Myotis septentrionalis - (Trovessart, 1897)
Northern Myotis
Other English Common Names: Northern Bat, Northern Long-eared Bat, Northern Long-eared Myotis
Synonym(s): Myotis keenii septentrionalis (Trouessart, 1897)
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
French Common Names: chauve-souris nordique, vespertilion nordique
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.102615
Element Code: AMACC01150
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: 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.
Concept Reference Code: B92JON01NAUS
Name Used in Concept Reference: Myotis septentrionalis
Taxonomic Comments: Myotis septentrionalis formerly was regarded as conspecific with Myotis keenii; van Zyll de Jong (1979, 1985) and Jones et al. (1992) regarded Myotis keenii and M. septentrionalis as separate species; Koopman (in Wilson and Reeder 1993) included septentrionalis in Myotis keenii, noting that they may be separate species. Baker et al. (2003) and Simmons (in Wilson and Reeder 2005) recognized M. septentrionalis and M. keenii as distinct species. Most older literature using the name Myotis keenii actually pertains to Myotis septentrionalis. No subspecies are recognized. No genetically distinctive subpopulations have been identified (Johnson et al. 2014).
Conservation Status
Help

NatureServe Status

Global Status: G1G2
Global Status Last Reviewed: 04Apr2016
Global Status Last Changed: 12Jun2014
Ranking Methodology Used: Ranked by calculator
Rounded Global Status: G1 - Critically Imperiled
Reasons: Large range in the eastern and north-central United States and much of southern Canada; many hibernacula and maternity roost sites; does not form large colonies; severe recent declines in abundance associated with rapidly spreading white-nose syndrome have occurred in eastern North America, and the disease is expected to spread across the species' range; threats from wind-energy development, winter and summer habitat modification, destruction and disturbance of habitat (e.g., vandalism to hibernacula, roost tree removal), climate change, and contaminants may be significant for WNS-reduced populations.
Nation: United States
National Status: N1N2 (12Jun2014)
Nation: Canada
National Status: N2N3 (18Sep2012)

U.S. & Canada State/Province Status
United States Alabama (S2), Arkansas (S4), Connecticut (SU), Delaware (SU), District of Columbia (S4), Florida (SH), Georgia (S3S4), Illinois (S4), Indiana (S3), Iowa (S4), Kansas (S3), Kentucky (S4), Louisiana (SNR), Maine (S4), Maryland (S4B,S4N), Massachusetts (S4), Michigan (SNR), Minnesota (S3), Mississippi (S3?B,S3?N), Missouri (S3), Nebraska (SNR), New Hampshire (S3), New Jersey (SU), New York (S3S4), North Carolina (S3), North Dakota (SU), Ohio (SNR), Oklahoma (S2), Pennsylvania (S1), Rhode Island (S2), South Carolina (S4), South Dakota (S3), Tennessee (S4), Vermont (S1), Virginia (S3), West Virginia (S3), Wisconsin (S1S3), Wyoming (S1B,S1N)
Canada Alberta (S2S3), British Columbia (S2S4), Labrador (SNR), Manitoba (S3S4N,S4B), New Brunswick (S4), Newfoundland Island (S2S3), Northwest Territories (S2), Nova Scotia (S2), Nunavut (SNR), Ontario (S3), Prince Edward Island (S1S2), Quebec (S1), Saskatchewan (S4B,SNRN), Yukon Territory (S1S2)

Other Statuses

U.S. Endangered Species Act (USESA): LT: Listed threatened (02Apr2015)
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Lead Region: R3 - North Central
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 40% of the global range of this northern bat is 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 numbers of known hibernating Myotis bats in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Ontario, and Quebec hibernacula compared with earlier counts before the disease struck. Models in the northeastern United States for Little Brown Myotis predict a 99% probability of functional extinction within 13 years. Given similar life history characteristics, these results are likely applicable to this species. In addition to its tendency to occur in relatively low abundance levels in hibernacula, there is some indication this species is experiencing greater declines than other species since the onset of White-nose Syndrome. The current range of White-nose Syndrome overlaps with approximately one third of this species' range and is expanding at an average rate of 200 to 250 kilometres per year. At that rate, the entire Canadian population will likely be affected within 12 to18 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: This bat is widely but patchily distributed in the eastern and northcentral United States and adjacent southern Canada, from eastern British Columbia and southern Yukon eastward across southern Canada to eastern Quebec, Prince Edward Island, and Newfoundland, and southward to southern Texas (one old record), Louisiana, Alabama, Georgia, and Florida (one old record from panhandle), and westward in the United States generally to the eastern margin of the Great Plains region (Barbour and Davis 1969, Harvey 1992, van Zyll de Jong 1985, Hall 1981, Crnkovic 2003, Wilson and Reeder 2005, Amelon and Burhans 2006, Marks and Marks 2006, Henderson et al. 2009, Ammerman et al. 2012, Park and Broders 2012). The overall summer and winter ranges are essentially the same (Barbour and Davis 1969).

Number of Occurrences:  
Number of Occurrences Comments: The number of distinct occurrences has not been determined using standardized criteria. More than 780 hibernacula have been identified throughout the species' range in the United States, although many hibernacula contain only a few (1 to 3) individuals (Barbour and Davis 1969, Whitaker and Hamilton 1998, USFWS 2013). Missouri, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia each have greater than 100 known hibernacula (USFWS 2013). The species is now absent from or very scarce in some of the historical hibernacula (see trend and threats comments). This species also is represented by a large number of maternity roost sites.

Population Size: 10,000 - 100,000 individuals
Population Size Comments: Total adult population size is unknown but presumably at least 10,000 and perhaps greater than 100,000. Although there are hundreds of hibernating colonies rangewide, these colonies rarely comprise even as many as 50 individuals (very exceptionally 300), suggesting that the overall population (even before the incidence of white-nose syndrome) was relatively small. 

Prior to the incidence of white-nose syndrome, this species was regarded as more common in the northern part of the range than in the south (Harvey 1992), and it was rare in the northwestern portion of the range (Nagorsen and Brigham 1993, Caceres and Barclay 2000). It was reported as very rare in Alabama (Best, pers. comm.), uncommon in Indiana, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Wisconsin (Mumford and Cope 1964, Harvey 1991, Jackson 1961), more common in northern Michigan than in southern Michigan (Kurta 1982), and quite common in New York (Hamilton and Whitaker 1979). However, recent surveys using mist nets in upland areas revealed that this species was much more common in the Tennessee-Kentucky-Arkansas-Missouri parts of its range than previous work indicated (E. Britzke, pers. comm., 2015).

Overall Threat Impact: Very high - high
Overall Threat Impact Comments: The most serious threat is white-nose syndrome (WNS), an often (but not always) lethal condition caused by a fungal pathogen (Pseudogymnoascus destructans). WNS was first noticed in 2006 in New York. Since its initial discovery, 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). WNS affects Myotis septentrionalis and several other bat species (Gargas et al. 2009) and has resulted in several million bat deaths in the northeastern United States in recent years. Though M. septentrionalis was not common in surveys in the northeastern United States before the recognition of WNS, counts of this species subsequently have declined to zero in many caves since the advent of the disease (Hicks et al. 2008). As of 2013, WNS was still spreading and was documented in 22 of the 39 states in which the species occurs). As of early 2015, WNS was still spreading but was confined primarily to areas east of the Mississippi River (plus several locations in Arkansas and Missouri, with suspected instances in Iowa and Minnesota).The vast majority of known hibernacula are in regions where WNS has been confirmed. USFWS (2013) found no information to indicate that there are areas within the species' range that will not be impacted by the disease or that similar rates of decline (to what has been observed in the East, where the disease had been present for at most 8 years) will not occur throughout the species' range.

USFWS (2013) determined that although several activities, such as construction of physical barriers at cave accesses, mining, flooding, vandalism, development, and timber harvest may modify or destroy M. septentrionalis habitat, however, these activities alone are not thought to have significant, population-level effects on the species. Climate change, contaminants, wind energy development, and prescribed burning also are not believed to be significant threats alone. However, these factors may have a cumulative effect on the northern long-eared bat when added to white-nose syndrome, because the disease has led to dramatic population declines in the species (USFWS 2013).

Loss, degradation, and fragmentation of mature forest habitat (associated with various kinds of human activities, such as logging; oil, gas, and mineral development; and wind energy development) also may be a significant threat (Center for Biological Diversity 2010, USFWS 2011). However, the general lack of genetic structure at both watershed and regional scales indicates that forest disturbances such as prescribed fire or timber harvest at watershed scales do not appear to disrupt northern myotis gene flow across the landscape (Johnson et al. 2014).

