ML12171A331

Notes on Foraging Activity of Female Myotis Leibii in Maryland

ML12171A331
Person / Time
Site:	Watts Bar
Issue date:	10/31/2009
From:	Gates J, Jerrica Johnson, William Ford Tennessee Valley Authority, US Dept of Agriculture, Forest Service
To:	Justin Poole Watts Bar Special Projects Branch
Poole J
References
NRS-8
Download: ML12171A331 (12)

Text

United States Department of Agriculture Notes on Foraging Forest Service Northern Activity of Female Research Station Research Paper NRS-8 Myotis leibii in Maryland Joshua B. Johnson J. Edward Gates W. Mark Ford

Abstract Information on home range and habitat characteristics of eastern small-footed myotis (Myotis leibii) consist only of anecdotal accounts and unpublished research despite the need for such data for conservation of this rare species. We used radio telemetry to determine foraging site selection of four female eastern small-footed myotis in Allegany County, Maryland, in spring 2007. These bats foraged within 1.8 km of their diurnal roosts and had home ranges of <100 ha. Distance-based analysis of habitat use for one foraging bat showed that it foraged farther from the Potomac River and adjacent wetlands, and closer to hilltop forests than random, conforming to expectations based on their low wing loading and broadband, high frequency echolocation call characteristics.

Cover Photos Small-footed myotis, by Craig Stihler, West Virginia Division of Natural Resources, used with permission.

Published by: For additional copies:

U.S. FOREST SERVICE U.S. Forest Service 11 CAMPUS BLVD SUITE 200 Publications Distribution NEWTOWN SQUARE PA 19073-3294 359 Main Road Delaware, OH 43015-8640 October 2009 Fax: (740)368-0152 Visit our homepage at: http://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/

INTRODUCTION The eastern small-footed myotis (Myotis leibii) is considered among the rarest bat species in North America. Consequently, little is known about its natural history and ecology compared to sympatric bat species (Best and Jennings 1997). Foraging areas undoubtedly are a critical component of eastern small-footed myotis habitat, as with any bat species, however, information on foraging habitat selection and home range size currently is restricted to anecdotal observations and The Authors unpublished research (Erdle and Hobson 2001). JOSHUA B. JOHNSON is a graduate research assistant, Division of Forestry and Eco-morphology predicts that eastern small-footed myotis Natural Resources, West Virginia University, foraging characteristics should be similar to other bat species Morgantown, West Virginia 26506.

that have comparable wing loading and echolocation call structure (Patriquin and Barclay 2003, Ford et al. 2005). For J. EDWARD GATES is an associate example, bats that have low wing loading and broadband, professor, University of Maryland Center high frequency echolocation call characteristics are capable for Environmental Science, Appalachian of eciently foraging in cluttered areas such as forest canopy Laboratory, Frostburg, Maryland 21532.

(Norberg and Raynor 1987, Kalcounis and Brigham 1995).

W. MARK FORD formerly was a research Eastern small-footed myotis are known to emit broadband, wildlife biologist, U.S. Forest Service, high frequency echolocation calls, which are consistent with Northern Research Station, Parsons, WV foraging in structurally cluttered forested areas (Mukhida 26287. He currently is a research wildlife et al. 2004). In eastern West Virginia, recent unpublished biologist, U.S. Army Engineer Research and work has shown that radio-tagged eastern small-footed Development Center Environmental Lab, myotis foraged mostly in forested areas.1 Research on food Vicksburg, Mississippi 39180.

habits of eastern small-footed myotis suggests they use a gleaning strategy, possibly conducive to foraging in forest canopies (Johnson and Gates 2007, Moosman et al. 2007).

In this study, our objectives were to 1) determine foraging characteristics, i.e., home range size and foraging habitat selection, of eastern small-footed myotis; and 2) consider the conformity of their foraging characteristics to predictions based on their wing morphology, echolocation call characteristics, and food habits.

1 C. Stihler, West Virginia Division of Natural Resources, personal communication.

1

SITE DESCRIPTION wing morphology and wing loading for predictions We conducted our research within the Chesapeake about "ight performance and habitat use (Kalcounis and Ohio Canal National Historical Park (CHOH) and Brigham 1995). Wing aspect ratio was calculated in Allegany County, Maryland within the Ridge and by dividing the wing length by "fth phalanx length.

