Edisto (03050204)+, Broad-St. Helena (03050208)+, Seneca (03060101)+, Lower Savannah (03060109)+, Calibogue Sound-Wright River (03060110)+, Sucarnoochee (03160202)+, Upper Leaf (03170004)+, Lower Leaf (03170005)+, Black (03170007)+, Upper Pearl (03180001)+, Middle Pearl-Strong (03180002)+
04 Little Calumet-Galien (04040001)+, St. Joseph (04100003)+
05 Coal (05050009)+, Wildcat (05120107)+, Middle Wabash-Little Vermilion (05120108)+, Middle Wabash-Busseron (05120111)+, Upper White (05120201)+, Lower White (05120202)+, Driftwood (05120204)+, Lower East Fork White (05120208)+, Patoka (05120209)+, Highland-Pigeon (05140202)+
08 Yalobusha (08030205)+, Big Sunflower (08030207)+, Lower Mississippi-Natchez (08060100)+, Homochitto (08060205)+
10 Upper Bighorn (10080007)+, Upper Tongue (10090101)+, Clear (10090206)+, Upper Cheyenne (10120103)+, Beaver (10120107)+, Hat (10120108)+*, Upper Belle Fourche (10120201)+, Redwater (10120203)+, Upper White (10140201)+, Ponca (10150001)+, Middle Niobrara (10150004)+, Lower Niobrara (10150007)+, Lewis and Clark Lake (10170101)+, Upper North Platte (10180002)+, Pathfinder-Seminoe Reservoirs (10180003)+, Medicine Bow (10180004)+, Little Medicine Bow (10180005)+, Glendo Reservoir (10180008)+, Middle North Platte-Scotts Bluff (10180009)+, Upper Laramie (10180010)+, Lower Laramie (10180011)+, Pumpkin (10180013)+, Upper Lodgepole (10190015)+, Middle Platte-Buffalo (10200101)+, Lower Platte (10200202)+, Mud (10210005)+, Big Papillion-Mosquito (10230006)+, Keg-Weeping Water (10240001)+, Upper Republican (10250004)+, Frenchman (10250005)+, Red Willow (10250007)+, Harlan County Reservoir (10250009)+, Middle Republican (10250016)+
14 Little Snake (14050003)+
15 Animas Valley (15040003)+
+ Natural heritage record(s) exist for this watershed
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
Ecology & Life History
Help
Reproduction Comments: Copulates August-October in North America (also in spring in some areas?). Gestation lasts 60-70 (also reported as 80-90) days, after delayed fertilization. Litter of 1-5 (average 2), born late May to mid-June (or July) in North America. Young can fly at 3-4 weeks, weaned at 5-6 weeks. Sexually mature during second month.
Ecology Comments: Basically solitary.
Habitat Type: Terrestrial
Non-Migrant: N
Locally Migrant: Y
Long Distance Migrant: Y
Mobility and Migration Comments: Populations in the northern and western parts of the range engage in significant, seasonal migrations. In September, migrants sometimes are detected offshore over the ocean (Hatch et al. 2013).

In an intensively managed pine landscape in Mississippi, red bats traveled up to a few kilometers from diurnal roosts to foragng areas (Elmore et al. 2005).

In an urban-rural interface in Indiana, red bats had relatively small home ranges (overall 95% kernal mean = 69 hectares) (Walters et al. 2007). In other areas, researchers have recorded much larger home ranges (e.g., mean of 334 hectares in Kentucky upland forest, Hitchinson and Lacki 1999; mean of 453 hectares in forests in South Carolina, Carter 1998).
 

Lacustrine Habitat(s): Aerial
Palustrine Habitat(s): Aerial, Riparian
Terrestrial Habitat(s): Aerial, Forest - Hardwood, Forest - Mixed, Suburban/orchard, Woodland - Hardwood, Woodland - Mixed
Special Habitat Factors: Standing snag/hollow tree
Habitat Comments: Habitat includes a wide range of forested and semi-forested areas (e.g. O'Keefe et al. 2009), including developed areas with large trees (e.g., city parks) and some areas subject to intensive forest management (e.g., Elmore et al. 2004). In summer, females tend to occur in warmer lowland regions whereas males are proportionally more common in cooler highlands (Ford et al. 2002). Spring/summer diurnal roosts usually are in foliage of numerous species of large hardwood trees (also pines in some areas; Elmore et al. 2004); suitable sites are open underneath to allow easy exit and entry. Individuals frequently switch roost sites in both summer and winter (Hutchinson and Lacki 2000, Mager and Nelson 2001, Mormann and Robbins 2007). Solitary females roost with young in tree foliage.

In spring and summer in eastern Kentucky, eastern red bats roosted an average of 16.5 meters above ground in the outer foliage of the canopy of 13 species of large hardwood trees, at least 50 meters from forest edges (Hutchinson and Lacki 2000). Most roost trees were on ridge tops of upland forests.

In an intensively managed pine landscape in Mississippi, red bats generally roosted diurnally in foraging areas, which usually contained a reliable water source and open canopy conditions (young open canopy stands, thinned stands, and riparian hardwood stands) (Elmore et al. 2005).

In an urban-rural interface in Indiana, red bats foraged in woodlands and over newly planted tree fields, open water, and pasture lands more than predicted by randomly generated points and avoided highly urban areas such as commercial lands, gravel pits, and transportation corridors (Walters et al. 2007).

In summer in an urban area in Illinois, red bats roosted usually in the foliage or on the bark of large deciduous trees, sometimes in leaf litter, dense grass, or shingles of houses (Mager and Nelson 2001).

In southwestern Missouri, winter roosts were in eastern red-cedar or hardwoods, on the south side of trees, on south-facing slopes; bats switched from tree roosts to leaf litter roosts when ambient temperatures approached or fell below freezing (Mormann and Robbins 2007). Similar behavior has been recorded elsewhere (e.g., Rodrigue et al. 2001).

Adult Food Habits: Invertivore
Immature Food Habits: Invertivore
Food Comments: Diet includes various insects (moths, beetles, Hemiptera, and many other groups), obtained in flight or sometimes by gleaning.
Adult Phenology: Nocturnal
Immature Phenology: Nocturnal
Phenology Comments: Activity occurs throughout the year when conditions are suitable. This migratory species does not undergo a period of pre-hibernal fattening (Milam-Dunbar 2005).

In southeastern Virginia and northeastern North Carolina, eastern red bats were active and fed throughout the year, though in winter generally when air temperatures were above 9 C (Padgett and Rose 1991, Whitaker et al. 1997). In some areas of the winter range (e.g., southwestern Missouri), individuals leave tree roosts and become dormant in leaf litter for periods of up to 40 days during freezing or near freezing weather (Mormann and Robbins 2007, Flinn 2009, Perry 2013).