Mortality caused directly by wind turbines may pose a significant threat in some areas (USFWS 2011).

Closures of mines used for hibernation are a potential threat, but there is no evidence that mine closures are currently affecting Myotis septentrionalis populations (USFWS 2011).

This species is sensitive to disturbance during hibernation (Garner, pers. comm., Thomas 1995); frequently aroused bats may deplete their energy reserves. Nursery colonies are very sensitive to disturbance by humans; bats may move to an alternate roost after a single disturbance, even if no attempt is made to capture the bats (Layne 1978).

Short-term Trend: Decline of >70%
Short-term Trend Comments: Range-wide trend over the past 10 years or three generations is uncertain, but the number of subpopulations as well as the overall population size clearly have declined to a large degree. Abundance has declined sharply (approximately 99 percent, hibernacula counts) over the past decade in the northeastern portion of the range; summer survey data declines of 93-98 percent) have confirmed this high rate of decline (USFWS 2013). Trend of populations in the northwestern part of the range, where WNS had not been documented as of mid-2014, presumably has been relatively stable or slowly declining. However, this area comprises the minority of the full range, and the vast majority of known hibernacula are in areas affected by WNS.

Long-term Trend: Decline of >70%
Long-term Trend Comments: Range-wide trend over the long term is uncertain, but the number of subpopulations as well as the overall population size clearly have declined (see short-term trend comments).

Prior to incidence of white-nose syndrome, adequate data to assess trends were not available. Anecdotal observations did not indicate any obvious declines. There were no published reports of declines in this species, and population data that did exist were too spatially and temporally scattered to reveal a trend.

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Protection Needs: Implementation of measures that prevent/reduce the spread of white-nose syndrome is essential. Minimizing disturbance through proper gating of caves and mines throughout the range (rather than closing mines) would benefit hibernating populations of this species as well as a number of other bats. 

Distribution
Help
Global Range: (>2,500,000 square km (greater than 1,000,000 square miles)) This bat is widely but patchily distributed in the eastern and northcentral United States and adjacent southern Canada, from eastern British Columbia and southern Yukon eastward across southern Canada to eastern Quebec, Prince Edward Island, and Newfoundland, and southward to southern Texas (one old record), Louisiana, Alabama, Georgia, and Florida (one old record from panhandle), and westward in the United States generally to the eastern margin of the Great Plains region (Barbour and Davis 1969, Harvey 1992, van Zyll de Jong 1985, Hall 1981, Crnkovic 2003, Wilson and Reeder 2005, Amelon and Burhans 2006, Marks and Marks 2006, Henderson et al. 2009, Ammerman et al. 2012, Park and Broders 2012). The overall summer and winter ranges are essentially the same (Barbour and Davis 1969).