Valley physiographic province. Our eorts were focused We used a polar planimeter (Los Angeles Scienti"c at an abandoned railroad tunnel used by this and other Instrument Co., Inc., Los Angeles, CA) to measure wing species of bats as a hibernaculum (Johnson and Gates surface area of each tracing. Wing loading was calculated 2008). The area is characterized by steep slopes, shale by dividing body mass by the combined surface area barrens, and rock outcrops overlooking the Potomac of both wings and uropatagium, following Farney and River. Forests on the slopes and ridges are predominately Fleharty (1969).

oak-hickory (Quercus and Carya spp.) with some scattered Virginia pine (Pinus virginiana) and red cedar Radio telemetry allowed us to examine foraging activity (Juniperus virginiana). Pastures and row crops comprise of female eastern small-footed myotis. We used surgical a minor component of the cover types on the hilltops. cement (Torbot Group, Cranston, RI) to ax a 0.35-g Yellow poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), sycamore radio transmitter (Model LB-2N; Holohil Systems (Platanus occidentalis), silver maple (Acer saccharinum), Ltd., Carp, Ontario, Canada) between the scapulae of red maple (A. rubrum), and river birch (Betula nigra) captured female eastern small-footed myotis. The ratio of occur along the Potomac River banks and the adjacent transmitter mass to body mass (mean = 8.0 percent, std.

CHOH. Ephemeral standing water and wetlands occur dev. = 0.4 percent, range = 7.8-8.8 percent) was similar along some sections of the canal. An active railroad is to ratios reported in other studies on bats, including the located on the West Virginia side of the Potomac River. similarly-sized eastern pipistrelle (Perimyotis sub"avus; Elevation in the immediate area ranges from about 130 Best and Jennings 1997, Carter et al. 1999, Perry and m on the Potomac River to about 275 m on the hilltops. Thill 2007, Veilleux et al. 2003).

METHODS We used radio receivers and three-element Yagi antennaes (Advanced Telemetry Systems, Inc., Isanti, We used harp traps (1.8 m 2.3 m; Bat Conservation MN) to simultaneously obtain two directional bearings and Management, Carlisle, PA) to capture bats at the from known locations (i.e., telemetry stations) at tunnel as they emerged from hibernation during spring 5-minute intervals (Menzel et al. 2005). We positioned 2007. We placed two harp traps side by side in both the telemetry stations to minimize distances to radio-east and west tunnel entrances to capture bats entering tagged bats and to reduce associated location error.

or exiting the tunnel. The harp traps were surrounded Telemetry station locations and bearings were entered with tarpaulin and/or plastic netting to prevent bats from into Locate III (Pacer Computing, Inc., Tatamagouche, bypassing the traps. Sampling2 was conducted 3 nights/

NS, Canada) to obtain Universal Transverse Mercator week following sunset for four hours for 31 nights from (UTM) coordinates of each foraging location (Nams 12 March through 16 May 2007. Each captured bat was 2006). We entered coordinates of foraging locations and identi"ed to species. We measured mass (g) and forearm diurnal roost locations for each bat into ArcView 3.2 length (mm), and the sex of each bat was determined (Environmental Systems Research Institute, Redlands, before its release (Kunz 1988, Menzel et al. 2002). We CA) and used the Animal Movement Extension to traced the shape of a fully extended wing of a random calculate a home range, regardless of minimum number sample of eastern small-footed myotis to determine of locations, for each bat using the "xed kernel method based on a 95 percent con"dence interval to exclude 2

Bat capture and handling protocols were approved by the outliers (Hooge and Eichenlaub 1997, Seaman et al.

Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (ACUC) of the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science 1999, Worton 1989).

(Protocol Number F-AL-05-06) and followed the guidelines of the American Society of Mammalogists (1998).

2

Table 1.Foraging characteristics of female Myotis leibii in Allegany County, Maryland, March-April 2007 Foraging Distance (m) b Radio Number of Number of Home range size frequency nights locations (ha) a Mean SE Range 151.098 5 74 99.7 817.4 38.0 68.7 - 1728.0 151.379 2 5 10.2 189.5 64.0 18.4 - 314.8 151.398 3 14 62.7 355.6 98.7 16.4 - 1203.4 151.417 2 10 42.4 897.8 31.9 660.1 - 1009.8 a

95 percent fixed kernel.

b Distance from foraging location to diurnal roost.

