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

Visit our homepage at: http://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/

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 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range and habitat characteristics of eastern small-footed myotis (Myotis leibii) consist only of anecdotal accounts and unpublished research despite the need for such data for conservation of this rare species.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.

1 Th e Authors JOSHUA B. JOHNSON is a graduate research assistant, Division of Forestry and Natural Resources, West Virginia University, Morgantown, West Virginia 26506.

J. EDWARD GATES is an associate professor, University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science, Appalachian Laboratory, Frostburg, Maryland 21532.

W. MARK FORD formerly was a research wildlife biologist, U.S. Forest Service, Northern Research Station, Parsons, WV 26287. He currently is a research wildlife biologist, U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center Environmental Lab, Vicksburg, Mississippi 39180.

INTRODUCTION Th e 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 unpublished research (Erdle and Hobson 2001).

Eco-morphology predicts that eastern small-footed myotis foraging characteristics should be similar to other bat species that have comparable wing loading and echolocation call structure (Patriquin and Barclay 2003, Ford et al. 2005). For example, bats that have low wing loading and broadband, high frequency echolocation call characteristics are capable of e ciently foraging in cluttered areas such as forest canopy (Norberg and Raynor 1987, Kalcounis and Brigham 1995).

Eastern small-footed myotis are known to emit broadband, high frequency echolocation calls, which are consistent with foraging in structurally cluttered forested areas (Mukhida et al. 2004). In eastern West Virginia, recent unpublished work has shown that radio-tagged eastern small-footed myotis foraged mostly in forested areas.1 Research on food 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.

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

2 SITE DESCRIPTION We conducted our research within the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park (CHOH) in Allegany County, Maryland within the Ridge and Valley physiographic province. Our e orts were focused at an abandoned railroad tunnel used by this and other species of bats as a hibernaculum (Johnson and Gates 2008). Th e area is characterized by steep slopes, shale barrens, and rock outcrops overlooking the Potomac River. Forests on the slopes and ridges are predominately oak-hickory (Quercus and Carya spp.) with some scattered Virginia pine (Pinus virginiana) and red cedar (Juniperus virginiana). Pastures and row crops comprise a minor component of the cover types on the hilltops.

Yellow poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), silver maple (Acer saccharinum),

red maple (A. rubrum), and river birch (Betula nigra) occur along the Potomac River banks and the adjacent CHOH. Ephemeral standing water and wetlands occur along some sections of the canal. An active railroad is located on the West Virginia side of the Potomac River.

Elevation in the immediate area ranges from about 130 m on the Potomac River to about 275 m on the hilltops.

METHODS We used harp traps (1.8 m 2.3 m; Bat Conservation and Management, Carlisle, PA) to capture bats at the tunnel as they emerged from hibernation during spring 2007. We placed two harp traps side by side in both the east and west tunnel entrances to capture bats entering or exiting the tunnel. Th e harp traps were surrounded with tarpaulin and/or plastic netting to prevent bats from bypassing the traps. Sampling2 was conducted 3 nights/

week following sunset for four hours for 31 nights from 12 March through 16 May 2007. Each captured bat was identi" ed to species. We measured mass (g) and forearm length (mm), and the sex of each bat was determined before its release (Kunz 1988, Menzel et al. 2002). We traced the shape of a fully extended wing of a random sample of eastern small-footed myotis to determine wing morphology and wing loading for predictions about " ight performance and habitat use (Kalcounis and Brigham 1995). Wing aspect ratio was calculated by dividing the wing length by " fth phalanx length.

We used a polar planimeter (Los Angeles Scienti" c Instrument Co., Inc., Los Angeles, CA) to measure wing surface area of each tracing. Wing loading was calculated by dividing body mass by the combined surface area of both wings and uropatagium, following Farney and Fleharty (1969).

