Perimyotis subflavus - (Menu, 1984)
Tricolored Bat
Other English Common Names: Eastern Pipistrelle, Tri-colored Bat, Tricoloured Bat
Synonym(s): Pipistrellus subflavus (F. Cuvier, 1832)
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Pipistrellus subflavus (F. Cuvier, 1832) (TSN 180025)
French Common Names: pipistrelle de l'Est
Spanish Common Names: Un Murciélago
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.102580
Element Code: AMACC03020
Informal Taxonomy: Animals, Vertebrates - Mammals - Bats
 
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus
Animalia Craniata Mammalia Chiroptera Vespertilionidae Perimyotis
Genus Size: A - Monotypic genus
Check this box to expand all report sections:
Concept Reference
Help
Concept Reference: Wilson, D. E., and D. M. Reeder (editors). 1993. Mammal species of the world: a taxonomic and geographic reference. Second edition. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC. xviii + 1206 pp. Available online at: http://www.nmnh.si.edu/msw/.
Concept Reference Code: B93WIL01NAUS
Name Used in Concept Reference: Pipistrellus subflavus
Taxonomic Comments: See Davis (1959) for information on geographic variation and subspecies.

The relationships of the genera Eptesicus and Pipistrellus are unclear; for several Old World species there is some uncertainty as to which is the appropriate genus (see Morales et al. 1991 and Hilton and Harrison 1978).

Menu (1984) transferred P. subflavus to a new genus (Perimyotis), "but comparisons are clearly inadequate" (Koopman, in Wilson and Reeder 1993), and Koopman, Jones et al. (1992), and Simmons (in Wilson and Reeder 2005) retained this species in the genus Pipistrellus. Hoofer et al. (2006) revised the generic status of American pipistrelles and transferred Pipistrellus hesperus to the genus Parastrellus and Pipistrellus subflavus to the genus Perimyotis.
Conservation Status
Help

NatureServe Status

Global Status: G2G3
Global Status Last Reviewed: 04Apr2016
Global Status Last Changed: 12Mar2015
Ranking Methodology Used: Ranked by calculator
Rounded Global Status: G2 - Imperiled
Reasons: Large range in eastern and central North America; many roost sites and locations, expansive foraging habitat; does not form large aggregations, but historical population presumably large; declined greatly over much of the range after 2006 from the effects of a rapidly spreading fungal disease (white-nose syndrome); also now subject to substantial mortality from turbines at wind energy facilities, and the scope and severity of this threat are likely to increase in coming years. Conservation status should be reevaluated frequently as new information on population and trend becomes available.
Nation: United States
National Status: N2N3 (12Mar2015)
Nation: Canada
National Status: N1N2 (01Jan2018)

U.S. & Canada State/Province Status
Due to latency between updates made in state, provincial or other NatureServe Network databases and when they appear on NatureServe Explorer, for state or provincial information you may wish to contact the data steward in your jurisdiction to obtain the most current data. Please refer to our Distribution Data Sources to find contact information for your jurisdiction.
United States Alabama (S3), Arkansas (S2S3), Connecticut (S4), Delaware (S4), District of Columbia (S4), Florida (S2S3), Georgia (S5), Illinois (S5), Indiana (S2S3), Iowa (S4), Kansas (S4), Kentucky (S4S5), Louisiana (S4S5), Maine (SU), Maryland (S5B,S5N), Massachusetts (S1), Michigan (S1), Minnesota (S3), Mississippi (S4), Missouri (S2), Nebraska (S1), New Hampshire (S1N,SUB), New Jersey (SU), New Mexico (S3), New York (S1), North Carolina (S3), Ohio (SNR), Oklahoma (S4), Pennsylvania (S1), Rhode Island (S4), South Carolina (S1S2), Tennessee (S5), Texas (S5), Vermont (S1), Virginia (S1S3), West Virginia (S2), Wisconsin (S1S3)
Canada New Brunswick (S1), Nova Scotia (S1), Ontario (S3?), Quebec (S1)

Other Statuses

Canadian Species at Risk Act (SARA) Schedule 1/Annexe 1 Status: E (26Nov2014)
Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC): Endangered (01Nov2013)
Comments on COSEWIC: Reason for Designation: This bat is one of the smallest bats in eastern North America. Approximately 10% of its global range is in Canada, and it is considered rare in much of its Canadian range. Declines of more than 75% have occurred in the known hibernating populations in Québec and New Brunswick due to White-nose Syndrome. This fungal disease, caused by an invasive pathogen, was first detected in Canada in 2010, and has caused similar declines in Little Brown Myotis and Northern Myotis in Canada and the northeastern United States. Most of the Canadian range of the species overlaps with the current White-nose Syndrome range, and further declines are expected as more hibernacula continue to become infected.

