Myotis lucifugus - (Le Conte, 1831)
Little Brown Myotis
Other English Common Names: Little Brown Bat
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Myotis lucifugus (LeConte, 1831) (TSN 179988)
French Common Names: petite chauve-souris brune, vespertilion brun
Spanish Common Names: Un Murciélago
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.100473
Element Code: AMACC01010
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). 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: http://vertebrates.si.edu/msw/mswcfapp/msw/index.cfm
Concept Reference Code: B05WIL01NAUS
Name Used in Concept Reference: Myotis lucifugus
Taxonomic Comments: Certain southwestern populations formerly included in this species are now regarded as a distinct species, Myotis occultus (Hoffmeister 1986; Piaggio et al. 2002). Jones et al. (1992) and Koopman (in Wilson and Reeder 1993) included M. occultus in M. lucifugus. Allozyme data suggest that the two are conspecific (Valdez et al. 1999), but mitochondrial DNA evidence suggests that M. occultus is a specifically distinct monophyletic lineage (Piaggio et al. 2002). The mammal checklists by Baker et al. (2003) and Simmons (in Wilson and Reeder 2005) accepted M. occultus as a valid species.
Conservation Status
Help

NatureServe Status

Global Status: G3
Global Status Last Reviewed: 04Apr2016
Global Status Last Changed: 04Nov2014
Ranking Methodology Used: Ranked by calculator
Rounded Global Status: G3 - Vulnerable
Reasons: Widespread in North America from Alaska-Canada boreal forest south through most of the contiguous United States to central Mexico; formerly very abundant, now subject to a severe decline in abundance in eastern North America as a result of high mortality caused by an introduced, rapidly spreading fungal disease (white-nose syndrome); subject to significant, presumably increasing mortality by turbines at wind energy facilities; still common in much of the historical range apart from northeastern North America, but at least some of these populations may be subject to declines in the foreseeable future. Conservation status of this species should be reviewed frequently as new information on the impact of white-nose syndrome and wind energy becomes available.
Nation: United States
National Status: N3 (23Jul2012)
Nation: Canada
National Status: N3 (18Sep2012)

U.S. & Canada State/Province Status
United States Alabama (S3), Alaska (S4), Arkansas (S3), California (S2S3), Colorado (S5), Connecticut (S5), Delaware (S5), District of Columbia (S4), Florida (SNR), Georgia (S3), Idaho (S5), Illinois (S5), Indiana (S4), Iowa (S4), Kansas (S3), Kentucky (S5), Maine (S5), Maryland (S5B,S5N), Massachusetts (S5), Michigan (S5), Minnesota (SNR), Mississippi (S2), Missouri (S4), Montana (S4), Nebraska (SNR), Nevada (S3), New Hampshire (S5), New Jersey (S5), New Mexico (S5), New York (S5), North Carolina (S3), North Dakota (SNR), Ohio (SNR), Oklahoma (S1), Oregon (S4), Pennsylvania (S1), Rhode Island (S5), South Carolina (S3?), South Dakota (S5), Tennessee (S5), Utah (S4), Vermont (S1), Virginia (S3), Washington (S4S5), West Virginia (S3), Wisconsin (S2S4), Wyoming (S5)
Canada Alberta (S5), British Columbia (S4), Labrador (S4), Manitoba (S2N,S5B), New Brunswick (S4), Newfoundland Island (S4), Northwest Territories (S2), Nova Scotia (S4), Nunavut (SNR), Ontario (S4), Prince Edward Island (S5), Quebec (S1), Saskatchewan (S5B,S5M), Yukon Territory (S1S3)

Other Statuses

Canadian Species at Risk Act (SARA) Schedule 1/Annexe 1 Status: E (26Nov2014)
Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC): Endangered (01Nov2013)
Comments on COSEWIC: Reason for Designation: Approximately 50% of the global range of this small bat is found in Canada. Sub-populations in the eastern part of the range have been devastated by White-nose Syndrome, a fungal disease caused by an introduced pathogen. This disease was first detected in Canada in 2010, and to date has caused a 94% overall decline in known numbers of hibernating Myotis bats in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Ontario, and Québec. The current range of White-nose Syndrome has been expanding at an average rate of 200-250 kilometres per year. At that rate, the entire Canadian population is likely to be affected within 12 to 18 years. There is no apparent containment of the northward or westward spread of the pathogen, and proper growing conditions for it exist throughout the remaining range.

Status History: Designated Endangered in an emergency assessment on February 3, 2012. Status re-examined and confirmed in November 2013.

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: Wide range includes North America from the Alaska-Canada boreal forest south through most of the contiguous United States, though the species is generally absent from the southern Great Plains region. Southwestern populations formerly assigned to this species have now been assigned to M. occultus (Piaggio et al. 2002; Wilson and Reeder 2005), so the southwestern boundary of the range includes southern California (except extreme southeast), Nevada, northern Utah, northern Colorado, and perhaps northeastern New Mexico (Piaggio et al. 2002; Valdez, pers. comm.). The core of the range, based on historical abundance, appears to be the northeastern United States and boreal Canada, with smaller populations in the southern and western United States (Davis et al. 1965).