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 AL, AR, CT, DC, DE, FL, GA, IA, IL, IN, KS, KY, LA, MA, MD, ME, MI, MN, MO, MS, NC, ND, NE, NH, NJ, NY, OH, OK, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, VA, VT, 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)
AL Franklin (01059), Jackson (01071), Lawrence (01079), Madison (01089)
CT Fairfield (09001)*, Litchfield (09005), Middlesex (09007)*, New London (09011)
FL Jackson (12063)*
GA Bartow (13015), Carroll (13045), Catoosa (13047), Chattooga (13055), Cherokee (13057), Dade (13083), Dawson (13085), Fannin (13111), Gilmer (13123), Hall (13139), Harris (13145)*, Lumpkin (13187), Murray (13213), Paulding (13223), Pickens (13227), Polk (13233), Rabun (13241), Union (13291), Walker (13295), White (13311)
IA Allamakee (19005), Appanoose (19007), Black Hawk (19013)*, Boone (19015), Decatur (19053), Delaware (19055), Dubuque (19061), Fremont (19071), Hardin (19083), Jones (19105), Lucas (19117), Madison (19121), Marion (19125), Marshall (19127)*, Monroe (19135), Plymouth (19149), Ringgold (19159), Scott (19163)*, Tama (19171)*, Webster (19187), Woodbury (19193)
IN Bartholomew (18005), Benton (18007), Brown (18013), Crawford (18025), Daviess (18027), 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), Newton (18111), Pike (18125), Porter (18127), Randolph (18135), Tippecanoe (18157), Vigo (18167), Warren (18171), Washington (18175)
KS Ellis (20051)*, Graham (20065), Marshall (20117)*, Norton (20137), Osborne (20141), Phillips (20147), Rooks (20163), Russell (20167)
MN Aitkin (27001), Carlton (27017), Cass (27021), Cook (27031), Crow Wing (27035), Dakota (27037), Fillmore (27045), Goodhue (27049), Hubbard (27057), Itasca (27061), Lake (27075), Lake of the Woods (27077), Morrison (27097), Nicollet (27103)*, Pine (27115), Ramsey (27123), Sherburne (27141)*, St. Louis (27137), Stearns (27145)*, Wabasha (27157), Wadena (27159), Washington (27163)
MO Barry (29009), Boone (29019), Butler (29023), Carter (29035), Crawford (29055), Dent (29065), Douglas (29067), Franklin (29071), Grundy (29079), Howell (29091), Iron (29093), Laclede (29105), Lewis (29111), Linn (29115), Madison (29123), Oregon (29149), Ozark (29153), Phelps (29161), Pulaski (29169), Reynolds (29179), Shannon (29203), Ste. Genevieve (29186), Taney (29213), Texas (29215), Washington (29221), Wayne (29223), Wright (29229)
MS Tishomingo (28141)
NC Buncombe (37021), Swain (37173)
NE Brown (31017), Cass (31025), Cherry (31031), Dakota (31043), Dixon (31051), Franklin (31061), Holt (31089), Jefferson (31095), Knox (31107), Lancaster (31109), Otoe (31131), Pawnee (31133), Sarpy (31153), Sheridan (31161), Thurston (31173)
NH Carroll (33003), Cheshire (33005), Coos (33007), Grafton (33009), Hillsborough (33011), Rockingham (33015), Sullivan (33019)
OK Adair (40001), Choctaw (40023), LeFlore (40079), McCurtain (40089), Pushmataha (40127)
PA Adams (42001), Allegheny (42003), Armstrong (42005), Bedford (42009), Berks (42011), Blair (42013), Bradford (42015), Bucks (42017), Cambria (42021), Cameron (42023), Carbon (42025), Centre (42027), Chester (42029), Clarion (42031), Clearfield (42033), Clinton (42035), Columbia (42037), Cumberland (42041), Dauphin (42043), Elk (42047), Fayette (42051), Forest (42053), Franklin (42055), Fulton (42057), Greene (42059), Huntingdon (42061), Indiana (42063), Juniata (42067), Lackawanna (42069), Lancaster (42071), Lawrence (42073), Lebanon (42075), Lehigh (42077), Luzerne (42079), Lycoming (42081), McKean (42083), Mercer (42085), Mifflin (42087), Monroe (42089), Montgomery (42091), Northampton (42095), Northumberland (42097), Pike (42103), Schuylkill (42107), Snyder (42109), Somerset (42111), Tioga (42117), Union (42119), Venango (42121), Warren (42123), Washington (42125), Westmoreland (42129), York (42133)
SC Greenville (45045), Oconee (45073), Pickens (45077)
SD Bon Homme (46009), Brule (46015), Charles Mix (46023), Clay (46027), Custer (46033), Gregory (46053), Hughes (46065), Jackson (46071), Lawrence (46081), Lyman (46085), Meade (46093), Pennington (46103), Perkins (46105), Stanley (46117), Union (46127), Walworth (46129), Yankton (46135)
TN Blount (47009), Campbell (47013), Cumberland (47035), Union (47173)
VT Addison (50001), Bennington (50003), Chittenden (50007), Orange (50017), Rutland (50021), Washington (50023), Windham (50025), Windsor (50027)
WI Bayfield (55007), Calumet (55015), Crawford (55023), Dane (55025), Dodge (55027), Door (55029), Dunn (55033), Florence (55037), Grant (55043), Iowa (55049), Iron (55051), La Crosse (55063), Lafayette (55065), Manitowoc (55071), Monroe (55081), Oconto (55083), Pierce (55093), Richland (55103), Sauk (55111), Vernon (55123)
WY Crook (56011)
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed Help
Watershed Region Help Watershed Name (Watershed Code)
01 Saco (01060002)+, Piscataqua-Salmon Falls (01060003)+, Upper Connecticut (01080101)+, Upper Connecticut-Mascoma (01080104)+, White (01080105)+, Black-Ottauquechee (01080106)+, West (01080107)+, Middle Connecticut (01080201)+, Deerfield (01080203)+, Lower Connecticut (01080205)+, Thames (01100003)+, Quinnipiac (01100004)+*, Housatonic (01100005)+, Saugatuck (01100006)+*
02 Hudson-Hoosic (02020003)+, Middle Delaware-Mongaup-Brodhead (02040104)+, Middle Delaware-Musconetcong (02040105)+, Lehigh (02040106)+, Schuylkill (02040203)+, Brandywine-Christina (02040205)+, Tioga (02050104)+, Upper Susquehanna-Tunkhannock (02050106)+, Upper Susquehanna-Lackawanna (02050107)+, Upper West Branch Susquehanna (02050201)+, Sinnemahoning (02050202)+, Middle West Branch Susquehanna (02050203)+, Bald Eagle (02050204)+, Lower West Branch Susquehanna (02050206)+, Lower Susquehanna-Penns (02050301)+, Upper Juniata (02050302)+, Raystown (02050303)+, Lower Juniata (02050304)+, Lower Susquehanna-Swatara (02050305)+, Lower Susquehanna (02050306)+, North Branch Potomac (02070002)+, Cacapon-Town (02070003)+, Conococheague-Opequon (02070004)+
03 Upper Broad (03050105)+, Saluda (03050109)+, Seneca (03060101)+, Tugaloo (03060102)+, Upper Chattahoochee (03130001)+, Middle Chattahoochee-Lake Harding (03130002)+*, Chipola (03130012)+*, Conasauga (03150101)+, Coosawattee (03150102)+, Oostanaula (03150103)+, Etowah (03150104)+, Upper Coosa (03150105)+, Upper Tallapoosa (03150108)+, Sipsey Fork (03160110)+
04 Baptism-Brule (04010101)+, Beaver-Lester (04010102)+, St. Louis (04010201)+, Cloquet (04010202)+, Beartrap-Nemadji (04010301)+, Bad-Montreal (04010302)+, Lake Superior (04020300)+, Manitowoc-Sheboygan (04030101)+, Door-Kewaunee (04030102)+, Duck-Pensaukee (04030103)+, Brule (04030106)+, Little Calumet-Galien (04040001)+, Mettawee River (04150401)+, Otter Creek (04150402)+, Winooski River (04150403)+, Lamoille River (04150405)+, Lake Champlain (04150408)+
05 Upper Allegheny (05010001)+, Middle Allegheny-Tionesta (05010003)+, Clarion (05010005)+, Middle Allegheny-Redbank (05010006)+, Conemaugh (05010007)+, Kiskiminetas (05010008)+, Lower Allegheny (05010009)+, Cheat (05020004)+, Lower Monongahela (05020005)+, Youghiogheny (05020006)+, Shenango (05030102)+, Mahoning (05030103)+, Beaver (05030104)+, Connoquenessing (05030105)+, Upper Ohio-Wheeling (05030106)+, Mississinewa (05120103)+, Middle Wabash-Little Vermilion (05120108)+, Middle Wabash-Busseron (05120111)+, Upper White (05120201)+, Lower White (05120202)+, Driftwood (05120204)+, Lower East Fork White (05120208)+, Patoka (05120209)+, Upper Cumberland (05130101)+, Silver-Little Kentucky (05140101)+, Blue-Sinking (05140104)+
06 Upper French Broad (06010105)+, Upper Little Tennessee (06010202)+, Lower Little Tennessee (06010204)+, Upper Clinch (06010205)+, Middle Tennessee-Chickamauga (06020001)+, Hiwassee (06020002)+, Ocoee (06020003)+, Sequatchie (06020004)+, Guntersville Lake (06030001)+, Wheeler Lake (06030002)+, Pickwick Lake (06030005)+, Bear (06030006)+
07 Mississippi Headwaters (07010101)+, Prairie-Willow (07010103)+, Elk-Nokasippi (07010104)+, Pine (07010105)+, Crow Wing (07010106)+, Clearwater-Elk (07010203)+*, Twin Cities (07010206)+, Middle Minnesota (07020007)+*, Kettle (07030003)+, Snake (07030004)+, Lower St. Croix (07030005)+, Rush-Vermillion (07040001)+, Buffalo-Whitewater (07040003)+, La Crosse-Pine (07040006)+, Root (07040008)+, Lower Chippewa (07050005)+, Coon-Yellow (07060001)+, Grant-Little Maquoketa (07060003)+, Turkey (07060004)+, Apple-Plum (07060005)+, Maquoketa (07060006)+, Lower Wisconsin (07070005)+, Kickapoo (07070006)+, Copperas-Duck (07080101)+*, South Skunk (07080105)+, Middle Cedar (07080205)+*, Upper Iowa (07080207)+, Middle Iowa (07080208)+*, Upper Rock (07090001)+, Crawfish (07090002)+, Pecatonica (07090003)+, Middle Des Moines (07100004)+, Lake Red Rock (07100008)+, Lower Des Moines (07100009)+, Bear-Wyaconda (07110001)+, North Fabius (07110002)+, Kankakee (07120001)+, Cahokia-Joachim (07140101)+, Meramec (07140102)+, Big (07140104)+, Upper Mississippi-Cape Girardeau (07140105)+
08 Upper St. Francis (08020202)+
09 Roseau (09020314)+, Rainy Headwaters (09030001)+, Vermilion (09030002)+, Big Fork (09030006)+, Lake of the Woods (09030009)+
10 Beaver (10120107)+, Middle Cheyenne-Spring (10120109)+, Rapid (10120110)+, Middle Cheyenne-Elk (10120111)+, Upper Belle Fourche (10120201)+, Lower Belle Fourche (10120202)+, Redwater (10120203)+, Lower Lake Oahe (10130105)+, West Missouri Coteau (10130106)+, Grand (10130303)+, Fort Randall Reservoir (10140101)+, Bad (10140102)+, Upper White (10140201)+, Middle White (10140202)+, Lower White (10140204)+, Middle Niobrara (10150004)+, Lower Niobrara (10150007)+, Lewis and Clark Lake (10170101)+, Vermillion (10170102)+, Lower Big Sioux (10170203)+, Lower Platte (10200202)+, Salt (10200203)+, Blackbird-Soldier (10230001)+, Big Papillion-Mosquito (10230006)+, Keg-Weeping Water (10240001)+, West Nishnabotna (10240002)+, Nishnabotna (10240004)+, South Fork Big Nemaha (10240007)+, Middle Republican (10250016)+, Upper Saline (10260009)+, Upper North Fork Solomon (10260011)+, Upper Little Blue (10270206)+, Lower Little Blue (10270207)+*, Thompson (10280102)+, Lower Grand (10280103)+, Upper Chariton (10280201)+, Niangua (10290110)+, Upper Gasconade (10290201)+, Big Piney (10290202)+, Lower Missouri-Moreau (10300102)+
11 Beaver Reservoir (11010001)+, James (11010002)+, Bull Shoals Lake (11010003)+, North Fork White (11010006)+, Upper Black (11010007)+, Current (11010008)+, Eleven Point (11010011)+, Illinois (11110103)+, Robert S. Kerr Reservoir (11110104)+, Poteau (11110105)+, Kiamichi (11140105)+, Mountain Fork (11140108)+, Lower Little (11140109)+
+ Natural heritage record(s) exist for this watershed
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
Ecology & Life History
Help
Basic Description: A small insect-eating bat.
General Description: Methods of aging individuals by morphological features are limited. Juveniles can be distinguished from adults by the incomplete ossification of the phalangeal epiphyses until late August of the year of their birth (Kunz 1971, Caire et al. 1979). After that time, all are typically classified as adults. Degree of wear of the teeth has been used to determine relative age of adults (Guthrie 1933), though Hall et al. (1957) found this to be unreliable. Examination of canine and molars of individuals known to be at least 18-19 years of age revealed very little wear.

In Missouri, prehibernation fat deposition period occurs from August to October and results in an increase in average weight of 41-45% (Caire et al. 1979). By spring, the same study found that both sexes weighed approximately what they had before the prehibernation fat deposition period.

Reproduction Comments: Copulation occurs in the late summer and early fall, during the swarming period when large numbers of bats congregate in and near certain caves (Baker 1983, Kurta 1980). Females store sperm during hibernation, though some may copulate again at spring emergence (Guthrie 1933, Racey 1982). Guthrie (1933) found a portion of the males of some species to be reproductively active in late winter and early spring. However, males emerging from hibernation in Missouri were found to be reproductively inactive (undescended testes) until late July, with the largest percentage of males becoming reproductively active in August and September (Caire et al. 1979). Females ovulate at the time of emergence and parturition occurs 50-60 days later (Baker 1983). Later parturition dates at higher latitudes are due to later emergence and therefore later ovulation (Racey 1982).