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: Range extends from Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, southern Quebec, Michigan, Minnesota, and South Dakota south to eastern and southern Mexico, Honduras, Texas, U.S. Gulf Coast, and Florida, west to Wyoming, Colorado, western Texas, and New Mexico (Fujita and Kunz 1984, Kurta and Teramino 1994, Bogan and Cryan 2000, Broders et al. 2001, Adams 2003, Geluso et al. 2005, White et al. 2006, Valdez et al. 2009, Slider and Kurta 2011, Ammerman et al. 2012). In Texas, the species ranges to elevations as high as 2,100 meters in the Chisos Mountains (Ammerman et al. 2012).

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

Population Size: 10,000 - 1,000,000 individuals
Population Size Comments: Total adult population size is unknown but undoubtedly still exceeds 10,000. Summer and winter colony sizes are relatively small (winter mean 61 individuals, range 4-396) (northeastern United States; Langwig et al. 2012, supporting data); the overall population is distributed over a large number of sites, but counts are not available for most sites.

Overall Threat Impact: Very high - high
Overall Threat Impact Comments: Primary threat is a recently recognized fungal pathogen that causes a generally fatal condition known as white-nose syndrome (WNS), which attacks hibernating bats. WNS has spread rapidly (confirmed in more than 100 bat hibernacula) and now has been documented throughout northeastern North America. 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 fungus that causes WNS likely was recently introduced from Europe (Warnecke et al. 2012). A few years ago the population impact of WNS on P. subflavus appeared to be less severe than it was initially (Langwig et al. 2012), but recent data indicate that a drastic decline has occurred, and the disease continues to spread across a substantial portion of the bat's range.

This species incurs substantial mortality from turbines at wind energy facilities (Johnson et al. 2003, Fiedler 2004, Johnson 2005, Kunz et al. 2007, Arnett et al. 2008). The overall population impact of wind-energy-associated mortality is uncertain but probably significant, particularly in light of the concurrent negative impacts of WNS. Arnett and Baerwald (2013) estimated that roughly 45,000-94,000 tricolored bats were killed by wind turbines in the United States and Canada during the period 2000-2011. Many new turbines are planned or under construction, so the scope and severity of this threat probably are increasing.

In Nova Scotia, these bats seem to be negatively impacted by landscape practices that reduce the spatial extent of forests (Farrow and Broders 2011).

These bats do not require pristine stream/riparian conditions and may forage along streams receiving wastewater treatment plant effluents (Kalcounis-Rueppell et al. 2007).

Short-term Trend: Decline of 30-70%
Short-term Trend Comments: Range-wide trend over the past 10 years or three generations (perhaps roughly 15 years) is not precisely known, but abundance has greatly declined in northeastern North America since 2006 as a result of a rapidly spreading fungal disease (white-nose syndrome) (Franci et al. 2012, Langwig et al. 2012). In West Virginia, captures per net-night declined by about 77 percent between 1997-2008 and 2010 (i.e., pre-WNS and post-WNS) (Franci et al. 2012). According to Langwig et al. (2012), the rate of decline of tricolored bat populations in northeastern North America decreased with time, and populations apparently stabilized at much lower levels 3-4 years after WNS was detected. However, available data indicate a very large decline over the past 10 years or 3 generations (e.g., Turner et al. 2011; see also COSEWIC 2013).

Prior to 2006, population data for the species indicated no evidence of a decline (Ellison et al. 2003); populations were increasing (Langwig et al. 2012). Given that the P. subflavus population outside the known current range of WNS is not known to have recently declined, the overall (range-wide) degree of population decline is less than that recorded for the WNS-impacted populations.
 

Long-term Trend: Unknown
Long-term Trend Comments: Long-term trend is not well known. Presumably populations declined with deforestation and agricultural development in eastern North America in the 1800s and earlier, then increased with farm abandonment and forest regrowth in the 1900s. In the four decades prior to white-nose syndrome (WNS) detection, monitored populations of this species were growing (Langwig et al. 2012), and the range apparently expanded northward and westward. For example, Kurta et al. (2007) recorded many new (1993-2006) records and an apparent northward range expansion of P. subflavus into the central Great Lakes region (Michigan Upper Peninsula to Illinois and Indiana) and speculated that the existence of human-made or human-modified hibernacula (e.g., dam construction, modifications associated with commercialization of a cave) created conditions suitable for the species to colonize that area. Recent range expansion (likely associated with increases in wooded habitats along rivers and increases in the number of human-made structures that might be used as hibernacula) also were recorded along the western edge of the range, from South Dakota to Texas and New Mexico (e.g., Bogan and Cryan 2000, Geluso et al. 2005, White et al. 2006, Valdez et al. 2009). The change in the overall population--considering recent increases, range expansion, and WNS-caused declines--is uncertain.

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Distribution
Help
Global Range: (>2,500,000 square km (greater than 1,000,000 square miles)) Range extends from Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, southern Quebec, Michigan, Minnesota, and South Dakota south to eastern and southern Mexico, Honduras, Texas, U.S. Gulf Coast, and Florida, west to Wyoming, Colorado, western Texas, and New Mexico (Fujita and Kunz 1984, Kurta and Teramino 1994, Bogan and Cryan 2000, Broders et al. 2001, Adams 2003, Geluso et al. 2005, White et al. 2006, Valdez et al. 2009, Slider and Kurta 2011, Ammerman et al. 2012). In Texas, the species ranges to elevations as high as 2,100 meters in the Chisos Mountains (Ammerman et al. 2012).

