Nycticeius humeralis - (Rafinesque, 1818)
Evening Bat
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Nycticeius humeralis (Rafinesque, 1818) (TSN 180022)
French Common Names: chauve-souris vespérale
Spanish Common Names: Un Murciélago
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.799511
Element Code: AMACC06010
Informal Taxonomy: Animals, Vertebrates - Mammals - Bats
 
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus
Animalia Craniata Mammalia Chiroptera Vespertilionidae Nycticeius
Genus Size: C - Small genus (6-20 species)
Check this box to expand all report sections:
Concept Reference
Help
Concept Reference: Wilson, D. E., and D. M. Reeder (editors). 2005. Mammal species of the world: a taxonomic and geographic reference. Third edition. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore. Two volumes. 2,142 pp. Available online at: https://www.departments.bucknell.edu/biology/resources/msw3/
Concept Reference Code: B05WIL01NAUS
Name Used in Concept Reference: Nycticeius humeralis
Taxonomic Comments: Nycticeius cubanus was included in N. humeralis by Koopman (in Wilson and Reeder 1993) but was regarded as a distinct species by Simmons (in Wilson and Reeder 2005).
Conservation Status
Help

NatureServe Status

Global Status: G5
Global Status Last Reviewed: 12Mar2015
Global Status Last Changed: 05Nov1996
Ranking Methodology Used: Ranked by calculator
Rounded Global Status: G5 - Secure
Reasons: Large range in forested habitats in eastern North America; many occupied roosts and locations, including many roosts in trees and human-made structures; large population size; probably relatively stable; localized threats from habitat loss and degradation.
Nation: United States
National Status: N5 (05Sep1996)

U.S. & Canada State/Province Status
Due to latency between updates made in state, provincial or other NatureServe Network databases and when they appear on NatureServe Explorer, for state or provincial information you may wish to contact the data steward in your jurisdiction to obtain the most current data. Please refer to our Distribution Data Sources to find contact information for your jurisdiction.
United States Alabama (S5), Arkansas (S4), Delaware (S4), District of Columbia (S2B), Florida (SNR), Georgia (S5), Illinois (S3), Indiana (S1), Iowa (S3), Kansas (S4B), Kentucky (S3), Louisiana (S5), Maryland (S5B), Michigan (S2), Mississippi (SNRB,SNRN), Missouri (S4), Nebraska (S5), New Jersey (SNR), North Carolina (S5B), Ohio (SNR), Oklahoma (S4), Pennsylvania (S2), South Carolina (S5), South Dakota (S1), Tennessee (S5), Texas (S5), Virginia (S4), West Virginia (S1), Wisconsin (SU)

Other Statuses

IUCN Red List Category: LC - Least concern

NatureServe Global Conservation Status Factors

Range Extent: >2,500,000 square km (greater than 1,000,000 square miles)
Range Extent Comments: The range includes much of the eastern United States, north to Nebraska, Iowa, southern Wisconsin and Michigan, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey, west to Nebraska, Kansas, and eastern Texas, south to northern Veracruz, Mexico (Watkins 1972; Kurta et al. 2005; Simmons, in Wilson and Reeder 2005; Reid 2006). A population in Cuba was regarded as a distinct species (N. cubanus) by Simmons (in Wilson and Reeder 2005).

Range appears to be expanding; documented in Wisconsin for the first time in 2016 (Wisconsin DNR), also in northern Michigan (Auteri et al. 2016).

Number of Occurrences: 81 to >300
Number of Occurrences Comments: The number of distinct occurrences has not been determined using standardized criteria, but the species is represented by a large number of maternity roosts and collection/observation sites.

Population Size: 100,000 - 1,000,000 individuals
Population Size Comments: Total adult population size is unknown but undoubtedly exceeds 100,000. This species is common/abundant in much of its range. Nursery colonies in trees tend to be relatively small (fewer than 100 individuals), whereas those in buildings generally are larger (100s) (e.g., Bowles et al. 1996, Menzel et al. 2001, Perry and Thill 2008, Hein et al. 2009).