We examined foraging habitat selection of bats for RESULTS which we obtained >30 locations (Aebischer et al. 1993). We captured 47 eastern small-footed myotis: 33 A raster land use/land cover (LULC) theme from the males, 13 females, and one escaped before sex could United States Geological Survey (USGS) Gap Analysis be determined. We traced the wings of seven eastern Program was converted to a LULC vector shape"le in small-footed myotis. Mean single wing length (+/- 1 SE, ArcView 3.2 (USGS 2000). From the LULC vector range) was 86.57 mm (+/- 4.17, 63.0-96.0), and mean shape"le, we created a separate vector shape"le for each "fth phalanx length was 44.29 mm (+/- 0.75, 40.0-46.0).

LULC type, including pasture/hay"elds, wetlands, Mean wing aspect ratio was 1.95 (+/- 0.10, 1.40-2.18).

deciduous forest, coniferous forest, mixed forest, and all Mean total wing surface area, not including uropatagium, forests combined. Separate vector shape"les, including the was 51.75 cm2 (+/- 3.42, 34.55-60.83). Mean mass of Potomac River, railways, and paved roads, were included bats from which wing tracings were obtained was 4.39 g in the analysis for nine LULC types. We used distance- (+/- 0.17, 3.5-5.0). Mean wing loading was 0.065 g/cm2 based analysis to examine habitat use of radio-tagged bats (+/- 0.002, 0.058-0.071).

because it reduces the eect of radio telemetry error and Type 1 error commonly associated with other habitat We conducted radio telemetry on four female eastern use analyses, including compositional analysis (Bingham small-footed myotis from 13 March through 4 April and Brennan 2004, Conner et al. 2002). Distance-based 2007. Radio contact was maintained with all but one analysis compares the distances of foraging locations to bat until the transmitters died or detached from the bats each LULC type with the distance of random locations to (mean = 8 days, range = 7-9 days). We lost the signal of the same LULC type (Conner et al. 2002). For each bat, one bat (frequency 151.398) after its seventh night of we determined the maximum distance it foraged from its activity when it crossed the Potomac River into West diurnal roost (Johnson and Gates 2008). This distance Virginia. Radio-tagged bats were tracked 2-5 nights and served as a radius for a buer from which random we obtained 5-74 foraging locations from each (Table 1).

locations were generated; this buer was centered on a Bats foraged within 1.8 km of their diurnal roosts and bats diurnal roost location. To determine if eastern small- each had minimum home range of <100 ha (Table 1).

footed myotis were foraging randomly among LULC types, we used ArcView 3.2 to pair each foraging location We conducted distance-based analysis of habitat use on a with a random location within the buer. Minimum single bat (frequency 151.098), located 74 times during Euclidean distances from every foraging and random 5 nights between 27 March and 4 April 2007 (Figure location to every LULC type were determined. We used 1). Compared to random locations, this bat foraged a Mann-Whitney test to examine dierences between farther from railroads, the Potomac River, and wetlands.

foraging and random location distances to each LULC Conversely, this bat foraged closer to paved roads, type (SAS Institute, Inc. 2004; PROC NPAR1WAY). pastures, coniferous forest, and mixed forest than random Statistical signi"cance was set at P 0.05.

3

Figure 1.Fixed kernel home range estimates for a female eastern small-footed myotis (Myotis leibii) in Allegany County, Maryland, spring 2007.

4

Table 2.Distance-based habitat use analysis between female Myotis leibii (n = 1) foraging locations (n = 74) and random locations (n = 74) in Allegany County, Maryland, March-April 2007 Foraging location Random location Variable Mean a SE Mean SE P Railroad 762.4 46.4 384.3 45.4 <0.001 Potomac River 760.2 47.2 383.8 39.6 <0.001 Wetlands 585.9 24.1 365.2 22.8 <0.001 Paved roads 310.0 41.9 604.9 46.1 <0.001 Pasture 97.1 12.2 140.1 14.1 0.018 Coniferous forest 69.0 8.3 94.0 8.8 0.023 Mixed forest 39.4 5.4 54.7 5.6 0.017 Deciduous forest 6.5 1.4 6.2 1.5 0.352 All forest combined 1.0 0.4 1.4 0.6 0.958 a

Distances (m). Tests were performed on ranked data, but actual values are shown.

locations. Distances from deciduous forest and all forest be representative of the species as a whole (Girard et al.

types combined did not dier (P > 0.352) between 2006). Also, we exceeded the recommended 5 percent foraging locations and random locations (Table 2). The rule for radio transmitter burden for the four bats remaining three bats that we tracked foraged over the that we tracked (Aldridge and Brigham 1988) and we Potomac River, in adjacent riparian forests, and on the obtained relatively few (14) foraging locations for three forested hilltops. of those. Consequently, our home range calculations should be interpreted as coarse estimates for the species.