Area of Occupancy: >12,500 4-km2 grid cells
Area of Occupancy Comments:  

Number of Occurrences: > 300
Number of Occurrences Comments: This species is represented by a large number of occurrences (subpopulations and locations) well spread over a vast geographic range.

Population Size: 100,000 to >1,000,000 individuals
Population Size Comments: Total adult population size is unknown but certainly exceeds 100,000 and was estimated at around 6.5 million as of 2006 (Frick et al. 2010). Individual maternity colonies often include (or at least recently included) hundreds (sometimes thousands) of individuals. Population size is much smaller now than in the early 2000s (see trend comments).

Overall Threat Impact: Very high - high
Overall Threat Impact Comments: Primary threat is a fungal pathogen that causes an often fatal condition known as white-nose syndrome (WNS), which attacks hibernating bats and killed at least 1 million M. lucifugus in the four years following detection of WNS in 2006 (Frick et al. 2010, Kunz and Reichard 2010). WNS has spread rapidly (confirmed in more than 100 bat hibernacula) and now has been documented throughout northeastern North America and as far west as Missouri and Arkansas, and south to northern Alabama and northern Georgia (as of May 2014; www.whitenosesyndrome.org). The fungus that causes WNS (Pseudogymnoascus [formerly Geomyces] destructans) likely was recently introduced from Europe (Warnecke et al. 2012). Bats with WNS experience more frequent arousals through winter that in turn cause rapid depletion of limited fat stores (Boyles and Willis 2010, Reeder et al. 2012, Warnecke et al. 2012). Ehlman et al. (2013) showed that by causing an increase in arousal rates evaporative water loss could play an important role in the pathology of WNS. Some individuals can either survive a long-term WNS infection or heal and survive an infection, only to become reinfected the subsequent fall or winter, and populations can persist even in sites exhibiting large population declines (Dobony et al. 2011).

This species commonly incurs significant mortality by turbines at wind energy facilities, though these fatalities are much less frequent than those of hoary, eastern red, and silver-haired bats (Arnett et al. 2008). Overall, Arnett and Baerwald (2013) estimated that approximately 51,600-107,000 M. lucifigus were killed at wind energy facilities in the United States and Canada during the period 2000-2011. 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 substantial. However, the size of the overall little brown myotis population is unknown, so the population impact of wind energy fatalities cannot be quantified. Nevertheless, given that the reproductive rate of this species is low, its ability to sustain the current and anticipated level of impact is questionable, particularly in view of the concurrent impact of white-nose syndrome.

Pesticides and other contaminants are a potential threat (Fenton and Barclay 1980, Agosta 2002), For example, elevated levels of persistent organic pollutants (including especially PCBs, DDT, Chlordanes, and PBDEs) have been found in M. lucifugus in the Hudson River valley in New York; the levels found in the bats were only 1 to 3 times less than lethal concentrations reported from previous studies (Kannan et al. 2010). The population-level impacts of these pollutants are uncertain.

Other threats include deforestation (Parker 1996, Parker et al. 1996), use of cyanide in mining (Helfferich 1991), and destruction of caves and shafts associated with karst topography (Agosta 2002), along with control measures being implemented in nursery colonies. However, these factors likely exert a minor impact on the overall population.

Short-term Trend: Decline of 50-80%
Short-term Trend Comments: Range-wide trend over the past three generations (probably roughly 25-30 years) is not precisely known, but abundance has declined severely in the eastern portion of the range (Frick et al. 2010, Kunz and Reichard 2010). Population decreases in bats at infected hibernacula range from 30 to 99 percent annually, with a regional mean of 73 percent (Frick et al. 2010). The large majority of the global population of M. lucifugus occurs in the region now infected with WNS (Kunz and Reichard 2010).

Population is "in sharp decline due to the rapidly spreading white-nose syndrome (WNS) that has already resulted in several local extirpations and that is ultimately expected to cause regional and likely rangewide extinction of the little brown myotis in a very short ecological time frame...." Frick et al. (2010) projected that "regional species extinction will likely occur, with 99% certainty, in or before 2026...eliminating at least the core northeastern range of the species, which clearly constitutes a significant portion of the species' range in terms of population numbers, geographical distribution, resiliency, and habitat composition." Source: Kunz and Reichard (2010).

More recently, Langwig et al. (2012) reported that (as of 2010) sampled populations in New York, Vermont, Connecticut, and Massachusetts had stabilized at about 2-20 percent of the pre-WNS population size. Coleman (2014) reported that very few hibernacula have stable or increasing numbers, and that counts may be confounded by movements of bats among different hibernacula.

In New York, an assemblage of maternity colonies totaling approximately 5,000 individuals, though affected by WNS, appeared to be stable, possibly due to adequate food resources for reproduction and pre-hibernation fat deposition and to an abundance of roosts (First 2011).

Long-term Trend: Unknown
Long-term Trend Comments: Long-term trend is unknown; construction of buildings and other human-made structures undoubtedly has greatly increased the availability of breeding habitat across North America, and mines have increased the availability of suitable hibernacula, whereas disease (white-nose syndrome) has greatly reduced the population in eastern North America. Despite recent declines, the net change over the long term may have been an increase.

