Lasiurus blossevillii - (Lesson and Garnot, 1826)
Western Red Bat
Other English Common Names: western red bat
Other Common Names: Morcego
Synonym(s): Lasiurus blossevillei (Lesson and Garnot, 1826)
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Lasiurus blossevillii (Lesson and Garnot, 1826) (TSN 552512)
French Common Names: chauve-souris de Blosseville, chauve-souris rousse de l'Ouest
Spanish Common Names: Murciélago Rojo
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.102668
Element Code: AMACC05060
Informal Taxonomy: Animals, Vertebrates - Mammals - Bats
 
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus
Animalia Craniata Mammalia Chiroptera Vespertilionidae Lasiurus
Genus Size: C - Small genus (6-20 species)
Check this box to expand all report sections:
Concept Reference
Help
Concept Reference: Jones, J. K., Jr., R. S. Hoffman, D. W. Rice, C. Jones, R. J. Baker, and M. D. Engstrom. 1992a. Revised checklist of North American mammals north of Mexico, 1991. Occasional Papers, The Museum, Texas Tech University, 146:1-23.
Concept Reference Code: B92JON01NAUS
Name Used in Concept Reference: Lasiurus blossevillii
Taxonomic Comments: Baird et al. (2015) recognize L. blossevillii salinae from Argentina as a subspecies rather than species.

Lasiurus blossevillii formerly was included in Lasiurus borealis, with which it may interbreed in northeastern Mexico (see Schmidly 1991). Baker et al. (1988) divided L. borealis into multiple species: L. borealis (corresponding with subspecies borealis), L. blossevillii (combining former L. borealis subspecies teliotus and frantzii; western United States, Mexico, Central America, and South America), L. degelidus (Jamaica), and others on Caribbean islands.

Koopman (in Wilson and Reeder 1993) and Koopman and McCracken (1998) retained L. blossevillii in L. borealis until taxonomic relationships are better resolved. Shump (in Wilson and Ruff 1999) also treated blossevillii as a subspecies of L. borealis.

In the 2003 Texas Tech mammal checklist, Baker et al. (2003) continued to recognize L. blossevillii as a distinct species. Adams (2003), Simmons (in Wilson and Reeder 2005), and most subsequent authors also have treated Lasiurus blossevillii and Lasiurus borealis as separate species. MtDNA data support the recognition of L. borealis and L. blossevillii as distinct species (Morales and Bickham 1995). MtDNA data also indicate no distinction between L. blossevillii frantzii from Central America and L. blossevillii teliotus from Mexico and the western United States; Morales and Bickham (1995) therefore synonymized teliotus with frantzii. Available genetic evidence suggests that L. b. blossevillii of South America and L. b. frantzii of North and Central America may be separate species (Morales and Bickham 1995, Bradley and Baker 2001), but further range-wide genetic studies are needed to resolve the question (Cryan 2003).

New World Lasiurus were placed in the genus Nycteris by Hall (1981), who based the change on nomenclatural (rather than biological) concerns; few if any other authors have followed this change.
Conservation Status
Help

NatureServe Status

Global Status: G4
Global Status Last Reviewed: 28Oct2014
Global Status Last Changed: 28Oct2014
Ranking Methodology Used: Ranked by calculator
Rounded Global Status: G4 - Apparently Secure
Reasons: Very large range and many collection/observation sites in North, Central, and South America, but apparently uncommon and may be declining at least in the northern part of the range (United States) due to loss and degradation of mature lowland riparian forests; currently not known to incur significant mortality from wind turbines, but further study is needed; degree to which orchard-roosting individuals may be negatively impacted by pesticide applications is unknown; not known or expected to be affected by white-nose syndrome; further study is need to determine whether populations in North and Central America are conspecific with those in South America.
Nation: United States
National Status: N3 (08Feb2005)

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 Arizona (S3), California (S3), Nevada (S1M), New Mexico (S3), Texas (S2), Utah (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: Range extends from northern California, western and southern Nevada, and Utah south through Arizona and New Mexico (scattered localities), and western Texas (one record as of 2012) to Mexico, Central America, and South America (Findley et al. 1975, Hall 1981, Hoffmeister 1986, Baker et al. 1988, Schmidly 1991, Cockrum et al. 1996, Mollhagen and Bogan 1997, Adams 2003, Jameson and Peeters 2004, Gardner 2007, Calvert and Neiswenter 2012). Records from extreme southern British Columbia (Nagorsen and Brigham 1993) have been reidentified as Lasiurus borealis (Nagorsen and Paterson 2012). No red bats of any species were included in the mammal fauna of Oregon by Verts and Carraway (1998).

