DOCSLIB.ORG

Population Dynamics of the Big Brown Bat (Eptesicus Fuscus) in Southwestern Ohio

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Population Dynamics of the Big Brown Bat (Eptesicus Fuscus) in Southwestern Ohio POPULATION DYNAMICS OF THE BIG BROWN BAT (EPTESICUS FUSCUS) IN SOUTHWESTERN OHIO RICHARD S. MILLS, GARY "V. BARRETT, AND MICHAEL P. FARRELL ABSTRACT.-Population dynamics of the big brown bat (Eptesicus fuscus) were studied for four years (1969-1972) in southwestern Ohio. Data were col· Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jmammal/article/56/3/591/848889 by guest on 01 October 2021 Jected from 10,761 banded bats located in 81 summer nursery colonies and five winter hibcrnacuJa. Of 4506 immature big brown bats captured during the study period, 2223 (49.3 percent) were females. Contrary to previous studies, adult females outnumbered males in three of five winter hibernacula. Tooth wear of known age hats predicted population age class structure, but was a poor indicator of a specific age of a given individual. Survivorship curves for female bats were constructed from the percentage of banded individuals which were recaptured in subsequent years within the nursel}' colonies. Annual female mortality rate values for two large bat populations were 68.1, 28.7, and 72.0 percent and 89.5, 30.0, and 42.9 percent, respectively. Big brown bats recaptured at distances greater than 8 kilometers (km) (5 miles, mi) from the home colony were found to move in a southerly direction. In two instances record natural movements of 250 km and 290 km (155 and 180 mi) were recorded for E. fusctts. Larger populations of Eptesicus were located in the unglaciated region of the study area. Efficiency of young production per adult female was found to decrease with a corresponding increase in nursery population size. Merits of this inverse correlation efficiency as a potential population regulatol}' mechanism are dis­ cussed. Several studies of the big browll bat (Eptesicus fuscus fuscus Beauvais) have been conducted; however, most of these have been limited either to a single season, a single colony or hibernacula, or to a restricted geographical area (for example, Phillips, 1966; Christian, 1956; Brenner, 1968; Davis et aI., 1968; Kunz, 1974). To date, the population ecology of this species remains poorly understood (Barbour and Davis, 1969), Eptesicus fuscus is relatively uncommon in southwestern Ohio, accounting for only 22 percent of all bats captured between 1969 and 1972 by mist netting over streams within the study area. Nevertheless, 10,761 big brown bats were banded and released by personnel of the Dayton Museum of Natural History in the four-year study. Data from winter studies of the big brown bat conducted from 1964 to 1973 by personnel of the Joseph Moore :Museum at Earlham College, Richmond, Indiana, were also used. It was the object of the present study to analyze the long-term population dynamics of the big brown bat under natural environmental conditions in southwestern Ohio. METHODS AXD MATERIALS Eighty-one summer nursel}' colonies and two winter hibernacula of big brown bats in southwestern Ohio were studied (Fig. 1). Three winter hibernacula in southern Indiana were also sampled during this period. Colonies were located by posting 591 592 JOURNAL OF MAMMALOGY Vol. 56, No.3 I 1_ _ ______ , __ I IT-- I Hardin I : Auglaize 1 : Mercer I Marion . i __ J_____ I • I ---,~--'---, I r--------I 1<2 ~ " , I f-- Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jmammal/article/56/3/591/848889 by guest on 01 October 2021 ie I I I Logan I " : ir_J I I D .~-----·-~I Shelby I 81 I elaware " 13 ,I • J I Da rke I • 1_______ • ,I Union : i _L __ ---- O. 1:'• Ross Pike , ! Scioto Kentucky ............ __.. Maximum Wisconsin glacial stage advance FIG. I.-Map of study area in southwestern Ohio. Numbered black dots indicate the approximate locations of big brown bat nursery colonies. August 1975 MILLS ET AL.-BIG BROWN BAT IN OHIO 593 "bats wanted" signs, an extensive newspaper campaign, radio and television appeals to the public, and by communications with extennination agents, game wardens, and others. In most instances population estimates were made upon entrance to a nursery struc· ture by visual observation. Evening flight counts were used when it was considered undesirable to disturb the bats and to substantiate our visual observations. This method has been used successfully by many researchers as summarized by Humphrey (1971). Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jmammal/article/56/3/591/848889 by guest on 01 October 2021 Populations were sampled by hand with long forceps and nets. A bee smoker was sometimes used to drive bats out to where they could be captured. Mist nets were placed over streams and cave entrances to capture bats outside the colonies. Bats were aged, by examination of the cartilaginous areas of the finger joints (Barbour and Davis, 1969), sexed, reproductive condition determined, classified by tooth wear, banded with Fish and Wildlife Service bat bands and released near the site of capture. Nurseries were visited infrequently during the height of parturition in order to avoid disturbance to the population at this critical time. Relationships between population size and latitude, longitude, altitude, and distance of the nursery to water were evaluated by Pearson's simple correlation coefficients, while differences in population size between glaciated (Wisconsin stage advance) and unglaciated areas (Fig. 1) were tested by a Student's t-test. Tooth wear for 208 bats of known age was estimated to establish an age class­ tooth wear relationship. The upper canine teeth of known age bats were classified as follows; 0 to 10 percent worn; 11 to 25 percent worn; 26 to 50 percent worn; 51 to 75 percent worn; 76 to 100 percent worn. These classifications were easily used in the field and allowed the processing of large numbers of hats in a relatively short period of time. Survivorship curves for female big brown bats from two different colonies were plotted from cohort data based on the number of banded bats recaptured at the home colonies in years subsequent to banding. Most recaptures of banded bats away from the maternity colonies were made by citizens who reported the hand number to the Fish and Wildlife Service. The test statistic Z of the Rayleigh test and the test statistic U of the V test as described by Durand and Greenwood (1958) and Batschelet (1972) were used to test for a nonrandom distribution and for movement in a predicted direc­ tion, respectively, for those bats captured away from the maternity colonies. Although some bats were recaptured at distances less than 40 km (25 mi), 80 km (50 mi), or 120 km (75 mi) from the release point, it was assumed for analysis that bats would have continued on the same course and crossed the nearest radii at the angle from the release point at which they were recaptured. A "dummy variable" multiple regression analysis was used to evaluate the predictive relationships among the ability of females to rear volant young successfully, nursery population size, and sample year. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Summer Nursery Colonies Eighty-one summer nurseries of the big brown bat were located in man-made structures such as attics of houses, barns, and churches in southwestern Ohio (see Fig. 1). Small nursery colonies « 100 individuals) were sometimes located in open barns, under signs and shutters, or under the eaves on the exterior of buildings. In one case, several females and their young took up temporalY residence in a hollow tree on the grounds of the Dayton Museum of Natural History, a five mile displacement from their nursery. This par­ ticular and unique residency has been previously summarized by Davis (1969). 594 JOURNAL OF MAMMALOGY Vol. 56, No.3 Nursery colonies of the big brown bat were twice located in the same building with nurseries of the little brown bat, Myotis lucifugus (sites 13 and 57, Fig. 1). In one case the two species occupied roosts at opposite ends of a tobacco shed. In the other instance big brown bats moved into the attic of a church already colonized by 600 little brown bats. No big brown bats had been observed in the attic in 1969 or 1970. By July 1971, an estimated Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jmammal/article/56/3/591/848889 by guest on 01 October 2021 20 big brown bats occupied the attic. This colony increased to 50 individuals by August 1972. The number of little brown bats, meanwhile, decreased to approximately 150. The reason for this decline in population density of the little brown bat is unknown. However, because roost space was apparently abundant, differential resource utilization (for example, Kunz, 1974) may have influenced the decline in the little brown bat population density. Eighty-nine percent of the populations located were within 0.8 km (0.5 mi) of water. The greatest distance of any nursery to water was 1.8 km (1.1 mi). However, those populations located nearer water were not