Search Field Guide
Advanced Search
MT Gov Logo
Montana Field Guide

Montana Field Guides

Little Brown Myotis - Myotis lucifugus
Other Names:  Little Brown Bat

Species of Concern
Native Species

Global Rank: G3G4
State Rank: S2S3
(see State Rank Reason below)


Agency Status
USFWS:
USFS: Sensitive - Known in Forests (BD, BRT, KOOT)
BLM:
FWP SWAP: SGCN3



External Links





State Rank Reason (see State Rank above)
Species was common and widespread but White-Nose Syndrome has caused the collapse of populations in endemic areas and will likely cause severe declines across the state
Little Brown Myotis (Myotis lucifugus) Conservation Status Summary
State Rank: S2S3
Review Date = 09/12/2024
How we calculate Conservation Status
Rarity: VeryUncommonVeryCommon Threats: HighlyThreatenedUnthreatened Trends: RapidlyDecliningDecliningStableIncreasing Rank: S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 CriticallyImperiledSecure

See the complete Conservation Status Report
 
General Description
The most common bat species in Montana (Foresman 2012). Cinnamon-buff to dark brown above, buffy to pale gray below; hairs on back have long glossy tips; ears, when laid forward, reach approximately to the nostril; tragus about half as high as ear; calcar without keel; length of head and body 41 to 54 mm, ear 11.0 to 15.5 mm, forearm 33 to 41 mm; braincase rises gradually from rostrum; greatest length of skull 14 to 16 mm; length of upper toothrow 5.0 to 6.6 mm (Hall 1981).

Diagnostic Characteristics
Can be distinguished from all but one of the seven Myotis species in Montana by the absence of a fringe of hair around the uropatagium and the absence of a keeled calcar. Can be distinguished from Yuma myotis by the glossy appearance of the dorsal hair and dark brown ear color. (Foresman 2012)

Species Range
Montana Range Range Descriptions

Native

Western Hemisphere Range

 


Observations in Montana Natural Heritage Program Database
Number of Observations: 1848

(Click on the following maps and charts to see full sized version) Map Help and Descriptions
Relative Density

Recency

 

(Observations spanning multiple months or years are excluded from time charts)



Migration
This species is resident year-round in Montana, but may be partially migratory because known winter aggregations are much smaller than the apparent size of summer populations.

Habitat
Found in a variety of habitats across a large elevation gradient. Commonly forages over water. Summer day roosts include attics, barns, bridges, snags, loose bark, and bat houses. Known maternity roosts in Montana are primarily buildings. Hibernacula include caves and mines.

Ecological Systems Associated with this Species
  •  Details on Creation and Suggested Uses and Limitations
    How Associations Were Made
    We associated the use and habitat quality (common or occasional) of each of the 82 ecological systems mapped in Montana for vertebrate animal species that regularly breed, overwinter, or migrate through the state by:
    1. Using personal observations and reviewing literature that summarize the breeding, overwintering, or migratory habitat requirements of each species (Dobkin 1992, Hart et al. 1998, Hutto and Young 1999, Maxell 2000, Foresman 2012, Adams 2003, and Werner et al. 2004);
    2. Evaluating structural characteristics and distribution of each ecological system relative to the species' range and habitat requirements;
    3. Examining the observation records for each species in the state-wide point observation database associated with each ecological system;
    4. Calculating the percentage of observations associated with each ecological system relative to the percent of Montana covered by each ecological system to get a measure of "observations versus availability of habitat".
    Species that breed in Montana were only evaluated for breeding habitat use, species that only overwinter in Montana were only evaluated for overwintering habitat use, and species that only migrate through Montana were only evaluated for migratory habitat use.  In general, species were listed as associated with an ecological system if structural characteristics of used habitat documented in the literature were present in the ecological system or large numbers of point observations were associated with the ecological system.  However, species were not listed as associated with an ecological system if there was no support in the literature for use of structural characteristics in an ecological system, even if point observations were associated with that system.  Common versus occasional association with an ecological system was assigned based on the degree to which the structural characteristics of an ecological system matched the preferred structural habitat characteristics for each species as represented in scientific literature.  The percentage of observations associated with each ecological system relative to the percent of Montana covered by each ecological system was also used to guide assignment of common versus occasional association.  If you have any questions or comments on species associations with ecological systems, please contact the Montana Natural Heritage Program's Senior Zoologist.