Radio telemetry allowed us to examine foraging activity of female eastern small-footed myotis. We used surgical cement (Torbot Group, Cranston, RI) to a x a 0.35-g radio transmitter (Model LB-2N; Holohil Systems Ltd., Carp, Ontario, Canada) between the scapulae of captured female eastern small-footed myotis. Th e ratio of transmitter mass to body mass (mean = 8.0 percent, std.

dev. = 0.4 percent, range = 7.8-8.8 percent) was similar to ratios reported in other studies on bats, including the similarly-sized eastern pipistrelle (Perimyotis sub" avus; Best and Jennings 1997, Carter et al. 1999, Perry and Th ill 2007, Veilleux et al. 2003).

We used radio receivers and three-element Yagi antennaes (Advanced Telemetry Systems, Inc., Isanti, MN) to simultaneously obtain two directional bearings from known locations (i.e., telemetry stations) at 5-minute intervals (Menzel et al. 2005). We positioned telemetry stations to minimize distances to radio-tagged bats and to reduce associated location error.

Telemetry station locations and bearings were entered into Locate III (Pacer Computing, Inc., Tatamagouche, NS, Canada) to obtain Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) coordinates of each foraging location (Nams 2006). We entered coordinates of foraging locations and diurnal roost locations for each bat into ArcView 3.2 (Environmental Systems Research Institute, Redlands, CA) and used the Animal Movement Extension to calculate a home range, regardless of minimum number of locations, for each bat using the " xed kernel method based on a 95 percent con" dence interval to exclude outliers (Hooge and Eichenlaub 1997, Seaman et al.

1999, Worton 1989).

2Bat capture and handling protocols were approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (ACUC) of the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science (Protocol Number F-AL-05-06) and followed the guidelines of the American Society of Mammalogists (1998).

3 We examined foraging habitat selection of bats for which we obtained >30 locations (Aebischer et al. 1993).

A raster land use/land cover (LULC) theme from the United States Geological Survey (USGS) Gap Analysis Program was converted to a LULC vector shape" le in ArcView 3.2 (USGS 2000). From the LULC vector shape" le, we created a separate vector shape" le for each LULC type, including pasture/hay" elds, wetlands, deciduous forest, coniferous forest, mixed forest, and all forests combined. Separate vector shape" les, including the Potomac River, railways, and paved roads, were included in the analysis for nine LULC types. We used distance-based analysis to examine habitat use of radio-tagged bats because it reduces the e ect of radio telemetry error and Type 1 error commonly associated with other habitat use analyses, including compositional analysis (Bingham and Brennan 2004, Conner et al. 2002). Distance-based analysis compares the distances of foraging locations to each LULC type with the distance of random locations to the same LULC type (Conner et al. 2002). For each bat, we determined the maximum distance it foraged from its diurnal roost (Johnson and Gates 2008). Th is distance served as a radius for a bu er from which random locations were generated; this bu er was centered on a bats diurnal roost location. To determine if eastern small-footed myotis were foraging randomly among LULC types, we used ArcView 3.2 to pair each foraging location with a random location within the bu er. Minimum Euclidean distances from every foraging and random location to every LULC type were determined. We used a Mann-Whitney test to examine di erences between foraging and random location distances to each LULC type (SAS Institute, Inc. 2004; PROC NPAR1WAY).

Statistical signi" cance was set at P 0.05.

RESULTS We captured 47 eastern small-footed myotis: 33 males, 13 females, and one escaped before sex could be determined. We traced the wings of seven eastern small-footed myotis. Mean single wing length (+/- 1 SE, range) was 86.57 mm (+/- 4.17, 63.0-96.0), and mean

" fth phalanx length was 44.29 mm (+/- 0.75, 40.0-46.0).

Mean wing aspect ratio was 1.95 (+/- 0.10, 1.40-2.18).

Mean total wing surface area, not including uropatagium, was 51.75 cm2 (+/- 3.42, 34.55-60.83). Mean mass of bats from which wing tracings were obtained was 4.39 g

(+/- 0.17, 3.5-5.0). Mean wing loading was 0.065 g/cm2

(+/- 0.002, 0.058-0.071).