Length: 13 centimeters
Weight: 15 grams
Economic Attributes Not yet assessed
Help
Management Summary
Help
Monitoring Requirements: See Hart et al. (1993) for information on a remote monitoring technique that was used in Pennsylvania; equipment consisted of a frequency-tunable bat detector, a voice-activated microcasette tape recorder, and a talking clock.
Population/Occurrence Delineation
Help
Group Name: Small and Medium Bats

Use Class: Bachelor colony
Subtype(s): Diurnal Roost, Foraging Area, Nocturnal Roost
Minimum Criteria for an Occurrence: An area occupied either historically or at present by a persisting or recurring population of males during summer (approximately May through August). Includes mist net captures away from roost sites obtained during the summer months even if the actual roost site(s) are not known. Identification evidence minimally includes collection or reliable observation and detailed documentation of one or more individuals. In certain regions, recorded echolocation sequences of individuals may be considered reliable observations for certain species that can be confidently identified by their echolocation calls alone, although caution must be used in determining Location Use Class for such observations during the breeding season.
Mapping Guidance: EO includes both the colony site and the associated foraging areas. If separate, the colony site and foraging areas are bounded by separate polygons; that is, areas over which the bats simply commute to and from foraging areas and the colony are not included in the EO.
Separation Barriers: None.
Separation Distance for Unsuitable Habitat: 5 km
Separation Distance for Suitable Habitat: 5 km
Separation Justification: The assigned separation distance is intended to generate occurrences that consist of spatially proximate roost sites and capture locations. However, include in the same occurrence (1) any roost sites between which significant of individuals are known to move, regardless of how far apart they are, and (2) known significant foraging areas of occurrences that are based on roost sites.

In two studies, male MYOTIS SODALIS foraged a maximum of 2.0 and 4.2 kilometers from their summer roosts (summarized in USFWS 1999).

Date: 29Mar2004
Author: Cannings, S., and G. Hammerson

Use Class: Breeding
Minimum Criteria for an Occurrence: An area occupied either historically or at present by a persisting or recurring breeding population during spring/summer (approximately May through August). Includes mist net captures away from colony sites obtained even if the associated roost site is not known. Identification evidence minimally includes collection or reliable observation and detailed documentation of one or more individuals. In certain regions, echolocation sequences of individuals may be considered reliable observations for certain species that can be confidently identified by their echolocation calls alone, although caution must be used in determining Location Use Class for such observations during the breeding season.
Separation Barriers: None.
Separation Distance for Unsuitable Habitat: 5 km
Separation Distance for Suitable Habitat: 5 km
Separation Justification: It is impractical to attempt to delineate occurrences on the basis of discrete populations. Instead, the assigned separation distance is intended to generate occurrences that consist of spatially proximate roost sites and capture locations.
Date: 02Jul2014
Author: Hammerson, G.

Use Class: Hibernaculum
Subtype(s): Pre-hibernation roost site, Hibernaculum
Minimum Criteria for an Occurrence: A site occupied either historically or at present by a recurring population of hibernating individuals. Identification evidence minimally includes collection or reliable observation and detailed documentation of one or more individuals. EO also includes immediately surrounding areas used by bats immediately before hibernation, where these areas are known.
Mapping Guidance: Cave/mine passages should be projected to the surface for the purpose of mapping EO boundary.
Separation Barriers: None.
Separation Distance for Unsuitable Habitat: 5 km
Separation Distance for Suitable Habitat: 5 km
Separation Justification: These bats sometimes move long distances between different hibernacula. For example, individuals of M. LUCIFUGUS and M. SEPTENTRIONALIS have been recorded flying up to 219 and 89 kilometers respectively between hibernacula during the winter months (Linzey 1998, Griffin 1940). However,
such movements are not a good basis for distinguishing occurrences (occurrences would become too expansive). The assigned separation distance is intended to generate occurrences that consist of spatially proximate hibernacula.

Separation distances suggested take into account the fact that, during the fall, some bats (e.g. M. SODALIS) swarm and mate at their hibernaculum, and males roost in trees nearby during the day and fly to the cave during the night. In two studies, M. SODALIS males roosted within a maximum of 5.6 kilometers of the hibernaculum (Kiser and Elliott 1996; Craig Stihler, West Virginia Division of Natural Resources, pers. observ., October 1996, cited in USFWS 1999).

Although they do not generally fly from one hibernaculum to another, hibernating bats are known to wake and move around to some extent within their hibernating site. As long as the areas are connected (even though they may not be passable by humans) the bats could be expected to move from one part of the system to another (e.g. MYOTIS SODALIS, Clawson et al. 1980).

Date: 29Mar2004
Author: Cannings, S., and G. Hammerson

Use Class: Maternity colony
Subtype(s): Colony Site, Foraging Area, Nocturnal Roost
Minimum Criteria for an Occurrence: An area occupied either historically or at present by a persisting or recurring population of breeding females and their young during summer (approximately May through August). Includes mist net captures away from colony sites obtained during the summer months even if the associated roost site is not known. Identification evidence minimally includes collection or reliable observation and detailed documentation of one or more individuals. In certain regions, echolocation sequences of individuals may be considered reliable observations for certain species that can be confidently identified by their echolocation calls alone, although caution must be used in determining Location Use Class for such observations during the breeding season.
Mapping Guidance: The EO includes both the colony site and the associated foraging areas. If separate, the colony site and foraging areas are bounded by separate polygons; that is, areas over which the bats simply commute to and from foraging areas and the colony are not included in the EO.
Separation Barriers: None.
Separation Distance for Unsuitable Habitat: 5 km
Separation Distance for Suitable Habitat: 5 km
Separation Justification: It is impractical to attempt to delineate occurrences on the basis of discrete populations. Instead, the assigned separation distance is intended to generate occurrences that consist of spatially proximate roost sites and capture locations.

Nursing female Myotis sodalis moved an average of 1.04 kilometers from roost to center of foraging area, giving a mean foraging diameter of 2.08 kilometers; however, post-lactating females moved more than twice as far, travelling an average of 2.6 kilometers (Garner and Gardner 1992). In Indiana, 11 foraging adult females that were tracked for 2-7 days moved up to 8.4 km from their roost; home range during this brief period averaged 3.35 square kilometers (Sparks et al. 2005). Myotis grisescens females move up to 6.6 kilometers (Tuttle 1976). Female M. septentrionalis had an average foraging home range of 61.1 hectares (Menzel et al. 1999), equivalent to a circle with a diameter of 880 meters.

Date: 08Mar2001
Author: Cannings, S.

Use Class: Nonbreeding
Subtype(s): Diurnal Roost, Foraging Area, Nocturnal Roost
Minimum Criteria for an Occurrence: A site occupied either historically or at present by a recurring population of migrating or otherwise nonhibernating individuals during the nonbreeding season. Identification evidence minimally includes collection or reliable observation and detailed documentation of one or more individuals. In certain regions, recorded echolocation sequences of individuals may be considered reliable observations for certain species that can be confidently identified by their echolocation calls alone.
Separation Barriers: None.
Separation Distance for Unsuitable Habitat: 5 km
Separation Distance for Suitable Habitat: 5 km
Separation Justification: The assigned separation distance is intended to generate occurrences that consist of spatially proximate roost sites and capture locations. However, include in the same occurrence (1) any roost sites between which individuals are known to move, regardless of how far apart they are, and (2) known significant foraging areas of occurrences that are based on roost sites.

