Myotis austroriparius - (Rhoads, 1897)
Southeastern Myotis
Other English Common Names: southeastern myotis
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Myotis austroriparius (Rhoads, 1897) (TSN 179993)
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.104595
Element Code: AMACC01030
Informal Taxonomy: Animals, Vertebrates - Mammals - Bats
 
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus
Animalia Craniata Mammalia Chiroptera Vespertilionidae Myotis
Genus Size: D - Medium to large genus (21+ species)
Check this box to expand all report sections:
Concept Reference
Help
Concept Reference: 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/.
Concept Reference Code: B93WIL01NAUS
Name Used in Concept Reference: Myotis austroriparius
Taxonomic Comments: No subspecies are recognized (LaVal 1970).
Conservation Status
Help

NatureServe Status

Global Status: G4
Global Status Last Reviewed: 11Mar2015
Global Status Last Changed: 11Mar2015
Ranking Methodology Used: Ranked by calculator
Rounded Global Status: G4 - Apparently Secure
Reasons: This bat is fairly widespread and numerous in the southeastern United States, where it occurs in a large number of locations. Available evidence is inadequate for determining whether or not the overall population is significantly declining. A large portion of the population apparently occurs in northern Florida in caves; elsewhere, maternity colonies tend to be smaller (and may be numerous) and located in hollow trees and other noncave sites. Florida still has large numbers, but the number of known occupied caves has declined. The small number of known large maternity colonies may be vulnerable to large scale disasters such as a regional flood event simultaneously affecting many caves). Better information is needed on trend and abundance of non-cave populations.
Nation: United States
National Status: N4 (11Mar2015)

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 (S2), Arkansas (S3), Florida (S3), Georgia (S3), Illinois (S1), Indiana (SH), Kentucky (S1S2), Louisiana (S4), Mississippi (S3), Missouri (S1), North Carolina (S2), Oklahoma (S1), South Carolina (S1S2), Tennessee (S3), Texas (S3), Virginia (S2)

Other Statuses

IUCN Red List Category: LC - Least concern

NatureServe Global Conservation Status Factors

Range Extent: 200,000-2,500,000 square km (about 80,000-1,000,000 square miles)
Range Extent Comments: Range includes the southeastern United States, west to southeastern Oklahoma and eastern Texas (Higginbotham and Jones 2001, Mirowsky et al. 2004, Schmidly 2004, Ammerman et al. 2012), north in the Mississippi River drainage through Arkansas, Mississippi, western Tennessee, southeastern Missouri, and western Kentucky to southern Illinois (Hofmann et al. 1999) and southern Indiana, and east to southeastern Virginia (Hobson 1998), southern North Carolina, South Carolina (Menzel et al. 2003), Georgia, and northern and central Florida (Jones and Manning 1989, Marks and Marks 2006). Summer and winter ranges are the same. Although widespread in the southeast, the vast majority of the known population is concentrated in northern Florida, and the species is rarest and local outside the Gulf Coastal Plain.

Number of Occurrences:  
Number of Occurrences Comments: The number of distinct occurrences has not been determined using standardized/meaningful criteria, but the species is represented by a fairly large number of known maternity roosts, hibernacula, and other occupied roosts and habitats (Horner and Mirowsky 1996, Gore and Hovis 1992,1998, Hofmann et al. 1999, Gooding and Langford 2004, Mirowsky et al. 2004, Carver and Ashley 2008, Ammerman et al. 2012, Clement and Castleberry 2013d, Fleming et al. 2013).

Population Size: 100,000 - 1,000,000 individuals
Population Size Comments: Total adult population size is unknown but is at least in the 100,000s. This species is still abundant in some places; it is common in northern Florida and the Florida Panhandle. In Florida in the early 1990s, 9 caves contained approximately 319,000 adults, down from an estimated 380,000 based on previous surveys; however, given bat movements among caves and count errors, the difference in counts may not be significant (Gore and Hovis 1998). The number of individuals observed in known tree roosts and man-made structures is much smaller (less than 500; Horner et al. 1998; Clark, pers. comm., 1998; Gore, pers. comm., 1998), but it is difficult to locate such roosts, and undoubtedly there are more.

Viability/Integrity Comments: The number of occurrences or subpopulations with good or excellent estimated viability is uncertain. Most of the known large maternity colonies (1,000s-10,000s of adult females) are in 9 Florida caves (Gore and Hovis 1998). Recent surveys (e.g., Hofmann et al. 1999, Mirowsky et al. 2004) suggest that the number of small maternity colonies (e.g., in tree hollows) may be quite large, but the viability of the populations they represent is generally unknown.

Overall Threat Impact: Medium
Overall Threat Impact Comments: Declines likely have resulted from various factors, especially human disturbance and physical alteration of caves used as hibernacula and maternity sites (Gore and Hovis 1992, 1998; Humphrey and Gore 1992). In Florida, of 10 historically occupied caves that were found to be unoccupied in the early 1990s, all but 1 had entrances closed by landowners, the surrounding forest cleared, or showed evidence of vandalism (Gore and Hovis 1998).

Some caves have been made unavailable by flooding by reservoirs. Some steel-bar gates may affect bat emergence patterns and cave entrance usage (Ludlow and Gore 2000). One cave formerly used by 11,000 individuals was turned into a public dump and virtually abandoned by bats (Humphrey and Gore 1992). Clearing and draining of bottomland hardwood forest wetlands likely have reduced available habitat for summer roosting and foraging (Clark 2003).