DISCUSSION Our results provide insight into the home range and Caveats aside, our results showed that a single eastern foraging habitat of eastern small-footed myotis, and are small-footed myotis foraged more in forested areas (93.6 consistent with anecdotal observations and results of percent of foraging locations), particularly deciduous unpublished research. The foraging activity characteristics forests (62.8 percent), than in open areas such as of eastern small-footed myotis may be similar to that pastures (2.6 percent). Also, we observed that many of other myotine bats in the region, particularly that of foraging locations were along ridge tops near day roosts, the northern myotis. Eastern small-footed myotis have which were located in rock outcrops in shale barren low wing loading and an echolocation call structure that slopes overlooking the Potomac River (Johnson and is similar to that of northern myotis, which also have Gates 2008). The full extent of eastern small-footed similar home ranges and diet preferences (Brack and myotis occupancy of rock outcrops in the Appalachian Whitaker 2001, Farney and Fleharty 1969, Johnson and Mountains remains to be determined (Johnson and Gates 2007, Moosman et al. 2007, Mukhida et al. 2004, Gates 2008), but other known sites in Maryland have Owen et al. 2003). Bat species with low wing loading included rock outcrops such as those at High Rock, Big and high, frequency-modulated echolocation calls are Savage Mountain nearby to the west.3 Similar to other capable of foraging eciently in cluttered forest interiors wildlife species in the region, particularly the Allegheny and commonly have smaller home ranges than sympatric woodrat (Neotoma magister), eastern small-footed myotis species in the mid-Atlantic and central Appalachian are dependent on emergent rock habitats, as well as region (Kalcounis and Brigham 1995, Owen et al. 2003, the immediately surrounding forests where they forage Patriquin and Barclay 2003, Wund 2006). However, (Castleberry et al. 2001, Ford et al. 2006). How ongoing because we obtained >30 foraging locations for only a single eastern small-footed myotis, our results should 3 D. Feller, Maryland Department of Natural Resources, be interpreted with caution as this individual may not personal communication.

5

changes to ridgeline forests in the region for activities Baerwald, E.F.; DAmours, G.H.; Klug, B.J.; Barclay, such as wind energy development (Kunz et al. 2007, R.M.R. 2008. Barotrauma is a signi"cant cause of Arnett et al. 2008, Baerwald et al. 2008) or recreational bat fatalities at wind turbines. Current Biology. 18:

development (Ford et al. 2006) impacts eastern small- R695-R696.

footed myotis foraging habitat are unknown. Accordingly a better understanding of the required spatial extent Best, T.L.; Jennings, J.B. 1997. Myotis leibii.

and structure of forest cover along ridgelines and Mammalian Species. 547: 1-6.

rock outcrops, as well as additional foraging activity requirements, is needed to aid conservation eorts for Bingham, R.L.; Brennan, L.A. 2004. Comparison of this rare species (Johnson and Gates 2008). type 1 error rates for statistical analysis of resource selection. Journal of Wildlife Management. 68: 206-ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 212.

We thank S. Carr, K. Lott, J. MacDougall, and J.

Saville for assisting us in the "eld during our survey Brack, V., Jr.; Whitaker, J.O., Jr. 2001. Foods of the eorts. J. Churchill and K. Lott provided assistance northern myotis, Myotis septentrionalis, from with Geographic Information Systems. The Maryland Missouri and Indiana, with notes on foraging. Acta Department of Natural Resources, Engineering and Chiropterologica. 3: 203-210.

Construction Division, Land and Water Conservation and Power Plant Research Program provided funding. Carter, T.C.; Menzel, M.A.; Chapman, B.R.; Miller, The comments of R. Perry, D. Feller, and J. Stanovick K.V. 1999. Summer foraging and roosting behavior greatly improved this manuscript. of as eastern pipistrelle Pipistrellus sub"avus. Bat Research News. 40: 5-6.