In California, Fellers and Pierson (2002) studied a group of Corynorhinus townsendii inhabiting a maternity colony site after the nursery season had passed and found that the mean center of female foraging activity was 3.2 kilometers from the diurnal roost, whereas the mean center of male foraging activity was only 1.3 kilometers from the roost. No bats traveled more than 10.5 kilometers from the roost, and individuals showed considerable loyalty to the primary roost. Otherwise, little movement data are available.

Date: 19Apr2001
Author: Cannings, S.

Use Class: Roost
Minimum Criteria for an Occurrence: An area occupied either historically or at present by a persisting or recurring population during summer  (approximately May through August). Includes counts of individuals from roost sites obtained during the summer months during pup rearing and summer residence periods. Identification evidence minimally includes collection or reliable observation and detailed documentation of one or more individuals during roost counts.
Mapping Guidance: EO includes both the colony site and an approximation of the associated foraging areas. If separate, the colony site and foraging areas are bounded by separate polygons; that is, areas over which the bats simply commute to and from foraging areas and the colony are not included in the EO.
Separation Barriers: None
Separation Distance for Unsuitable Habitat: 5 km
Separation Distance for Suitable Habitat: 5 km
Separation Justification: It is impractical to attempt to delineate occurrences on the basis of discrete populations. Instead, the assigned separation distance is intended to generate occurrences that consist of spatially proximate roost sites.
Date: 01Dec2017
Author: Staffen, R.
Population/Occurrence Viability
Help
U.S. Invasive Species Impact Rank (I-Rank) Not yet assessed
Help
Authors/Contributors
Help
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Edition Date: 25Mar2015
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Author: Hammerson, G.
Element Ecology & Life History Edition Date: 02Apr2015
Element Ecology & Life History Author(s): Hammerson, G.

Zoological data developed by NatureServe and its network of natural heritage programs (see Local Programs) and other contributors and cooperators (see Sources).

References
Help
  • Adams, R. A. 2003. Bats of the Rocky Mountain West: natural history, ecology, and conservation. University Press of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado. xiii + 289 pp.

  • Allen, C. R., S. Demarais, and R. S. Lutz. 1994. Red imported fire ant impact on wildlife: an overview. The Texas Journal of Science 46(1):51-59.

  • Anonymous. 2002. Plan for biodiversity management and sustainable development of the Turks and Caicos RAMSAR site. Turks & Caicos National Trust, UK Overseas Territories Conservation Forum, and CABI Bioscience, http://www.ukotcf.org/pdf/TCIRamMP/Contents%20and%20Summary.pdf.

  • Aquin, P. 1999. Évaluation de la situation des groupes taxonomiques des mammifères du Québec. Ministère de l'Environnement et de la Faune. 5 pages.

  • Armstrong, D. M., R. A. Adams, and J. Freeman. 1994. Distribution and ecology of bats of Colorado. Natural History Inventory of Colorado, No. 15. University of Colorado Museum, Boulder.

  • Arnett, E. B., W. K. Brown, W. P. Erickson, J. K. Fiedler, B. L. Hamilton, T. H. Henry, A. Jain, G. D. Johnson, J. Kerns, R. R. Koford, C. P. Nicholson, T. J. Connell, M. D. Piorkowski and R. D. Tankersley. 2008. Patterns of bat fatalities at wind energy facilities in North America. Journal of Wildlife Management 72(1): 61-78.

  • Arnett, E. B., and E. F. Baerwald. 2013. Impacts of wind energy development on bats: implications for conservation. Pages 435-456 in R. A. Adams and S. C. Pedersen (editors). Bat evolution, ecology, and conservation. Springer Science+Business Media, New York.

  • BARBOUR, R.W., AND W.H. DAVIS. 1969. BATS OF AMERICA. UNIVERSITY PRESS OF KENTUCKY, LEXINGTON, KENTUCKY, 286 P.

  • BEE, J.W., G.E. GLASS, R.S. HOFFMANN, AND R.R. PATTERSON. 1981. MAMMALS IN KANSAS. UNIV.KANS.MUS.NAT.HIST., PUB.ED. SERIES NO.7.

  • Baerwald, E. F., and R.M.R. Barclay. 2009. Geographic variation in activity and fatality of migratory bats at wind energy facilities. Journal of Mammalogy 90:1341-1349.

  • Baerwald, E. F., and R.M.R. Barclay. 2011. Patterns of activity and fatality of migratory bats at a wind energy facility in Alberta, Canada. Journal of Wildlife Management 75:11013-1114.

  • Baker, R. H. 1983. Michigan mammals. Michigan State University Press. 642 pp.

  • Baker, R. J., J. C. Patton, H. H. Genoways, and J. W. Bickham. 1988. Genic studies of Lasiurus (Chiroptera: Vespertilionidae). Occas. Pap. Mus. Texas Tech. Univ. 117:1-15.

  • Baker, R. J., L. C. Bradley, R. D. Bradley, J. W. Dragoo, M. D. Engstrom, R. S. Hoffman, C. A. Jones, F. Reid, D. W. Rice, and C. Jones. 2003. Revised checklist of North American mammals north of Mexico, 2003. Museum of Texas Tech University Occasional Papers 229:1-23. [Available online at http://www.nsrl.ttu.edu/publications/opapers/ops/op229.pdf ]

  • Baker, R. J., L. C. Bradley, R. D. Bradley, J. W. Dragoo, M. D. Engstrom, R. S. Hoffman, C. A. Jones, F. Reid, D. W. Rice, and C. Jones. 2003a. Revised checklist of North American mammals north of Mexico, 2003. Museum of Texas Tech University Occasional Papers 229:1-23.

  • Banfield, A. W. F. 1974. The mammals of Canada. University of Toronto Press, Toronto, Canada. 438 pp.

  • Banfield, A. W. F. 1977. Les Mammifères du Canada. Publié pour le Musée national des sciences naturelles, Musées nationaux du Canada, par les Presses de l'Université Laval. 406 p.

  • Banfield, A.W.F. 1974. The Mammals of Canada. National Museums of Canada, National Museum of Natural Sciences, Ottawa, and University of Toronto Press, Toronto, Ontario. xxv + 438 pp.

  • Banfield, A.W.F. 1974. The mammals of Canada. University of Toronto Press, Toronto.

  • Barbour, R. W., and W. H. Davis. 1969. Bats of America. The University of Kentucky Press, Lexington, Kentucky. 286 pp.

  • Barclay, R.M. 1993. The biology of Prairie Bats. In Holroyd, G.L. et al. (eds.) Endangered Species and Prairie Conservation Workshop. Proceedings of the Third Prairie Conservation and Endangered Species Workshop, February 1992 at Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba / Natural History Section, Provincial Museum of Alberta. Edmonton. Natural History Occasional Paper 19. 384p.