Excessive human visitation may awaken bats and cause them to use up fat reserves. In maternity colonies, disturbance may cause females to abandon their young. Heavy collecting or banding may cause a population to vacate a site. Attempts to collect, even in winter, usually result in bats vacating at least temporarily (Mumford and Whitaker 1982).

The small number of known large maternity colonies results in high vulnerability to devastation by large scale disasters such as a regional flood event simultaneously affecting many caves.

Broadcast application of pesticides potentially has a detrimental impact on this species and its food resources, but the impact of this on the bat population is unknown.

The fungus that causes white-nose syndrome has been found on this species, but symptoms of the disease were absent. As of 2014, most of the range of M. austroriparius was outside the documented range of white-nose syndrome.

This species is not known to incur significant mortality from turbines at wind energy facilities (Arnett and Baerwald 2013).

Short-term Trend: Decline of <30% to relatively stable
Short-term Trend Comments: Trend over the past 10 years or three generations is uncertain, but distribution and abundance probably have been relatively stable or slowly declining.

Long-term Trend: Decline of 10-50%
Long-term Trend Comments: Over the long term, area of occupancy, number of locations, and population size probably have declined substantially with extensive habitat loss, alteration, and disturbance, but the degree of decline is uncertain. The number of Florida caves used as maternity roosts declined from 19 to 9 between the 1950s and early 1990s.(Rice 1957, Gore and Hovis 1998). However, it is unknown to what extent the bats may have shifted to other caves (Gore and Hovis 1998). Brown (1997) stated that this species is adaptable and seems to be holding its own in the southeastern United States.

While the Florida population was thriving in the 1960s, Barbour and Davis (1969) reported that the Ohio River Valley population at the northern margin of the range was steadily declining and apparently nearing extirpation. Current information from this region indicates that populations are still present in low numbers, although their trend remains largely unknown. Indiana populations had declined considerably by 1980 (Mumford and Whitaker 1982), although populations were always small. Recent extensive searches in Illinois indicated that the population has become more restricted than in the past; only one hibernating colony was located, compared to nine previously known hibernating sites, and the bats were only found in four counties compared to six in the past. Recent field studies in coastal North Carolina, South Carolina, and eastern Texas have located populations of this species, but there are no baseline data with which to compare trends.

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Protection Needs: Roosting sites of all large (100+ bats) colonies, both breeding and wintering, are in need of protection. Frequently used foraging habitats should be maintained in their natural forested state.

Distribution
Help
Global Range: (200,000-2,500,000 square km (about 80,000-1,000,000 square miles)) Range includes the southeastern United States, west to southeastern Oklahoma and eastern Texas (Higginbotham and Jones 2001, Mirowsky et al. 2004, Schmidly 2004, Ammerman et al. 2012), north in the Mississippi River drainage through Arkansas, Mississippi, western Tennessee, southeastern Missouri, and western Kentucky to southern Illinois (Hofmann et al. 1999) and southern Indiana, and east to southeastern Virginia (Hobson 1998), southern North Carolina, South Carolina (Menzel et al. 2003), Georgia, and northern and central Florida (Jones and Manning 1989, Marks and Marks 2006). Summer and winter ranges are the same. Although widespread in the southeast, the vast majority of the known population is concentrated in northern Florida, and the species is rarest and local outside the Gulf Coastal Plain.

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: endemic to a single nation

U.S. & Canada State/Province Distribution
United States AL, AR, FL, GA, IL, IN, KY, LA, MO, MS, NC, OK, SC, TN, TX, VA

Range Map
Note: Range depicted for New World only. The scale of the maps may cause narrow coastal ranges or ranges on small islands not to appear. Not all vagrant or small disjunct occurrences are depicted. For migratory birds, some individuals occur outside of the passage migrant range depicted. For information on how to obtain shapefiles of species ranges see our Species Mapping pages at www.natureserve.org/conservation-tools/data-maps-tools.