We conducted radio telemetry on four female eastern small-footed myotis from 13 March through 4 April 2007. Radio contact was maintained with all but one bat until the transmitters died or detached from the bats (mean = 8 days, range = 7-9 days). We lost the signal of one bat (frequency 151.398) after its seventh night of activity when it crossed the Potomac River into West Virginia. Radio-tagged bats were tracked 2-5 nights and we obtained 5-74 foraging locations from each (Table 1).

Bats foraged within 1.8 km of their diurnal roosts and each had minimum home range of <100 ha (Table 1).

We conducted distance-based analysis of habitat use on a single bat (frequency 151.098), located 74 times during 5 nights between 27 March and 4 April 2007 (Figure 1). Compared to random locations, this bat foraged farther from railroads, the Potomac River, and wetlands.

Conversely, this bat foraged closer to paved roads, pastures, coniferous forest, and mixed forest than random Table 1.Foraging characteristics of female Myotis leibii in Allegany County, Maryland, March-April 2007 Foraging Distance (m) b Radio frequency Number of nights Number of locations Home range size (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 " xed kernel.

b Distance from foraging location to diurnal roost.

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

5 locations. Distances from deciduous forest and all forest types combined did not di er (P > 0.352) between foraging locations and random locations (Table 2). Th e remaining three bats that we tracked foraged over the Potomac River, in adjacent riparian forests, and on the forested hilltops.

DISCUSSION Our results provide insight into the home range and foraging habitat of eastern small-footed myotis, and are consistent with anecdotal observations and results of unpublished research. Th e foraging activity characteristics of eastern small-footed myotis may be similar to that of other myotine bats in the region, particularly that of the northern myotis. Eastern small-footed myotis have low wing loading and an echolocation call structure that is similar to that of northern myotis, which also have similar home ranges and diet preferences (Brack and Whitaker 2001, Farney and Fleharty 1969, Johnson and Gates 2007, Moosman et al. 2007, Mukhida et al. 2004, Owen et al. 2003). Bat species with low wing loading and high, frequency-modulated echolocation calls are capable of foraging e ciently in cluttered forest interiors and commonly have smaller home ranges than sympatric species in the mid-Atlantic and central Appalachian region (Kalcounis and Brigham 1995, Owen et al. 2003, Patriquin and Barclay 2003, Wund 2006). However, because we obtained >30 foraging locations for only a single eastern small-footed myotis, our results should be interpreted with caution as this individual may not be representative of the species as a whole (Girard et al.

2006). Also, we exceeded the recommended 5 percent rule for radio transmitter burden for the four bats that we tracked (Aldridge and Brigham 1988) and we obtained relatively few (14) foraging locations for three of those. Consequently, our home range calculations should be interpreted as coarse estimates for the species.

Caveats aside, our results showed that a single eastern small-footed myotis foraged more in forested areas (93.6 percent of foraging locations), particularly deciduous forests (62.8 percent), than in open areas such as pastures (2.6 percent). Also, we observed that many foraging locations were along ridge tops near day roosts, which were located in rock outcrops in shale barren slopes overlooking the Potomac River (Johnson and Gates 2008). Th e full extent of eastern small-footed myotis occupancy of rock outcrops in the Appalachian Mountains remains to be determined (Johnson and Gates 2008), but other known sites in Maryland have included rock outcrops such as those at High Rock, Big Savage Mountain nearby to the west.3 Similar to other wildlife species in the region, particularly the Allegheny woodrat (Neotoma magister), eastern small-footed myotis are dependent on emergent rock habitats, as well as the immediately surrounding forests where they forage (Castleberry et al. 2001, Ford et al. 2006). How ongoing 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.

3D. Feller, Maryland Department of Natural Resources, personal communication.

6 changes to ridgeline forests in the region for activities such as wind energy development (Kunz et al. 2007, Arnett et al. 2008, Baerwald et al. 2008) or recreational development (Ford et al. 2006) impacts eastern small-footed myotis foraging habitat are unknown. Accordingly a better understanding of the required spatial extent and structure of forest cover along ridgelines and rock outcrops, as well as additional foraging activity requirements, is needed to aid conservation e orts for this rare species (Johnson and Gates 2008).