  • Beck, W.H. 1958. A guide to Saskatchewan mammals. Special Publication No. 1. Saskatchewan Natural History Society, Regina, Saskatchewan.

  • Bradley, R.D., L.K. Ammerman, R.J. Baker, L.C. Bradley, J.A. Cook. R.C. Dowler, C. Jones, D.J. Schmidly, F.B. Stangl Jr., R.A. Van den Bussche and B. Würsig. 2014. Revised checklist of North American mammals north of Mexico, 2014. Museum of Texas Tech University Occasional Papers 327:1-28. Available at: http://www.nsrl.ttu.edu/publications/opapers/ops/OP327.pdf

  • Brigham, R.M. 1993. The implications of roost sites for the conservation of Bats. In Holroyd, G.L. et al. (eds.) Endangered Species and Prairie Conservation Workshop. Proceedings of the Third Prairie Conservation and Endangered Species Workshop, February 1992 at Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba / Natural History Section, Provincial Museum of Alberta. Edmonton. Natural History Occasional Paper 19. 384p.

  • Burt, W. H., and R. P. Grossenheider. 1976. A field guide to the mammals. Third edition. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston. 289 pp.

  • Bárquez, R. M., M. A. Mares, and J. K. Braun. 1999. The bats of Argentina. Special Publications, Museum of Texas Tech University 42:1-275.

  • CARTER, T.D. 1950. ON THE MIGRATION OF THE RED BAT. J. MAMM. 31:349-350.

  • COLEMAN, R.H. 1950. THE STATUS OF L. BOREALIS. J. MAMM. 31:190-192.

  • CONSTANTINE, D.G. 1958. ECOLOGICAL OBSERVATIONS ON LASIURINE BATS IN GEORGIA. J. MAMM. 40:13-15.

  • Caire, W., J. D. Tyler, B. P. Glass, and M. A. Mares. 1989. Mammals of Oklahoma. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman. Oklahoma. 567 pp.

  • Canadian Wildlife Service. 1987. Hinterland Who's who: Bats. Environment Canada. Canada. 4p.

  • Carter, T. C. 1998. The foraging ecology of three species of bats at the Savannah River Site, South Carolina. M.S. thesis, University of Georgia, Athens. 74 pp.

  • Chapman, J. A., and G. A. Feldhamer, editors. 1982. Wild mammals of North America: biology, management, and economics. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland.

  • Clawson, R. L., R. K. LaVal, M. L. LaVal, and W. Claire. 1980. Clustering behavior of hibernating Myotis sodalis in Missouri, USA. Journal of Mammalogy 61:245-53.

  • Coleman, R.H. 1950. The status of Lasiurus borealis semi- nolus. Jo. Mamm. 31(2):190-192.

  • Connor, P.F. 1971. The mammals of Long Island, New York. NYS Museum and Science Service Bull. 416. 78 pp.

  • Cryan, P. M. 2003. Seasonal distribution of migratory tree bats (Lasiurus and Lasionycteris) in North America. Journal of Mammalogy 84:579-593.

  • Cryan, P. M. 2011. Wind turbines as landscape impediments to the migratory connectivity of bats. Environmental Law 41(2):355-370.

  • Cryan, P. M., J. W. Jameson, E. F. Baerwald, C.K.R. Willis, R.M.R. Barclay, E. A. Snider, and E. G. Crichton. 2012. Evidence of late-summer mating readiness and early sexual maturation in migratory tree-roosting bats found dead at wind turbines. PLoS ONE 7(10): e47586. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0047586.

  • DAVIS, W. H. AND LIDICKER. 1956. WINTER RANGE OF RED BAT. J. MAMM. 37:280-281.

  • Davis, W.H. and W.Z. Lidicker. 1956. Winter range of the red bat, Lasiurus borealis. Jo. Mamm. 37(2):280-281.

  • DeGraaf, R. M. and D. R. Rudis. 1986. New England wildlife: habitat, natural history, and distribution. Univ. Mass. Press. Amherst, MA. 491 pp.

  • Dobbyn, J.S. 1994. Atlas of the Mammals of Ontario. Federation of Ontario Naturalists, Don Mills, Ontario. 120 pp.

  • Downing, S.C. and D.H. Baldwin. 1961. Sharp-shinned Hawk preys on Red Bat. Journal of Mammalogy 42:540.

  • ESHER, ROBERT I. AND DWIGHT K. BRADSHAW. 1988. DIVERSITY AND ABUNDANCE AF VERTEBRATES OF DELISLE FOREST AND ADJACENT MARSH. MS. STATE UNIV. RES. CENTER. 51 pp.

  • Elliott, W. R. 2003. A guide to Missouri's cave life: 70 species brought to life. Missouri Department of Conservation. 37 pp.

  • Ellison L. E. 2012. Bats and wind energy: a literature synthesis and annotated bibliography. U.S. Geological Survey. Open-File Report No. 2012-1110.

  • Elmore, L. W., D. A. Miller, and F. J. Vilella. 2004. Selection of diurnal roosts by red bats (Lasiurus borealis) in an intensively managed pine forest in Mississippi. Forest Ecology and Management 199:11-20.

  • Elmore, L. W., D. A. Miller, and F. J. Vilella. 2005. Foraging area size and habitat use by red bats (Lasiurus borealis) in an intensively managed pine landscape in Mississippi. American Midland Naturalist 153:405-417.

  • Envirotel inc. 1999. Inventaire accoustique de chauves-souris dans la région de l'Outaouais-été 1998. Rapport final produit pour le ministère de l'Environnement et de la Faune, Direction régionale de l'Outaouais, Hull, Québec. 36 p.

  • Envirotel inc. 1999. Inventaire des chiroptères du lieu historique national de la Grosse-Île-et-le-Mémorial-des-Irlandais, étapes complémentaires ? été 1998. Envirotel inc. Sherbrooke (Québec). 35 p.

  • Fellers, G. M., and E. D. Pierson. 2002. Habitat use and foraging behavior of Townsend's Big-eared Bat (Corynorhinus townsendii) in coastal California. Journal of Mammalogy 83:167-177.

  • Fenton, M.B. 1983. Just Bats. University of Toronto Press. Toronto, Canada. 165p.

  • Fenton, M.B. 1992. Bats. Facts on File. New York, New York. 207p.

  • Fiedler, J. K. 2004, Assessment of bat mortality and activity at Buffalo Mountain Windfarm, eastern Tennessee, Master's thesis, University of Tennessee, Knowville. 166 pp.

  • Fitzgerald, J. P., C. A. Meaney, and D. M. Armstrong. 1994. Mammals of Colorado. Denver Museum of Natural History and University Press of Colorado.

  • Flinn, J. 2009. Winter roosting behavior of red bats (Lasiurus borealis): habitat use, microclimate, and effects of ambient temperature on roost choice. M.S. thesis. Missouri State University, Springfield, MO.

  • Ford, W. M., M. A. Menzel, J. M. Menzel, and D. J. Welch. 2002. Influence of summer temperature on sex rations in eastern red bats (Lasiurus borealis). American Midland Naturalist 147:179-184.