Range Map Compilers: Sechrest, 2002


U.S. Distribution by County Help
State County Name (FIPS Code)
AL Conecuh (01035), Covington (01039)*, Lawrence (01079)*, Marshall (01095), Monroe (01099)*, Morgan (01103)*
AR Arkansas (05001), Ashley (05003), Bradley (05011), Chicot (05017), Clark (05019), Clay (05021), Cleveland (05025), Conway (05029), Craighead (05031), Crittenden (05035), Desha (05041), Drew (05043)*, Garland (05051)*, Hempstead (05057), Howard (05061), Independence (05063), Jackson (05067), Jefferson (05069), Lafayette (05073), Lawrence (05075), Lee (05077), Lonoke (05085), Mississippi (05093), Monroe (05095), Montgomery (05097), Nevada (05099), Ouachita (05103), Pike (05109), Poinsett (05111), Prairie (05117), Randolph (05121), Sharp (05135), Union (05139), White (05145), Woodruff (05147)
FL Alachua (12001), Citrus (12017), Columbia (12023), Escambia (12033), Gadsden (12039), Gilchrist (12041), Jackson (12063), Lake (12069), Leon (12073), Madison (12079), Marion (12083), Sumter (12119), Suwannee (12121)*, Washington (12133)
GA Appling (13001), Baker (13007), Bleckley (13023), Bulloch (13031), Calhoun (13037), Candler (13043), Charlton (13049)*, Chattahoochee (13053), Clarke (13059)*, Colquitt (13071), Decatur (13087), Dougherty (13095), Emanuel (13107), Glynn (13127)*, Grady (13131), Greene (13133), Houston (13153), Laurens (13175), Lee (13177), Mcintosh (13191)*, Miller (13201)*, Montgomery (13209), Richmond (13245)*, Screven (13251), Stewart (13259), Talbot (13263), Tattnall (13267)*, Thomas (13275), Treutlen (13283), Washington (13303)*
IL Alexander (17003), Hardin (17069), Johnson (17087), Massac (17127), Pope (17151), Pulaski (17153), Saline (17165), Union (17181), Vermilion (17183)*
IN Crawford (18025)*, Greene (18055)*, Lawrence (18093)*, Washington (18175)*
KY Ballard (21007), Breckinridge (21027), Carlisle (21039), Casey (21045), Christian (21047), Crittenden (21055), Edmonson (21061), Fulton (21075), Graves (21083)*, Hardin (21093), Hart (21099), Hickman (21105), Hopkins (21107), Lee (21129), Livingston (21139), Lyon (21143), Marion (21155), Marshall (21157), McCracken (21145), Muhlenberg (21177), Trigg (21221)
MO Bollinger (29017), Mississippi (29133), New Madrid (29143), Stone (29209), Wayne (29223)
MS Adams (28001), Attala (28007), Claiborne (28021), Clarke (28023), Clay (28025), Covington (28031), Franklin (28037), Greene (28041), Holmes (28051), Jasper (28061), Jones (28067), Lauderdale (28075), Leake (28079), Neshoba (28099), Noxubee (28103), Panola (28107), Perry (28111), Rankin (28121), Scott (28123), Sharkey (28125), Smith (28129), Tishomingo (28141), Warren (28149), Washington (28151), Wayne (28153), Wilkinson (28157), Winston (28159), Yalobusha (28161), Yazoo (28163)
NC Bertie (37015), Bladen (37017), Camden (37029), Clay (37043), Columbus (37047), Craven (37049), Currituck (37053), Gates (37073), Halifax (37083), Hertford (37091), Hoke (37093), Johnston (37101), Jones (37103), Martin (37117), Moore (37125), New Hanover (37129), Onslow (37133), Pender (37141), Robeson (37155), Scotland (37165), Wake (37183)*
OK McCurtain (40089)*
SC Aiken (45003), Allendale (45005), Barnwell (45011), Beaufort (45013), Berkeley (45015), Calhoun (45017), Charleston (45019), Cherokee (45021), Clarendon (45027), Dorchester (45035), Greenville (45045), Hampton (45049), Jasper (45053), Kershaw (45055)*, Orangeburg (45075), Richland (45079), Sumter (45085)
TN Franklin (47051), Lauderdale (47097), Weakley (47183)
TX Freestone (48161), Hardin (48199), Houston (48225), Jasper (48241), Leon (48289), Nacogdoches (48347), Newton (48351)*, Panola (48365)*, Polk (48373), Shelby (48419), Tyler (48457), Walker (48471), Wood (48499)
VA Chesapeake (City) (51550), Isle of Wight (51093), Southampton (51175), Suffolk (City) (51800), Sussex (51183), Virginia Beach (City) (51810)
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed Help
Watershed Region Help Watershed Name (Watershed Code)
02 Lynnhaven-Poquoson (02080108)+
03 Lower Roanoke (03010107)+, Nottoway (03010201)+, Blackwater (03010202)+, Ghowan (03010203)+, Meheriin (03010204)+, Albemarle (03010205)+, Fishing (03020102)+, Upper Neuse (03020201)+, Lower Neuse (03020204)+, White Oak River (03020301)+, Lower Cape Fear (03030005)+, Northeast Cape Fear (03030007)+, Lumber (03040203)+, Black (03040205)+, Waccamaw (03040206)+, Wateree (03050104)+*, Upper Broad (03050105)+, Saluda (03050109)+, Congaree (03050110)+, Lake Marion (03050111)+, Cooper (03050201)+, South Carolina Coastal (03050202)+, Edisto (03050205)+, Broad-St. Helena (03050208)+, Bulls Bay (03050209)+*, Middle Savannah (03060106)+, Brier (03060108)+*, Lower Savannah (03060109)+, Calibogue Sound-Wright River (03060110)+, Upper Ogeechee (03060201)+*, Canoochee (03060203)+, Ogeechee Coastal (03060204)+*, Upper Oconee (03070101)+, Lower Oconee (03070102)+, Lower Ocmulgee (03070104)+, Altamaha (03070106)+, Ohoopee (03070107)+, Cumberland-St. Simons (03070203)+*, St. Marys (03070204)+*, Oklawaha (03080102)+, Crystal-Pithlachascotee (03100207)+, Withlacoochee (03100208)+, Aucilla (03110103)+*, Upper Suwannee (03110201)+*, withlacoochee (03110203)+, Little (03110204)+, Lower Suwannee (03110205)+, Santa Fe (03110206)+, Apalachee Bay-St. Marks (03120001)+, Upper Ochlockonee (03120002)+, Lower Ochlockonee (03120003)+*, Middle Chattahoochee-Walter F. George Reservoir (03130003)+, Middle Flint (03130006)+, Lower Flint (03130008)+, Ichawaynochaway (03130009)+, Spring (03130010)+*, Apalachicola (03130011)+, Chipola (03130012)+, Yellow (03140103)+*, Perdido Bay (03140107)+, Lower Choctawhatchee (03140203)+, Sepulga (03140303)+, Lower Alabama (03150204)+*, Tibbee (03160104)+, Noxubee (03160108)+, Sipsey Fork (03160110)+*, Sucarnoochee (03160202)+, Chunky-Okatibbee (03170001)+, Upper Chickasawhay (03170002)+, Lower Chickasawhay (03170003)+, Upper Leaf (03170004)+, Lower Leaf (03170005)+, Black (03170007)+, Upper Pearl (03180001)+, Middle Pearl-Strong (03180002)+