Overall Threat Impact: Low
Overall Threat Impact Comments: No major threats are known. This species occupies a wide range of habitats and roost sites, and it tolerates a fairly large degree of habitat alteration, though forest management practices that reduce roost site availability may result in local population declines. Actions of property owners and pest control operators result in mortality or loss of roosts in buildings, but these are not a major threat.

This species has been found dead under wind turbines, but it is not among those known to be regularly killed in high numbers at wind energy facilities (Arnett et al. 2008, Ellison 2012). Arnett and Baerwald (2013) estimated that approximately 1,590-3,300 individuals were killed by turbines at wind energy facilites in the United States during the period 2000-2011. The population impact of this is uncertain, but it is likely that it will increase over the foreseeable future as wind energy continues to expand.

In Indiana and Illinois, a decline in maternity colonies in buildings may have been related to displacement by increasing populations of big brown bats (Eptesicus fuscus); multiple tree-roosting populations still exist (Whitaker and Gummer 2003, Whitaker et al. 2006).

Short-term Trend: Relatively Stable (<=10% change)
Short-term Trend Comments: Trend over the past 10 years or three generations is uncertain, but area of occupancy, number of occupied roosts, and population size probably have been relatively stable, with localized increases or decreases in various parts of the range.

Long-term Trend: Unknown
Long-term Trend Comments: Long-term trend is unknown. The species remains common in much of its range. Distribution and abundance apparently have increased in the western part of the range in the Great Plains region, evidently is association with an increase in forest habitats along water courses (Sparks and Choate 1995; Dowler et al. 1999; Benedict et al. 2000; Benedict 2004; Geluso et al. 2004, 2008; Phelps et al. 2008). At the northern end of the range in Indiana, a decline may have occurred (Whitaker and Gummer 2003, Whitaker et al. 2006).

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Distribution
Help
Global Range: (>2,500,000 square km (greater than 1,000,000 square miles)) The range includes much of the eastern United States, north to Nebraska, Iowa, southern Wisconsin and Michigan, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey, west to Nebraska, Kansas, and eastern Texas, south to northern Veracruz, Mexico (Watkins 1972; Kurta et al. 2005; Simmons, in Wilson and Reeder 2005; Reid 2006). A population in Cuba was regarded as a distinct species (N. cubanus) by Simmons (in Wilson and Reeder 2005).

Range appears to be expanding; documented in Wisconsin for the first time in 2016 (Wisconsin DNR), also in northern Michigan (Auteri et al. 2016).

U.S. States and Canadian Provinces

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

U.S. & Canada State/Province Distribution
United States AL, AR, DC, DE, FL, GA, IA, IL, IN, KS, KY, LA, MD, MI, MO, MS, NC, NE, NJ, OH, OK, PA, SC, SD, TN, TX, VA, WI, WV

Range Map
No map available.