  • Fournier, M.A. In Prep. Bats in the Northwest Territories and Nunavut: a review. IN Government of the Northwest Territories. NWT Species Monitoring - Infobase. Available online: http://www.nwtwildlife.rwed.gov.nt.ca/monitor (June 2001). Resources, Wildlife and Economic Development, GNWT, Yellowknife, NT.

  • Furlonger, C. L., H. J. Dewar, and M. B. Fenton. 1987. Habitat use by foraging insectivorous bats. Canadian J. Zool. 65:284-288.

  • GAUTHIER, M. 1999. Communication personnelle. ENVIROTEL INC.

  • GEHLBACH, FREDERICK R. 1991. THE EAST-WEST TRANSITION ZONE OF TERRESTRIAL VERTEBRATES IN CENTRAL TEXAS: A BIOGEOGRAPHICAL ANALYSIS. TEXAS J. SCI. 43(4):415-427.

  • GOETZE, J.R., R.W. MANNING, F.D. YANCEY, AND C. JONES. 1996. THE MAMMALS OF KIMBLE COUNTY, TEXAS. OCCAS. PAPERS MUS., TEXAS TECH UNIV. 160:1-31.

  • GOLLEY, F.B. 1966. SOUTH CAROLINA MAMMALS. THE CHARLESTONMUSEUM, CHARLESTON, SC. 181PP.

  • GOLLEY, FRANK B. 1962. MAMMALS OF GEORGIA: A STUDY OF THEIR DISTRIBUTION AND FUNCTIONAL ROLE IN THE ECOSYSTEM. UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA PRESS, ATHENS, GA 30602.

  • GRONDIN, N. 1997. Le mal de vivre des chauves-souris. Québec Sciences. 35(10). p. 5-7.

  • Garner, J. D., and J. E. Gardner. 1992. Determination of summer distribution and habitat utilization of the Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) in Illinois. Illinois Department of Conservation. Final Report, Project E-3. Springfield, IL, 23 pp.

  • Godin, A. J. 1977. Wild mammals of New England. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore. 304 pp.

  • Gordon, D.C. 1986. Mammals of Jefferson and Lewis counties, New York. Humphrey Press, Canandaigua, N.Y. 135 pp.

  • Graves, F.F. and Harvey, M.J. 1974. Distribution of Chiroptera in western Tennessee. Journal of the Tennessee Academy of Sciences 49(3):

  • Griffin, D. R. 1940b. Migrations of New England bats. Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology 86:217-246.

  • Griffin, D.R. 1958. Listening in the dark; the acoustic orientation of bats and men. Yale University Press. New Haven CT. 413p.

  • Gruver, J. C. 2002. Assessment of bat community structure and roosting habitat preferences for the hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus) near Foote Creek Rim, Wyoming. Master's thesis, University of Wyoming, Laramie. 164 pp.

  • HALL,E. 1955. HANDBOOK OF MAMMALS IN KANSAS. UNIV KS MUS NAT HIST AND KBS.

  • HAMILTON, W.J. JR., AND J.O. WHITAKER, JR. 1979. MAMMALS OF THE EASTERN UNITED STATES, SECOND EDITION. CORNELL UNIVERSITY PRESS, ITHACA, NEW YORK. 346 P.

  • HARPER, F. 1927. MAMMALS OF THE OKEFENOKEE SWAMP REGION OF GEORGIA. PROC. BOSTON SOC. NAT. HIST. 38:191-396.

  • Hall, E. R. 1981a. The Mammals of North America, second edition. Vols. I & II. John Wiley & Sons, New York, New York. 1181 pp.

  • Hamilton, W. J., Jr., and J. O. Whitaker, Jr. 1979. Mammals of the eastern United States. Cornell Univ. Press, Ithaca, New York. 346 pp.

  • Hart, J. A., G. L. Kirkland, Jr., and S. C. Grossman. 1993. Relative abundance and habitat use by tree bats, LASIURUS spp., in southcentral Pennsylvania. Can. Field-Nat. 107:208-212.

  • Harvey, Michael J., J. Scott Altenbach and Troy L. Best, 1999. Bats of the United States. Arkansas Game & Fish Commission and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 64 pp.

  • Hatch, S. K., E. E. Connelly, T. J. Divoll, I. J. Stenhouse, and K. A. Williams. 2013. Offshore observations of eastern red bats (Lasiurus borealis) in the mid-Atlantic United States using multiple survey methods. PLoS ONE 8(12): e83803. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0083803.

  • Heaney, L. R., and E. C. Birney. 1975. Comments on the distribution and natural history of some mammals in Minnesota. Canadian Field-Naturalist 89(1):29-34.

  • Hebda, A.J. 2011. List of mammals of Nova Scotia (including synonyms used in the literature relating to Nova Scotia) (revision 2) 24 July 2011. Nova Scotia Museum Collections Unit, Halifax, Nova Scotia. 24 pp. Online. Available: https://naturalhistory.novascotia.ca/sites/default/files/inline/images/names_and_synonyms_ver3.pdf

  • Hickey, M. B. C., and M. B. Fenton. 1990. Foraging by red bats (LASIURUS BOREALIS): do intraspecific chases mean territoriality? Can. J. Zool. 68:2477-2482.

  • Holder, M. 1994. Herring Gull predation of Red Bat. Birders Journal 3(2):105-106.

  • Hopf, A.L. 1985. Bats. A Skylight Book. Dodd, Mead. New York, New York. 64p.

  • Hutchinson, J. T., and M. J. Lacki. 1999. Foraging behavior and habitat use of red bats in mixed mesophytic forests of the Cumberland Plateau, Kentucky. Pages 171-177 in J. W. Stringer and D. L. Loftis, editors. 12th Central Hardwood Forest Conference, U.S. Forest Service, Southern Experiment Station, Asheville, North Carolina.

  • Hutchinson, J. T., and M. J. Lacki. 2000. Selection of day roosts by red bats in mixed mesophytic forests. Journal of Wildlife Management 64:87-94.

  • JUTRAS, J. 2002. Communication personnelle. Société de la faune et des parcs du Québec, Direction du développement de la faune.

  • Jackson, H. H. 1961. Mammals of Wisconsin. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison. 504 pp.

  • Jackson, Hartley T. 1961. Mammals of Wisconsin. University of Wisconsin Press. Madison, WI 53701. 504pp.

  • Jameson, J.W. and C.K. Willis. 2012. Bat mortality at a wind power facility in central Canada. Northwestern Naturalist 93(3): 194-202.

  • Johnson, G. D. 2005. A review of bat mortality at wind-energy developments in the United States. Bat Research News 46:45-49.

  • Johnson, G. D., W. P. Erickson, M. D. Strickland, M. F. Shepherd, and S. A. Sarappo. 2003. Mortality of bats at a large-scale wind power development at Buffalo Ridge, Minnesota. American Midland Naturalist 150:332-342.