    Suggested Uses and Limitations
    Species associations with ecological systems should be used to generate potential lists of species that may occupy broader landscapes for the purposes of landscape-level planning.  These potential lists of species should not be used in place of documented occurrences of species (this information can be requested at: mtnhp.org/requests) or systematic surveys for species and evaluations of habitat at a local site level by trained biologists.  Users of this information should be aware that the land cover data used to generate species associations is based on imagery from the late 1990s and early 2000s and was only intended to be used at broader landscape scales.  Land cover mapping accuracy is particularly problematic when the systems occur as small patches or where the land cover types have been altered over the past decade.  Thus, particular caution should be used when using the associations in assessments of smaller areas (e.g., evaluations of public land survey sections).  Finally, although a species may be associated with a particular ecological system within its known geographic range, portions of that ecological system may occur outside of the species' known geographic range.

    Literature Cited
    • Adams, R.A.  2003.  Bats of the Rocky Mountain West; natural history, ecology, and conservation.  Boulder, CO: University Press of Colorado.  289 p.
    • Dobkin, D. S.  1992.  Neotropical migrant land birds in the Northern Rockies and Great Plains. USDA Forest Service, Northern Region. Publication No. R1-93-34.  Missoula, MT.
    • Foresman, K.R.  2012.  Mammals of Montana.  Second edition.  Mountain Press Publishing, Missoula, Montana.  429 pp.
    • Hart, M.M., W.A. Williams, P.C. Thornton, K.P. McLaughlin, C.M. Tobalske, B.A. Maxell, D.P. Hendricks, C.R. Peterson, and R.L. Redmond. 1998.  Montana atlas of terrestrial vertebrates.  Montana Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit, University of Montana, Missoula, MT.  1302 p.
    • Hutto, R.L. and J.S. Young.  1999.  Habitat relationships of landbirds in the Northern Region, USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station RMRS-GTR-32.  72 p.
    • Maxell, B.A.  2000.  Management of Montana's amphibians: a review of factors that may present a risk to population viability and accounts on the identification, distribution, taxonomy, habitat use, natural history, and the status and conservation of individual species.  Report to U.S. Forest Service Region 1.  Missoula, MT: Wildlife Biology Program, University of Montana.  161 p.
    • Werner, J.K., B.A. Maxell, P. Hendricks, and D. Flath.  2004.  Amphibians and reptiles of Montana.  Missoula, MT: Mountain Press Publishing Company. 262 p.

Food Habits
Mostly insects, including gnats, mosquitoes, crane flies, beetles, wasps, and moths. Prey often caught with tip of wing then transferred immediately to mouth.

Ecology
Males and females mostly segregated during summer, females often in maternity colonies of up to a thousand individuals or more. Can live more than 30 years.

Reproductive Characteristics
Females have one young per year, usually born late June and July.

Management
Maternity colonies are vulnerable to exclusion from buildings; bat boxes attached to the building that formerly housed the colony may provide alternate roosts if properly designed and placed to offer warm temperatures, wide internal temperature gradients, and sufficient width to allow many bats to roost side by side (Brittingham and Williams 2000).

Stewardship Responsibility

Based on the Montana Natural Heritage Program's latest predicted habitat suitability model

Total species' range in Montana 381,165 km2 (100% of Montana)
Area predicted to have
some level of suitable habitat
313,035 km2 (82% of Montana)

Stewardship responsibility for the predicted area of suitable habitat can be broken down as follows

  Total Suitable Optimal Suitability Moderate Suitability Low Suitability
Federal 26% <1% 1% 25%
State 6% <1% <1% 6%
Local <1% <1% <1% <1%
Conservation Lands/Easements 3% <1% 3%
Private/Tribal/Unknown 65% <1% 7% 58%

See the Habitat Suitability for Biodiversity task in Map Viewer for a more detailed look at stewardship responsibilities within a variety of local jurisdictions.


References
  •  Literature Cited Above
  •  Additional References
  •  Web Search Engines for Articles on "Little Brown Myotis"
  •  Additional Sources of Information Related to "Mammals"
Login
Citation for data on this website:
Little Brown Myotis — Myotis lucifugus.  Montana Field Guide.  .  Retrieved on , from