U.S. Distribution by County Help
State County Name (FIPS Code)
IA Decatur (19053), Lucas (19117), Madison (19121), Marion (19125), Monona (19133), Woodbury (19193)
IN Bartholomew (18005), Benton (18007), Clay (18021), Crawford (18025), Daviess (18027), Fayette (18041), Gibson (18051), Greene (18055), Hendricks (18063), Jackson (18071), Jennings (18079), Johnson (18081), Knox (18083), Montgomery (18107), Morgan (18109), Noble (18113), Orange (18117), Parke (18121), Pike (18125), Posey (18129), Rush (18139), Sullivan (18153), Tippecanoe (18157), Vanderburgh (18163), Vermillion (18165), Vigo (18167), Warren (18171), Warrick (18173)
KY Adair (21001), Ballard (21007), Barren (21009), Bell (21013), Breathitt (21025)*, Bullitt (21029), Calloway (21035), Carlisle (21039), Casey (21045), Christian (21047), Clark (21049), Cumberland (21057), Daviess (21059)*, Edmonson (21061), Floyd (21071), Fulton (21075), Garrard (21079)*, Graves (21083), Hardin (21093), Harrison (21097), Hart (21099), Henderson (21101), Henry (21103)*, Hickman (21105), Hopkins (21107), Jefferson (21111), Knott (21119)*, Lee (21129)*, Lyon (21143), Madison (21151), Magoffin (21153), Marion (21155), Marshall (21157), McCracken (21145), McLean (21149)*, Meade (21163), Metcalfe (21169), Monroe (21171), Muhlenberg (21177), Nelson (21179), Ohio (21183), Owsley (21189)*, Perry (21193)*, Powell (21197), Pulaski (21199), Spencer (21215), Trigg (21221), Union (21225), Warren (21227), Wayne (21231)*, Webster (21233)*, Whitley (21235), Wolfe (21237)*
MI Lenawee (26091)
MS Adams (28001), Claiborne (28021), Jackson (28059), Jasper (28061), Perry (28111), Scott (28123), Smith (28129), Stone (28131)
NE Buffalo (31019), Cass (31025), Dixon (31051), Franklin (31061), Furnas (31065), Hall (31079), Hamilton (31081), Holt (31089), Kearney (31099), Knox (31107), Lancaster (31109), Merrick (31121), Nemaha (31127), Otoe (31131), Red Willow (31145), Richardson (31147), Thurston (31173)
OK McCurtain (40089)
PA Bucks (42017)*, Cumberland (42041)*
SC Beaufort (45013), Georgetown (45043), Jasper (45053), Orangeburg (45075)
SD Clay (46027)
WV Jefferson (54037)*, Wetzel (54103)
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed Help
Watershed Region Help Watershed Name (Watershed Code)
02 Crosswicks-Neshaminy (02040201)+*, Lower Susquehanna-Swatara (02050305)+*, Conococheague-Opequon (02070004)+*
03 Carolina Coastal-Sampit (03040207)+, South Fork Edisto (03050204)+, Broad-St. Helena (03050208)+, Lower Savannah (03060109)+, Calibogue Sound-Wright River (03060110)+, Upper Leaf (03170004)+, Lower Leaf (03170005)+, Black (03170007)+, Mississippi Coastal (03170009)+, Upper Pearl (03180001)+, Middle Pearl-Strong (03180002)+
04 St. Joseph (04050001)+, Raisin (04100002)+
05 Little Muskingum-Middle Island (05030201)+, Lower Levisa (05070203)+, Whitewater (05080003)+, Licking (05100101)+, South Fork Licking (05100102)+, North Fork Kentucky (05100201)+*, Middle Fork Kentucky (05100202)+*, South Fork Kentucky (05100203)+*, Upper Kentucky (05100204)+, Lower Kentucky (05100205)+, Upper Green (05110001)+, Barren (05110002)+, Middle Green (05110003)+, Rough (05110004)+, Lower Green (05110005)+, Pond (05110006)+, Middle Wabash-Little Vermilion (05120108)+, Middle Wabash-Busseron (05120111)+, Lower Wabash (05120113)+, Upper White (05120201)+, Lower White (05120202)+, Eel (05120203)+, Driftwood (05120204)+, Flatrock-Haw (05120205)+, Muscatatuck (05120207)+, Lower East Fork White (05120208)+, Patoka (05120209)+, Upper Cumberland (05130101)+, Upper Cumberland-Lake Cumberland (05130103)+, South Fork Cumberland (05130104)+*, Lower Cumberland (05130205)+, Silver-Little Kentucky (05140101)+, Salt (05140102)+, Rolling Fork (05140103)+, Blue-Sinking (05140104)+, Highland-Pigeon (05140202)+, Tradewater (05140205)+, Lower Ohio (05140206)+
06 Kentucky Lake (06040005)+, Lower Tennessee (06040006)+
07 South Skunk (07080105)+, Lake Red Rock (07100008)+, Lower Des Moines (07100009)+, Iroquois (07120002)+
08 Lower Mississippi-Memphis (08010100)+, Bayou De Chien-Mayfield (08010201)+, Obion (08010202)+, Lower Mississippi-Natchez (08060100)+, Bayou Pierre (08060203)+, Homochitto (08060205)+
10 Lower Niobrara (10150007)+, Lewis and Clark Lake (10170101)+, Lower Big Sioux (10170203)+, Middle Platte-Buffalo (10200101)+, Wood (10200102)+, Salt (10200203)+, Blackbird-Soldier (10230001)+, Little Sioux (10230003)+, Monona-Harrison Ditch (10230004)+, Keg-Weeping Water (10240001)+, Tarkio-Wolf (10240005)+, Little Nemaha (10240006)+, Upper Republican (10250004)+, Medicine (10250008)+, Middle Republican (10250016)+, Thompson (10280102)+
11 Mountain Fork (11140108)+
+ Natural heritage record(s) exist for this watershed
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
Ecology & Life History
Help
Reproduction Comments: Mating occurs late summer-fall. Parturition occurs as early as late March/early April and as late as July (see review in Ammerman et al. 2012). Litter size usually is 2. Young can fly by third week but continue to nurse until 6-9 weeks old. Young are not carried during mother's feeding flights. Reported maternity colony size range is 25-950, or up to thousands (Caire et al. 1989); adult males are not present in these colonies.
Habitat Type: Terrestrial
Non-Migrant: Y
Locally Migrant: Y
Long Distance Migrant: Y
Mobility and Migration Comments: Northern populations of females and young move southward for winter; usually they have vacated northern roosts by mid-October (Watkins 1972). The extent of migration is poorly known but movements of up to several hundred kilometers have been recorded (Humphrey and Cope 1968, http://www.mnh.si.edu/mna/image_info.cfm?species_id=222 ). Males apparently remain in the southern part of the species' range throughout the year.