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Distribution
Help
Global Range: (>2,500,000 square km (greater than 1,000,000 square miles)) Wide range includes North America from the Alaska-Canada boreal forest south through most of the contiguous United States, though the species is generally absent from the southern Great Plains region. Southwestern populations formerly assigned to this species have now been assigned to M. occultus (Piaggio et al. 2002; Wilson and Reeder 2005), so the southwestern boundary of the range includes southern California (except extreme southeast), Nevada, northern Utah, northern Colorado, and perhaps northeastern New Mexico (Piaggio et al. 2002; Valdez, pers. comm.). The core of the range, based on historical abundance, appears to be the northeastern United States and boreal Canada, with smaller populations in the southern and western United States (Davis et al. 1965).

U.S. States and Canadian Provinces
Color legend for Distribution Map
Endemism: occurs (regularly, as a native taxon) in multiple nations

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

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: NatureServe, 2005; Sechrest, 2002


U.S. Distribution by County Help
State County Name (FIPS Code)
AK Anchorage (02020), Bethel (CA) (02050), Bristol Bay (02060), Dillingham (CA) (02070), Fairbanks North Star (02090), Haines (02100), Juneau (02110), Kenai Peninsula (02122), Ketchikan Gateway (02130), Kodiak Island (02150), Lake and Peninsula (02164), Matanuska-Susitna (02170), Nome (CA) (02180), Northwest Arctic (02188)*, Prince of Wales-Outer Ketchikan (CA) (02201), Sitka (02220), Skagway-Hoonah-Angoon (CA) (02232), Southeast Fairbanks (CA) (02240), Valdez-Cordova (CA) (02261), Wrangell-Petersburg (CA) (02280), Yakutat (02282), Yukon-Koyukuk (CA) (02290)
AL Conecuh (01035)*, Madison (01089)
CT Fairfield (09001), Litchfield (09005), Middlesex (09007), New London (09011), Windham (09015)
GA Bartow (13015)*, Catoosa (13047), Dade (13083)*, Fannin (13111), Floyd (13115), Gilmer (13123), Lumpkin (13187), Murray (13213), Polk (13233)*, Rabun (13241), Stephens (13257), Towns (13281), Union (13291), Walker (13295)*, White (13311)
IA Lucas (19117), Madison (19121), Marion (19125)
ID Ada (16001), Adams (16003), Bannock (16005), Bear Lake (16007), Bingham (16011), Blaine (16013), Boise (16015), Bonner (16017), Bonneville (16019), Boundary (16021), Butte (16023), Caribou (16029), Cassia (16031), Clark (16033), Clearwater (16035), Custer (16037), Franklin (16041), Fremont (16043), Gooding (16047), Idaho (16049), Kootenai (16055), Latah (16057)*, Lemhi (16059), Lincoln (16063), Nez Perce (16069), Owyhee (16073), Payette (16075), Power (16077), Shoshone (16079), Teton (16081), Twin Falls (16083), Valley (16085)
IN Bartholomew (18005), Crawford (18025), Daviess (18027), Dubois (18037), Gibson (18051), Greene (18055), Harrison (18061), Jefferson (18077), Johnson (18081), Knox (18083), La Porte (18091), Lawrence (18093), Marion (18097), Martin (18101), Monroe (18105), Morgan (18109), Orange (18117), Owen (18119), Porter (18127), Vermillion (18165), Vigo (18167), Warren (18171), Washington (18175)
MS Panola (28107)*, Wayne (28153)
NV Carson City (32510)*, Churchill (32001), Elko (32007), Humboldt (32013)*, Lander (32015), Lincoln (32017), Mineral (32021)*, Washoe (32031)*, White Pine (32033)
OK Adair (40001), Cimarron (40025)*, McCurtain (40089)*
SC Beaufort (45013), Greenville (45045), Oconee (45073), Pickens (45077)
TN Anderson (47001), Union (47173)
VT Addison (50001), Bennington (50003), Chittenden (50007), Lamoille (50015), Orange (50017), Rutland (50021), Washington (50023), Windham (50025), Windsor (50027)
WA Adams (53001)+, Benton (53005)+, Chelan (53007)+, Clallam (53009)+, Columbia (53013)+, Douglas (53017)+, Ferry (53019)+, Grant (53025)+, Grays Harbor (53027)+, Island (53029)+, King (53033)+, Kittitas (53037)+, Klickitat (53039)+, Lewis (53041)+, Lincoln (53043)+, Mason (53045)+, Okanogan (53047)+, Pend Oreille (53051)+, Pierce (53053)+, San Juan (53055)+, Skagit (53057)+, Snohomish (53061)+, Stevens (53065)+, Thurston (53067)+, Wahkiakum (53069)+, Whatcom (53073)+, Whitman (53075)+, Yakima (53077)+
WI Bayfield (55007), Burnett (55013), Calumet (55015), Chippewa (55017), Crawford (55023), Dane (55025), Dodge (55027), Door (55029), Douglas (55031), Dunn (55033), Grant (55043), Green (55045), Green Lake (55047), Iowa (55049), Iron (55051), Jackson (55053), La Crosse (55063), Lafayette (55065), Lincoln (55069), Manitowoc (55071), Marinette (55075), Marquette (55077), Monroe (55081), Oneida (55085), Outagamie (55087), Ozaukee (55089), Pierce (55093), Polk (55095), Richland (55103), Sauk (55111), Sawyer (55113), Shawano (55115), St. Croix (55109), Taylor (55119), Trempealeau (55121), Vernon (55123), Vilas (55125), Washburn (55129), Waukesha (55133), Waupaca (55135)
WY Crook (56011), Platte (56031), Weston (56045)
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed Help
Watershed Region Help Watershed Name (Watershed Code)
01 Upper Connecticut-Mascoma (01080104)+, White (01080105)+, Black-Ottauquechee (01080106)+, Deerfield (01080203)+, Lower Connecticut (01080205)+, Farmington (01080207)+, Quinebaug (01100001)+, Shetucket (01100002)+, Thames (01100003)+, Quinnipiac (01100004)+, Housatonic (01100005)+, Saugatuck (01100006)+
02 Hudson-Hoosic (02020003)+, Lower Hudson (02030101)+