  • Jones, C., and R. D. Bradley. 1999. Notes on red bats, Lasiurus (Chiroptera: Vespertilionidae), of the Davis Mountains and vicinity, Texas. Texas Journal fo Science 51:341-344.

  • Jones, J. K., Jr. and C. Jones. 1992. Revised checklist of recent land mammals of Texas, with annotations. The Texas Journal of Science 44(1):53-74.

  • Jones, J. K., Jr., C. Jones, and D. J. Schmidly. 1988. Annotated checklist of recent land mammals of Texas. Occasional Papers The Museum Texas Tech University 119:1-26.

  • Jones, J. K., Jr., R. S. Hoffman, D. W. Rice, C. Jones, R. J. Baker, and M. D. Engstrom. 1992a. Revised checklist of North American mammals north of Mexico, 1991. Occasional Papers, The Museum, Texas Tech University, 146:1-23.

  • Jones, J. K., S. Demarais, and C. T. McAllister. 1995. Contribution to a bibliography of recent Texas mammals 1981-1990. Special Publications, The Museum Texas Tech University 38:1-64.

  • Kiser, J. D. and C. L. Elliott. 1996. Foraging habitat, food habits, and roost tree characteristics of the Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) during autumn in Johnson County, Kentucky. Final report, Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources, Frankfort, Kentucky. 65pp.

  • Koopman, K. F., and G. F. McCracken. 1998. The taxonomic status of Lasiurus (Chiroptera: Vespertilionidae) in the Galapagos Islands. American Museum Novitates 3243:1-6.

  • LAERM, J., L.E. LOGAN, M.E. MCGHEE, AND H.N. NEUHAUSER. 1981. ANNOTATED CHECKLIST OF THE MAMMALS OF GEORGIA. BRIMLEYANA 7:121-135.

  • LOWERY, G.H., JR. 1974. THE MAMMALS OF LOUISIANA AND ITS ADJACENT WATERS. LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY PRESS. 565 P.

  • LaVal, R.K. and M.L. LaVal. 1979. Notes on reproduction, behavior, and abundance of the red bat, LASIURUS BOREALIS. J. Mammalogy, 60(1):209-212.

  • LaVal, R.K. and M.L. LaVal. 1979. Notes on reproduction, behavior, and abundance of the red bat, Lasiurus borealis. Jo. Mamm. 60(1):209-211.

  • Lavine, S.A. 1969. Wonders of the bat world. Dodd, Mead, Wonder Books. New York, New York. 64p.

  • Lewis, S. E. 1995. Roost fidelity of bats: a review. Journal of Mammalogy 76(2):481-496.

  • Linzey, D. W. 1998. The mammals of Virginia. McDonald and Woodward, Blacksburg, VA. 459 pp.

  • Linzey, D.W. 2016. Mammals of Great Smoky Mountains National Park: 2016 revision. Southeastern Naturalist 15(Monograph 8):1?93.

  • Lowery, George H. 1974. The mammals of Louisiana and its adjacent waters. Kingsport Press, Inc. Kingsport, Tennessee. 565 pp.

  • MISSISSIPPI MUSEUM OF NATURAL SCIENCE. 1989. COUNTY INFORMATION FOR MAMMALS OF MISSISSIPPI.

  • MORALES, J.C., AND J.W. BICKHAM. 1995. MOLECULAR SYSTEMATICS OF THE GENUS LASIURUS (CHIROPTERA: VESPERTILIONIDAE) BASED ON RESTRICTION-SITE MAPS OF THE MITOCHONDRIAL RIBOSOMAL GENES. J. MAMMAL. 76(3):730-749.

  • Mager, K. J., and T. A. Nelson. 2001. Roost-site selection by eastern red bats (Lasiurus borealis). American Midland Naturalist 145:120-126.

  • McClure, H.E. 1942. Summer activities of bats (genus Lasiurus) in Iowa. Jour. Mamm. 23(4):430-434.

  • Menzel, M. A., R. Odom, S. Owen, W. M. Ford, B. R. Chapman, K. V. Miller, J. Edwards, and P. Wood. 1999b. Investigation of foraging habitat use by bats with a focus on Northern Long-eared Myotis (Myotis septentrionalis): a comparison of methods. IN M. K. Clark, editor. Abstracts from the 1999 Colloquium on the conservation of mammals in the Southeastern United States. Available at: http://www.batworkinggroups.org/sbdnnews.htm. Accessed 2001-06-12.

  • Milam-Dunbar, M. B. 2005. Ecophysiology of hibernating eastern red bats (Lasiurus borealis). Ph.D. dissertation, Missouri State University.

  • Mirarchi, R.E., editor. 2004. Alabama Wildlife. Volume 1. A checklist of vertebrates and selected invertebrates: aquatic mollusks, fishes, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, Alabama. 209 pages.

  • Morales, J. C., and J. W. Bickham. 1995. Molecular systematics of the genus Lasiurus (Chiroptera: Vespertilionidae) based on restriction-site maps of the mitochondrial ribosomal genes. Journal of Mammalogy 76:730-749.

  • Morgan, C. N., L. K. Ammerman, K. D. Demere, J. B. Doty, Y. J. Nakazawa, and M. R. Mauldin. 2019. Field identification key and guide for bats of the United States of America. Occasional Papers, Museum of Texas Tech University, Number 360. Texas Tech University Natural Science Research Laboratory. 29 pp.

  • Mormann, B.M. and L.W. Robbins. 2007. Winter roosting ecology of eastern red bats in southwest Missouri. The Journal of Wildlife Management 71(1):213-217.

  • Mumford, R. E., and J. O. Whitaker, Jr. 1982. Mammals of Indiana. Indiana University Press, Bloomington. 537 pp.

  • Mumford, Russell E. 1969. Distribution of the Mammals of Indiana. Indiana Academy of Science, Indianapolis, Indiana. 114 pp.

  • Nagorsen, D. W., and B. Paterson. 2012. An update on the status of red bats, Lasiurus blossevillii and Lasiurus borealis, in British Columbia. Northwestern Naturalist 93:235-237.

  • Nagorsen, D.W. and Brigham, R. M. 1993. The bats of British Columbia. The mammals of British Columbia; v.1, Royal British Columbia Musum handbook. Co-published by the Royal British Columbia Museum. UBC Press. Vancouver. 164p.

  • Natural Resources Commission. 2014. Roster of Indiana Animals, Insects, and Plants That Are Extirpated, Endangered, Threatened or Rare. Information Bulletin #2 (Sixth Amendment. 20pp.

  • New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Checklist of the amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals of New York State, including their protective status. Nongame Unit, Wildlife Resources Center, Delmar, NY.

  • O'Keefe, J. M., S. C. Loeb, J. D. Lanham, and H. S. Hill, Jr. 2009. Macrohabitat factors affect day roost selection by eastern red bats and eastern pipistrelles in the southern Appalachian Mountains, USA. Forest Ecology and Management 257:1757-1763.