significantly larger than other populations (r = 0.01, P > 0.95). Also, no significant correlation was found between population size and latitude (r = -0.07, P > 0.53), longitude (r ~ -0.15, P > 0.13), and altitude (r ~ --0.07, P > 0.50). Significantly larger populations of big brown bats were found in the un­ glaciated portion (mean = 220, SD ± 201) of the smdy area than were found in the glaciated part (mean = 128, SD ± 129) of the Wisconsin stage advance (t == 2.78, df ~ 105, P':;; O,ol). Humphrey and Cope (1974) also reported greater numbers of Myotis IUcifugus from the unglaciated portion of Indiana. This difference may be attributed to (a) more hibemacula present in the hilly topography, (b) more nursery structures available in the form of vacant houses and farm buildings, or (c) less use of pesticides and, perhaps, a more abundant insect food source due to a difference in farming activities between the two areas.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 33245 02 Inside Front Cover
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by KnowledgeBank at OSU 186 BATS OF RAVENNA VOL. 106 Bats of Ravenna Training and Logistics Site, Portage and Trumbull Counties, Ohio1 VIRGIL BRACK, JR.2 AND JASON A. DUFFEY, Center for North American Bat Research and Conservation, Department of Ecology and Organismal Biology, Indiana State University, Terre Haute, IN 47089; Environmental Solutions & Innovations, Inc., 781 Neeb Road, Cincinnati, OH 45233 ABSTRACT. Six species of bats (n = 272) were caught at Ravenna Training and Logistics Site during summer 2004: 122 big brown bats (Eptesicus fuscus), 100 little brown myotis (Myotis lucifugus), 26 red bats (Lasiurus borealis), 19 northern myotis (Myotis septentrionalis), three hoary bats (Lasiurus cinereus), and two eastern pipistrelles (Pipistrellus subflavus). Catch was 9.7 bats/net site (SD = 10.2) and 2.4 bats/net night (SD = 2.6). No bats were captured at two net sites and only one bat was caught at one site; the largest captures were 33, 36, and 37 individuals. Five of six species were caught at two sites, 2.7 (SD = 1.4) species were caught per net site, and MacArthur’s diversity index was 2.88. Evidence of reproduction was obtained for all species. Chi-square tests indicated no difference in catch of males and reproductive females in any species or all species combined. Evidence was found of two maternity colonies each of big brown bats and little brown myotis. Capture of big brown bats (X2 = 53.738; P <0.001), little brown myotis (X2 = 21.900; P <0.001), and all species combined (X2 = 49.066; P <0.001) was greatest 1 – 2 hours after sunset.
    [Show full text]
  • Bat Distribution in the Forested Region of Northwestern California
    BAT DISTRIBUTION IN THE FORESTED REGION OF NORTHWESTERN CALIFORNIA Prepared by: Prepared for: Elizabeth D. Pierson, Ph.D. California Department of Fish and Game William E. Rainey, Ph.D. Wildlife Management Division 2556 Hilgard Avenue Non Game Bird and Mammal Section Berkeley, CA 9470 1416 Ninth Street (510) 845-5313 Sacramento, CA 95814 (510) 548-8528 FAX [email protected] Contract #FG-5123-WM November 2007 Pierson and Rainey – Forest Bats of Northwestern California 2 Pierson and Rainey – Forest Bats of Northwestern California 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Bat surveys were conducted in 1997 in the forested regions of northwestern California. Based on museum and literature records, seventeen species were known to occur in this region. All seventeen were identified during this study: fourteen by capture and release, and three by acoustic detection only (Euderma maculatum, Eumops perotis, and Lasiurus blossevillii). Mist-netting was conducted at nineteen sites in a six county area. There were marked differences among sites both in the number of individuals captured per unit effort and the number of species encountered. The five most frequently encountered species in net captures were: Myotis yumanensis, Lasionycteris noctivagans, Myotis lucifugus, Eptesicus fuscus, and Myotis californicus; the five least common were Pipistrellus hesperus, Myotis volans, Lasiurus cinereus, Myotis ciliolabrum, and Tadarida brasiliensis. Twelve species were confirmed as having reproductive populations in the study area. Sampling sites were assigned to a habitat class: young growth (YG), multi-age stand (MA), old growth (OG), and rock dominated (RK). There was a significant response to habitat class for the number of bats captured, and a trend towards differences for number of species detected.