In California, these bats occur from southern Siskiyou County southward to the Mexican border, primarily west of the Sierra-Cascade crest and deserts. Elevational range extends to at least 2,484 meters, though records of females with young are largely confined to lowland riparian areas (Pierson et al. 2006).

This species is known from widely scattered locations in Arizona, but was known from only 15 specimens as of the mid-1980s (Hoffmeister 1986); none have been recorded in Mohave County, Arizona, since 1902 (Cockrum et al. 1996). Known in Texas from only one specimen captured in the Sierra Vieja in Presidio County of the Trans-Pecos (Schmidly 1991; The Mammals of Texas - Online Edition, Texas Tech University 1997, http://www.nsrl.ttu.edu/tmot1/lasiblos.htm). Known in Utah from a few records in Washington, Utah, and Carbon counties (Mollhagen and Bogan 1997).

Number of Occurrences:  
Number of Occurrences Comments: The number of distinct occurrences has not been determined using standardized criteria, but this species is represented by a widely distributed and large number of collection and observation sites and locations (as defined by IUCN) (e.g., Cryan 2003, Pierson et al. 2006, Gardner 2007).

Population Size: 10,000 - 1,000,000 individuals
Population Size Comments: Total adult population size is unknown but presumably exceeds 10,000 and probably exceeds 100,000. This species is basically solitary (except females and dependent young); it is uncommonly seen in small groups (Constantine 1959).

Overall Threat Impact: Medium
Overall Threat Impact Comments: This species may be declining in the United States as a result of loss of lowland riparian forests and other broad-leaved deciduous forests (Bat Conservation International, http://www.batcon.org/discover/species/lblosse.htm; Arizona Game and Fish, http://www.gf.state.az.us/w_c/nongame_western_red_bat.shtml#l). Alteration of natural streamflow regimes by dams inhibits renewal of riparian bat habitat. Climate change likely will cause some loss/degradation of this bat's riparian forest habitat in the foreseeable future.

"Loss of riparian zones, primarily due to agricultural conversion and creation of water storage reservoirs has reduced both roosting and foraging habitat of red bats....Controlled burns may be another significant mortality factor for red bats that roost in leaf litter during cool temperatures." (B. Bolster, Western Bat Working Group species account, 2005; http://www.wbwg.org/speciesinfo/species_accounts/vespertilonidae/labl.pdf; Texas Parks & Wildlife; http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/nature/wild/vertebrate/mammals/bats/species/west_red.htm).

In California, most (more than 90 percent) of the historical primary habitat (riparian forest) has been lost or highly degraded (Katibah 1984). Bats using orchards as roost sites may be negatively impacted by pesticide applications, either directly (through mortality or reduced fecundity) or indirectly (through reduced prey base) (Pierson et al. 2006). Further study is needed.

Thus far, this species has been found dead only rarely near turbines at wind energy facilities (Johnson 2005).

Red bats are not known or expected to be affected by white-nose syndrome.

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

Long-term Trend: Decline of 10-50%
Long-term Trend Comments: Over the long term, based on habitat loss, it is likely that the area of occupancy and population size of this species have significantly declined; the degree of decline is uncertain but could be large.