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, CT, DC, DE, FL, GA, IA, IL, IN, KS, KY, LA, MA, MD, ME, MI, MN, MO, MS, NC, NE, NH, NJ, NM, NY, OH, OK, PA, RI, SC, TN, TX, VA, VT, WI, WV
Canada NB, NS, ON, QC

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)
IA Guthrie (19077)
IN Bartholomew (18005), Brown (18013), Crawford (18025), Daviess (18027), Dubois (18037), Gibson (18051), Greene (18055), Harrison (18061), Hendricks (18063), Jefferson (18077), Johnson (18081), Knox (18083), Lawrence (18093), Martin (18101), Monroe (18105), Morgan (18109), Newton (18111), Orange (18117), Owen (18119), Pike (18125), Porter (18127), Vermillion (18165), Vigo (18167), Washington (18175)
KY Adair (21001), Bell (21013), Boone (21015), Bracken (21023), Breathitt (21025), Breckinridge (21027), Bullitt (21029), Calloway (21035), Carter (21043), Christian (21047), Clark (21049), Clay (21051), Daviess (21059), Edmonson (21061), Elliott (21063), Estill (21065), Floyd (21071), Harlan (21095), Hart (21099), Henderson (21101), Jackson (21109), Johnson (21115), Knott (21119), Knox (21121), Lawrence (21127), Lee (21129), Leslie (21131), Letcher (21133), Madison (21151), Magoffin (21153), Martin (21159), Mason (21161), Menifee (21165), Mercer (21167), Monroe (21171), Montgomery (21173), Morgan (21175), Muhlenberg (21177), Owsley (21189), Perry (21193), Pike (21195), Pulaski (21199), Rockcastle (21203), Rowan (21205), Trigg (21221), Trimble (21223), Warren (21227), Wayne (21231), Whitley (21235)
MI Alpena (26007), Berrien (26021), Calhoun (26025), Dickinson (26043), Kalamazoo (26077), Keweenaw (26083), Manistee (26101), Ontonagon (26131), Ottawa (26139)
MN Anoka (27003)*, Carlton (27017), Carver (27019)*, Chisago (27025)*, Dakota (27037)*, Dodge (27039)*, Fillmore (27045), Goodhue (27049), Hennepin (27053), Houston (27055), Lake (27075), Le Sueur (27079)*, Nicollet (27103), Olmsted (27109)*, Ramsey (27123), Rice (27131)*, Scott (27139)*, Sibley (27143)*, St. Louis (27137), Stearns (27145)*, Wabasha (27157), Washington (27163), Winona (27169)
MS Adams (28001), Forrest (28035), Grenada (28043), Perry (28111), Smith (28129), Stone (28131), Tishomingo (28141), Wayne (28153)
NE Cass (31025), Dakota (31043), Greeley (31077), Lancaster (31109), Richardson (31147), Sarpy (31153), Thurston (31173)
NM Eddy (35015), Union (35059)
SC Beaufort (45013), Georgetown (45043), Greenville (45045), Lancaster (45057), Oconee (45073), Sumter (45085), Union (45087)
VA Amherst (51009), Bath (51017), Chesapeake (City) (51550), Franklin (51067), Lee (51105), Pittsylvania (51143), Roanoke (51161), Suffolk (City) (51800), Sussex (51183), Virginia Beach (City) (51810)
VT Addison (50001), Bennington (50003), Chittenden (50007), Orange (50017), Rutland (50021), Washington (50023), Windham (50025), Windsor (50027)
WI Calumet (55015), Columbia (55021), Crawford (55023), Dane (55025), Dodge (55027), Door (55029), Dunn (55033), Grant (55043), Iowa (55049), Lafayette (55065), Manitowoc (55071), Monroe (55081), Pepin (55091), Pierce (55093), Richland (55103), Sauk (55111), St. Croix (55109), Vernon (55123)
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed Help
Watershed Region Help Watershed Name (Watershed Code)
01 Upper Connecticut-Mascoma (01080104)+, White (01080105)+, Black-Ottauquechee (01080106)+, West (01080107)+, Deerfield (01080203)+
02 Hudson-Hoosic (02020003)+, Eastern Lower Delmarva (02040304)+, Upper James (02080201)+, Middle James-Buffalo (02080203)+