    [Show full text]
  • Nine Species of Bats, Each Relying on Specific Summer and Winter Habitats
    Species Guide to Vermont Bats • Vermont has nine species of bats, each relying on specific summer and winter habitats. • Six species hibernate in caves and mines during the winter (cave bats). • During the summer, two species primarily roost in structures (house bats), • And four roost in trees and rocky outcrops (forest bats). • Three species migrate south to warmer climates for the winter and roost in trees during the summer (migratory bats). • This guide is designed to help familiarize you with the physical characteristics of each species. • Bats should only be handled by trained professionals with gloves. • For more information, contact a bat biologist at the Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department or go to www.vtfishandwildlife.com Vermont’s Nine Species of Bats Cave Bats Migratory Tree Bats Eastern small-footed bat Silver-haired bat State Threatened Big brown bat Northern long-eared bat Indiana bat Federally Threatened State Endangered J Chenger Federally and State J Kiser Endangered J Kiser Hoary bat Little brown bat Tri-colored bat Eastern red bat State State Endangered Endangered Bat Anatomy Dr. J. Scott Altenbach http://jhupressblog.com House Bats Big brown bat Little brown bat These are the two bat species that are most commonly found in Vermont buildings. The little brown bat is state endangered, so care must be used to safely exclude unwanted bats from buildings. Follow the best management practices found at www.vtfishandwildlife.com/wildlife_bats.cfm House Bats Big brown bat, Eptesicus fuscus Big thick muzzle Weight 13-25 g Total Length (with Tail) 106 – 127 mm Long silky Wingspan 32 – 35 cm fur Forearm 45 – 48 mm Description • Long, glossy brown fur • Belly paler than back • Black wings • Big thick muzzle • Keeled calcar Similar Species Little brown bat is much Commonly found in houses smaller & lacks keeled calcar.
    [Show full text]
  • Big Brown Bats
    MINNESOTA PROFILE ig Brown Bat (Eptdicusfuscus) Description The big brown bat's scientific name, Eptesicus/uscus,® is Latin for dark house-flier. It is the more common of the two^^^WSj bat species sometimes found in houses and barns. An adult is about 5 inches from nose to tail and has a wingspan of about 10 inches. It has glossy copper or chocolate-brown fur and black membranes on its face, ears, wings, and tail. Long, slender finger bones are encased in leathery skin to make up its wings. This bat belongs to an order of mammals called Chiroptera, from the Creek for hand-wing. Range and habitat Big browns range throughout temperate North America into South America and many Caribbean islands. At home in city and country, they are among Minnesota's hardiest bats. Diet and echolocation They feed at night on flying insects, especially beetles. Nursing females ingest their body weight in insects each night. Bats locate prey by emitting high-frequency sound and listening for echoes bouncing off objects in front of them. The big brown's call is beyond human hearing. Reproduction Big browns mate in fall. In spring females form maternity colonies in attics, barns, and hollow trees. They give birth to one or two pups in early summer. Within a month, pups can fly and forage with their mothers. Hibernation They hibernate in caves, sewers, mines, and buildings. They are the last of Minnesota's cave bats to enter hibernation—usually forced in by a November storm—and among the first to leave in spring.
    [Show full text]
  • Corynorhinus Townsendii): a Technical Conservation Assessment
    Townsend’s Big-eared Bat (Corynorhinus townsendii): A Technical Conservation Assessment Prepared for the USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Species Conservation Project October 25, 2006 Jeffery C. Gruver1 and Douglas A. Keinath2 with life cycle model by Dave McDonald3 and Takeshi Ise3 1Department of Biological Sciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada 2Wyoming Natural Diversity Database, Old Biochemistry Bldg, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY 82070 3Department of Zoology and Physiology, University of Wyoming, P.O. Box 3166, Laramie, WY 82071 Peer Review Administered by Society for Conservation Biology Gruver, J.C. and D.A. Keinath (2006, October 25). Townsend’s Big-eared Bat (Corynorhinus townsendii): a technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: http:// www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/townsendsbigearedbat.pdf [date of access]. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors would like to acknowledge the modeling expertise of Dr. Dave McDonald and Takeshi Ise, who constructed the life-cycle analysis. Additional thanks are extended to the staff of the Wyoming Natural Diversity Database for technical assistance with GIS and general support. Finally, we extend sincere thanks to Gary Patton for his editorial guidance and patience. AUTHORS’ BIOGRAPHIES Jeff Gruver, formerly with the Wyoming Natural Diversity Database, is currently a Ph.D. candidate in the Biological Sciences program at the University of Calgary where he is investigating the physiological ecology of bats in northern arid climates. He has been involved in bat research for over 8 years in the Pacific Northwest, the Rocky Mountains, and the Badlands of southern Alberta. He earned a B.S. in Economics (1993) from Penn State University and an M.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Bat Rabies and Other Lyssavirus Infections
    Prepared by the USGS National Wildlife Health Center Bat Rabies and Other Lyssavirus Infections Circular 1329 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Front cover photo (D.G. Constantine) A Townsend’s big-eared bat. Bat Rabies and Other Lyssavirus Infections By Denny G. Constantine Edited by David S. Blehert Circular 1329 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior KEN SALAZAR, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey Suzette M. Kimball, Acting Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2009 For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment, visit http://www.usgs.gov or call 1–888–ASK–USGS For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, visit http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod To order this and other USGS information products, visit http://store.usgs.gov Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual copyright owners to reproduce any copyrighted materials contained within this report. Suggested citation: Constantine, D.G., 2009, Bat rabies and other lyssavirus infections: Reston, Va., U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1329, 68 p. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Constantine, Denny G., 1925– Bat rabies and other lyssavirus infections / by Denny G. Constantine. p. cm. - - (Geological circular ; 1329) ISBN 978–1–4113–2259–2 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Index of Handbook of the Mammals of the World. Vol. 9. Bats
    Index of Handbook of the Mammals of the World. Vol. 9. Bats A agnella, Kerivoula 901 Anchieta’s Bat 814 aquilus, Glischropus 763 Aba Leaf-nosed Bat 247 aladdin, Pipistrellus pipistrellus 771 Anchieta’s Broad-faced Fruit Bat 94 aquilus, Platyrrhinus 567 Aba Roundleaf Bat 247 alascensis, Myotis lucifugus 927 Anchieta’s Pipistrelle 814 Arabian Barbastelle 861 abae, Hipposideros 247 alaschanicus, Hypsugo 810 anchietae, Plerotes 94 Arabian Horseshoe Bat 296 abae, Rhinolophus fumigatus 290 Alashanian Pipistrelle 810 ancricola, Myotis 957 Arabian Mouse-tailed Bat 164, 170, 176 abbotti, Myotis hasseltii 970 alba, Ectophylla 466, 480, 569 Andaman Horseshoe Bat 314 Arabian Pipistrelle 810 abditum, Megaderma spasma 191 albatus, Myopterus daubentonii 663 Andaman Intermediate Horseshoe Arabian Trident Bat 229 Abo Bat 725, 832 Alberico’s Broad-nosed Bat 565 Bat 321 Arabian Trident Leaf-nosed Bat 229 Abo Butterfly Bat 725, 832 albericoi, Platyrrhinus 565 andamanensis, Rhinolophus 321 arabica, Asellia 229 abramus, Pipistrellus 777 albescens, Myotis 940 Andean Fruit Bat 547 arabicus, Hypsugo 810 abrasus, Cynomops 604, 640 albicollis, Megaerops 64 Andersen’s Bare-backed Fruit Bat 109 arabicus, Rousettus aegyptiacus 87 Abruzzi’s Wrinkle-lipped Bat 645 albipinnis, Taphozous longimanus 353 Andersen’s Flying Fox 158 arabium, Rhinopoma cystops 176 Abyssinian Horseshoe Bat 290 albiventer, Nyctimene 36, 118 Andersen’s Fruit-eating Bat 578 Arafura Large-footed Bat 969 Acerodon albiventris, Noctilio 405, 411 Andersen’s Leaf-nosed Bat 254 Arata Yellow-shouldered Bat 543 Sulawesi 134 albofuscus, Scotoecus 762 Andersen’s Little Fruit-eating Bat 578 Arata-Thomas Yellow-shouldered Talaud 134 alboguttata, Glauconycteris 833 Andersen’s Naked-backed Fruit Bat 109 Bat 543 Acerodon 134 albus, Diclidurus 339, 367 Andersen’s Roundleaf Bat 254 aratathomasi, Sturnira 543 Acerodon mackloti (see A.