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Distribution
Help
Global Range: (>2,500,000 square km (greater than 1,000,000 square miles)) Range extends from northern California, western and southern Nevada, and Utah south through Arizona and New Mexico (scattered localities), and western Texas (one record as of 2012) to Mexico, Central America, and South America (Findley et al. 1975, Hall 1981, Hoffmeister 1986, Baker et al. 1988, Schmidly 1991, Cockrum et al. 1996, Mollhagen and Bogan 1997, Adams 2003, Jameson and Peeters 2004, Gardner 2007, Calvert and Neiswenter 2012). Records from extreme southern British Columbia (Nagorsen and Brigham 1993) have been reidentified as Lasiurus borealis (Nagorsen and Paterson 2012). No red bats of any species were included in the mammal fauna of Oregon by Verts and Carraway (1998).

In California, these bats occur from southern Siskiyou County southward to the Mexican border, primarily west of the Sierra-Cascade crest and deserts. Elevational range extends to at least 2,484 meters, though records of females with young are largely confined to lowland riparian areas (Pierson et al. 2006).

This species is known from widely scattered locations in Arizona, but was known from only 15 specimens as of the mid-1980s (Hoffmeister 1986); none have been recorded in Mohave County, Arizona, since 1902 (Cockrum et al. 1996). Known in Texas from only one specimen captured in the Sierra Vieja in Presidio County of the Trans-Pecos (Schmidly 1991; The Mammals of Texas - Online Edition, Texas Tech University 1997, http://www.nsrl.ttu.edu/tmot1/lasiblos.htm). Known in Utah from a few records in Washington, Utah, and Carbon counties (Mollhagen and Bogan 1997).

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 AZ, CA, NM, NV, TX, UT

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: Ceballos, 2001; NatureServe, 2002; Sechrest, 2002