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

Saville for assisting us in the " eld during our survey e orts. J. Churchill and K. Lott provided assistance with Geographic Information Systems. Th e Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Engineering and Construction Division, Land and Water Conservation and Power Plant Research Program provided funding.

Th e comments of R. Perry, D. Feller, and J. Stanovick greatly improved this manuscript.

LITERATURE CITED Aebischer, J.J.; Robertson, P.A.; Kenward, R.E. 1993.

Compositional analysis of habitat use from animal radio-tracking data. Ecology. 74: 1313-1325.

Aldridge, H.D.J.N.; Brigham, R.M. 1988. Load carrying and maneuverability in an insectivorous bat: a test of the 5% rule of radio-telemetry.

Journal of Mammalogy. 69: 379-382.

Animal Care and Use Committee (ACUC). 1998.

Guidelines for the capture, handling, and care of mammals as approved by the American Society of Mammalogists. Journal of Mammalogy. 79: 1416-1431.

Arnett, E.B.; Brown, W.K.; Erickson, W.P.; Fiedler, J.K.; Hamilton, B.L.; Henry, T.H.; Jain, A.; Johnson, G.D.; Kerns, J.; Koford, R.R.; Nicholson, C.P.;

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

Jr. 2008. Patterns of bat fatalities at wind energy facilities in North America. Journal of Wildlife Management. 72: 61-78.

Baerwald, E.F.; DAmours, G.H.; Klug, B.J.; Barclay, R.M.R. 2008. Barotrauma is a signi" cant cause of bat fatalities at wind turbines. Current Biology. 18:

R695-R696.

Best, T.L.; Jennings, J.B. 1997. Myotis leibii.

Mammalian Species. 547: 1-6.

Bingham, R.L.; Brennan, L.A. 2004. Comparison of type 1 error rates for statistical analysis of resource selection. Journal of Wildlife Management. 68: 206-212.

Brack, V., Jr.; Whitaker, J.O., Jr. 2001. Foods of the northern myotis, Myotis septentrionalis, from Missouri and Indiana, with notes on foraging. Acta Chiropterologica. 3: 203-210.

Carter, T.C.; Menzel, M.A.; Chapman, B.R.; Miller, K.V. 1999. Summer foraging and roosting behavior of as eastern pipistrelle Pipistrellus sub" avus. Bat Research News. 40: 5-6.

Castleberry, S.B.; Ford, W.M.; Wood, P.B.; Castleberry, N.L.; Mengak, M.T. 2001. Movements of Allegheny woodrats in relation to timber harvesting. Journal of Wildlife Management. 65: 148-156.

Conner, L.M.; Smith, M.D.; Burger, L.W. 2002. A comparison of distance-based and classi" cation-based analyses of habitat use. Ecology. 84: 526-531.

Erdle, S.Y.; Hobson, C.S. 2001. Current status and conservation strategy for the eastern small-footed myotis (Myotis leibii). Heritage Technical Report No. 00-19. Richmond, VA: Natural Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Natural Heritage. 17 p.

Farney, J.; Fleharty, E.D. 1969. Aspect ratio, loading, wing span, and membrane areas of bats. Journal of Mammalogy. 50: 362-367.

Ford, W.M.; Castleberry, S.B.; Mengak, M.T.; Rodrigue, J.L.; Feller, D.J.; Russell, K.R. 2006. Persistence of Allegheny woodrats Neotoma magister across the

7 mid-Atlantic Appalachians Highlands landscape, USA. Ecography. 29: 745-754.

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

528-539.

Girard, I.; Dussault, C.; Ouellet, J.; Courtois, R.; Caron, A. 2006. Balancing number of locations with number of individuals in telemetry studies. Journal of Wildlife Management. 70: 1249-1256.

Hooge, P.N.; Eichenlaub, B. 1997. Animal movement extension to ArcView. Version 1.1. Anchorage, AK:

U.S. Geological Survey, Alaska Biological Science Center. Available at http://www.absc.usgs.gov/glba/

gistools/

Johnson, J.B.; Gates, J.E. 2007. Food habits of Myotis leibii during fall swarming in West Virginia.