03 Saluda (03050109)+, Salkehatchie (03050207)+, Broad-St. Helena (03050208)+, Seneca (03060101)+, Tugaloo (03060102)+, Broad (03060104)+, Upper Chattahoochee (03130001)+, Sepulga (03140303)+*, Conasauga (03150101)+, Coosawattee (03150102)+, Etowah (03150104)+, Upper Coosa (03150105)+*, Upper Chickasawhay (03170002)+
04 Beartrap-Nemadji (04010301)+, Bad-Montreal (04010302)+, Manitowoc-Sheboygan (04030101)+, Door-Kewaunee (04030102)+, Peshtigo (04030105)+, Upper Fox (04030201)+, Wolf (04030202)+, Little Calumet-Galien (04040001)+, Milwaukee (04040003)+, Mettawee River (04150401)+, Otter Creek (04150402)+, Winooski River (04150403)+, Lamoille River (04150405)+, Lake Champlain (04150408)+
05 Middle Wabash-Little Vermilion (05120108)+, Middle Wabash-Busseron (05120111)+, Upper White (05120201)+, Lower White (05120202)+, Driftwood (05120204)+, Lower East Fork White (05120208)+, Patoka (05120209)+, Silver-Little Kentucky (05140101)+, Blue-Sinking (05140104)+, Highland-Pigeon (05140202)+
06 Upper Little Tennessee (06010202)+, Upper Clinch (06010205)+, Lower Clinch (06010207)+, Middle Tennessee-Chickamauga (06020001)+, Hiwassee (06020002)+, Wheeler Lake (06030002)+
07 Upper St. Croix (07030001)+, Namekagon (07030002)+, Lower St. Croix (07030005)+, Rush-Vermillion (07040001)+, Buffalo-Whitewater (07040003)+, La Crosse-Pine (07040006)+, Black (07040007)+, Upper Chippewa (07050001)+, Flambeau (07050002)+, Lower Chippewa (07050005)+, Red Cedar (07050007)+, Coon-Yellow (07060001)+, Grant-Little Maquoketa (07060003)+, Apple-Plum (07060005)+, Upper Wisconsin (07070001)+, Castle Rock (07070003)+, Baraboo (07070004)+, Lower Wisconsin (07070005)+, Kickapoo (07070006)+, South Skunk (07080105)+, Upper Rock (07090001)+, Crawfish (07090002)+, Pecatonica (07090003)+, Lake Red Rock (07100008)+, Lower Des Moines (07100009)+, Upper Fox (07120006)+
10 Beaver (10120107)+, Redwater (10120203)+, Glendo Reservoir (10180008)+, Upper Chariton (10280201)+
11 Upper Cimarron (11040002)+*, Robert S. Kerr Reservoir (11110104)+, Mountain Fork (11140108)+*
15 Muddy (15010012)+
16 Bear Lake (16010201)+, Middle Bear (16010202)+, Upper Humboldt (16040101)+, North Fork Humboldt (16040102)+, South Fork Humboldt (16040103)+*, Smoke Creek Desert (16040203)+*, Lake Tahoe (16050101)+*, Truckee (16050102)+*, Carson Desert (16050203)+, East Walker (16050301)+*, Dixie Valley (16060001)+*, Gabbs Valley (16060002)+, Northern Big Smoky Valley (16060004)+*, Long-Ruby Valleys (16060007)+, Spring-Steptoe Valleys (16060008)+, Dry Lake Valley (16060009)+
17 Lower Kootenai (17010104)+, Moyie (17010105)+, Lower Clark Fork (17010213)+, Pend Oreille Lake (17010214)+, Priest (17010215)+, Pend Oreille (17010216), Upper Coeur D'alene (17010301)+, South Fork Coeur D'alene (17010302)+, Coeur D'alene Lake (17010303)+, St. Joe (17010304)+, Upper Spokane (17010305)+*, Franklin D. Roosevelt Lake (17020001), Kettle (17020002), Colville (17020003), Chief Joseph (17020005), Okanogan (17020006), Similkameen (17020007), Methow (17020008), Lake Chelan (17020009), Upper Columbia-Entiat (17020010), Wenatchee (17020011), Moses Coulee (17020012), Upper Crab (17020013), Banks Lake (17020014), Lower Crab (17020015), Upper Columbia-Priest Rapids (17020016), Upper Yakima (17030001), Naches (17030002), Palisades (17040104)+, Salt (17040105)+, Idaho Falls (17040201)+, Upper Henrys (17040202)+, Teton (17040204)+, Willow (17040205)+, American Falls (17040206)+, Blackfoot (17040207)+, Portneuf (17040208)+, Lake Walcott (17040209)+, Raft (17040210)+, Upper Snake-Rock (17040212)+, Salmon Falls (17040213)+, Beaver-Camas (17040214)+, Medicine Lodge (17040215)+, Birch (17040216)+, Big Lost (17040218)+, Big Wood (17040219)+, Bruneau (17050102)+, Middle Snake-Succor (17050103)+, Upper Owyhee (17050104)+, South Fork Owyhee (17050105)+, Middle Owyhee (17050107)+, Boise-Mores (17050112)+, Lower Boise (17050114)+, Payette (17050122)+, North Fork Payette (17050123)+, Brownlee Reservoir (17050201)+, Lower Snake-Asotin (17060103)+, Lower Snake-Tucannon (17060107), Palouse (17060108)+, Rock (17060109), Upper Salmon (17060201)+, Middle Salmon-Panther (17060203)+, Lemhi (17060204)+, Lower Middle Fork Salmon (17060206)+, Lower Salmon (17060209)+, Little Salmon (17060210)+, Lower Selway (17060302)+, Lochsa (17060303)+, South Fork Clearwater (17060305)+, Clearwater (17060306)+, Upper North Fork Clearwater (17060307)+, Middle Columbia-Lake Wallula (17070101), Middle Columbia-Hood (17070105), Klickitat (17070106), Upper Cowlitz (17080004), Lower Columbia (17080006), Hoh-Quillayute (17100101), Upper Chehalis (17100103), Lower Chehalis (17100104), Strait of Georgia (17110002), San Juan Islands (17110003), Nooksack (17110004), Upper Skagit (17110005), Sauk (17110006), Lower Skagit (17110007), Snoqualmie (17110010), Snohomish (17110011), Lake Washington (17110012), Puyallup (17110014), Nisqually (17110015), Deschutes (17110016), Skokomish (17110017), Puget Sound (17110019)
19 Southeast Mainland (19010101)+, Ketchikan (19010102)+, Prince of Wales (19010103)+, Mainland (19010201)+, Kuiu-Kupreanof-Mitkof-Etolin-Zarembo-Wrangell Isla (19010202)+, Baranof-Chichagof Islands (19010203)+, Admiralty Island (19010204)+, Lynn Canal (19010301)+, Glacier Bay (19010302)+, Chilkat-Skagway Rivers (19010303)+, Yakutat Bay (19010401)+, Middle Copper River (19020102)+, Chitina River (19020103)+, Lower Copper River (19020104)+, Eastern Prince William Sound (19020201)+, Western Prince William Sound (19020202)+, Lower Kenai Peninsula (19020301)+, Upper Kenai Peninsula (19020302)+, Anchorage (19020401)+, Matansuka (19020402)+, Talkeetna River (19020503)+, Yentna River (19020504)+, Lower Susitna River (19020505)+, Tuxdeni-Kamishak Bays (19020602)+, Kodiak-Afognak Islands (19020701)+, Cook Inlet (19020800)+, Naknek (19030204)+, Lake Clark (19030205)+, Lake Iliamna (19030206)+, Lower Nushagak River (19030303)+, Wood River (19030304)+, Nushagak Bay (19030306)+*, Stony River (19030405)+, Middle Fork Kuskokwim River (19030406)+, Aniak (19030501)+, Kuskokwim Delta (19030502)+, Fortymile River (19040104)+, Birch-Beaver Creeks (19040402)+, Yukon Flats (19040403)+, Ramparts (19040404)+, Nebesna-Chisana Rivers (19040501)+, Tok (19040502)+, Healy Lake (19040503)+, Delta River (19040504)+, Chena River (19040506)+, Tanana River (19040507)+, Tolovana River (19040509)+, Lower Tanana River (19040511)+, Unalakleet (19050102)+, Nome (19050104)+, Lower Noatak River (19050403)+*