The species is present all year in Texas, but has been captured mainly late March through September and only occasionally recorded in winter (Schmidly 1991, Ammerman et al. 2012).

The population in southwestern Missouri appears to remain in the area all year (Boyles et al. 2003).

Over a period of 7-11 nights in summer in Georgia, 95% adaptive kernal home-range size averaged 156 hectares (ange 37-566 hectares); mean 95% minimum convex polygon home-range size was 118 hectares (range 34-456 hectares) (Morris et al. 2011). Individuals exhibited multiple core areas of activity that may have reflected prey and roost availability.

Palustrine Habitat(s): Riparian
Terrestrial Habitat(s): Cropland/hedgerow, Forest - Hardwood, Forest - Mixed, Old field, Suburban/orchard, Urban/edificarian, Woodland - Hardwood, Woodland - Mixed
Special Habitat Factors: Standing snag/hollow tree
Habitat Comments: These bats occur in deciduous, mixed deciduous-coniferous, and pine-dominated forests (including managed stands), which may be interspersed with cultivated areas, and they are commonly found along waterways (Schmidly et al. 1977, Schmidly 1991, Menzel et al. 2001, Miles et al. 2006, Perry and Thill 2008, Hein et al. 2009). Foraging occurs in open areas and around tree canopies. Habitats and roost-tree characteristics vary geographically and seasonally (Boyles and Robbins 2006). Males tend to roost solitarily; females form nursery colonies in summer, usually in trees or buildings.

Roosts include cavities in live or dead trees, spaces behind loose tree bark, tree foliage, Spanish moss, leaf litter, rock crevices, abandoned burrows in the ground, and nooks, spaces, and crevices in many types of human-made structures; rarely caves (Barbour and Davis 1969; Watkins 1972; Chapman and Chapman 1990; Bowles et al. 1996, 2005; Menzel et al. 2001; Kurta et al. 2005; Boyles and Robbins 2006; Marks and Marks 2006; Miles et al. 2006; Perry and Thill 2008; Hein et al. 2009). Individuals roosting in trees frequently change roosts (e.g., Bowles et al. 1996, Menzel et al. 2001). Winter roosts are poorly known in most areas (e.g., Ammerman et al. 2012), but individuals in southwestern Missouri roosted primarily in trees and sometimes underground in January-February (Bowles et al. 2005). Maternity colonies may be found under loose bark, in tree cavities, in Spanish-moss, or in buildings.