Females bear a single young, with parturition occurring in late May or early June in Missouri and Oklahoma (Caire et al 1979, Easterla 1965, Caire et al. 1989), in early to late June in Indiana (Cope and Humphrey 1972), and in late June to early July in Iowa, Illinois, Michigan, and New York (Kunz 1971, Hoffmeister 1989, Kurta 1980, Hamilton and Whitaker 1979). Post-lactating females were observed by mid-June in Missouri (Caire et al. 1979) and by mid- July to late July in Michigan and Iowa (Kurta 1980, Kunz 1971), with volant young observed at about that time in all studies. Young-of-the-year may reproduce in their first fall, but the proportion of the cohort doing so is unknown (Kurta, pers. comm.). Nursery colonies are relatively small, most often including 2-30 adults (10-90 individuals, including young, according to Layne (1978)).

Ecology Comments: Syntopic species during hibernation include Myotis lucifugus, Pipistrellus subflavus, and Eptesicus fuscus. Myotis septentrionalis; generally comprises a small percentage (for example, <1% in Missouri, 6% in Quebec-Ontario, 8% in Michigan, 10% in New England, 15% in Illinois) of the bats found hibernating in any single site (Griffin 1940, Hitchcock 1949, Pearson 1962, Caire et al. 1979, Stones 1981). Summer surveys reveal similar figures. In a netting survey of Iowa bats utilizing stream corridors for foraging, Kunz (1973) captured 64 Myotis septentrionalis over three years, out of an eight-species sample totaling 540 individuals (12%); Myotis septentrionalis was the third most abundant species, ranking far behind Eptesicus fuscus (243) and Lasiurus borealis (124). At Renfrew mine, Fenton (1969) found 117 Myotis septentrionalis compared to 5,712 Myotis lucifugus.

Rarely are there more than 100 individuals per hibernation colony (Barbour and Davis 1969, Caire et al. 1979). However, Stones (1981), found over 100 individuals (mean = 226) in 5 of 21 mines in which M. septentrionalis occurred in northern Michigan. In that study, 73% of the entire population was found in 5 mines and 86% in 8 mines of the 21 mines containing the species. Individuals usually roost solitarily.

In summer, these bats generally are colonial, but reproductive females and juveniles often roost alone. As many as 60 adults have been found in a single tree (Foster and Kurta 1999).

No single population of significant size has been studied intensively or long enough to determine population structure. Habitat utilization biases are reflected in sex ratios of animals captured during the summer, when females are more frequently taken near streams and males are more frequently taken at caves. Sex ratio data from hibernacula are more consistent. Griffin (1940) reported on sex ratios from New England hibernacula, where he found males comprised 77.8% of a sample population of 877 individuals over an 8 year period. In southern Illinois, Pearson (1962) found 72% males among the groups hibernating in silica mines and Hitchcock (1949) found that 76.0% of 242 individuals hibernating in eastern Canada were males and that the sexes did not segregate during hibernation. In northern Michigan, males comprised 60% of winter populations and were more abundant than females in all but 3 of 21 mines searched (Stones 1981).

The disparity in the sex ratio appears to be quite consistent among studies, seasons, and sites. Griffin (1940) suggested that females may have a higher mortality rate than males and consequently, a shorter life span and lower representation in the population. Hitchcock's (1949) original data recently were statistically analyzed and shown to support this hypothesis (Hitchcock et al. 1984).

Although age structure is not known for any population, potential longevity is at least two decades. Hall et al. (1957) reported one banded M. septentrionalis that was found recently dead in the cave in which it had been banded almost 19 years earlier.

In West Virginia, foraging home ranges of seven females averaged 61.1 hectares (Menzel et al. 1999).

In Michigan, radio-tagged bats in spring-summer changed roosts every 2 days; distance between roosts was 6-2000 m (Foster and Kurta 1999).

In an experiment to determine the homing ability of blinded and deafened bats, a blinded individual returned 32 miles to its home cave in 2.5 hr. after being held in captivity for 3 days (Stones and Branick 1969). The return rate of this animal was at an average, straight-line speed of 12.8 miles per hour. Overall, blinded bats returned to their home cave at the same frequency as did the control animals over the 6-week period following their release. However, none of the bats with impaired hearing returned during that time.

No significant predators are known (Baker 1983). Reported parasites include chiggers, mites, and trematodes (Whitaker and Winter 1977, Whitaker and Mumford 1971).

Habitat Type: Terrestrial
Non-Migrant: Y
Locally Migrant: Y
Long Distance Migrant: N
Mobility and Migration Comments: Barbour and Davis (1969) reported that the winter and summer geographic ranges of the species appear to be identical. However, the lack of hibernacula and gravid or nursing females in some areas indicates that significant portions of the population may move seasonally. Late summer swarming behavior resulting in relatively high concentrations at some caves indicates that there is some degree of local or regional movement prior to reproduction. The low numbers of females captured at cave entrances and along streams throughout the summer in Missouri indicates dispersal to maternity sites, perhaps beyond the cave region of the state (Caire et al. 1979). The lack of hibernacula in southern Michigan suggests that bats must migrate either south to the karst regions of Indiana and Ohio or north to the abandoned mines of the Upper Peninsula to overwinter (Kurta 1982). A few observations indicate that this species is capable of moving relatively long distances, often in a short period of time. One male recaptured by Caire et al. (1979) in Missouri had traveled at least 56 km in about one month, from its cave of origin to its apparent summering area where it was found behind the shutter of a house. Griffin (1945) reported one individual that flew approximately 100 kilometers between two caves sometime between February and April of the same year. Recent accounts suggest that migrations are limited (~100 km between winter hibernacula (i.e., mating sites) and summer ranges (Caceres and Barclay 2000, Fleming and Eby 2003).

Recent genetic data indicate that movements and genetic interchanges among populations may be considerable. Johnson et al. (2014) analyzed variation at 10 nuclear DNA microsatellite markers in 182 individuals at multiple spatial scales, from within first-order to larger regional areas in West Virginia and New York. Groups of M. septentrionalis were genetically indistinguishable at any spatial scale, and the collective population maintained high genetic diversity. The authors hypothesized that the bats' ability to migrate, exploit small forest patches, and use networks of mating sites located throughout the Appalachian Mountains, Interior Highlands, and elsewhere in the hibernation range have allowed northern myotis to maintain high genetic diversity and gene flow regardless of forest disturbances at local and regional spatial scales.

Radiotelemetry data from maternity colonies in West Virginia indicate that the bats occupy small roosting ranges that often are isolated in single watersheds (Menzel et al. 2002, Johnson et al. 2009).
 

Palustrine Habitat(s): Riparian
Terrestrial Habitat(s): Aerial, Forest - Conifer, Forest - Hardwood, Forest - Mixed, Urban/edificarian, Woodland - Conifer, Woodland - Hardwood, Woodland - Mixed
Subterranean Habitat(s): Subterrestrial
Special Habitat Factors: Standing snag/hollow tree
Habitat Comments: This bat generally is associated with old-growth forests composed of trees 100 years old or older. It relies on intact interior forest habitat, with low edge-to-interior ratios. Relevant late-successional forest features include a high percentage of old trees, uneven forest structure (resulting in multilayered vertical structure), single and multiple tree-fall gaps, standing snags, and woody debris. These late successional forest characteristics may be favored for several reasons, including the large number of partially dead or decaying trees that the species uses for breeding, summer day roosting, and foraging. [Source: USFWS 2011, which see for citations of further literature]

Small, highly fragmented, or young forests that provide limited areas of subcanopy foraging habitat may not be suitable. Young forests may also lack appropriate nursery sites. However, recent studies indicate that these bats can exploit relatively isolated and small forest fragments (Caceres and Barclay 2000, Henderson et al. 2008, Johnson et al. 2008).

Foraging occurs within forests, along forest edges, over forest clearings, and occasionally over ponds (Ammerman et al. 2012). Eleven individuals (10 males, 1 female) tagged with chemical lights observed during the summer in Missouri (LaVal et al. 1977), foraged almost exclusively among the trees of hillside and ridge forests, rather than utilizing floodplain and riparian forests; frequently foraging occurred within 1 to 3 m of the ground. Foraging bats doubled back frequently and only slowly moved out of the observation area. In Iowa, Kunz (1973, 1971) found primarily females foraging in mature deciduous uplands with adjacent deep ravines and in a disturbed riparian area with an adjacent floodplain and agricultural lands.