03 Upper Roanoke (03010101)+, Banister (03010105)+, Nottoway (03010201)+, Blackwater (03010202)+, Albemarle (03010205)+, Lynches (03040202)+, Black (03040205)+, Wateree (03050104)+, Upper Broad (03050105)+, Tyger (03050107)+, Saluda (03050109)+, Lake Marion (03050111)+, Santee (03050112)+, Broad-St. Helena (03050208)+, Seneca (03060101)+, Tugaloo (03060102)+, Broad (03060104)+, Middle Savannah (03060106)+, Brier (03060108)+, Calibogue Sound-Wright River (03060110)+, Upper Ogeechee (03060201)+*, Ogeechee Coastal (03060204)+, Upper Oconee (03070101)+, Lower Oconee (03070102)+*, Upper Ocmulgee (03070103)+, Altamaha (03070106)+*, Ohoopee (03070107)+, Cumberland-St. Simons (03070203)+, St. Marys (03070204)+*, Upper Suwannee (03110201)+*, Upper Chattahoochee (03130001)+, Middle Chattahoochee-Lake Harding (03130002)+*, Middle Chattahoochee-Walter F. George Reservoir (03130003)+*, Lower Flint (03130008)+*, Ichawaynochaway (03130009)+*, Conasauga (03150101)+, Coosawattee (03150102)+, Oostanaula (03150103)+, Etowah (03150104)+, Upper Coosa (03150105)+, Upper Tallapoosa (03150108)+, Upper Chickasawhay (03170002)+, Black (03170007)+, Middle Pearl-Strong (03180002)+
04 Beaver-Lester (04010102)+, St. Louis (04010201)+, Black-Presque Isle (04020101)+, Ontonagon (04020102)+, Keweenaw Peninsula (04020103)+, Lake Superior (04020300)+, Manitowoc-Sheboygan (04030101)+, Door-Kewaunee (04030102)+, Menominee (04030108)+, Little Calumet-Galien (04040001)+, St. Joseph (04050001)+, Black-Macatawa (04050002)+, Kalamazoo (04050003)+, Manistee (04060103)+, Lone Lake-Ocqueoc (04070003)+, Otter Creek (04150402)+, Winooski River (04150403)+, Lake Champlain (04150408)+
05 Tug (05070201)+, Upper Levisa (05070202)+, Lower Levisa (05070203)+, Big Sandy (05070204)+, Little Scioto-Tygarts (05090103)+, Little Sandy (05090104)+, Ohio Brush-Whiteoak (05090201)+, Middle Ohio-Laughery (05090203)+, Licking (05100101)+, 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)+, Upper White (05120201)+, Lower White (05120202)+, Driftwood (05120204)+, Lower East Fork White (05120208)+, Patoka (05120209)+, Upper Cumberland (05130101)+, Rockcastle (05130102)+, Upper Cumberland-Lake Cumberland (05130103)+, Lower Cumberland (05130205)+, Silver-Little Kentucky (05140101)+, Salt (05140102)+, Blue-Sinking (05140104)+, Lower Ohio-Little Pigeon (05140201)+, Highland-Pigeon (05140202)+
06 Upper Little Tennessee (06010202)+, Upper Clinch (06010205)+, Middle Tennessee-Chickamauga (06020001)+, Hiwassee (06020002)+, Ocoee (06020003)+*, Bear (06030006)+, Lower Tennessee (06040006)+
07 Clearwater-Elk (07010203)+*, Twin Cities (07010206)+, Middle Minnesota (07020007)+, Lower Minnesota (07020012)+*, Lower St. Croix (07030005)+, Rush-Vermillion (07040001)+, Cannon (07040002)+*, Buffalo-Whitewater (07040003)+, Zumbro (07040004)+, La Crosse-Pine (07040006)+, Root (07040008)+, Lower Chippewa (07050005)+, Coon-Yellow (07060001)+, Grant-Little Maquoketa (07060003)+, Apple-Plum (07060005)+, Castle Rock (07070003)+, Lower Wisconsin (07070005)+, Kickapoo (07070006)+, Upper Rock (07090001)+, Pecatonica (07090003)+, Sugar (07090004)+, South Raccoon (07100007)+, Kankakee (07120001)+
08 Yalobusha (08030205)+, Homochitto (08060205)+
10 Lower Platte (10200202)+, Salt (10200203)+, Lower North Loup (10210007)+, Blackbird-Soldier (10230001)+, Tarkio-Wolf (10240005)+
11 Cimarron headwaters (11040001)+
13 Upper Pecos-Black (13060011)+
+ Natural heritage record(s) exist for this watershed
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
Ecology & Life History
Help
Reproduction Comments: Mates in October/November. Litter size usually is 2, born June to mid-July in north, May in south. Probably sexually mature 1st summer. Young able to fly within a month. Maternity colonies are small.
Ecology Comments: Probably feeds within a 5-mile radius of its roosting site. In spring and summer in Indiana, the maximum distance traveled by 19 radio-tagged reproductive females was 4.3 km (Veilleux et al. 2003). Probably occurs in low densities. Relatively uncommon. Generally solitary or in small groups.
Habitat Type: Terrestrial
Non-Migrant: Y
Locally Migrant: Y
Long Distance Migrant: N
Mobility and Migration Comments: In much of the range, at least some individuals appear to engage in limited or regional radiation migrations. Griffin (1940) and Barbour and Davis (1969) reported recoveries of banded individuals that had moved up to 136 kilometers. Some in northern populations engage in annual latitudinal migrations; some non-molt-period males from the southern portion of the range also showed evidence of southern fall migration. (Fraser et al. 2012).