+ Natural heritage record(s) exist for this watershed
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
Ecology & Life History
Help
Basic Description: A small brown bat.
General Description: Cinnamon-buff to dark brown above, buffy to pale gray below; hairs on back have long glossy tips; ear when laid forward reaches approximately the nostril; tragus about half as high as ear; calcar without keel; length of head and body 41-54 mm, ear 11.0-15.5 mm, forearm 33-41 mm; braincase rises gradually from rostrum; greatest length of skull 14-16 mm; length of upper toothrow 5.0-6.6 mm (Hall 1981).
Diagnostic Characteristics: Differs from M. sodalis in unkeeled calcar. Differs from M. austroriparius in smaller size, glossy rather than dull pelage, and usual absence of a sagittal crest. Differs from M. grisescens in banded dorsal hairs banded (vs. unicolored) and wing attached to the foot at the base of the toe rather than at the ankle. Differs from M. velifer in smaller size, glossy rather than dull pelage, and lack of sagittal crest. Differs from M. keenii and M. septentrionalis in shorter ears that do not extend beyond the nose when laid forward. Differs from M. volans in smaller size, glossy rather than dull pelage, and unkeeled calcar. Differs from M. yumanensis in larger size, larger skull (greatest length usually more than 14 mm rather than usually less than 14 mm), and usually glossy pelage rather than dull pelage. Differs from M. thysanodes in absence of a conspicuous fringe of hairs along the edge of the interfemoral membrane. Differs from M. californicus in larger size, unkeeled calcar, and skull rising gradually from rostrum. Differs from M. leibii in larger size and unkeeled calcar. (Hall 1981).
Reproduction Comments: Mating occurs usually in September-October. Ovulation and fertilization are delayed until spring. Gestation lasts 50-60 days. Reproductive females annually give birth to 1 litter of 1 young, late spring-early summer. Females produce first young usually in their first (Indiana, New Mexico) or second year (British Columbia) (Herd and Fenton 1983). In British Columbia, individuals may delay or forego reproduction in wet years (Grindal et al. 1992). Survival for a decade may be fairly common; a few live as long as 20-30 years; females may be reproductive to an age of at least 12 years (Hall et al. 1957, Keen and Hitchcock 1980). Most summer colonies range from 50 to 2,500 individuals (average 400) (Mumford and Cope 1964).
Ecology Comments: Winter concentrations may include tens of thousands of individuals. Survival rate is low during the first winter, higher in subsequent years.
Non-Migrant: Y
Locally Migrant: Y
Long Distance Migrant: Y
Mobility and Migration Comments: In the northeast, individuals may migrate hundreds of kilometers between winter and summer habitats; in the west, these bats are believed to hibernate near their summer range (Schmidly 1991).
Riverine Habitat(s): Aerial
Lacustrine Habitat(s): Aerial
Palustrine Habitat(s): Aerial, Bog/fen, FORESTED WETLAND, HERBACEOUS WETLAND, Riparian
Terrestrial Habitat(s): Aerial, Forest - Hardwood, Forest - Mixed, Grassland/herbaceous, Old field, Shrubland/chaparral, Suburban/orchard, Urban/edificarian, Woodland - Hardwood, Woodland - Mixed
Subterranean Habitat(s): Subterrestrial
Special Habitat Factors: Standing snag/hollow tree
Habitat Comments: These bats use a wide range of habitats and often use human-made structures for resting and maternity sites; they also use caves and hollow trees. Foraging habitat requirements are generalized; foraging occurs over water, along the margins of lakes and streams, or in woodlands near water. Winter hibernation sites (caves, tunnels, abandoned mines, and similar sites) generally have a relatively stable temperature of about 2-12 C (see Kunz and Reichard 2010). Maternity colonies commonly are in warm sites in buildings (e.g., attics) and other structures; also infrequently in hollow trees. Microclimate conditions suitable for raising young are relatively narrow, and availability of suitable maternity sites may limit the species' abundance and distribution.
Adult Food Habits: Invertivore
Immature Food Habits: Invertivore
Food Comments: Diet includes flying insects, especially mosquitoes, midges, caddisflies, moths, various hoppers, and smaller beetles, sometimes spiders (e.g., see Whitaker and Lawhead 1992).
Adult Phenology: Hibernates/aestivates, Nocturnal
Immature Phenology: Hibernates/aestivates, Nocturnal
Phenology Comments: Most populations spend most of the winter in hibernation, though individuals exhibit periodic brief periods of arousal. In Indiana, a few bats flew outside a hibernation site periodically throughout the winter, especially in mild weather; feeding apparently did not begin until mid-March (Whitaker and Rissler 1992).