U.S. Distribution by County Help
State County Name (FIPS Code)
AZ Cochise (04003), Coconino (04005), Gila (04007), Graham (04009), La Paz (04012), Maricopa (04013), Pima (04019), Pinal (04021), Santa Cruz (04023), Yavapai (04025)
CA Butte (06007), Calaveras (06009), Colusa (06011), Contra Costa (06013), Fresno (06019), Glenn (06021), Lake (06033), Lassen (06035), Los Angeles (06037), Marin (06041), Mariposa (06043), Mendocino (06045), Merced (06047), Monterey (06053)*, Napa (06055), Orange (06059), Plumas (06063), Sacramento (06067), San Benito (06069), San Diego (06073), San Francisco (06075), San Luis Obispo (06079), Santa Barbara (06083), Shasta (06089), Solano (06095), Sonoma (06097), Stanislaus (06099), Sutter (06101), Tehama (06103), Tuolumne (06109), Yolo (06113), Yuba (06115)
NM Catron (35003)*, Dona Ana (35013)*, Hidalgo (35023)
NV Churchill (32001), Clark (32003), Lincoln (32017), Lyon (32019), Nye (32023)
TX Presidio (48377)*
UT Cache (49005)*, Carbon (49007)*, Utah (49049)*, Washington (49053)*
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed Help
Watershed Region Help Watershed Name (Watershed Code)
13 El Paso-Las Cruces (13030102)+*, Jornada Draw (13030103)+*, Playas Lake (13030201)+*, Cibolo-Red Light (13040201)+*, Salt Basin (13050004)+*
14 Price (14060007)+*
15 Lower Colorado-Marble Canyon (15010001)+, Grand Canyon (15010002)+, Upper Virgin (15010008)+*, Fort Pierce Wash (15010009)+*, Lower Virgin (15010010)+*, White (15010011)+, Muddy (15010012)+, Bill Williams (15030204)+, Animas Valley (15040003)+, San Francisco (15040004)+*, Upper Gila-San Carlos Reservoir (15040005)+*, San Simon (15040006)+, Middle Gila (15050100)+, Willcox Playa (15050201)+, Upper San Pedro (15050202)+, Lower San Pedro (15050203)+, Upper Santa Cruz (15050301)+, Rillito (15050302)+, Upper Salt (15060103)+, Tonto (15060105)+*, Lower Salt (15060106)+, Upper Verde (15060202)+, Agua Fria (15070102)+, Hassayampa (15070103)+, Rio De La Concepcion (15080200)+, Whitewater Draw (15080301)+, San Bernardino Valley (15080302)+, Cloverdale (15080303)+*
16 Little Bear-Logan (16010203)+*, Spanish Fork (16020202)+*, Middle Carson (16050202)+, Carson Desert (16050203)+, Ralston-Stone Cabin Valleys (16060011)+
18 Middle Fork Eel (18010104)+, Gualala-Salmon (18010109)+, Russian (18010110)+, Sacramento-Stone Corral (18020104)+, Upper Cache (18020116)+*, North Fork Feather (18020121)+, East Branch North Fork Feather (18020122)+, Middle Fork Feather (18020123)+, Upper Yuba (18020125)+, Clear Creek-Sacramento River (18020154)+, Paynes Creek-Sacramento River (18020155)+, Thomes Creek-Sacramento River (18020156)+, Big Chico Creek-Sacramento River (18020157)+, Butte Creek (18020158)+, Upper Putah (18020162)+, Lower Sacramento (18020163)+, Upper Dry (18030009)+, Middle San Joaquin-Lower (18040001)+, Middle San Joaquin-Lower (18040002)+, San Joaquin Delta (18040003)+, Upper Merced (18040008)+, Upper Tuolumne (18040009)+, Upper Stanislaus (18040010)+, Suisun Bay (18050001)+, San Pablo Bay (18050002)+, Tomales-Drake Bays (18050005)+, Pajaro (18060002)+, Salinas (18060005)+, San Antonio (18060009)+, Santa Ynez (18060010)+, Carmel (18060012)+*, Santa Barbara Coastal (18060013)+, Santa Monica Bay (18070104)+, Los Angeles (18070105)+, Aliso-San Onofre (18070301)+, San Diego (18070304)+, Cottonwood-Tijuana (18070305)+, Honey-Eagle Lakes (18080003)+, San Felipe Creek (18100203)+
+ Natural heritage record(s) exist for this watershed
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
Ecology & Life History
Help
Reproduction Comments: Breeds in late summer; females store sperm until spring when fertilization occurs; gestation about 80 days; young (usually quadruplets) born in May or June (Armstrong 1982). Schmidly (1991) mentioned a pregnant female found in late May in northeastern Mexico. In New Mexico, pregnant females have been found in mid-May and in mid- to late June; lactating females from mid-June to mid-July (Findley et al. 1975).
Habitat Type: Terrestrial
Non-Migrant: Y
Locally Migrant: Y
Long Distance Migrant: Y
Mobility and Migration Comments: This species is probably mainly migratory in much of the U.S. Southwest; in most areas, it has been found only during May-August. Seemingly the bats migrate southward into Mexico for winter (Schmidly 1991, Hoffmeister 1986, Findley et al. 1975).

In California, red bats are present throughout the year (Constantine 1959). They spend winter in the coastal zone or Central Valley; museum records and other data strongly suggest that red bats undergo seasonal shifts in distribution, but there is no indication of mass migration; the majority of sites for which there are winter records in California are in areas that rarely experience freezing winter temperatures (Pierson et al. 2006).

Seasonal migration from California is apparently limited, and it is unclear whether California populations mix with (or are continuous with) populations to the south and east (Cryan 2003).

Palustrine Habitat(s): Riparian
Terrestrial Habitat(s): Forest - Hardwood, Forest - Mixed, Forest Edge, Forest/Woodland, Suburban/orchard, Woodland - Hardwood, Woodland - Mixed
Habitat Comments: In Arizona and New Mexico, these bats have been captured in riparian habitats dominated by cottonwoods, oaks, sycamores, and walnuts (rarely found in desert habitats) (Findley et al. 1975, Hoffmeister 1986), including riparian restoration sites along the lower Colorado River (Calvert and Neiswenter 2012, Diamond 2012). They have been captured in riparian areas, xeric thorn scrub, and pine-oak forest in Tamaulipas, Mexico. The one specimen from Texas was captured over permanent water in desert scrub habitat (Schmidly 1991).