05 Upper Kentucky (05100204)+, Upper Green (05110001)+, Barren (05110002)+, Rough (05110004)+, Pond (05110006)+, Middle Wabash-Little Vermilion (05120108)+*, Vermilion (05120109)+*, Lower White (05120202)+*, Lower East Fork White (05120208)+*, Lower Cumberland (05130205)+, Rolling Fork (05140103)+, Blue-Sinking (05140104)+, Lower Ohio-Bay (05140203)+, Saline (05140204)+, Lower Ohio (05140206)+
06 Hiwassee (06020002)+, Wheeler Lake (06030002)+, Pickwick Lake (06030005)+*, Bear (06030006)+, Lower Tennessee (06040006)+
07 Upper Mississippi-Cape Girardeau (07140105)+, Big Muddy (07140106)+*, Cache (07140108)+
08 Lower Mississippi-Memphis (08010100)+, Bayou De Chien-Mayfield (08010201)+, Obion (08010202)+, South Fork Obion (08010203)+, New Madrid-St. Johns (08020201)+, Upper St. Francis (08020202)+, Lower St. Francis (08020203)+, Little River Ditches (08020204)+, Lower White-Bayou Des Arc (08020301)+, Cache (08020302)+, Lower Arkansas (08020401)+, Bayou Meto (08020402)+, Lower Mississippi-Greenville (08030100)+, Little Tallahatchie (08030201)+, Yocona (08030203)+, Upper Yazoo (08030206)+, Big Sunflower (08030207)+, Deer-Steele (08030209)+, Ouachita Headwaters (08040101)+*, Upper Ouachita (08040102)+, Little Missouri (08040103)+, Lower Ouachita-Bayou De Loutre (08040202)+, Lower Saline (08040204)+, Bayou Macon (08050002)+, Lower Mississippi-Natchez (08060100)+, Bayou Pierre (08060203)+, Homochitto (08060205)+
11 James (11010002)+, Middle White (11010004)+, Upper Black (11010007)+, Lower Black (11010009)+, Spring (11010010)+, Strawberry (11010012)+, Upper White-Village (11010013)+, Little Red (11010014)+, Petit Jean (11110204)+, Lower Arkansas-Maumelle (11110207)+, Mountain Fork (11140108)+*, Lower Little (11140109)+, Mckinney-Posten Bayous (11140201)+, Loggy Bayou (11140203)+
12 Middle Sabine (12010002)+, Toledo Bend Reservoir (12010004)+, Middle Neches (12020002)+, Lower Neches (12020003)+, Upper Angelina (12020004)+, Lower Angelina (12020005)+, Village (12020006)+, Pine Island Bayou (12020007)+, Lower Trinity-Tehuacana (12030201)+, Lower Trinity-Kickapoo (12030202)+
+ Natural heritage record(s) exist for this watershed
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
Ecology & Life History
Help
Basic Description: A small gray to russet bat.
General Description: A bat with dull, somewhat woolly pelage, gray to orange or russet above, tan to white below; hairs have little contrast between tip and base; hairs between the toes extend to or beyond the claw tips; calcar is unkeeled; forearm length is 36-41 mm, ear averages 15 mm, foot averages 10 mm (Humphrey and Gore 1992). Short-rounded tragus (Whitaker 1996).
Diagnostic Characteristics: Little brown bat (Myotis lucifugus) has longer silky fur with burnished tips. Northern myotis (Myotis septentrionalis) has longer ears and a longer, thinner tragus. Small-footed Myotis species (Myotis leibii and M. ciliolabrum) have a smaller foot (6-8 mm) and a keeled calcar (Whitaker 1996).
Reproduction Comments: Parturition occurs from late April to late May in Florida, apparently around mid-May in Oklahoma. This is the only Myotis usually producing two rather than one young per litter. Young can fly in 5-6 weeks. Adult males may join female colonies after maturation of young. Individuals become sexually mature within one year. Single maternity colonies often include several hundred females and can include several 10,000s of individuals.
Ecology Comments: May be locally abundant in Florida, where 77 bats per square mile were estimated (Rice 1957). In winter, roosting groups are relatively small; may hibernate in compact clusters of up to about 50 individuals.
Habitat Type: Terrestrial
Non-Migrant: Y
Locally Migrant: Y
Long Distance Migrant: N
Mobility and Migration Comments: Small seasonal shifts in habitat may occur (e.g., Clement and Castleberry 2013), but this species does not exhibit significant migration (e.g., Mumford and Whitaker 1982). Rice (1957) reported movements of 29 km and 72 km by banded individuals.
Riverine Habitat(s): Aerial
Palustrine Habitat(s): Aerial, FORESTED WETLAND, Riparian
Terrestrial Habitat(s): Forest - Conifer, Forest - Hardwood, Forest - Mixed, Forest Edge, Forest/Woodland, Suburban/orchard, Urban/edificarian, Woodland - Conifer, Woodland - Hardwood, Woodland - Mixed
Subterranean Habitat(s): Subterrestrial
Special Habitat Factors: Standing snag/hollow tree
Habitat Comments: Roosts are primarily in caves in regions where suitable caves are available; suitable caves may or may not contain water. Otherwise, roosts are in hollows of bottomland hardwood trees (often with triangular basal openings) or in structures such as abandoned buildings, bridges, culverts, or bat houses. The key characteristics for maternity sites are high humidity and constant warm temperatures. Roost sites, whether in caves or trees, often are over water. Foraging habitat consists of areas over water bodies, riparian floodplain forests, flatwoods, or wooded wetlands with permanent open water nearby (MacGregor 1992, Gardner et al. 1992, Humphrey and Gore 1992). Upon departing from their diurnal roosts, these bats fly to water to drink and forage over lakes, ponds, or slow-moving streams.