    [Show full text]
  • Bats of the Savannah River Site and Vicinity
    United States Department of Agriculture Bats of the Forest Service Savannah River Site and Vicinity Southern Research Station Michael A. Menzel, Jennifer M. Menzel, John C. Kilgo, General Technical Report SRS-68 W. Mark Ford, Timothy C. Carter, and John W. Edwards Authors: Michael A. Menzel,1 Jennifer M. Menzel,2 John C. Kilgo,3 W. Mark Ford,2 Timothy C. Carter,4 and John W. Edwards5 1Graduate Research Assistant, Division of Forestry, Wildlife and Fisheries, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV 26506; 2Research Wildlife Biologist, Northeastern Research Station, USDA Forest Service, Parsons, WV 26287; 3Research Wildlife Biologist, Southern Research Station, USDA Forest Service, New Ellenton, SC 29809; 4Graduate Research Assistant, Department of Zoology, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, IL 62901; and 5Assistant Professor, Division of Forestry, Wildlife and Fisheries, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV 26506, respectively. Cover photos: Clockwise from top left: big brown bats (photo by John MacGregor); Rafinesque’s big-eared bat (photo by John MacGregor); eastern red bat (photo by John MacGregor); and eastern red bat (photo by Julie Roberge). September 2003 Southern Research Station P.O. Box 2680 Asheville, NC 28802 Bats of the Savannah River Site and Vicinity Michael A. Menzel, Jennifer M. Menzel, John C. Kilgo, W. Mark Ford, Timothy C. Carter, and John W. Edwards Abstract The U.S. Department of Energy’s Savannah River Site supports a diverse bat community. Nine species occur there regularly, including the eastern pipistrelle (Pipistrellus subflavus), southeastern myotis (Myotis austroriparius), evening bat (Nycticeius humeralis), Rafinesque’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus rafinesquii), silver-haired bat (Lasionycteris noctivagans), eastern red bat (Lasiurus borealis), Seminole bat (L.
    [Show full text]
  • Chiropterology Division BC Arizona Trial Event 1 1. DESCRIPTION: Participants Will Be Assessed on Their Knowledge of Bats, With
    Chiropterology Division BC Arizona Trial Event 1. DESCRIPTION: Participants will be assessed on their knowledge of bats, with an emphasis on North American Bats, South American Microbats, and African MegaBats. A TEAM OF UP TO: 2 APPROXIMATE TIME: 50 minutes 2. EVENT PARAMETERS: a. Each team may bring one 2” or smaller three-ring binder, as measured by the interior diameter of the rings, containing information in any form and from any source. Sheet protectors, lamination, tabs and labels are permitted in the binder. b. If the event features a rotation through a series of stations where the participants interact with samples, specimens or displays; no material may be removed from the binder throughout the event. c. In addition to the binder, each team may bring one unmodified and unannotated copy of either the National Bat List or an Official State Bat list which does not have to be secured in the binder. 3. THE COMPETITION: a. The competition may be run as timed stations and/or as timed slides/PowerPoint presentation. b. Specimens/Pictures will be lettered or numbered at each station. The event may include preserved specimens, skeletal material, and slides or pictures of specimens. c. Each team will be given an answer sheet on which they will record answers to each question. d. No more than 50% of the competition will require giving common or scientific names. e. Participants should be able to do a basic identification to the level indicated on the Official List. States may have a modified or regional list. See your state website.
    [Show full text]
  • Maryland's Bats Calvert County Big Brown
    Maryland’s Bats Calvert County Bat Survey 2020 Big Brown Bat – Eptesicus fuscus Larger than other brown bats. Yellowish brown glossy fur. Tail tip extends past skin membrane. Ears are broad and rounded and facial skin dark. Emerges a half hour after sunset, commonly roosts in barns and houses. Becomes active with temperature change and may be flying about mid-winter on warm days. Found in a variety of habitats. Evening Bat – Nycticeius humeralis Velvety brown fur, rounded oval-shaped ears with broad tragus. Facial skin dark. Smaller than Big Brown Bat. Flies slowly and steadily over fields and open areas when hunting. May migrate out of northern range in winters, but poorly known. Northern Myotis – Myotis septentrionalis Very long, pointed tragus. Long ears, yellow to brown fur on back. Pink facial skin around eyes and base of ears. Hunts in upland forests and dear understory vegetation. Found mostly in wooded areas. Hibernates in caves through winter. Little Brown Myotis – Myotis lucifugus Tragus straight, narrow, but not sharply pointed. Dark brown to blackish skin on snout and ears. Fur glossy, usually yellow-brown above, belly buff-yellow to gray- white. Emerges at or after dusk. Typically found near wetlands. Hibernates in caves for 4-6 months in winter. Becomes active again in spring. Eastern Small-footed Myotis – Myotis leibii Rare* Smallest eastern Myotis. Tragus narrow and pointed, black wings and facial skin, fluffy fur yellowish above, cream on belly. Emerges at dusk to feed, begins hibernation later than other Myotis species. Silver-haired Bat – Lasionycteris noctivagans Black fur with frosted tips.