Hibernation occurs primarily in caves, mines, and tunnels, typically those with large passages and entrances, relatively constant and cool temperatures, high humidity, and no air currents (Griffin 1940, Jackson 1961, Mumford and Cope 1964, Kurta 1982, Raesly and Gates 1987, Caceres and Pybus 1997, USFWS 2013). Hibernators frequently roost in crevices, drill holes, and similar sites (Griffin 1940, Layne 1958, Pearson 1962, Caire et al. 1979, Whitaker and Mumford 2009) where they may be overlooked during surveys, but roosting in the open is not uncommon (Barbour and Davis 1969, Whitaker and Mumford 2009). A lack of suitable hibernacula may prevent occupancy of areas that otherwise have adequate habitat (Kurta 1982).

Use of different types of hibernacula can vary considerably among areas, depending upon quality and availability of sites. In a study of 71 potential hibernation sites, including large and small caves, overhangs, and mines, on the Shawnee National Forest in southern Illinois (Whitaker and Winter 1977), mines were the only occupied habitat. Mines also are the principal hibernation sites in northern Michigan where there are no caves (Stones 1981). In the northeastern U.S., hibernation sites include mines and caves (Griffin 1940, Hall et al. 1957) as well as large, cavelike water conduit tunnels (G. Hammerson, pers. obs.; T. French, cited by USFWS 2013).

The principal requirements of a suitable hibernation site are winter-long, low temperatures above freezing, high humidity, and lack of disturbances, both natural (floods) and anthropogenic (visitation) (Barbour and Davis 1969, Hitchcock 1949). At least two studies have provided contradictory information on thermal habitat preferences, suggesting that warmer temperatures sometimes are selected or at least tolerated. In Illinois, Pearson (1962) found that the mean temperature at hibernation sites averaged 9.7 C. Stones (1981) studied the occurrence of bats in northern Michigan mines that were vertically thermally stratified. The mean ambient temperature was 5.9 C, with 43% of the population occurring in the range 7-8 C and 6.5% occurring in the range 9-11 C.

There appears to be a high degree of philopatry in hibernaculum use. In Missouri, over 90% of recaptured banded individuals, representing 5% of the original banded population of 945 (753 males and 192 females), were recaptured at their cave of origin (Caire et al. 1979). Mills (1971) recaptured 4.8% of 358 individuals at their cave of origin the year after banding. Griffin (1945) found that of over 13,000 banded bats of various species, of which about 8,500 were banded in their winter hibernacula, the ratio was 100:1 for bats that were observed to return to their cave of origin over subsequent winters vs. those that were recaptured elsewhere.

Night roosts used in summer between foraging bouts are in different habitats than day roosts. Caves, mines, and quarry tunnels are used as night roosts, typically by males, but also by nonreproductive females (Clark et al. 1987, Jones et al. 1967). They are joined later in the summer by juveniles and post-lactating females (Kunz, 1973). During the day, these same sites usually house no M. septentrionalis. Daytime observations typically are of individuals in crevices or hollows or under loose bark on trees (Foster and Kurta 1999) and in a variety of small spaces associated with buildings and other structures (Hoffmeister 1989, Caire et al. 1979, Hamilton and Whitaker 1979, Barbour and Davis 1969). At times M. septentrionalis has been found in or around caves on summer nights, but not actually roosting in them (Mills 1971). Early in the summer, these groups mostly comprise males, with females and young-of-the-year joining later in the season (Caire et al. 1979).

Nothing has been published on the fidelity of individuals or colonies to particular swarming sites, nor the relationship of swarming site selection to hibernaculum and summer roost selection. Given the low numbers found in most hibernacula and summer night roosts relative to the higher numbers found at swarming sites, it appears that certain caves serve as congregation points for fall mating activity. However, short-term banding returns at swarming sites are very low, indicating movement among swarming sites (Kurta, pers. comm.).

Most nursery colonies are in cavities or beneath loose bark in trees or snags in upland forests, with roost entrances generally below or within the tree canopy (Mumford and Cope 1964, Sasse and Perkins 1996, Lacki and Schwierjohann 2001, Menzel et al. 2002, Owen et al. 2002, Carter and Feldhamer 2005, Perry and Thill 2007, Lacki et al. 2009, Timpone et al. 2010, Silvis et al. 2012). Reproductive females use a wide range of tree species. For example, in summer in north-central Kentucky, Silvis et al. (2012) tracked 58 females to 105 roost trees of 21 species; sassafras was used as a day roost more than expected based on forest stand-level availability and accounted for 48.6 percent of all observed day roosts. Individuals frequently switch roosts (Menzel et al. 2002, Owen et al. 2002, Carter and Feldhamer 2005, Timpone et al. 2010).

Some summer roosts are in buildings or bat houses or under bridges (Brandon 1961, Barbour and Davis 1969, Cope and Humphrey 1972, Amelon and Burhans 2006, Whitaker and Mumford 2009). A large colony in a barn in Indiana (Cope and Humphrey 1972) on 22 June had 24 adult females, 12 immature females, and 18 immature males; 10 other adults escaped. Of the 24 females, 23 were lactating and 1 was pregnant. Roosts of males and nonreproductive females include tree hollows as well as cooler locations, including caves and mines (Barbour and Davis 1969, Amelon and Burhans 2006). In Arkansas, pine snags were important summer roosts for males (Perry and Thill 2007).

In West Virginia, these bats formed social groups whose roost areas and roost tree networks overlapped to some extent (Johnson et al. 2012). Most networks had a single central node roost tree. In control treatments, central node roost trees were in early stages of decay and surrounded by greater basal area than other trees within the networks. In prescribed fire treatments, central node roost trees were small in diameter, low in the forest canopy, and surrounded by low basal area compared to other trees in networks. The results indicated that forest disturbances, including prescribed fire, can affect availability and distribution of roosts within roost tree networks.

Adult Food Habits: Invertivore
Immature Food Habits: Invertivore
Food Comments: This species evidently is an opportunistic insectivore (Kunz 1973); prey composition varies widely among sites and seasons; diet includes Lepidoptera, Coleoptera, Neuroptera, Diptera, Hymenoptera, Homoptera, and Hemiptera (Whitaker 1972, LaVal and LaVal 1980, Griffith and Gates 1985, Dodd et al. 2012; see also Ammerman et al. 2012r for a review of other recent information). These bats capture flying insects and also glean prey from plants or the forest floor.
Adult Phenology: Hibernates/aestivates, Nocturnal
Immature Phenology: Hibernates/aestivates, Nocturnal
Phenology Comments: Hibernation occurs from late summer/early fall to spring. In more northerly locations, hibernation begins earlier in the fall and extends later into the spring. In Missouri, hibernation has been reported from October to late March, with numbers of individuals captured at cave entrances beginning to decline significantly in September (Caire et al. 1979). In Michigan's Upper Peninsula, hibernation began by late August, while the earliest reported capture of an active bat in the spring was a gravid female on 29 May (Kurta 1980) in the southern Lower Peninsula. In New England, arrival at hibernation caves begins by early October (Griffin 1940). In Indiana, a few flew outside a hibernation site periodically throughout winter, especially in mild weather; feeding apparently did not begin until mid-March (Whitaker and Rissler 1992).

In summer, an activity peak generally occurs 1-2 hours after sunset, with a secondary peak 7-8 hours after sunset. Nocturnal insects often exhibit a strong flight period among nocturnal insects beginning before sunset, peaking near midnight, and waning throughout the early morning hours, and a second but less intense flight period may occur before sunrise (see Kunz 1973). In Iowa, both LASIONYCTERIS NOCTIVAGANS and MYOTIS SEPTENTRIONALIS showed a similar bimodal activity pattern with a period of reduced activity from 4 to 6 hours after sunset (Kunz 1973).