In Florida, large numbers form maternity colonies in caves, with smaller colonies in tree hollows, buildings or other structures (Marks and Marks 2006). Maternity colonies also have been found in a small number of caves in Georgia and Alabama. In the rest of the southern and central parts of the range, these bats generally use buildings and other structures, mines, and large hollow trees (e.g., water tupelo, black gum, water hickory, bald cypress) for spring and summer roosts (e.g., Gooding and Langford 2004, Mirowsky et al. 2004, Carver and Ashley 2008, Fleming et al. 2013). In Louisiana, a hollow water tupelo (Nyssa aquatica) studied in late summer and early fall contained about 50 individuals (Gooding and Langford 2003). By winter in this region these bats roost in small groups in outdoor sites, often over water, such as bridges, culverts, storm sewers, and boat houses, as well as in hollow trees (Barbour and Davis 1969). In Florida (and perhaps elsewhere), the bats also roost in caves in winter; apparently they may use different caves for summer and winter roosts (Humphrey and Gore 1992, Gore 1992); winter roosts also include various structures (Marks and Marks 2006). In Georgia, roosts were in cypress-gum swamps in summer, but bats switched to a diverse hardwood floodplain forest with shallower flood waters in winter; the change was attributed to winter flooding of tree hollows used in summer (Clement and Castleberry 2013). Winter roosts in Texas include bottomland tree hollows and concrete culverts (Mirowsky et al. 2004, Ammerman et al. 2012).

In the north, the pattern of cave use is different. Kentucky populations winter in caves (often with Myotis sodalis) but are rare in most caves in the summer, when most roost in large hollow trees (MacGregor 1992). However, one large maternity colony in a Kentucky cave has been reported (MacGregor 1992). The few old records from Indiana also were mostly from caves in winter. Summer roost sites are poorly known from this part of their range. At least one cave in Indiana had bats every month except May, June, and July (Mumford and Whitaker 1982). Only a few maternity colonies have been reported in this region: one was in the Kentucky cave already mentioned; additional maternity colonies exist in southern Illinois, where one was in a hollow-based water tupelo (Nyssa aquatica) (Hofmann et al. 1999).

Adult Food Habits: Invertivore
Immature Food Habits: Invertivore
Food Comments: Diet includes small beetles, moths, mosquitoes, and other aquatic-associated insects, often obtained over water. These bats also may forage in dry areas, such as around live oaks (Humphrey and Gore 1992).
Adult Phenology: Hibernates/aestivates, Nocturnal
Immature Phenology: Hibernates/aestivates, Nocturnal
Phenology Comments: Activity is primarily nocturnal. In the north, hibernation may last as long as 7 months (September or October to February or March). Activity occurs throughout most of the winter in the south. In winter in Texas, roosting individuals remain alert (Walker et al. 1996).
Colonial Breeder: Y
Length: 10 centimeters
Weight: 12 grams
Economic Attributes Not yet assessed
Help
Management Summary
Help
Management Requirements: Protect cave roost sites from human disturbance. Maintain high quality forested wetlands with component of large hollow trees near permanent water.
Monitoring Requirements: Monitor populations throughout range, especially in the large roosting sites.
Biological Research Needs: Better information about summer and winter roosting requirements is needed. Viability and importance of small maternity colonies should be investigated. Techniques for monitoring with minimum disturbance need to be developed. Effects of disturbance on survival and reproductive success are in need of further study. Dispersal distances and roosting sites for bats when they are away from the large cave colony sites need to be determined. More information is needed on the importance of hollow trees and other non-cave sites as maternity roosts.
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: 31Mar2015
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Author: Hammerson, G., J. Soule, and P. Horner
Element Ecology & Life History Edition Date: 27May2014
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
  • Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Division of Wildlife and Freshwater Fisheries. 2005. Conserving Alabama's wildlife: a comprehensive strategy. Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Division of Wildlife and Freshwater Fisheries. Montgomery, Alabama. 303 pages. [Available online at http://www.dcnr.state.al.us/research-mgmt/cwcs/outline.cfm ]

  • 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.