LITERATURE CITED Castleberry, S.B.; Ford, W.M.; Wood, P.B.; Castleberry, Aebischer, J.J.; Robertson, P.A.; Kenward, R.E. 1993.

N.L.; Mengak, M.T. 2001. Movements of Allegheny Compositional analysis of habitat use from animal woodrats in relation to timber harvesting. Journal of radio-tracking data. Ecology. 74: 1313-1325.

Wildlife Management. 65: 148-156.

Aldridge, H.D.J.N.; Brigham, R.M. 1988. Load Conner, L.M.; Smith, M.D.; Burger, L.W. 2002. A carrying and maneuverability in an insectivorous comparison of distance-based and classi"cation-bat: a test of the 5% rule of radio-telemetry.

based analyses of habitat use. Ecology. 84: 526-531.

Journal of Mammalogy. 69: 379-382.

Erdle, S.Y.; Hobson, C.S. 2001. Current status and Animal Care and Use Committee (ACUC). 1998.

conservation strategy for the eastern small-footed Guidelines for the capture, handling, and care of myotis (Myotis leibii). Heritage Technical Report mammals as approved by the American Society of No. 00-19. Richmond, VA: Natural Virginia Mammalogists. Journal of Mammalogy. 79: 1416-Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division 1431.

of Natural Heritage. 17 p.

Arnett, E.B.; Brown, W.K.; Erickson, W.P.; Fiedler, Farney, J.; Fleharty, E.D. 1969. Aspect ratio, loading, J.K.; Hamilton, B.L.; Henry, T.H.; Jain, A.; Johnson, wing span, and membrane areas of bats. Journal of G.D.; Kerns, J.; Koford, R.R.; Nicholson, C.P.;

Mammalogy. 50: 362-367.

OConnell, T.J.; Piorkowski, M.D.; Tankersley, R.D.,

Jr. 2008. Patterns of bat fatalities at wind energy Ford, W.M.; Castleberry, S.B.; Mengak, M.T.; Rodrigue, facilities in North America. Journal of Wildlife J.L.; Feller, D.J.; Russell, K.R. 2006. Persistence of Management. 72: 61-78.

Allegheny woodrats Neotoma magister across the 6

mid-Atlantic Appalachians Highlands landscape, to skins and skulls of bats in the Southeastern and USA. Ecography. 29: 745-754. Mid-Atlantic States. Res. Note NE-376. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Ford, W.M.; Menzel, M.A.; Rodrigue, J.L.; Menzel, Service. Northeastern Research Station. 18 p.

J.M.; Johnson, J.B. 2005. Relating bat species presence to simple habitat measures in a central Menzel, J.M.; Ford, W.M.; Menzel, M.A.; Carter, T.C.;

Appalachian forest. Biological Conservation. 126: Gardner, J.E.; Garner, J.D.; Hofmann, J.E. 2005.

528-539. Summer habitat use and home-range analysis of the endangered Indiana bat. Journal of Wildlife Girard, I.; Dussault, C.; Ouellet, J.; Courtois, R.; Caron, Management. 69: 430-436.

A. 2006. Balancing number of locations with number of individuals in telemetry studies. Journal Moosman, P.R., Jr.; Thomas, H.H.; Veilleux, J.P. 2007.

of Wildlife Management. 70: 1249-1256. Food habits of eastern small-footed bats (Myotis leibii) in New Hampshire. American Midland Hooge, P.N.; Eichenlaub, B. 1997. Animal movement Naturalist. 158: 354-360.

extension to ArcView. Version 1.1. Anchorage, AK:

U.S. Geological Survey, Alaska Biological Science Mukhida, M.; Orprecio, J.; Fenton, M.B. 2004.

Center. Available at http://www.absc.usgs.gov/glba/ Echolocation calls of Myotis lucifugus and M. leibii gistools/ (Vespertilionidae) "ying inside a room and outside.

Acta Chiropterologica. 6: 91-97.