  • OWEN, JAMES G. 1990. AN ANALYSIS OF THE SPATIAL STRUCTURE OF MAMMALIAN DISTRIBUTION PATTERNS IN TEXAS. ECOLOGY 71(5):1823-1832.

  • OWEN, JAMES G. 1990. PATTERNS OF MAMMALIAN SPECIES RICHNESS IN RELATION TO TEMPERATURE, PRODUCTIVITY, AND VARIANCE IN ELEVATION. J. MAMM. 71(1):1-13.

  • Padgett, T. M., and R. K. Rose. 1991. Bats (Chiroptera: Vespertilionidae) of the Great Dismal Swamp of Virginia and North Carolina. Brimleyana 17:17-25.

  • Parks Canada. 2000. Vertebrate Species Database. Ecosystems Branch, 25 Eddy St., Hull, PQ, K1A 0M5.

  • Patriquin, K. J. 2004. Red bat (Lasiurus borealis) captured in northeastern Alberta. Northwestern Naturalist 85:28-30.

  • Perry, R. W. 2013. Potential energy expenditure by litter-roosting bats associated with temperature under leaf litter during winter. Journal of Thermal Biology 38:467-473.

  • Prescott J. et P. Richard. 2004.. Mammifères du Québec et de l'est du Canada. Editions Michel Quintin, 2ème édition. 399 pages.

  • Pybus, M.J. 1993. Rabies in inectivorous bats in the Prairie regions of Canada. In Holroyd, G.L. et al. (eds.) Endangered Species and Prairie Conservation Workshop. Proceedings of the Third Prairie Conservation and Endangered Species Workshop, February 1992 at Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba / Natural History Section, Provincial Museum of Alberta. Edmonton. Natural History Occasional Paper 19. 384p.

  • Ransome, R. 1990. The natural history of hibernating bats. Christopher Helm, London. xxi + 235 pp.

  • Reid, F. A. 1997. A field guide to the mammals of Central America and southeast Mexico. Oxford University Press, Incorporated New York, New York. 334 pp.

  • Reid, F. A. 2006. A field guide to mammals of North America north of Mexico. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston.

  • Rodrigue, J.L,, T. M. Schuler, and M. A. Menzel. 2001. Observations of bat activity during prescribed burning in West Virginia. Bat Research News 42:48-49.

  • Rodríguez-Durán, A. and T.H. Kunz. 2001. Biogeography of West Indian bats: An ecological perspective. Pp. 355-368 In C. A. Woods and F. E. Sergile (eds.), Biogeography of the West Indies. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, USA.

  • SCHOBER, W. ET E. GRIMMERGER. 1997. The bats of Europe and North America. T. F. H. Publications inc. 239 pages.

  • SHUMP, K.A., JR., AND A.U. SHUMP. 1982. MAMMALIAN SPECIES NO. 185, LASIURUS CINEREUS. THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF MAMMALOGISTS, 5 P.

  • Saugey, D. A., R. L. Vaughn, B. G. Crump, and G. A. Heidt. 1998. Notes on the Natural History of Lasiurus borealis in Arkansas. J. Ark. Acad. Sci. 52:92-98.

  • Schmidly, D. J. 1991. The bats of Texas. Texas A & M University Press, College Station, Texas. 188 pp.

  • Schmidly, David J. 1983. Texas mammals east of the Balcones Fault Zone. Number six: The W. L. Moody, Jr. natural history series. Texas A&M University Press, College Station, TX. 400 pp.

  • Schwartz, C. W., and E. R. Schwartz. 1981. The wild mammals of Missouri. University of Missouri Press, Columbia. 356 pp.

  • Sealander, J.A. and G.A. Heidt. 1990. Arkansas Mammals: Their Natural History, Classification and Distribution. University of Arkansas Press, Fayetteville. 308 pp.

  • See SERO listing

  • Segers, J. L., A. E. Irwin, L. J. Farrow, L.N.L. Johnson, and H. G. Broders. 2013. First records of Lasiurus cinereus and L. borealis (Chiroptera: Vespertilionidae) on Cape Breton Island, Nova Scotia, Canada. Northeastern Naturalist 20:N14-N15.

  • Shump, K. A., Jr., and A. U. Shump. 1982b. LASIURUS BOREALIS. Am. Soc. Mamm., Mammalian Species No. 183:1-6.

  • Smallwood, K. S. 2013. Comparing bird and bat fatality-rate estimates among North American wind-energy projects. Wildlife Society Bulletin 37:19-33.

  • Société de la faune et des parcs du Québec. 2003. Les espèces menacées [en ligne]. Disponible sur le site Internet. - Accès :«http://www.fapaq.gouv.qc.ca/fr/etu_rec/esp_mena_vuln/index.htm». La société, 2003 [Réf. 3 novembre 2003] .

  • Tirira, D. 1999. Mamíferos del Ecuador. Museo de Zoología, Pontificia Universidad Católica del Ecuador, Quito.

  • Tuttle, M. D. 1976a. Population ecology of the gray bat (Myotis grisescens): philopatry, timing, and patterns of movement, weight loss during migration, and seasonal adaptive strategies. University of Kansas Museum of Natural History Occasional Papers (54):1-38.

  • Tuttle, M.D. 1988. America's neighborhood bats. 1st ed. University of Texas Press. Austin, Texas. 96p.

  • Tuttle, Merlin D. 1988. America's neighborhood bats. University of Texas Press, Austin. 96 pp.

  • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1999. Agency draft Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis) revised recovery plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fort Snelling, Minnesota. 53 pp.

  • Van Zyll de Jong, C.G. 1985. Traité des Mammifères du Canada Vol 2, les chauves-souris. Musée national des sciences naturelles. Musées nationaux du Canada. 215 p.

  • WARD, R.P. 1965. THE MAMMALS OF MISSISSIPPI. J. MISS. ACAD. SCI. 11:309-330.

  • WHITE, J.S. 1960. CHIGGERS AS ECTOPARASITES OF BATS. J. MISS. ACAD. SCI. 6:385.

  • Walters, B. L., C. M. Ritzi, D. W. Sparks, and J. O. Whitaker, Jr. 2007. Foraging behavior of eastern red bats (Lasiurus borealis) at an urban-rural interface. American Midland Naturalist 157:365-373.

  • Whitaker, J. O., Jr., R. K. Rose, and T. M. Padgett. 1997. Food of the red bat Lasiurus borealis in winter in the Great Dismal Swamp, North Carolina and Virginia. American Midland Naturalist 137:408-411.

  • Whitaker, John O. 1995. Survey of Bats at Muscatatuck National Wildlife Refuge, in Jackson and Jennings County, Indiana. Report to J.F. New & Associates and Muscatatuck National Wildlife Refuge. 20 pp.

  • Whitaker, John O. Jr. 1994. Bat Survey at Prairie Creek Area. Letter to Forrest Clark, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 9 pp.

  • Whitaker, John O. Jr. 1995. Bats of Prairie Creek. Indiana State University. 18 pp.