In Indiana, reproductive females remained at roost trees for 6 days on average before moving to new roosts and traveled approximately 19-139 meters between roost trees (Veilleux et al. 2003). In Arkansas, males used the same foliage roost for up to 33 consecutive days (Perry and Thill 2007). Individuals roosting in buildings commonly switch roosts (see review by Ammerman et al. 2012).

Palustrine Habitat(s): Riparian
Terrestrial Habitat(s): Forest - Hardwood, Forest - Mixed, Grassland/herbaceous, Old field, Suburban/orchard, Urban/edificarian, Woodland - Hardwood, Woodland - Mixed
Subterranean Habitat(s): Subterrestrial
Special Habitat Factors: Standing snag/hollow tree
Habitat Comments: These bats are associated with forested landscapes, where they forage near trees (including forest perimeters) and along waterways (Fujita and Kunz 1984). In many areas, most foraging occurs in riparian areas (e.g., Ellis et al. 2002, Ford et al. 2005, Menzel et al. 2005). In Nova Scotia, they appeared to use primarily areas with intact, unfragmented forest cover (Farrow and Broders 2011). In spring and summer in deciduous forest in western North Carolina, nonreproductive individuals selected mature stands or buffer zones near perennial streams, and they tended to roost near openings (perhaps to minimize commuting costs when openings comprise a small proportion of a densely forested landscape) (O'Keefe et al. 2009).

Maternity and other summer roosts probably are mainly in dead or live tree foliage (including attached lichen clumps such as Usnea and "Spanish moss") (Carter and Menzel 2007, Poissant et al. 2010); caves, mines, and rock crevices may be used as night roosts between foraging forays (Barbour and Davis 1969). Maternity colonies also may utilize human-made structures (buildings, bridges; e.g., Ferrara and Leberg 2005) or tree cavities; sometimes these are in open sites that would not be tolerated by most other bats (Barbour and Davis 1969). In summer in Arkansas, roosts were most often among dead leaves of oaks in mature (>50-year-old) forest with a relatively complex structure and a hardwood component, but 3 of 7 maternity roosts were in clumps of dead needles of live, large pines (Perry and Thill 2007). In Indiana, pregnant and lactating females roosted exclusively in foliage, typically in clusters of dead leaves and less often in live foliage or squirrel nests (Veilleux et al. 2003). In Nova Scotia, colonies of females roost exclusively in clumps of the lichen Usnea, typically in spruce trees (Poissant et al. 2010). In Indiana, Veilleux and Veilleux (2004) provided limited evidence that females are faithful to small roost areas both within and between years, and that juvenile females exhibit female natal philopatry. Reproductive females roost alone or in groups of up to about 50 individuals (Perry and Thill 2007).

Hibernation sites often are in caves (e.g., Briggler and Prather 2003), mines, or cavelike tunnels (e.g., Slider and Kurta 2011), also box culverts under highways, especially those near forest (Texas; Sandel et al. 2001). Kurta et al. (2007) recorded hibernation in a dam and colonization of a cave that had been highly altered for commercialization. Hibernating individuals perch singly, infrequently in small groups.

Adult Food Habits: Invertivore
Immature Food Habits: Invertivore
Food Comments: Diet includes various flying insects, often obtained treetop level or over water.
Adult Phenology: Hibernates/aestivates, Nocturnal
Immature Phenology: Hibernates/aestivates, Nocturnal
Phenology Comments: In Texas, the bats arrive in hibernation sites in September and are gone by April (Sandel et al. 2001). Individuals rarely may fly outside hibernation sites in winter (Whitaker and Rissler 1992).
Colonial Breeder: Y
Length: 9 centimeters
Weight: 6 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: 02Jul2015
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Author: Hammerson, G.
Element Ecology & Life History Edition Date: 02Jul2015
Element Ecology & Life History Author(s): Hammerson, G.

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

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

  • Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Division of Wildlife and Freshwater Fisheries. 2015. Alabam's Wildlife Action Plan 2015-2025. Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Division of Wildlife and Freshwater Fisheries. Montgomery, Alabama. 514 pages. [Available online at http://www.outdooralabama.com/sites/default/files/AL%20SWAP%20FINAL%20POST-REVIEW%2004-22-2016.pdf}

  • 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.

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

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

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

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

  • Arroyo-Cabrales, J., Miller, B., Reid, F., Cuarón, A.D. & de Grammont, P.C. 2008. Pipistrellus subflavus. In: IUCN 2013. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2013.2. <www.iucnredlist.org>. Downloaded on 22 April 2014.

  • BAKER, R.J., AND C.M. WARD. 1967. DISTRIBUTION OF BATS IN SOUTHEASTERN ARKANSAS. J. MAMM. 48:130-132.