These bats are most active during the first 2-3 hours after sunset. Following a mid-night roost period there is a second foraging bout. Cool temperatures and a low abundance of prey lengthen the mid-night roost period.

Colonial Breeder: Y
Length: 9 centimeters
Weight: 14 grams
Economic Attributes Not yet assessed
Help
Management Summary
Help
Management Requirements: See Greenhall (1982) for information on house bat management.
Monitoring Requirements: Special precautions should be taken when mine and cave surveys are conducted during breeding periods and winter hibernation. Hibernating bats are sensitive to human disturbance (Thomas 1995). Disturbance during hibernation can cause bats to use up stored fat reserves and starve to death. Disturbance of breeding colonies can cause young to lose their grasp and fall to their death.
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
Subtype(s):
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.
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: 19Mar2015
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
  • Agosta, S.J. 2002. Habitat use, diet and roost selection by the big brown bat (Eptesicus fuscus) in North America: a case for conserving an abundant species. Mammal Rev. 32(2):172-198.

  • 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 ]

  • Andersen, M.D. 2011. Maxent-based species distribution models. Prepared by Wyoming Natural Diversity Database for use in the pilot WISDOM application operational from inception to yet-to-be-determined date of update of tool.

  • Andersen, M.D. and B. Heidel. 2011. HUC-based species range maps. Prepared by Wyoming Natural Diversity Database for use in the pilot WISDOM application operational from inception to yet-to-be-determined date of update of tool.

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

  • Arita, H. T. 1993. Conservation biology of the cave bats in Mexico. Journal of Mammalogy 74:693-702.

  • 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.

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

  • 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.

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

  • Barclay, R. M. R., and K. J. Cash. 1985. A non-commensal maternity roost of the little brown bat (Myotis lucifugus). J. Mamm. 66:783-783.