  • Ammerman, L. K., C. L. Hice, and D. J. Schmidly. 2012. Bats of Texas. Texas A & M University Press, College Station, Texas. xvi + 305 pp.

  • 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.

  • BAKER, W. W. 1965. A CONTRIBUTION TO THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE DISTRIBUTION AND MOVEMENTS OF BATS IN NORTH GEORGIA. UNPUBL. MS THESIS. UNIV. GA. 22 PP.

  • Bain, J.R. 1981. Roosting ecology of three Florida Bats: Nycticeius humeralis, Myotis austroriparius, and Tadarida brasiliensis. Master's thesis. Universtity of Florida in Gainsville.

  • Bain, James R. 1981. Roosting ecology of three Florida Bats: Nycticeius humeralis, Myotis austroriparius, and Tadarida brasiliensis. M. S. thesis. Universtity of Florida, Gainsville, FL. 135 pp.

  • 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 ]

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

  • Bole, B.P. 1943. Myotis austroriparius in Tennessee. Jo. Mamm. 24(3):403.

  • 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

  • Brown, L. N. 1997. A guide to the mammals of the southeastern United States. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville. xiv + 236 pp.

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

  • Carver, B. D., and N. Ashley. 2008. Roost tree use by sympatric Rafinesque's big-eared bats (Corynorhinus rafinesquii) and southeastern myotis (Myotis austroriparius). American Midland Naturalist 160:364-373.

  • Choate, J. R., J. K. Jones, Jr., and C. Jones. 1994. Handbook of mammals of the south-central states. Louisiana State University Press, Baton Rouge. 304 pp.

  • Clark, M. K. 1994. Final Report. Contract No. SCFO; Budget Center No. 1400768000: Eastern big-eared bat survey of Four Holes Swamp, S.C. Submitted to the South Carolina chapter of The Nature Conservancy. 19 December 1994.

  • Clark, M. K. 2003. Surey and monitoring of rare bats in bottomland hardwood forests. Pages 79-90 in T. J. O'Shea and M. A. Bogan, editors. Monitoring trends in bat populations of the United States and territories: problems and prospects. U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources Discipline, Information and Technology Report, USGS/BRD/ITR-2003-003.

  • Clark, M. K., A. Black, and E. Hajnos. 1998. Roosting and foraging activities of Corynorhinus rafinesquii and Myotis austroriparius within the Francis Beidler Forest, South Carolina. Submitted to North Carolina State Museum of Natural Sciences, Raleigh, NC. 13 pp.

  • 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.

  • Clement, M. J., and S. B. Castleberry. 2013c. Divergent roosting habits of Rafinesque's big-eared bat and southeastern mytois during winter floods. American Midland Naturalist 170:158-170.

  • Clement, M. J., and S. B. Castleberry. 2013d. Southeastern myotis (Myotis austroriparius) roost selection in cypress-gum swamps. Acta Chiropterologica 15:133-141.

  • Davis, W. B., and D. J. Schmidly. 1994. The mammals of Texas. Texas Parks and Wildlife Press, Austin. x + 338 pp.

  • FOSTER, HUMPHREY, AND HUMPHREY. 1978. SURVIVAL OF YOUNG MYOTIS AUSTRORIPARIUS IN FLORIDA. J. MAMM. 59:299-304.

  • 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.

  • Fleming, H. L., J. C. Jones, J. L. Belant, and D. M. Richardson. 2013. Probability of detection and visual count error for Rafinesque's big-eared bat (Corynorhinus rafinesquii) and southeastern myotis (Myotis austroriparius) in tree cavities. American Midland Naturalist 169:56-65.

  • Foster, G. W., S. R. Humphrey, and P. P. Humphrey. 1978. Survival rate of young southeastern brown bats, Myotis austroriparius, in Florida. Journal of Mammalogy 59(2):299-304.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Gardner, J. E., J. E. Hofmann, J. D. Garner, J. K. Krejca, and S. E. Robinson. 1992. Final Report. Distribution and status of Myotis austroriparius (southeastern bat) in Illinois. MOU #E-10-1. Illinois Department of Conservation.

  • Gardner, J. E., et al. 1992. Distribution and status of MYOTIS AUSTRORIPARIUS (southeastern bat) in Illinois. Illinois Natural History Survey and Illinois Department of Conservation.

  • Gardner, J. E., et. al. 1992. Distribution and status of MYOTIS AUSTRORIPARIUS (southeastern bat) in Illinois. Unpubl. report, Ill. Nat. Hist. Surv., Urbana, IL. 38pp.

  • 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.

  • Gooding, G., and J. R. Langford. 2004. Characteristics of tree roosts of Rafinesque's big-eared bat and southeastern bat in northeastern Louisiana. Southwestern Naturalist 49:61-67.

  • Gore, J. 1987. Annual Performance Report. Project: Survey and monitoring. Bat colonies in Jackson County caves: survey of caves. Prepared for the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, Tallahassee, FL. December 1987.

  • Gore, J. 1987. Bat colonies in Jackson County caves: Survey of caves. Annual performance report, nongame wildlife section, Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, Tallahassee.