  • Whitaker, John O., Jr., and Russell E. Mumford. 2009. Mammals of Indiana. Indiana University Press, Bloomington and Indianapolis, IN.

  • Willis, C. K. R., Brigham, R. M. 2003. New records of the Eastern Red Bat, Lasiurus borealis, from Cypress Hills Provincial Park, Saskatchewan: A response to climate change? Canadian Field Naturalist 117: 651-654.

  • Wilson, D. E., and D. M. Reeder (editors). 1993. Mammal species of the world: a taxonomic and geographic reference. Second edition. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC. xviii + 1206 pp. Available online at: http://www.nmnh.si.edu/msw/.

  • Wilson, D. E., and D. M. Reeder (editors). 2005. Mammal species of the world: a taxonomic and geographic reference. Third edition. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore. Two volumes. 2,142 pp. Available online at: https://www.departments.bucknell.edu/biology/resources/msw3/

  • Wilson, D. E., and S. Ruff. 1999. The Smithsonian book of North American mammals. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. 750 pp.

  • Winhold, L., A. Kurta, and R. Foster. 2008. Long-term change in an assemblage of North American bats: are eastern red bats declining? Acta Chiropterologica 10:359-366.

  • Wolfe, J.L. 1971. Mississippi land mammals. Mississippi Museum of Natural Science, Jackson, Mississippi 44 pp.

  • van Zyll de Jong, C.G. 1985. Handbook of Canadian Mammals. Vol. II, Bats. National Museum of Natural Sciences, National Museums of Canada, Ottawa, Canada. 212 pp.

  • van Zyll de Jong, C.G., 1985, Handbook of Canadian Mammals, Volume 2: Bats., National Museums of Canada.

Use Guidelines & Citation

Use Guidelines and Citation

The Small Print: Trademark, Copyright, Citation Guidelines, Restrictions on Use, and Information Disclaimer.

Note: All species and ecological community data presented in NatureServe Explorer at http://explorer.natureserve.org were updated to be current with NatureServe's central databases as of March 2019.
Note: This report was printed on

Trademark Notice: "NatureServe", NatureServe Explorer, The NatureServe logo, and all other names of NatureServe programs referenced herein are trademarks of NatureServe. Any other product or company names mentioned herein are the trademarks of their respective owners.

Copyright Notice: Copyright © 2019 NatureServe, 2511 Richmond (Jefferson Davis) Highway, Suite 930, Arlington, VA 22202, U.S.A. All Rights Reserved. Each document delivered from this server or web site may contain other proprietary notices and copyright information relating to that document. The following citation should be used in any published materials which reference the web site.

Citation for data on website including State Distribution, Watershed, and Reptile Range maps:
NatureServe. 2019. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://explorer.natureserve.org. (Accessed:

Citation for Bird Range Maps of North America:
Ridgely, R.S., T.F. Allnutt, T. Brooks, D.K. McNicol, D.W. Mehlman, B.E. Young, and J.R. Zook. 2003. Digital Distribution Maps of the Birds of the Western Hemisphere, version 1.0. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia, USA.

Acknowledgement Statement for Bird Range Maps of North America:
"Data provided by NatureServe in collaboration with Robert Ridgely, James Zook, The Nature Conservancy - Migratory Bird Program, Conservation International - CABS, World Wildlife Fund - US, and Environment Canada - WILDSPACE."

Citation for Mammal Range Maps of North America:
Patterson, B.D., G. Ceballos, W. Sechrest, M.F. Tognelli, T. Brooks, L. Luna, P. Ortega, I. Salazar, and B.E. Young. 2003. Digital Distribution Maps of the Mammals of the Western Hemisphere, version 1.0. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia, USA.

Acknowledgement Statement for Mammal Range Maps of North America:
"Data provided by NatureServe in collaboration with Bruce Patterson, Wes Sechrest, Marcelo Tognelli, Gerardo Ceballos, The Nature Conservancy-Migratory Bird Program, Conservation International-CABS, World Wildlife Fund-US, and Environment Canada-WILDSPACE."

Citation for Amphibian Range Maps of the Western Hemisphere:
IUCN, Conservation International, and NatureServe. 2004. Global Amphibian Assessment. IUCN, Conservation International, and NatureServe, Washington, DC and Arlington, Virginia, USA.

Acknowledgement Statement for Amphibian Range Maps of the Western Hemisphere:
"Data developed as part of the Global Amphibian Assessment and provided by IUCN-World Conservation Union, Conservation International and NatureServe."

NOTE: Full metadata for the Bird Range Maps of North America is available at:
http://www.natureserve.org/library/birdDistributionmapsmetadatav1.pdf.

Full metadata for the Mammal Range Maps of North America is available at:
http://www.natureserve.org/library/mammalsDistributionmetadatav1.pdf.

Restrictions on Use: Permission to use, copy and distribute documents delivered from this server is hereby granted under the following conditions:
  1. The above copyright notice must appear in all copies;
  2. Any use of the documents available from this server must be for informational purposes only and in no instance for commercial purposes;
  3. Some data may be downloaded to files and altered in format for analytical purposes, however the data should still be referenced using the citation above;
  4. No graphics available from this server can be used, copied or distributed separate from the accompanying text. Any rights not expressly granted herein are reserved by NatureServe. Nothing contained herein shall be construed as conferring by implication, estoppel, or otherwise any license or right under any trademark of NatureServe. No trademark owned by NatureServe may be used in advertising or promotion pertaining to the distribution of documents delivered from this server without specific advance permission from NatureServe. Except as expressly provided above, nothing contained herein shall be construed as conferring any license or right under any NatureServe copyright.
Information Warranty Disclaimer: All documents and related graphics provided by this server and any other documents which are referenced by or linked to this server are provided "as is" without warranty as to the currentness, completeness, or accuracy of any specific data. NatureServe hereby disclaims all warranties and conditions with regard to any documents provided by this server or any other documents which are referenced by or linked to this server, including but not limited to all implied warranties and conditions of merchantibility, fitness for a particular purpose, and non-infringement. NatureServe makes no representations about the suitability of the information delivered from this server or any other documents that are referenced to or linked to this server. In no event shall NatureServe be liable for any special, indirect, incidental, consequential damages, or for damages of any kind arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information contained in any documents provided by this server or in any other documents which are referenced by or linked to this server, under any theory of liability used. NatureServe may update or make changes to the documents provided by this server at any time without notice; however, NatureServe makes no commitment to update the information contained herein. Since the data in the central databases are continually being updated, it is advisable to refresh data retrieved at least once a year after its receipt. The data provided is for planning, assessment, and informational purposes. Site specific projects or activities should be reviewed for potential environmental impacts with appropriate regulatory agencies. If ground-disturbing activities are proposed on a site, the appropriate state natural heritage program(s) or conservation data center can be contacted for a site-specific review of the project area (see Visit Local Programs).

Feedback Request: NatureServe encourages users to let us know of any errors or significant omissions that you find in the data through (see Contact Us). Your comments will be very valuable in improving the overall quality of our databases for the benefit of all users.