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

  • Boyles, J. G., and C.K.R. Willis. 2010. Could localized warm areas inside cold caves reduce mortality of hibernating bats affected by white-nose syndrome? Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 8:92-98.

  • 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> (Accessed April 1, 2015)

  • Clark, Tim W. and Mark R. Stromberg. 1987. Mammals in Wyoming. University Press of Kansas. Lawrence, Kansas.

  • 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, J. 2014. Update on the national response to white-nose syndrome in 2014. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, NMFWA, Denver CO, 13 March 2014.

  • Culver, D. C., H. H. Hobbs III, M. C. Christman and L. L. Master. 1999. Distribution map of caves and cave animals in the United States. Journal of Cave and Karst Studies 61(3):139-140.

  • Davis, W. H., M. D. Hassell, and M. J. Harvey. Maternity colonies of the bat Myotis l. lucifugus in Kentucky. American Midland Naturalist, 73: 161-165.

  • Dobony, C. A., A. C. Hicks, K. E. Langwig, R. I. von Linden, J. C. Okoniewski, and R. E. Rainbolt. 2011. Little brown myotis persists despite exposure to white-nose syndrome. Journal of Fish and Wildlife Management 2:190-195.

  • Ehlman, S. M., J. J. Cox, and P. H. Crowley. 2013. Evaporative water loss, spatial distributions, and survival in white-nose-syndrome--affected little brown myotis: a model. Journal of Mammalogy 94:572-583.

  • Ellinwood, S. 1978. A survey of bats in southeast Colorado. M.S. Thesis, Univ. of Northern Colorado, Greeley. 77pp.

  • 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., and G. P. Bell. 1979. Echolocation and feeding behavior in four species of Myotis (Chiroptera). Canadian Journal of Zoology. 57(6):1271-1277.

  • Fenton, M.B. and R.M. Barclay. 1980. Myotis lucifugus. Am. Soc. Mamm., Mammalian Species No. 142. 8 pp.

  • First, M. C. 2011. Little brown bats (Myotis lucifugus): ecology of a white-nose syndrome affected population and the angle trap: a highly effective trap for the capture of bats. M.S. thesis, State University of New York at Fredonia, Fredonia, NY.

  • Flory, A. R., S. Kumar, T. J. Stohlgren, and P. M. Cryan. 2012. Environmental conditions associated with bat white-nose syndrome in the north-eastern United States. Journal of Applied Ecology 49:680-689.

  • 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.

  • Freeman, J. 1982. Statewide bat distribution study. Federal Aid report. Colorado Division of Wildlife.

  • Frick, W. F., J. F. Pollock, A. Hicks, K. Langwig, D. S. Reynolds, G. G. Turner, C. Butchowski, T. H. Kunz. 2010. A once common bat faces rapid extinction in the northeastern United States from a fungal pathogen. Science 329:679-682.

  • Garber, C.S. 1991. A survey for Townsend's big-eared bat (PLECOTUS TOWNSENDII) and the spotted bat (EUDERMA MACULATUM) on the Bridger-Teton and Targhee National Forests in Wyoming. Unpublished report prepared by the Wyoming Natural Diversity Database in a cooperative cost-share project with the Bridger-Teton and Targhee National Forests.

  • 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.

  • Gerhart, W.A., R.A. Olson. 1982. Handbook for evaluating the importance of Wyoming's riparian habitat to terrestrial wildlife. Wyoming Game and Fish Dept.

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

  • Greenhall, A. M. 1982. House bat management. USFWS Resource Publ. 143:1-33.

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

  • Grindal, S. D., et al. 1992. The influence of precipitation on reproduction by Myotis bats in British Columbia. Am. Midl. Nat. 128:339-344.

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

  • Hall, J. S., R. J. Cloutier, and D. R. Griffin. 1957. Longevity records and notes on tooth wear of bats. Journal of Mamalogy 38:407-409.

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

  • Helfferich, C. 1991. Driving miners batty: article #1067. Alaska Science Forum. Online at: http://www.gi.alaska.edu/ScienceForum/ASF10/1067.html (accessed 14 Jan. 2003).

  • Henderson, L. E., L. J. Farrow, and H. G. Broders. 2009. Summer distribution and status of the bats of Prince Edward Island, Canada. Northeastern Naturalist 16:131-140.

  • Herd, R. M., and M. B. Fenton. 1983. An electrophoretic, morphological, and ecological investigation of a putative hybrid zone between Myotis lucifugus and Myotis yumanensis (Chiroptera: Vespertilionidae). Can. J. Zool. 61:2029-2050.

  • Hoffmeister, D. F. 1986. Mammals of Arizona. University of Arizona Press and Arizona Game and Fish Department. 602 pp.

  • Humphrey, S. R., and J. B. Cope. 1976. Population ecology of the little brown bat, Myotis lucifugus, in Indiana and north-central Kentucky. Amer. Soc. Mamm. Special Publ. (4):1-81.

  • Humphries, M. H., D. W. Thomas, and J. R. Speakman. 2002. Climate-mediated energetic constraints on the distribution of hibernating mammals. Nature 418:313-316.

  • 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.

  • Kannan, K., S. H. Yun, R. J. Rudd and M. Behr. 2010. High concentrations of persistent organic pollutants including PCBs, DDT, PBDEs and PFOS in little brown bats with white-nose syndrome in New York, USA. Chemosphere 80:613-618.