  • Gore, J. A., and J. A. Hovis. 1992. The southeastern bat: another cave-roosting species in peril. Bats 10(2):10-12.

  • Gore, J. A., and J. A. Hovis. 1998. Status and conservation of southeastern myotis maternity colonies in Florida caves. Florida Scientist 61:160-170.

  • Gore, J. A.and J. A. Hovis. 1994. Final Performance Report. Southeastern myotis maternity cave survey. Prepared by the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission. January 1994.

  • Gore, J.A., and J.A. Hovis. 1994. Southeastern myotis maternity cave survey. Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission. Nongame Wildlife Program Final Perf. Rep. 33 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.

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

  • Hall, E. Raymond and Keith R. Kelson. 1959. The Mammals of North America. The Ronald Press Company, New York. 1083 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.

  • Harvey, M.J. 1992. Bats of the Eastern United States. Arkansas Game & Fish Commission, 46 p.

  • 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.

  • Heidt, G.A., D.A. Elrod, and V.R. Mcdaniel. 1996. Biogeography of Arkansas Mammals With Notes On species of Questionable Status. Proc. Ark. Acad. Sci. 50:60-65.

  • Herkert, J. R., editor. 1992. Endangered and threatened species of Illinois: status and distribution. Vol. 2: Animals. Illinois Endangered Species Protection Board. iv + 142 pp.

  • Hermanson, J. W., and K. T. Wilkins. 1986. Pre-weaning mortality in a Florida maternity roost of Myotis austroriparius and Tadarida brasiliensis. Journal of Mammalogy 67(4):751-754.

  • Higginbotham, J. L., and C. Jones. 2001. The southeastern myotis, Myotis austroriparius (Chiroptera: Vespertilionidae), from Comanche County, Texas. Texas Journal of Science 53:193-195.

  • Higginbotham, J. L., and C. Jones. 2001. The southeastern myotis, Myotis austroriparius (Chiroptera: Vespertilionidae), from Comanche County, Texas. Texas Journal of Science 53:193-195.

  • Hobson, C. S. 1998. Bat records from southeastern Virginia, including a new resident species, Myotis austroriparius (Chiroptera: Vespertilionidae). Banisteria 12:18-23.

  • Hoffmeister, D.F. 1989. The mammals of Illinois. Univ. of Ill. Press, Urbana, IL. 348pp.

  • Hofmann, J. E., J. E. Gardner, J. K. Krejca, and J. D. Garner. 1999. Summer records and a maternity roost of the southeastern myotis (Myotis austroriparius) in Illinois. Transactions of the Illinois State Academy of Science 92(1&2):97-107.

  • Horner, M. A. 1995. Annual Report. East Texas rare bat survey: 1994. Submitted to Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. 9 January 1995.

  • Horner, M.A. and K. Mirowsky. 1996. East Texas rare bat survey: 1995. Annual report to TPWD.

  • Horner, P., R. Maxey, and S.F. Austin. 1998. East Texas rare bat survey: 1997. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. Austin, Texas. 14 pp.

  • Horner, P., and K. Mirowsky. 1996. Annual Report. East Texas rare bat survey: 1995. Submitted to Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. 17 January 1996.

  • Horner, Peggy, and R. Maxey. 1998. Annual Report. Project : East Texas Rare Bat Survey: 1997. Grant No. . Submitted to Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Austin, TX.

  • Humphrey, S. R. 1992. Rare and endangered biota of Florida. Volume I. Mammals. 392 pp.

  • Humphrey, S. R., and J. A. Gore. 1992. Southeastern brown bat Myotis austroriparius. Pages 335-342 in S. R. Humphrey, editor. Rare and endangered biota of Florida. Vol. I. Mammals. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

  • Jones, C., and R.W. Manning. 1989. Myotis austroriparius. American Society of Mammologists, Mammalian Species No. 332:1-3.

  • Jones, Clyde, and R. W. Manning. 1989. Myotis austroriparius. American Society of Mammalogists, Mammalian Species (332):1-3.

  • 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.

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

  • LaVal, R. K. 1970. Infraspecific relationships of bats of the species MYOTIS AUSTRORIPARIUS. J. Mamm. 51:542-552.

  • Laval, R. K. 1970. Infraspecific relationships of bats of the species Myotis austroriparius. Journal of Mammalogy 51(3):542-552.

  • 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.

  • Lowery, G. H., Jr. 1974. The mammals of Louisiana and its adjacent waters. Louisiana State University Press, Baton Rouge. 565 pp.

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

  • Ludlow, M. E., and J. A. Gore. 2000. Effects of a cave gate on emergence patterns of colonial bats. Wildlife Society Bulletin 28:191-196.

  • Marks, C. S., and G. E. Marks. 2006. Bats of Florida. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. xii + 176 pp.

  • Medlin, R. E., Jr., and T. S. Risch. 2008. Habitat associations of bottomland bats, with focus on Rafinesque's big-eared bat and southeastern myotis. American Midland Naturalist 160:400-412.

  • Menzel, J. M., M. A. Menzel, W. M. Ford, J. W. Edwards, S. R. Sheffield, J. C. Kilgo, and M. S. Bunch. 2003. The distribution of the bats of South Carolina. Southeastern Naturalist 2:121-152.

  • 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.