Adult Food Habits: Invertivore
Immature Food Habits: Invertivore
Food Comments: Diet includes beetles and other night-flying insects (see review in Ammerman et al. 2012).
Adult Phenology: Crepuscular, Hibernates/aestivates, Nocturnal
Immature Phenology: Crepuscular, Hibernates/aestivates, Nocturnal
Phenology Comments: Winter habits are not well known, but at least in parts of the range individuals hibernate or exhibit much-reduced activity (Bowles et al. 2005).
Colonial Breeder: Y
Length: 9 centimeters
Weight: 9 grams
Economic Attributes Not yet assessed
Help
Management Summary Not yet assessed
Help
Population/Occurrence Delineation
Help
Group Name: Small and Medium Bats

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Date: 08Mar2001
Author: Cannings, S.

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

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

Date: 19Apr2001
Author: Cannings, S.

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Auteri, G., A. Kurta, T. Cooley, and J. Melotti. 2016. A new northern record of the Evening Bat in Michigan. Michigan Birds and Natural History  23(3/4): 147-149.

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

  • 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 ]

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

  • Benedict, R. A., H. H. Genoways, and P. W. Freeman. 2000. Shifting distributional patterns of mammals in Nebraska. Transactions of the Nebraska Academy of Sciences 26:55-84.

  • Benedict, R.A. 2004. Reproductive activity and distribution of bats in Nebraska. Western North American Naturalist 64:231-248.

  • Bowles, J. B., D. Howell, J.W.V. Zee, and G. M. Wilson. 1996. Use of alternate roost trees by the evening bat, Nycticeius humeralis, in Iowa. Pages 217-224 in H. H. Genoways and R. J. Baker, editors. Contributions in mammalogy: a memorial volume honoring Dr. J. Knox Jones, Jr. Museum of Texas Tech University, Lubbock.

  • Bowles, J. G., R. M. Mormann, and L. W. Ronbbins. 2005. Use of an underground winter roost by a male evening bat (Nycticeius hemeralis). Southeastern Naturalist 4:375-377.

  • Boyles, J. G., J. C. Timpone, and L. W. Robbins. 2003. Late-winter observations of red bats, Lasiurus borealis, and evening bats, Nycticeius humeralis, in Mossouri. Bat Research News 44:59-61.

  • Boyles, J. G., and L. W. Robbins. 2006. Characteristics of summer and winter roost trees used by evening bats (Nycticeius humeralis) in southwestern Missouri. American Midland Naturalist 155:210-220.

  • 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

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

  • Chapman, S. S., and B. R. Chapman. 1990. Bats from the coastal region of southern Texas. Texas Journal of Science 42:13-22.

  • Dowler, R. C., R. C. Dawkins, and T. C. Maxwell. 1999. Range extensions for the evening bat (Nycticeius humeralis) in west Texas. Texas Journal of Science 51:193-195.

  • Dowler, R. C., T. C. Maxwell, and D. S. Marsh. 1992. Noteworthy records of bats from Texas. The Texas Journal of Science 44(1):121-123.

  • Easterla, D.A. and C.C. Watkins. 1970. Breeding of Lasi- onycteris noctivagans and Nycticeius humeralis in south- western Iowa. Amer. Midl. Nat. 84(1):254-255.

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

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

  • Gates, W.H. 1941. A few notes on the evening bat, Nycticeius humeralis. Jo. Mamm. 22(1):53-56.

  • Geluso, K. N., R. A. Benedict, and F. L. Kock. 2004. Seasonal activity and reproduction in bats of east-central Nebraska. Transactions of the Nebraska Academy of Sciences 29:33-44.

  • Geluso, K., J. P. Damm, and E. W. Valdez. 2008. Late=season activity and diet of the evening bat (Nycticeius humeralis) in Nebraska. Western North American Naturalist 68:21-24.