In California, roosting habitat includes forests and woodlands from lowlands up through mixed conifer forests of mountains; foraging habitat includes grasslands, shrublands, open woodlands and forests, and croplands, but not deserts (J. Harris, California Department of Fish and Game species account, 1999). Red bats in California appear to be strongly associated with riparian habitats, particularly mature stands of cottonwood/sycamore in the Central Valley and lower reaches of the large rivers that drain the Sierra Nevada (Pierson et al. 2006). They sometimes use orchards, tamarisk, or other non-native trees; the degree to which sprayed orchard trees serve as viable habitats (versus population sinks) is unknown (Pierson et al. 2006). In spring and summer, females occur primarily in lowland riparian habitat, whereas males more often are found at higher elevations (Pierson et al. 2006).

Summer roosts usually are in tree foliage, sometimes in large leafy shrubs. The bats avoid caves and buildings during summer/winter. Young are born and perch among tree foliage.

Adult Food Habits: Invertivore
Immature Food Habits: Invertivore
Adult Phenology: Nocturnal
Immature Phenology: Nocturnal
Phenology Comments: Basically nocturnal, but sometimes seen in flight in morning after sunrise.
Length: 10 centimeters
Economic Attributes Not yet assessed
Help
Management Summary
Help
Biological Research Needs: Conservation needs include further information on taxonomy, roost requirements, movement patterns, population status and trends, and threats.
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: 25Mar2015
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
  • Adams, R. A. 2003. Bats of the Rocky Mountain West: natural history, ecology, and conservation. University Press of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado. xiii + 289 pp.

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

  • Armstrong, D. M. 1982. Mammals of the canyon country: a handbook of mammals of Canyonlands National Park and vicinity. Canyonlands Natural History Assoc., Moab, Utah. 263 pp.

  • Baird, A.B., J.K. Braun, M.A. Mares, J.C. Morales, J.C. Patton, C.Q. Tran and J.W. Bickham. 2015. Molecular systematic revision of tree bats (Lasiurini): doubling the native mammals of the Hawaiian Islands. Journal of Mammalogy 96(6):1255-1274.

  • Baker, R. J., J. C. Patton, H. H. Genoways, and J. W. Bickham. 1988. Genic studies of Lasiurus (Chiroptera: Vespertilionidae). Occas. Pap. Mus. Texas Tech. Univ. 117:1-15.

  • Baker, R. J., L. C. Bradley, R. D. Bradley, J. W. Dragoo, M. D. Engstrom, R. S. Hoffman, C. A. Jones, F. Reid, D. W. Rice, and C. Jones. 2003a. Revised checklist of North American mammals north of Mexico, 2003. Museum of Texas Tech University Occasional Papers 229:1-23.

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

  • Bradley, R. D., and R. J. Baker. 2001. A test of the genetic species concept: cytochrome-b sequences and mammals. Journal of Mammalogy 82:960-973.

  • 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

  • Calvert, A. W., and S. A. Neiswenter. 2012. Bats in riparian-restoration sites along the lower Colorado River, Arizona. Southwestern Naturalist 57:340-342.

  • Clawson, R. L., R. K. LaVal, M. L. LaVal, and W. Claire. 1980. Clustering behavior of hibernating Myotis sodalis in Missouri, USA. Journal of Mammalogy 61:245-53.

  • Cockrum, E. L., B. Musgrove, and Y. Petryszyn. 1996. Bats of Mohave County, Arizona: populations and movements. Occasional Papers, The Museum, Texas Tech University 157: 171.

  • Constantine, D. G. 1959. Ecological observations on lasiurine bats in the North Bay area of California. Journal of Mammalogy 40:13-15.

  • Coombs, E. M. [no date-1977?]. Wildlife observations of the hot desert region, Washington County, Utah, with emphasis on reptilian species and their habitat in relation to livestock grazing. A report to the Cedar City District, BLM by the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources.

  • Cryan, P. M. 2003. Seasonal distribution of migratory tree bats (Lasiurus and Lasionycteris) in North America. Journal of Mammalogy 84:579-593.

  • Diamond, J. M. 2012. Distribution and roost site habitat requirements of western yellow (Lasiurus xanthinus) and western red (Lasiurus blossevillii) bats: 2011 summary findings. Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation Program, Bureau of Reclamation, Lower Colorado Region, Boulder City, Nevada.