    [Show full text]
  • Conservation Assessments for Five Forest Bat Species in the Eastern United States
    United States Department of Agriculture Conservation Forest Service Assessments for Five General Technical Report NC-260 Technical Guide Forest Bat Species in the 2006 Eastern United States Front Cover: Illustrations by Fiona Reid, Ontario, Canada ©. Species from top: Pipistrellus subflavus, Myotis leibii, Myotis austroriparius, Myotis septentrionalis, Nycticeius humeralis. United States Department of Agriculture Conservation Forest Service Assessments for Five General Technical Report NC-260 Technical Guide Forest Bat Species in the 2006 Eastern United States Edited by Frank R. Thompson, III Thompson, Frank R., III, ed. 2006. Conservation assessments for five forest bat species in the Eastern United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-260. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Research Station. 82 p. Assesses the status, distribution, conservation, and management considerations for five Regional Forester Sensitive Species of forest bats on national forests in the Eastern United States: eastern pipistrelle, evening bat, southeastern myotis, eastern small-footed myotis, and northern long-eared bat. Includes information on the taxonomy, description, life history, habitat distribution, status, and population biology of each species. KEY WORDS: conservation status, habitat use, life history, Myotis austroriparius (southeastern myotis), Myotis leibii (eastern small-footed myotis), Myotis septentrionalis (northern long-eared bat), Pipistrellus subflavus (eastern pipistrelle), Nycticeius humeralis (evening bat), Region 9, USDA Forest Service Disclaimer The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program.
    [Show full text]
  • Status Report and Assessment of Big Brown Bat, Little Brown Myotis
    SPECIES STATUS REPORT Big Brown Bat, Little Brown Myotis, Northern Myotis, Long-eared Myotis, and Long-legged Myotis (Eptesicus fuscus, Myotis lucifugus, Myotis septentrionalis, Myotis evotis, and Myotis volans) Dlé ne ( ) Daatsadh natandi ( wic y wic i ) Daat i i (T i wic i ) T ( wy ) ( c ) Sérotine brune, vespertilion brun, vespertilion nordique, vespertilion à longues oreilles, vespertilion à longues pattes (French) April 2017 DATA DEFICIENT – Big brown bat SPECIAL CONCERN – Little brown myotis SPECIAL CONCERN – Northern myotis DATA DEFICIENT – Long-eared myotis DATA DEFICIENT – Long-legged myotis Status of Big Brown Bat, Little Brown Myotis, Northern Myotis, Long-eared Myotis, and Long-legged Myotis in the NWT Species at Risk Committee status reports are working documents used in assigning the status of species suspected of being at risk in the Northwest Territories (NWT). Suggested citation: Species at Risk Committee. 2017. Species Status Report for Big Brown Bat, Little Brown Myotis, Northern Myotis, Long-eared Myotis, and Long-legged Myotis (Eptesicus fuscus, Myotis lucifugus, Myotis septentrionalis, Myotis evotis, and Myotis volans) in the Northwest Territories. Species at Risk Committee, Yellowknife, NT. © Government of the Northwest Territories on behalf of the Species at Risk Committee ISBN: 978-0-7708-0248-6 Production note: The drafts of this report were prepared by Jesika Reimer and Tracey Gotthardt under contract with the Government of the Northwest Territories, and edited by Claire Singer. For additional copies contact: Species at Risk Secretariat c/o SC6, Department of Environment and Natural Resources P.O. Box 1320 Yellowknife, NT X1A 2L9 Tel.: (855) 783-4301 (toll free) Fax.: (867) 873-0293 E-mail: [email protected] www.nwtspeciesatrisk.ca ABOUT THE SPECIES AT RISK COMMITTEE The Species at Risk Committee was established under the Species at Risk (NWT) Act.
    [Show full text]