  • Keen, R., and H. B. Hitchcock. 1980. Survival and longevity of the little brown bat in southeastern Ontario. Journal of Mammalogy 61:1-7.

  • 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.

  • Kunz, T. H., and J. D. Reichard. 2010. Status review of the little brown myotis (Myotis lucifigus) and determination that immediate listing under the Endangered Species Act is scientifically and legally warranted. Report in collaboration with: Friends of Blackwater Canyon, Wildlife Advocacy Project, Bat Conservation International, Center for Biological Diversity, and Meyer Glitzenstein & Crystal.

  • Kurta, A., and J. A. Teramino. 1994. A novel hibernaculum and noteworthy records of the Indiana bat and eastern pipistrelle (Chiroptera: Vespertilionidae). American Midland Naturalist 132:410-413.

  • Langwig, K. E., W. F. Frick, J. T. Bried, A. C. Hicks, T. H. Kunz, and A. M. Kilpatrick. 2012. Sociality, density-dependence and microclimates determine the persistence of populations suffering from a novel fungal disease, white-nose syndrome. Ecology Letters 15:1050-1057.

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

  • Long, C.A. 1965. The mammals of Wyoming. Univ. of Kansas, Publ. Museum of Natural History 14: 493-758.

  • MacDonald, S.O., and J.A. Cook. 1999. The mammal fauna of southeast Alaska. Univ. Alaska Museum. 145 pp.

  • Mammalian Species, nos. 1-604. Published by the American Society of Mammalogists.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Mumford, R.E. and J.B. Cope. 1964. Distribution and status of the Chiroptera of Indiana. American Midland Naturalist 72(2):473-489.

  • Park, A. C., and H. G. Broders. 2012. Distribution and roost selection of bats on Newfoundland. Northeastern Naturalist 19:165-176.

  • Parker, D. I. 1996. Forest ecology and distribution of bats in Alaska. M. S. thesis, University of Alaska, Fairbanks. 73 pp.

  • Parker, D. I., J. A. Cook, and S. W. Lewis. 1996. Effects of timber harvest on bat activity in southeastern Alaska's temperate rainforest. Pages. 277-292 in R.M.R. Barclay and R.M. Brigham (editors). Bats and Forests Symposium, October 19-21, 1995, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada. Research Branch, B.C. Ministry of Forests, Victoria, B.C., Working Paper 23/1996, 292 pp.

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

  • Piaggio, A. J., E. W. Valdez, M. A. Bogan, and G. S. Spicer. 2002. Systematics of Myotis occultus (Chiroptera: Vespertilionidae) inferred from sequences of two mitochondrial genes. Journal of Mammalogy 83:386-395.

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

  • Reeder, D. M., et al. 2012. Frequent arousal from hibernation linked to severity of infection and mortality in bats with white-nose
    syndrome. PLoS ONE 7:e38920.

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

  • Slough, B.G. 1999. Status recommendation for Yukon mammals and amphibians. IN Hoefs, M. (ed.) Status assessment and proposed "at risk" designations of Yukon's vertebrate species - a technical analysis. Yukon Fish and Wildlife Branch unpubl. report.

  • Thomas, D. W. 1995. Hibernating bats are sensitive to nontactile human disturbance. Journal of Mammalogy 76:940-946.

  • Turner, R.W. and J.K. Jones, Jr. 1968. Additional notes on bats from western South Dakota. Southwestern Naturalist 13(4):444-458.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Valdez, E. W., J. R. Choate, M. A. Bogan, and T. L. Yates. 1999. Taxonomic status of Myotis occultus. Journal of Mammalogy 80:545-552.

  • Warnecke, L., J. M. Turne, T. K. Bollinger, J. M. Lorch, V. Misrae, P. M. Cryan, et al. 2012. Inoculation of bats with European Geomyces destructans supports the novel pathogen hypothesis for the origin of white-nose syndrome. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 109: 6999-7003.

  • Whitaker, J. O., Jr., and L. J. Rissler. 1992. Winter activity of bats at a mine entrance in Vermillion County, Indiana. Am. Midl. Nat. 127:52-59.

  • Whitaker, J.O. Jr., and B. Lawhead. 1992. Foods of Myotis lucifugus in a maternity colony in central Alaska. J. Mammology 73(3):646-648.

  • 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: http://vertebrates.si.edu/msw/mswcfapp/msw/index.cfm

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

  • Worthington, D.J. 1991. Abundance and distribution of bats in the Pryor Mountains of south central Montana and north eastern Wyoming. Unpublished report, Division of Biological Sciences, University of Montana, Missoula.

  • Wyoming Game and Fish Department, 1992. Wyoming Bird and Mammal Atlas.

  • Wyoming Game and Fish Department. 1996. Nongame Bird and Mammal Plan, a plan for inventories and management of nongame birds and mammals in Wyoming. Prepared by B. Oakleaf, A.O. Cerovski, and B. Luce, Nongame Program Biological Services Section, Wyoming Game and Fish Dept. 183 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 November 2016.
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 © 2017 NatureServe, 4600 N. Fairfax Dr., 7th Floor, Arlington Virginia 22203, 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. 2017. 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.