Colonial Breeder: Y
Length: 95 centimeters
Weight: 8 grams
Economic Attributes Not yet assessed
Help
Management Summary
Help
Species Impacts: Rabies is always a concern among workers who handle bats. Although MYOTIS SEPTENTRIONALIS is a potential carrier of this disease, none of the 24 individuals submitted to the Michigan Department of Public Health between 1956 and 1978 showed any evidence of it and the examination of an additional 82 bats in 1974 also proved negative (Kurta 1979). However, two rabid MYOTIS, probably SEPTENTRIONALIS, were obtained by the Michigan Department of Natural Resources during a rabies survey in 1971 (Kurta 1979). The incidence of rabies is likely quite low in other states as well (Kurta 1992). Although it is unlikely that M. SEPTENTRIONALIS, with its weak jaws and small teeth is a significant vector of rabies for humans (Baker 1983), workers should protect themselves with appropriate vaccinations prior to beginning any field or laboratory studies.
Restoration Potential: With a reproductive rate of just one offspring per year per female, damage to a population could be very slow to repair.
Preserve Selection & Design Considerations: An assessment of the need to protect all habitat types required by this species should be conducted as part of the preserve design process. It is unlikely that all types would fall within the boundaries of small preserves or even traditionally large preserves, but protection of hibernacula and maternity roosts is likely to be most critical. Protection of foraging habitat, if disjunct from summer roosts and maternity colonies, may be most effectively gained through private or public landowner cooperation. Hydrological considerations are important. Seasonal flooding may make some caves unsuitable in some years and reduction in ground water flow could alter cave humidity. Winter visitations of hibernacula by humans are the most significant threat in most areas.
Management Requirements: Maintenance of adequate habitat for all life history stages and activities, and protection of hibernacula from disturbances, including hydrological changes, are important management requirements.
Monitoring Requirements: In states where declines or threats and/or impacts are apparent, populations should be monitored every year or two, depending upon pattern of decline or impacts. The invasiveness and long-term impact of monitoring activities should be minimized.

Telemetry should be done with care so as not to overburden this small species with additional weight. At a mean body weight of 7.4 gm (van Zyll de Jong, 1985) and following the conservative 10% rule, a transmitter and adhesive should not exceed 0.74 gm (Strayer 1992).

Management Research Needs: Very little is known about most aspects of life history, including hibernation, roosting, and foraging habitat requirements, population dynamics, population trends, and migration and dispersal patterns. Telemetry studies of both sexes are needed (Garner 1992, Kurta 1992) and ideally should be conducted in advance of potentially detrimental, large-scale habitat modifications, such as intensive logging of older forests and removal of standing dead timber in areas known or suspected to contain this species.
Biological Research Needs: Primary research need is development of methods for combating the spread and deleterious effects of Pseudogymnoascus destructans. Research is also needed on most aspects of this bat's life history, including hibernation, roosting, and foraging habitat requirements, population dynamics, population trends, and migration and dispersal patterns.
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: 15Jul2015
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Author: Hammerson, G., L. A. Wilsmann, and J. Soule
Management Information Edition Date: 28Oct1992
Management Information Edition Author: Leni A. Wilsmann, Michigan Natural Features Inventory, 5th Floor Mason Bldg., P.O. Box 30028, Lansing, MI 48909.
Management Information Acknowledgments: Thanks to all the state Heritage Program personnel who responded to requests for information: Alaska: Ed West; Alabama: Mark Bailey; British Columbia: Syd Cannings; Florida: Dale Jackson; Kansas: Bill Busby; Montana: David Genter; North Carolina: Harry LeGrand, Jr.; North Dakota: Randy Kreil; Nebraska: Mary Kay Clausen; Oklahoma: Mark Lomolino; Pennsylvania: Tony Wilkinson; Rhode Island: Rick Enser; South Carolina: J. E. Cely, Kathy Boyle, and Mary Strayer; South Dakota: Eileen Dowd; West Virginia: Barbara Sargent, and Wyoming: Chris Garber. Others kindly provided reprints and answered questions over the telephone: Rick Clawson, Missouri Department of Conservation; Jim Garner, Illinois Department of Conservation; Dr. Michael Harvey, Tennessee Technical University; Dr. Allen Kurta, Eastern Michigan University.
Element Ecology & Life History Edition Date: 12Jun2014
Element Ecology & Life History Author(s): Hammerson, G., L. Wilsmann, and J. Soule

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 ]

  • Amelon, S., and D. Burhans. 2006b. Conservation assessment: Myotis septentrionalis (northern long-eared bat) in the eastern United States. Pages 69-82 in Thompson, F. R., III, editor. Conservation assessments for five forest bat species in the eastern United States. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Research Station, General Technical Report NC-260. St. Paul, Minnesota. 82 pp.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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., and R.M. Brigham, eds. 1996. Bats and Forests Symposium. B.C. Minist. For. Res. Program, Working Pap. No. 23. 292pp.

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

  • Bradley, R.D., L.K. Ammerman, R.J. Baker, L.C. Bradley, J.A. Cook. R.C. Dowler, C. Jones, D.J. Schmidly, F.B. Stangl Jr., R.A. Van den Bussche and B. Würsig. 2014. Revised checklist of North American mammals north of Mexico, 2014. Museum of Texas Tech University Occasional Papers 327:1-28. Available at: <http://www.nsrl.ttu.edu/publications/opapers/ops/OP327.pdf> (Accessed April 1, 2015)

  • Brandon, R. A. 1961. Observations of young keen bats. Journal of Mammalogy 42(3):400-1.

  • Caceres, M. C. 1998. The summer ecology of Myotis species in the interior wet-belt of British Columbia. M.Sc. Thesis, University of Calgary.107 pp

  • Caceres, M. C. and M. J. Pybus. 1997. Status of the northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis) in Alberta. Wildlife Status Report. Edmonton, Alberta Environmental Protection, Fisheries and Wildlife Division, Alberta Conservation Association: 19 pp.

  • Caceres, M. C., and M. J. Pybus. 1997. Status of the northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis) in Alberta. Alberta Environmental Protection, Wildlife Management Division, Wildlife Status Report No. 3, Edmonton, AB.

  • Caceres, M. C., and R.M.R. Barclay. 2000. Myotis septentrionalis. Mammalian Species 634:1-4.

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

  • Caire, W., R. K. LaVal, M. L. LaVal, and R. Clawson. 1979. Notes on the ecology of MYOTIS KEENIII (Chiroptera, Vespertilionidae) in Eastern Missouri. Amer. Midl. Nat. 102(2):404-7.

  • Carter, T. C., and G. A. Feldhamer. 2005. Roost tree use by maternity colonies of Indiana bats and northern long-eared bats in southern Illinois. Forest Ecology and Management 219:259-268.

  • Center for Biological Diversity. 2010. Petition to list the eastern small-footed bat Myotis leibii and northern long-eared bat Myotis septentrionalis as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act. Center for Biological Diversity, P.O. Box 188, Richmond, VT.

  • Clark, B. K., J. B. Bowles, and B. S. Clark. 1987. Summer status of the endangered Indiana bat in Iowa. Amer. Midl. Nat. 118(1):32-9.

  • 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.

  • Cockrum, E. L. 1956. Homing, movements, and longevity of bats. Journal of Mammalogy 37(1):48-57.

  • Cope, J. B., and S. R. Humphrey. 1972. Reproduction of the bats MYOTIS KEENII and PIPISTRELLUS SUBFLAVUS in Indiana. Bat Res. News 13:9-10.

  • Crnkovic, A. C. 2003. Discovery of northern long-eared myotis, Myotis septentrionalis (Chiroptera: Vespertilionidae), in Louisiana. Southwestern Naturalist 48:715-717.

  • Dewey, T. 2006. Systematics and phylogeography of North American Myotis (Chiroptera: Vespertilionidae). PhD Thesis, University of Michigan.164 pp.

  • Easterla, D. A. 1965. Parturition of Keen's myotis in southwestern Missouri. Journal of Mammalogy 49(4):770.

  • 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. 1969. Summer activity of MYOTIS LUCIFUGUS (Chiroptera: Vespertilionidae) at hibernacula in Ontario and Quebec. Can. J. Zool. 47:597-602.

  • Fenton, M. B. 1969. Summer activity of Myotis lucifugus (Chiroptera: Vespertilionidae) at hibernacula in Ontario and Quebec. Canadian Journal of Zoology 47: 597-602.

  • Fenton, M. B. 1982. Echolocation, insect hearing, and feeding ecology of insectivorous bats. Pages 261-85 in T. H. Kunz (editor). Ecology of Bats. Plenum Press, New York, New York.

  • Fitch, J. H., and K. A. Shump, Jr. 1979. Myotis keenii. Mammalian Species 121:1-3.

  • Fleming, T.H., and P. Eby. 2003. Ecology of bat migration. Pages 156-208 in T. H. Kunz and M. B. Fenton, editors. Bat ecology. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois.

  • Foster, R. W., and A. Kurta. 1999. Roosting ecology of the northern bat (MYOTIS SEPTENTRIONALIS) and comparisons with the endangered Indiana bat (MYOTIS SODALIS). Journal of Mammalogy 80:659-672.

  • Foster, R.W., and A. Kurta. 1999. Roosting ecology of the Northern Bat (Myotis septentrionalis) and comparisons with the endangered Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis). Journal of Mammalogy 80(2):659-672.

  • 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.