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

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

  • BURT, W.H., AND R.P. GROSSENHEIDER. 1976. A FIELD GUIDE TO THE MAMMALS, THIRD EDITION. HOUGHTON MIFFLIN, MASSACHUSETTS. 289 P.

  • 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 ]

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

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

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

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

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

  • Birney, E. C., and G. E. Nordquist. 1989. A winter census and conservation of Minnesota cave bats, 1988-89. Report submitted to the Nongame Wildlife Program, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources.

  • Bogan, M. A., and P. M. Cryan. 2000. The bats of Wyoming. Pages 71-94 in J. R. Choate, editor. Reflections of a naturalist: papers honoring Professor Eugene D. Fleharty. Fort Hayes Studies, Special Issue 1.

  • 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

  • Briggler, J. T., and J. W. Prather. 2003. Seasonal use and selection of caves by the eastern pipistrelle bat (Pipistrellus subflavus). American Midland Naturalist 149:406-412.

  • Broders, H. G., D. F. McAlpine, and G. J. Forbes. 2001. Status of the eastern pipistrelle (Pipistrellus subflavus) (Chiroptera: Vespertilionidae) in New Brunswick. Northeastern Naturalist 8:331-336.

  • COSEWIC. 2013. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the little brown myotis Myotis lucifugus, northern myotis Myotis septentrionalis and tri-colored bat Perimyotis subflavus in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. xxiv + 93 pp.

  • COSSARO. 2015. Ontario Species at Risk Evaluation Report for Tri-colored Bat (Perimyotis subflavus). June 2015 (final). 21pp.

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

  • Carter, T. C., M. A. Menzel, B. R. Chapman, and K. V. Miller. 1999. Summer foraging and roosting behavior of an Eastern Pipistrelle Pipistrellus subflavus. Bat Research News 40(1):5-6.

  • Carter, T. C., and J. M. Menzel. 2007. Behavior and day-roosting ecology of North American foliage-roosting bats. Pages 61-81 in M. J. Lacki et al., editors. Bats in forests. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.

  • Center for Biological Diversity and Defenders of Wildlife. 2016. Petition to list the tricolored bat Perimyotis subflavus as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act. Petition filed with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C.

  • 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.

  • Connor, P.F. 1960. The small mammals of Otsego and Schoharie Counties, New York. N.Y.S. Museum and Science Service Bull. 382. 84 pp.

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

  • Coulson, D., J. Peluch and F. Kempf. 1984. Wetland Data Record and Evaluation- Eramosa River Valley. July 23- August 10, 1984. Second Edition. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. Manuscript. 25 pp + 13 maps + 11 pp supplement

  • DAVIS, W.H. 1959. TAXONOMY OF THE EASTERN PIPISTREL. J. MAMM. 40(4):521-531.

  • Davis, W. B. 1959. Taxonomy of the eastern pipistrel. J. Mamm. 40:521-531.

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

  • Dobbyn, J.S. 1994. Atlas of the mammals in Ontario. Federation of Ontario Naturalists, 355 Leslie Road, Don Mills, Ontario, M3B 2W8. 120 pp.

  • Downing S.C., H.B. Hitchcock and W.E. Saunders. 1940. Pipistrellus hibernating in Ontario. The Canadian Field-Naturalist 54:89.

  • Downing, S.C. n.d. Second Ontario record for the Pipistrelle. Journal of Mammalogy, Vol 19, No. 1: 103.

  • Ellis, A. M., L. L. Patton, and S. B. Castleberry. 2002. Bat activity in upland and riparian habitats in the Georgia Piedmont. Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 56:210-218.

  • Ellison, L.E., T.J. O'Shea, M.A. Bogan, A.L. Everette, and D.M. Schneider. 2003. Existing data on colonies of bats in the United States: summary and analysis of the U.S. Geological Survey's Bat Population Database. Pages 137-237 in O'Shea, T.J., and M.A. Bogan (editors). Monitoring trends in bat populations of the United States and territories: problems and prospects. U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division, Information and Technology Report, USGS/BRD/ITR-2003-0003.

  • FUJITA, M.S., AND T.H. KUNZ. 1984. MAMMALIAN SPECIES NO. 228, PIPSTRELLUS SUBFLAVUS: THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF MAMMALOGISTS, 6 P.

  • Farrow, L. J., and H. G. Broders. 2011. Loss of forest cover impacts the distribution of the forest-dwelling tri-colored bat (Perimyotis subflavus). Mammalian Biology 76:172-179.

  • 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.

  • Ferrara, F. J., and P. L. Leberg. 2005. Characterisitcs of positions selected by day-roosting bats under bridges in Louisiana. Journal of Mammalogy 86:729-735.

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

  • Ford, W. M., M. A. Menzel, J. L. Rodrigue, J. M. Menzel, and J. B. Johnson. 2005. Relating bat species presence to simple habitat measures in a central Appalachian forest. Biological Conservation 126:528-539.