  • Durrant, S. D. 1952. Mammals of Utah, taxonomy and distribution. University of Kansas Publications, Museum of Natural History 6: 1-549.

  • Engstrom, M. and B. Lim. 2000. Checklist of the mammals of Guyana. Smithsonian Institute. Http://www.mnh.si.edu/biodiversity/bdg/guymammals.html

  • 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.

  • Findley, J. S., A. H. Harris, D. E. Wilson, and C. Jones. 1975. Mammals of New Mexico. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. 360 pp.

  • Gardner, A. L., editor. Mammals of South America. Volume 1. Marsupials, xenarthrans, shrews, and bats. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

  • 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.

  • 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. 2nd ed. John Wiley, New York. 2 vols.

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

  • Hall, E. R., and K. R. Kelson 1959. The mammals of North America. Ronald Press. 2 vols.

  • Hardy, R. 1941. Some notes on Utah bats. J. Mammal. 22: 289-295.

  • Hasenyager, R. N. 1980. Bats of Utah. Utah State Division of Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake City. Publ. No. 80-15, 109 pp.

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

  • Ingles, L. G. 1965. Mammals of the Pacific States. Stanford University Press, Stanford, California.

  • Jameson, E. W., Jr., and H. J. Peeters. 2004. Mammals of California. Revised edition. University of California Press, Berkeley. 429 pp.

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

  • 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.

  • Katibah, E. F. 1984. A brief history of riparian forests in Central Valley of California. Pages 23-29 in California riparian systems: ecology, conservation, and productive management (R. E. Warner and K. M. Hendrix, editors). University of California Press, Berkeley. 1034 pages.

  • 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.

  • Koopman, K. F. 1982. Biogeography of the bats of South America. Pp. 273-302 in Mares MA and Genoways HH eds. Mammalian Biology in South America. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh, Special Publication Series, Pymatuning Laboratory of Ecology.

  • Koopman, K. F., and G. F. McCracken. 1998. The taxonomic status of Lasiurus (Chiroptera: Vespertilionidae) in the Galapagos Islands. American Museum Novitates 3243:1-6.

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

  • 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.

  • Mollhagen, T. R. and M. A. Bogan. 1997. Bats of the Henry Mountains Region in southeastern Utah. Occasional Papers, Museum of Texas Tech University. No. 170. pp. 1-13.

  • Morales, J. C., and J. W. Bickham. 1995. Molecular systematics of the genus Lasiurus (Chiroptera: Vespertilionidae) based on restriction-site maps of the mitochondrial ribosomal genes. Journal of Mammalogy 76:730-749.

  • 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.

  • Nagorsen, D. W., and B. Paterson. 2012. An update on the status of red bats, Lasiurus blossevillii and Lasiurus borealis, in British Columbia. Northwestern Naturalist 93:235-237.

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

  • Pacheco, V., H. de Macedo, E. Vivar, C. Ascorra, R. Arana-Cardó, and S. Solari. 1995. Lista anotada de los mamíferos peruanos. Conservation International, Washington, DC.

  • Pierson, E. D., W. E. Rainey and C. Corben. 2006. Distribution and status of western red bats (Lasiurus blossevillii) in California. California Department of Fish and Game, Habitat Conservation Planning Branch, Species Conservation and Recovery Program Report 2006-04, Sacramento, CA 45 pp.

  • 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.

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

  • Stevens, R. D., M. R. Willig, and I. Gamarra de Fox. 2004. Comparative community ecology of bats from eastern Paraguay: taxonomic, ecological, and biogeographic perspectives. Journal of Mammalogy 85:698-707.

  • Tirira, D. 1999. Mamíferos del Ecuador. Museo de Zoología, Pontificia Universidad Católica del Ecuador, Quito.

  • 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.

  • Verts, B. J., and L. N. Carraway. 1998. Land mammals of Oregon. University of California Press, Berkeley. xvi + 668 pp.

  • 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.

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.