  • Gargas, A., M. T. Trest, M. Christensen, T. J. Volk, and D. Blehert. 2009. Geomyces destructans sp. nov. associated with bat white-nose syndrome. Mycotaxon 108: 147-154.

  • 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.

  • Garroway, C. J., and H. G. Broders. 2008. Day roost characteristics of northern long-eared bats (Myotis septentrionalis) in relation to female reproductive status. Ecoscience 15:89-93.

  • Griffin, D. R. 1940a. Notes on the life histories of New England cave bats. Journal of Mammalogy 21:181-7.

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

  • Griffin, D.R. 1945. TRAVELS OF BANDED CAVE BATS. J. MAMMAL. 26:15-23.

  • Griffith, L. A., and J. E. Gates. 1985. Food habits of cave-dwelling bats in the central Appalachians, Journal of Mammalogy 66(3):451-60.

  • Grindal, S. D., C. I. Stefan and C. Godwin-Sheppard. 2011. Diversity, distribution, and relative abundance of bats in the oil sands regions of northeastern Alberta. Northwestern Naturalist 92(3): 211-220.

  • Guthrie, M. J. 1933. The reproductive cycles of some cave bats. Journal of Mammalogy 14:199-216.

  • Hall, E. R. 1981. The Mammals of North America, 2nd. Ed., 2 Vols. John Wiley and Sons, New York 1181 pp.

  • 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.

  • Haney, A., M.J. Sarell, and J.B. Runciman (2002). TFL 55 northern long-eared bat inventory 2000-2002. Final report for Revelstoke Community Forest Corporation, Revelstoke, BC.

  • Harvey, M. J. 1992b. Bats of the eastern United States. Arkansas Game and Fish Commission in cooperation with the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Tennessee Technological University. Little Rock, AR.

  • Harvey, M. J., J. R. MacGregor, and R. R. Currie. 1991. Distribution and status of Chiroptera in Kentucky and Tennessee. J. of Tenn. Acad. of Sci. 66(4):191-193.

  • Hazard, E. B. 1982. The mammals of Minnesota. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, Minnesota. 280 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.

  • Hemmera. 2011. Raptor and migratory bird and bat monitoring and follow-up report 2010 and recommendations for 2011. Unpublished report prepared for Bear Mountain Wind Limited Partnership c/o Alta gas Lt. 69 pp. http://a100.gov.bc.ca/appsdata/epic/documents/p268/1307057410817_2157d1d7f40172e42487d05f863a57bdd3011afaedbb625345129aa65f94cbfa.pdf

  • Henderson, L. E., L. J. Farrow, and H. G. Broders. 2008. Intra-specific effects of forest loss on the distribution of the forest-dependent northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis). Biological Conservation 141:1819-1828.

  • 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.

  • Hitchcock, H. B. 1949. Hibernation of bats in southeastern Ontario and adjacent Quebec. The Canadian Field Naturalist 63(2):47-59.

  • Hitchcock, H. B., R. Keen, and A. Kurta. 1984. Survival rates of MYOTIS LEIBII and EPTESICUS FUSCUS in southeastern Ontario. Journal of Mammalogy 65:126-30.

  • Hoffmeister, D. F. 1989. Mammals of Illinois. University of Illinois Press. 349 pp.

  • Holroyd, S.L., R.M.R. Barclay, L.M. Merk, and R.M. Brigham. 1994. A Survey of the Bat Fauna of the Dry Interior of British Columbia. B.C. Minist. Environ., Lands and Parks, Wildl. Branch. Working Rep. WR-63. 80pp.

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

  • Johnson, J. B., J. E. Gates, and W. M. Ford. 2008. Distribution and activity of bats at local and landscape scales within a rural-urban gradient. Urban Ecosystems 11:227-242.

  • Johnson, J. B., J. H. Roberts, T. L. King, J. W. Edwards, W. M. Ford, and D. A. Ray. 2014. Genetic structuring of northern myotis (Myotis septentrionalis) at multiple spatial scales. Acta Theriol 59:223-231.

  • Johnson, J. B., J. W. Edwards, W. M. Ford, and J. E. Gates. 2009. Roost tree selection by northern myotis (Myotis septentrionalis) maternity colonies following prescribed fire in a Central Appalachian Mountains hardwood forest. Forest Ecology and Management 258:233-242.

  • Johnson, J. B., W. M. Ford, and J. W. Edwards. 2012c. Roost networks of northern myotis (Myotis septentrionalis) in a managed landscape. Forest Ecology and Management 266:223-231.

  • Jones, J. K. Jr., E. D. Fleharty, and P. B. Dunnigan. 1967. The distributional status of bats in Kansas. Univ. Kans, Mus. Nat. Hist. Misc. Pub. 46:1-33.

  • 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.

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

  • Kellener, M. and L. Simpson. 2009 b. Inventory and habitat use of bat species in the Peace River corridor-2005 field work. Unpublished report Keystone Wildlife Research, prepared for BC Hydro. 21 pp.

  • Kellener, M. and L. Simpson. 2009a. Inventory and habitat use of bat species in the Peace River corridor-2006 field work. Unpublished report Keystone Wildlife Research, prepared for BC Hydro. 21 pp.

  • Keystone Wildlife Research Ltd. 2009. Peace River Site C hydro project. Baseline vegetation and wildlife report. 2008-2009. Unpublished report: 182 pp.

  • 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. 1971. Reproduction of some vespertilionid bats of central Iowa. Amer. Midl. Nat. 86(2):477-86.

  • Kunz, T. H. 1973. Resource utilization: Temporal and spatial components of bat activity in cental Iowa. Journal of Mammalogy 54(1):14-32.

  • Kurta, A. 1979. Bat rabies in Michigan. Mich. Acad. 12(2):221-30.

  • Kurta, A. 1980. Notes on summer bat activity at Michigan caves. Natl. Speleolog. Soc. Bull. 42:68-9.

  • Kurta, A. 1982. A review of Michigan Bats: Seasonal and geographic distribution. Mich. Acad. 14(3):295-312.

  • Kurta, A. 1989. Bat species diversity in central Michigan. Jack-Pine Warbler 67(3):80-7.

  • LaVal, R. K., R. L. Clawson, M. L. LaVal and W. Caire. 1977. Foraging behavior and nocturnal activity patterns of Missouri bats, with emphasis on the endangered species Myotis grisescens and Myotis sodalis. Journal of Mammalogy 58:592-599.

  • LaVal, R. K., and M. L. LaVal. 1980. Ecological studies and management of Missouri bats, with emphasis on cave dwelling species. Terrestrial Series 8, Missouri Department of Conservation.

  • Lacki, M. J., D. R. Cox, L. E. Dodd, and M. B. Dickinson. 2009. Response of northern bats (Myotis septentrionalis) to prescribed fires in eastern Kentucky forests. Journal of Mammalogy 90:1165-1175.

  • Lacki, M. J., and J. H. Schwierjohann. 2001. Day-roost characteristics of northern bats in mixed mesophytic forest. Journal of Wildlife Management 65:482-488.

  • Langwig, K. E., W. F. Frick, J. T. Bried, A. C. Hicks, T. H. Kunz and A. Marm Kilpatrick. 2012. Sociality, density-dependence and microclimates determine the persistence of populations suffering from a novel fungal disease, white-nose syndrome. Ecology Letters: 15 (9):1050-1057.

  • Langwig, K., A. Hicks, R. von Linden, C. Herzog, S. Darling, T. French,and J. Armstrong. 2009. White nose syndrome related declines of hibernating bat species in the Northeast. Presentation at 2009 North American Society for Bat Research Symposium, Portland, Oregon.

  • Laubach, C. M., J. B. Bowles, and R. Laubach. 1994. A guide to the bats of Iowa. Iowa Department of Natural Resources. Des Moines, Iowa. 18 pp.

  • Lausen, C. 2010. A summary of bat work in 2009 in the Columbia Basin as part of the provincial taxonomic study of long-eared bats in BC. Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Compensation Program Report. Nelson, BC Hydro: 37 pp.

  • Layne, J. N. 1958. Notes on animals of southern Illinois. Amer. Midl. Nat. 60(1):219-54.

  • Layne, J. N., editor. 1978. Rare and endangered biota of Florida. Vol. 1. Mammals. State of Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission. xx + 52 pp.

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

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

  • McNab, B. K. 1982. Evolutionary alternatives in the physiological ecology of bats. Pages 151-200 in T. H. Kunz (editor). Ecology of Bats. Plenum Press, New York, New York.

  • 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.