  • Franci, K. E., W. M. Ford, D. W. Sparks, and V. Brack, Jr. 2012. Capture and reproductive trends in summer bat communities in West Virginia: assessing the impact of white-nose syndrome. Journal of Fish and Wildlife Management 3:33-42.

  • Fraser, E. E., L. P. McGuire, J. L. Eger, F. J. Longstaffe, and M. B. Fenton. 2012. Evidence of latitudinal migration in tri-colored bats, Perimyotis subflavus. PLoS ONE 7(2):e31419.

  • Fujita, M. S., and T. H. Kunz. 1984. Pipistrellus subflavus. American Society of Mammalogists, Mammalian Species No. 228. 6 pp.

  • Fujita, M.S. and T.H. Kunz. 1984. Pipistrellus subflavus. Am. Soc. Mamm., Mammalian Species No. 228. 6 pp.

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

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

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

  • Gartshore, M.E., D.A. Sutherland and J.D. McCracken. 1987. The Natural Areas Inventory of the Regional Municipality of Haldimand - Norfolk. Volume 1: Natural Areas. Norfolk Field Naturalists, Simcoe, Ontario. 108 pp.

  • Geluso, K., T. R. Mollhagen, J. M. Tigner, and M. A. Bogan. 2005. Westward expansion of the eastern pipistrelle (Pipistrellus subflavus) in the United States, including new records from New Mexico, South Dakota, and Texas. Western North American Naturalist 65:405-409.

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

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

  • HALL, E.R. 1981. THE MAMMALS OF NORTH AMERICA, SECOND EDITION, 2 VOLUMES. JOHN WILEY & SONS, NEW YORK. (1:600 P., 2:581 P.).

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

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

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

  • Hall, JOHN S. 1984. UNPUBLISHED DATA ON THE OCCURRENCE OF CAVE BATS IN PENNSYLVANIA FROM 1960 TO 1984.

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

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

  • Hill, J. E., and D. L. Harrison. 1987. The baculum in the Vespertilioninae (Chiroptera: Vespertilionidae) with a systematic review, a synopsis of Pipistrellus and Eptesicus, and the descriptions of a new genus and subgenus. Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History), Zoology Series 52:225-305.

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

  • Hoofer, S. R., R. A. Van Den Bussche, and I. Horácek. 2006. Generic status of the American pipistrelles (Vespertilionidae) with description of a new genus. Journal of Mammalogy 87:981-992.

  • JONES, C., AND J. PAGELS. 1968. NOTES ON A POPULATION OF PIPISTRELLUS SUBFLAVUS IN SOUTHERN LOUISIANA. J. MAMM. 49:134-139.

  • JONES, C., AND R.D. SUTTKUS. 1973. COLONY STRUCTURE AND ORGANIZATION OF PIPISTRELLUS SUBFLAVUS IN SOUTHERN LOUISISNA. J. MAMM. 54:962-968.

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

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

  • Jalava, J.V. 1995. Mount Nemo Site Summary. Pp. 195-198, in, J.L. Riley, J.V. Jalava and S. Varga. 1996. Ecological Survey of the Niagara Escarpment Biosphere Reserve. Volume I: Significant Natural Areas. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Southern Region, Aurora. Open File Site Report 9601. v + 629 pp.

  • Jennings, W. L. 1958. The ecological distribution of bats in Florida. Ph.D. dissertation, Univ. Florida, Gainesville.

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

  • Johnson, G. D., M. K. Perlik, W. P. Erickson, and M. D. Strickland. 2004. Bat activity, composition, and collision mortality at a large wind plant in Minnesota. Wildlife Society Bulletin 32(4):1278-1288.

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

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

  • Jones, 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.

  • KENNEDY, M.L., ET. AL. 1974. A REVIEW OF MISSISSIPPI MAMMALS. STUDIES IN NATURAL SCIENCES. 2(1):1-36.

  • Kalcounis-Rueppell, M. C., V. H. Payne, S. R. Huff, and A. L. Boyco. 2007. Effects of wastewater treatment plant effluent on bat foraging ecology in an urban ecosystem. Biological Conservation 138:120-130

  • Kirk, D.A. 1986. A Life Science Inventory of Spooky Hollow: An Area of Natural and Scientific Interest (A.N.S.I.). Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Simcoe District, Simcoe, Ontario. OFER 8617. vii + 68 pp. + appendices + maps.

  • 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.

  • Knowles, B. 1992. Bat hibernacula on Lake Superior's North Shore, Minnesota. Canadian Field-Naturalist, 106(2):252-254.

  • Kunz, T. H., E. B. Arnett, W. P. Erickson, A.R . Hoar, G. D. Johnson, R. P. Larkin, M. D. Strickland, R. W. Thresher, and M. D. Tuttle. 2007. Ecological impacts of wind energy development on bats: questions, research needs, and hypotheses. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 5:315-324.