Johnson, J.B.; Gates, J.E. 2007. Food habits of Myotis leibii during fall swarming in West Virginia. Nams, V.O. 2006. Locate III user's guide. Pacer Northeastern Naturalist. 14: 317-322. Computer Software, Tatamagouche, Nova Scotia, Canada. Available at http://www.locateiii.com/

Johnson, J.B.; Gates, J.E. 2008. Spring migration and roost selection of female Myotis leibii in Maryland. Norberg, U.M.; Raynor, J.M.V. 1987. Ecological Northeastern Naturalist. 15: 453-460. morphology and "ight in bats (Mammalia; Chiroptera): wing adaptations, "ight performance, Kalcounis, M.C.; Brigham, R.M. 1995. Intraspeci"c foraging strategy and echolocation. Philosophical variation in wing loading aects habitat use by little Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, brown bats (Myotis lucifugus). Canadian Journal of Biological Sciences. 316: 335-427.

Zoology. 73: 89-95.

Owen, S.F.; Menzel, M.A.; Ford, W.M.; Chapman, Kunz, T.H. 1988. Ecological and behavioral B.R.; Miller, K.V.; Edwards, J.W.; Wood, P.B. 2003.

methods for the study of bats. Washington, D.C.: Home-range size and habitat used by the northern Smithsonian Institution. 533 p. myotis. American Midland Naturalist. 150: 352-359.

Kunz, T.H.; Arnett, E.B.; Erickson, W.P.; Hoar, A.R.; Patriquin, K.J.; Barclay, R.M.R. 2003. Foraging by bats Johnson, G.D.; Larkin, R.P.; Strickland, M.D.; in cleared, thinned, and unharvested boreal forest.

Thresher, R.W.; Tuttle, M.D. 2007. Ecological Journal of Applied Ecology. 40: 646-657.

impacts of wind energy development on bats:

questions, research needs, and hypotheses. Frontiers Perry, R.W.; Thill, R.E. 2007. Tree roosting by in Ecology and the Environment. 5: 315-324. male and female eastern pipistrelles in a forested landscape. Journal of Mammalogy. 88: 974-981.

Menzel, M.A.; Menzel, J.M.; Castleberry, S.B.; Ozier, J.; Ford, W.M.; Edwards, J.W. 2002. Illustrated key 7

SAS Institute, Inc. 2004. SAS/STAT 9.1 users guide. Veilleux, J.P.; Whitaker, J.O., Jr.; Veilleux, S.L. 2003.

Version 9.1. Cary, NC: SAS Institute, Inc. 5,121 p. Tree-roosting ecology of reproductive female eastern pipistrelles, Pipistrellus sub"avus, in Seaman, D.E.; Millspaugh, J.J.; Kernohan, B.J.; Indiana. Journal of Mammalogy. 84: 1068-1075.

Brundige, G.C.; Raedeke, K.J.; Gitzen R.A. 1999.

Eect of sample size on kernel home range Worton, B.J. 1989. Kernel methods for estimating estimates. Journal of Wildlife Management. 63: 739- the utilization distribution in home-range studies.

747. Ecology. 70: 164-168.

United States Geological Survey (USGS). 2000. Wund, M.A. 2006. Variation in the echolocation calls National Land Cover Data. <http://www.epa.gov/ of little brown bats (Myotis lucifugus) in response mrlc/nlcd-2001.html> (Accessed 15 May 2007). to dierent habitats. American Midland Naturalist.

156: 99-108.

8

Johnson, J.B.; Gates, J.E.; Ford, W.M. 2009. Notes on foraging activity of female Myotis leibii in Maryland. Res. Pap. NRS-8. Newtown Square, PA: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station. 8 p.

Information on home range and habitat characteristics of eastern small-footed myotis (Myotis leibii) consist only of anecdotal accounts and unpublished research despite the need for such data for conservation of this rare species. We used radio telemetry to determine foraging site selection of four female eastern small-footed myotis in Allegany County, Maryland, in spring 2007. These bats foraged within 1.8 km of their diurnal roosts and had home ranges of <100 ha. Distance-based analysis of habitat use for one foraging bat showed that it foraged farther from the Potomac River and adjacent wetlands, and closer to hilltop forests than random, conforming to expectations based on their low wing loading and broadband, high frequency echolocation call characteristics.

KEY WORDS: eastern small-footed myotis, habitat use, home range, Maryland, Myotis leibii 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 individuals income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternate means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDAs TARGET Center at (202)720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call (800)795-3272 (voice) or (202)720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

Printed on Recycled Paper

Capitalizing on the strengths of existing science capacity in the Northeast and Midwest to attain a more integrated, cohesive, landscape-scale research program www.nrs.fs.fed.us