  • Menzel, M. A., S. F. Owen, W. M. Ford, J. W. Edwards, P. B. Wood, B. R. Chapman, and K. V. Miller. 2002. Roost tree selection by northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis) maternity colonies in an industrial forest of the central Appalachian mountains. Forest Ecology and Management 155:107-114.

  • Mills, R. S. 1971. A concentration of MYOTIS KEENII at caves in Ohio. Journal of Mammalogy 52:625.

  • Ministry of Forests, Lands, and Natural Resources Operations. 2012. Observations of pine killed by 2011. Map from Analysis and Interpretation Branch.

  • Ministry of Environment. 2008. Map-Northern Myotis (Myotis septentrionalis). Bat distribution. mapping project. Victoria, BC.

  • 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.

  • Nagorsen D, C. Lausen, D. Burles, and P. Govindarajulu. 2010. Identification of long-eared Myotis bat species in British Columbia: An essential tool for developing management recommendations for bat species at risk. Forest Sciences Program Project Y092135. Final Report. 26 pp.

  • Nagorsen, D. 1990. The mammals of British Columbia: a taxonomic catalogue. Mem. No. 4. Royal B.C. Mus., Victoria. 140pp.

  • Nagorsen, D. W., A. Bryant, D. Kerridge, G. Roberts, A. Roberts and M. Sarell. 1993. Winter bat records from British Columbia. Northwestern Naturalist 74: 61-66.

  • Nagorsen, D. W., and R. M. Brigham. 1993. Bats of British Columbia. Vol. I. The Mammals of British Columbia. UBC Press, Vancouver, 164 pp.

  • Nagorsen, D.W., and R.M. Brigham. 1993. The bats of British Columbia. Royal B.C. Mus. Handb. Victoria, BC. 164pp.

  • NatureServe. 2008. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.0. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. . Accessed 9 June 2008.

  • Nordquist, G. E., K. A. Lynch, and C. A. Spak. 2006. Timing and pattern of bat activity at Soudan underground mine. Final report submitted to the State Wildlife Grants Program, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 86 pp.

  • Nordquist, G. E., and E.C. Birney. 1985. Distribution and status of bats in Minnesota. Final report submitted to the Nongame Wildlife Program, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 64 pp.+ illustrations.

  • Owen, S. F., M. A. Menzel, J. W. Edwards, et al. 2004. Bat activity in harvested and intact forest stands in the Allegheny Mountains. Northern Journal of Applied Forestry 21:154-159.

  • Owen, S. F., M. A. Menzel, W. M. Ford, J. W. Edwards, B. R. Chapman, K. V. Miller, and P. B. Wood. 2002. Roost tree selection by maternal colonies of northern long-eared myotis in an intensively managed forest. USDA Forest Service, General Technical Report NE-292, Northeastern Research Station, Newtown Square, PA.

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

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

  • Pearson, E. W. 1962. Bats hibernating in silica mines in southern Illinois. Journal of Mammalogy 43(1):27-33.

  • Perry, R. W., and R. E. Thill. 2007b. Roost selection by male and female northern long-eared bats in a pine-dominated landscape. Forest Ecology and Management 247:220-226.

  • Psyllakis, J. M. and T. Martin. 1996. Bat species of the Prince George Forest District. Prince George, British Columbia Conservation Foundation: 19 pp.

  • Racey, P. A. 1982. Ecology of bat reproduction. Pages 57-104 in T. H. Kunz (editor). Ecology of Bats. Plenum Press, New York, New York.

  • Raesly, R.L., and J. E. Gates 1987. Winter habitat selection by north temperate cave bats. American Midland Naturalist 118:15-31.

  • Randall, L. A., R. M. R. Barclay, M. L. Reid and T. S. Jung. 2011. Recent infestation of forest stands by spruce beetles does not predict habitat use by little brown bats (Myotis lucifugus) in southwestern Yukon, Canada. Forest Ecology and Management 261(11): 1950-1956.

  • Sasse, D. B., and P. J. Perkins. 1996. Summer roosting ecology of northern long-earedbats (Myotis septentrionalis) in the White Mountain National Forest. Pages 91-101 in Barclay, R.M.R., and R. M. Brigham, editors. Bats and forest symposium, Working Paper 23/1996. Victoria, BC: British Columbia Ministry of Forests.

  • 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.

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

  • Silvis, A., W. M. Ford, E. R. Britzke, N. R. Beane, and J. B. Johnson. 2012. Forest succession and maternity day roost selection by Myotis septentrionalis in a mesophytic hardwood forest. International Journal of Forest Research, Volume 2012, Article ID 148106, 8 pages. doi:10.1155/2012/148106

  • Simpson, K., T. K. Simpson, L. Simpson, L. Andrusiak, S. Hilton, M. Kellner, K. Klafki, I. Mattson, and A. Creagh. 2011. Part 7 Mammals. Terrestrial vegetation and wildlife report. Site C Clean Energy Project report to BC Hydro, Vancouver. 347 pp.

  • Stones, R. C. 1981. Survey of winter bat populations in search of the Indiana bat in the western Upper Peninsula of Michigan. Report submitted to Michigan Department of Natural Resources. 20 pp.

  • Stones, R. C., and L. P. Branick. 1969. Use of hearing in homing by two species of MYOTIS bats. Journal of Mammalogy 50(1):157-60.

  • Swanson, G., and C. Evans. 1936. The hibernation of certain bats in southern Minnesota. Journal of Mammalogy 17:39-43.

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

  • Timpone, J. C., J. G. Boyles, K. L. Murray, D. P. Aubrey, and L. W. Robbins. 2010. Overlap in roosting habits of Indiana bats (Myotis sodalis) and northern bats (Myotis septentrionalis). American Midland Naturalist 163:115-123.

  • 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). 1991. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; animal candidate review for listing as endangered or threatened species. Proposed Rule. Federal Register. 56(225):58804-36.

  • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2 October 2013. 12-month finding on a petition to list the eastern small-footed bat and the northern long-eared bat as endangered or threatened species; listing the northern long-eared bat as an endangered species. Federal Register 78(191):61046-61080.

  • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 29 June 2011. 90-day finding on a petition to list the eastern small-footed bat and the northern long-eared bat as threatened or endangered. Federal Register 76(125):38095-38106.

  • 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.

  • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011f. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; 90-day finding on a petition to list the eastern small-footed bat and the northern long-eared bat as threatened or endangered. Federal Register 76(125):38095-38106.

  • U.S. Forest Service. 2000. Population viability assessment in forest plan revision. Questions for animal population viability assessment panel: Myotis septentrionalis. United States Forest Service, Region 9, Duluth, Minnesota.


  • Vonhof, M.J., and L.C. Wilkinson. 2000. A Summary of Roosting Requirements of Northern Long-Eared Myotis in Northeastern British Columbia. Pp. 459-460 in L.M. Darling, ed. 2000. Proc. Conf. on the Biology and Manage. Species and Habitats at Risk, Kamloops, B.C., 15-19 Feb., 1999. Vol. 1; B.C. Minist. Environ., Lands and Parks, Victoria, BC, and Univ. College of the Cariboo, Kamloops, BC. 490pp.

  • Whitaker, J. O. Jr, and F. A. Winter. 1977. Bats of the caves and mines of the Shawnee National Forest, southern Illinois. Ill. State Acad. Sci. 70(3/4):301-13.

  • Whitaker, J. O. Jr. 1972. Food habits of bats from Indiana. Can. J. Zoology. 50:877-83.

  • Whitaker, J. O. Jr., and R. E. Mumford. 1971. Notes on a collection of bats taken by mist-netting at an Indiana cave. Amer. Midl. Nat. 85(1):277-9.

  • 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 R. E. Mumford. 2009. Mammals of Indiana. Indiana University Press, Bloomington. 661 pp.

  • Whitaker, J. O., and W. J. Hamilton. 1998. Mammals of the eastern United States. Comstock Publishing, Ithaca, New York.

  • Wilkinson, L.C., P.F.J. Garcia, and R.M.R. Barclay. 1995. Bat survey of the Liard River watershed in northern British Columbia. Unpubl. rep. submitted to Wildl. Branch, B.C. Environ., Victoria. 40pp.

  • Wilsmann, L.A., J. Soule, and G. Hammerson. 1995. Element Global Ranking Form, Myotis septentrionalis. Biol. and Conserv. Data System, B.C. Conserv. Data Centre, B.C. Minist. Environ., Lands and Parks, Resour. Inventory Branch, Victoria, BC.

  • 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

  • van Zyll de Jong, C. G. 1979. Distribution and systematic relationships of long-eared Myotis in western Canada. Canadian J. Zool. 57:987-994.

  • 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.