  • Kurta, A., L. Winhold, J. O. Whitaker, Jr., and R. Foster. 2007. Range expansion and changing abundance of the eastern pipistrelle (Chiroptera: Vespertilionidae) in the central Great Lakes region. American Midland Naturalist 157:404-411.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • McAlpine, D.F. 1976. First record of the Eastern Pipistrelle in New Brunswick. Can. Field-Nat. 90(4): 476.

  • Menu, H. 1984. Revision du statut de PIPISTRELLUS SUBFLAVUS (F. Cuvier, 1832). Proposition d'un taxon generique nouveau: PERIMYOTIS nov. gen. Mammalia 48:409-416.

  • Menzel, J. M., M. A. Menzel, J. C. Kilgo, W. M. ford, J. W. Edwards, and G. F. McCracken. 2005b. Effects of habitat and foraging height on bat activity in the coastal plain of South Carolina. Journal of Wildlife Management 69:235-245.

  • 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.

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

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

  • Morales, J. C., S. W. Balllinger, J. W. Bickham, I. F. Greenbaum, and D. A. Schlitter. 1991. Genetic relationships among eight species of Eptesicus and Pipistrellus (Chiroptera: Vespertilionidae). Journal of Mammalogy 72:286-291.

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

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

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

  • Osborn, R. G., K. F. Higgins, C. D. Dieter, and R. E. Usgaard. 1996. Bat collisions with wind turbines in southwestern Minnesota. Bat Research News 37(4):105-108.

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

  • Perry, R. W., and R. E. Thill. 2007d. Tree roosting by male and female eastern pipistrelles in a forested landscape. Journal of Mammalogy 88:974-981.

  • Poissant, J. A., H. G. Broders, and G. M. Quinn. 2010. Use of lichen as a roosting substrate by Perimyotis subflavus, the tricolored bat, in Nova Scotia. Ecoscience 17:372-378.

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

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

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

  • SHROPSHIRE, C.C. 1989. LETTER OF JUNE 26 TO AMY VASU.

  • Sandel, J. K., G. R. Benater, K. M. Burke, C. W. Walker, T. E. Lacher, Jr., and R. L. Honeycutt. 2001. Use and selection of winter hibernacula by the eastern pipistrelle (Pipistrellus subflavus) in Texas. Journal of Mammalogy 82:173-178.

  • Saunders, W.E. 1920. A new mammal for Canada. Canadian Field-Naturalist 34:16.

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

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

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

  • See SERO listing

  • Shelton-Nix, E. 2017. Alabama Wildlife, Volume 5. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, Alabama. 355 pages.

  • Slider, R. M., and A. Kurta. 2011. Surge tunnels in quarries as potential hibernacula for bats. Northeastern Naturalist 18:378-381.

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

  • Stebbings, R. E. 1969. Observer influence on bat behaviour. Pages 93-100 in Proceedings of the First International Bat Conference.

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

  • The Nature Conservancy. He N. Why Save Species.

  • Turner, G., D. Reeder, and J. Coleman. 2011. A five-year assessment of mortality and geographic spread of white-nose syndrome in North American bats and a look to the future. Bat Research News 52:13-27.

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

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

  • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2017. Endangered and threated wildlife and plants; 90-day findings for five species. Federal Register 82(243):60362-60366.

  • Valdez, E. W., K. Geluso, J. Foote, G. Allison-Kosior, and D. M. Roemer. 2009. Spring and winter records of the eastern pipistrelle (Perimyotis subflavus) in southeastern New Mexico. Western North American Naturalist 69:396-398.

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

  • Veilleux, J. P., J. O. Whitaker, Jr., and S. L. Veilleux. 2003. Tree-roosting ecology of reproductive female eastern pipistrelles, Pipistrellus subflavus, in Indiana. Journal of Mammalogy 84:1068-1075.

  • Veilleux, J. P., and S. L. Veilleux. 2004. Intra-annual and interannual fidelity to summer roost areas by female eastern pipistrelles, Pipistrellus subflavus. American Midland Naturalist 152:196-200.

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

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

  • WHITE, J.S. 1961. CAVE INHABITING BATS FROM AN ABANDONED SILICA MINE IN TISHOMINGO COUNTY. J. MISS. ACAD. SCI. 6:181.

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

  • Whitaker, J. O., Jr. 1998. Life history and roost switching in six summer colonies of Eastern Pipistrelles in buildings. Journal of Mammalogy 79(2):651-659.

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

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

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

  • White, J. A., P. R. Moosman, Jr., C. H. Kilgore, and T. L. Best. 2006. First record of the eastern pipistrelle (Pipistrellus subflavus) from southern New Mexico. Southwestern Naturalist 51:420-422.

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

  • Wilson, D. E., and D. M. Reeder (editors). 2005. Mammal species of the world: a taxonomic and geographic reference. Third edition. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore. Two volumes. 2,142 pp. Available online at: http://vertebrates.si.edu/msw/mswcfapp/msw/index.cfm

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

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

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

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 2018.
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 © 2018 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. 2018. 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.