  • Michael, E. D., R. L. Whisennand, and G. Anderson. 1970. A recent record of Myotis austroriparius in Texas. Journal of Mammalogy 51(3):620.

  • Mirarchi, R. E., M. A. Bailey, T. M. Haggerty, and T. L. Best, editors. 2004. Alabama wildlife. Volume 3. Imperiled amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, Alabama. 225 pages.

  • 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.

  • Mirowsky, K.-M., P. A. Horner, R. W. Maxey, and S. A. Smith. 2004. Distributional records and roosts of southeastern myotis and Rafinesque's big-eared bat in eastern Texas. Southwestern Naturalist 49:294-298.

  • Mirowsky, Katy, and P. Horner. 1997. Roosting ecology of two rare vespertilionid bats, the southeastern myotis and the Rafinesque's big-eared bat, in East Texas. Prepared for Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Austin, TX. 53 pp. 20 June 1997.

  • Mirowsky, Katy-Marie. 1998. Roosting ecology of the southeastern myotis (Myotis austroriparius) and Rafinesque's big-eared bat (Corynorhinus rafinesquii) in east Texas. M.S. Thesis. Texas A & M University, Kingsville. 76 pp.

  • 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.

  • Mount, R. H., editor. 1986. Vertebrate animals of Alabama in need of special attention. Alabama Agricultural Experiment Station, Auburn University, Alabama. 124 pages.

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

  • 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.

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

  • 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.

  • Oklahoma Department of Wildlife and Conservation. 1997. Final Report. Mist-net survey for endangered and candidate bat species on public lands in eastern Oklahoma. Grant E-30-3 Endangered and Threatened Species Conservation. Submitted to the Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation, Oklahoma City, OK. 1 December 1997.

  • Packard, R. L. 1966. Myotis austroriparius in Texas. Journal of Mammalogy 47(1):128.

  • RICE, D.W. 1957. LIFE HISTORY AND ECOLOGY OF MYOTIS AUSTRORIPARIUS IN FLORIDA. J. MAMM. 38:15-32.

  • Rappole, J. H. and A. R. Tipton. 1987. An assessment of potentially endangered mammals of Texas. Cooperative Agreement #14-16-0002-86-927. Final Report submitted to U.S. Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Endangered Species, Albuquerque, New Mexico. 1 November 1987.

  • Reynolds, L. A. and W. A. Mitchell. 1998. Final Report. SERDP-98-8: Species profile: southeastern myotis (Myotis austroriparius) on military installations in the southeastern United States. Submitted to U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, DC. 29 pp.

  • Rice, D. W. 1957. Life history and ecology of Myotis austroriparius in Florida. Journal of Mammalogy 38(1):15-32.

  • Rice, D.W. 1957. Life history and ecology of Myotis austroriparius in Florida. Jour. Mamm. 38:15-32.

  • SCHEEL, D., T.L.S. VINCENT, AND G.N. CAMERON. 1996. GLOBAL WARMING AND THE SPECIES RICHNESS OF BATS IN TEXAS. CONS. BIOL. 10(2):452-464.

  • Saugey, D., et al. 1993. Arkansas Range Extensions of the Eastern Small-footed Bat (Myotis leibii) and Northern Long-eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis) and Additional County Records for Silver-haired Bat (Lasionycteris noctivagesn), and Rafinesque's Bat (Plecotus rafinesquii). Proc. Ark. Acad. Sci. 47:102-106.

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

  • Schmidly, D. J. 2004. The mammals of Texas. Revised edition. University of Texas Press, Austin. xviii + 501 pp.

  • Schmidly, David J. 1977. The mammals of Trans-Pecos Texas including Big Bend National Park and Guadalupe Mountains National Park. Texas A&M University Press. College Station, TX. 225 pp.

  • Sealander, J. A. 1979. A guide to Arkansas mammals. River Road Press, Conway. 313 pp.

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

  • Sherman, H. B. 1930. Birth of the young of Myotis austroriparius. Journal of Mammalogy 11(4):495-503.

  • 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, 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.

  • Walker, C. W., J. K. Sandel, R. L. Honeycutt, and C. Adams. 1996. Winter utilization of box culverts by vespertilionid bats in southeast Texas. Texas Journal of Science 48(2):166-168.

  • Walker, Christopher W., J. K. Sandel, R. L. Honeycutt, and C. Adams. 1996. Winter utilization of box culverts by vespertilionid bats in southeast Texas. The Texas Journal of Science 48(2):166-168.

  • Whitaker, J. O., Jr. 1996. National Audubon Society Field Guide to North American Mammals. Alfred A. Knopf, New York, USA. 937 pp.

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

  • 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/.

  • Zinn, T. L. 1977. Community ecology of Florida bats with emphasis on Myotis austroriparius. M. S. thesis. University of Florida, Gainesville, FL. 94 pp.

  • Zinn, T. L., and S. R. Humphrey. 1981. Seasonal food resources and prey selection of the southeastern brown bat (Myotis austroriparius) in Florida. Biological Sciences 44:81-90

  • Zinn, T.L. 1977. Community ecology of Florida bats with emphasis on Myotis austroriparius. Master's thesis. University of Florida in Gainesville.

  • Zinn, T.L., and S.R. Humphrey. 1981. Seasonal food resources and prey selection of the southeastern brown bat (Myotis austroriparius) in Florida. Biological Sciences 44:81-90

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.