Northeastern Naturalist. 14: 317-322.

Johnson, J.B.; Gates, J.E. 2008. Spring migration and roost selection of female Myotis leibii in Maryland.

Northeastern Naturalist. 15: 453-460.

Kalcounis, M.C.; Brigham, R.M. 1995. Intraspeci" c variation in wing loading a ects habitat use by little brown bats (Myotis lucifugus). Canadian Journal of Zoology. 73: 89-95.

Kunz, T.H. 1988. Ecological and behavioral methods for the study of bats. Washington, D.C.:

Smithsonian Institution. 533 p.

Kunz, T.H.; Arnett, E.B.; Erickson, W.P.; Hoar, A.R.;

Johnson, G.D.; Larkin, R.P.; Strickland, M.D.;

Th resher, R.W.; Tuttle, M.D. 2007. Ecological impacts of wind energy development on bats:

questions, research needs, and hypotheses. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. 5: 315-324.

Menzel, M.A.; Menzel, J.M.; Castleberry, S.B.; Ozier, J.; Ford, W.M.; Edwards, J.W. 2002. Illustrated key to skins and skulls of bats in the Southeastern and Mid-Atlantic States. Res. Note NE-376. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Northeastern Research Station. 18 p.

Menzel, J.M.; Ford, W.M.; Menzel, M.A.; Carter, T.C.;

Gardner, J.E.; Garner, J.D.; Hofmann, J.E. 2005.

Summer habitat use and home-range analysis of the endangered Indiana bat. Journal of Wildlife Management. 69: 430-436.

Moosman, P.R., Jr.; Th omas, H.H.; Veilleux, J.P. 2007.

Food habits of eastern small-footed bats (Myotis leibii) in New Hampshire. American Midland Naturalist. 158: 354-360.

Mukhida, M.; Orprecio, J.; Fenton, M.B. 2004.

Echolocation calls of Myotis lucifugus and M. leibii (Vespertilionidae) " ying inside a room and outside.

Acta Chiropterologica. 6: 91-97.

Nams, V.O. 2006. Locate III user's guide. Pacer Computer Software, Tatamagouche, Nova Scotia, Canada. Available at http://www.locateiii.com/

Norberg, U.M.; Raynor, J.M.V. 1987. Ecological morphology and " ight in bats (Mammalia; Chiroptera): wing adaptations, " ight performance, foraging strategy and echolocation. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences. 316: 335-427.

Owen, S.F.; Menzel, M.A.; Ford, W.M.; Chapman, B.R.; Miller, K.V.; Edwards, J.W.; Wood, P.B. 2003.

Home-range size and habitat used by the northern myotis. American Midland Naturalist. 150: 352-359.

Patriquin, K.J.; Barclay, R.M.R. 2003. Foraging by bats in cleared, thinned, and unharvested boreal forest.

Journal of Applied Ecology. 40: 646-657.

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

8 SAS Institute, Inc. 2004. SAS/STAT 9.1 users guide.

Version 9.1. Cary, NC: SAS Institute, Inc. 5,121 p.

Seaman, D.E.; Millspaugh, J.J.; Kernohan, B.J.;

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

E ect of sample size on kernel home range estimates. Journal of Wildlife Management. 63: 739-747.

United States Geological Survey (USGS). 2000.

National Land Cover Data. <http://www.epa.gov/

mrlc/nlcd-2001.html> (Accessed 15 May 2007).

Veilleux, J.P.; Whitaker, J.O., Jr.; Veilleux, S.L. 2003.

Tree-roosting ecology of reproductive female eastern pipistrelles, Pipistrellus sub" avus, in Indiana. Journal of Mammalogy. 84: 1068-1075.

Worton, B.J. 1989. Kernel methods for estimating the utilization distribution in home-range studies.

Ecology. 70: 164-168.

Wund, M.A. 2006. Variation in the echolocation calls of little brown bats (Myotis lucifugus) in response to di erent habitats. American Midland Naturalist.

156: 99-108.

Printed on Recycled Paper 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 " le a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Of" ce 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.

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

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