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

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

  • HAMILTON, W.J., JR. AND J.O. WHITAKER, JR. 1979. MAMMALS OF THE EASTERN UNITED STATES. CORNELL UNIV. PRESS, ITHACA, NY

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

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

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

  • Hein, C. D., K. V. Miller, and S. B. Castleberry. 2009. Evening bat summer roost site selection on a managed pine landscape. Journal of Wildlife Management 73:511-517.

  • Humphrey, S.R. and J.B. Cope. 1968. Records of migration of the evening bat, Nycticeius humeralis. Journal of Mammalogy 49(2):329.

  • Jones, C. 1967. Growth, development, and wing loading in the evening bat, Nycticeius humeralis. Jo. Mamm. 48(1):1- 19.

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

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

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

  • Kurta, A., R. Foster, E. Hough, and L. Winhold. 2005. The evening bat (Nycticeius humeralis) on the northern edge of its range--a maternity colony in Michigan. American Midland Naturalist 154:264-267.

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Menzel, M. A., T. C. Carter, W. M. Ford, and B. R. Chapman. 2001c. Tree-roost characteristics of subadult and female adult evening bats (Nycticeius humeralis) in the upper Coastal Plain of South Carolina. American Midland Naturalist 145:112-119.

  • Merritt, J.F. 1987. Guide to the Mammals of Pennsylvania. University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 408 pp. B87MER01PAUS.

  • Miles, A. C., S. B. Castleberry, D. A. Miller, and L. M. Conner. 2006. Multi-scale roost-site selection by evening bats on pine-dominated landscapes in southwest Georgia. Journal of Wildlife Management 70:1191-1199.

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

  • Morris, A. D., D. A. Miller, and L. M. Conner. 2011. Home-range size of evening bats (Nycticeius humeralis) in southwestern Georgia. Southeastern Naturalist 10:85-94.

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

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

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

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

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

  • Perry, R. W., and R. E. Thill. 2008. Diurnal roosts of male evening bats (Nycticeius humeralis) in diversely managed pine-hardwood forests. American Midland Naturalist 160:374-385.

  • Phelps, K. L., C. J. Schmidt, and J. R. Choate. 2008. Presence of the evening bat (Nyctideius humeralis) in westernmost Kansas. Transactions of the Kansas Academy of Science 111:159-160.

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

  • SCHWARTZ,C. AND E.SCHWARTZ. 1981. THE WILD MAMMALS OF MISSOURI, REV. ED.

  • Saugey, D. A., D. G. Saugey, G. A. Heidt, and D. R. Heath. 1988. The bats of Hot Springs National Park, Arkansas. Proceedings of the Arkansas Academy of Science 42:81-83.

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

  • Schmidly, D. J., K. T. Wilkins, R. L. Honeycutt, and B. C. Weynand. 1977. The bats of east Texas. Texas Journal of Science 28:127-143.

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

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

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

  • See SERO listing

  • Sparks, D. W., and J. R. Choate. 1995. New distributional records for mammals in Kansas. Prairie Naturalist 27:185-192.

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

  • WATKINS, L. C. 1972. NYCTICEUS HUMERALIS. MAMMALIAN SPECIES 23:1-4

  • Watkins, L. C. 1972. Nycticeius humeralis. Am. Soc. Mamm., Mammalian Species No. 23:1-4.

  • Webster, W.D., J.F. Parnell, and W.C. Biggs, Jr. 1985. Mammals of the Carolinas, Virginia, and Maryland. The Univ.of NC press, Chapel Hill, NC 255pp.

  • Whitaker, J. O., Jr., V. Brack, and J. B. Cope. 2006. Are bats in Indiana declining? Proceedings of the Indiana Academy of Science 111:95-96.

  • Whitaker, J. O., Jr., and S. L. Gummer. 2003. Current status of the evening bat, Nycticeius humeralis, in Indiana. Proceedings of the Indiana Academy of Science 112:55-60.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WIDNR). 2016. Discovery of new bat species in Wisconsin cheers biologists. http://dnr.wi.gov/news/weekly/article/?id=3723

Use Guidelines & Citation

Use Guidelines and Citation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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