O’SHEA, CRYAN & BOGAN: UNITED STATES BAT SPECIES OF CONCERN 
93 
total captures in mist net surveys or total acoustic detections of all identifiable species of bats in 
pine forests (reviewed by Debelica-Lee and Wilkins, 2014). Habitat occupancy modeling based on 
acoustic detections in managed pine forests was analyzed in six southern states (Bender et al., 
2015). Within such habitats M. austroriparius was more likely to be found at sites with a higher 
proportion of stands greater than 30 years old and lower vegetative clutter, perhaps because these 
sites were also more likely to include trees suitable for roosting; over all study areas, this species 
ranked fifth out of the six most commonly detected species (Bender et al., 2015). 
Arkansas: In northeastern Arkansas, individuals captured while foraging or traveling were no 
more likely to be captured over land than over water (Medlin and Risch, 2008). They were the third 
most abundant species of bat in mist-netting surveys in six wildlife management areas and nation¬ 
al wildlife refuges in northeastern Arkansas bottomland hardwood forests (62 individuals among 
302 bats of eight species; Medlin and Risch, 2008). Southeastern myotis were the most abundant 
species (268 captures among 556 bats of eight species) at 35 sites surveyed during summers 1997- 
1999 in bottomland hardwood forest of the Rex Hancock/Black Swamp Wildlife Management Area 
of eastern Arkansas (Hoffman, 1999). 
Florida: The largest populations of southeastern myotis are thought to occur in Florida (Amel- 
on et al., 2006). Foraging individuals were the second most commonly detected species among 
seven that were identifiable by echolocation activity in longleaf pine habitat in Florida sandhills 
subject to a variety of prescribed bum schedules (Armitage and Ober, 2012). 
Illinois: These bats ranked low in relative abundance in mist-net surveys over water in vari¬ 
ous habitats within southern Illinois, where 68 were captured among 474 bats of 12 species, biased 
by 63 taken in a foraging area utilized by a nearby maternity colony (Gardner et al., 1992; Hof¬ 
mann et al., 1999). 
Louisiana and Mississippi: This was the second most abundant species in surveys of bot¬ 
tomland hardwood forests in northeastern Louisiana (48 bats among 112 bats of four species; Rice, 
2009). They ranked fourth in relative abundance (39 southeastern myotis captured among 419 bats 
of seven species) in extensive mist-net surveys conducted on 113 nights at 79 sites in nine study 
areas across Mississippi during 2002-2006, and were captured at six study areas in habitats char¬ 
acterized as bottomland hardwood forests, mixed hardwood forests, upland mixed hardwood 
forests, and swamp forest (McCartney, 2007). A second mist-netting survey in summer 2007 
focused on four refuges within the Theodore Roosevelt National Wildlife Refuge complex in west¬ 
ern central Mississippi, with 28 nights of netting at 23 sites (McCartney and McCartney, 2008). 
Southeastern myotis ranked second in relative abundance (47 captured among 201 bats of 5 
species) across all four refuges and were primarily found in bottomland hardwood forest habitat 
(McCartney and McCartney, 2008). In contrast, in managed loblolly pine forests of eastern Mis¬ 
sissippi only one southeastern myotis was taken in mist net surveys that yielded 284 bats of 6 
species (Miller, 2003). 
North Carolina and South Carolina: Southeastern myotis ranked fourth in relative abun¬ 
dance (42 captured among 452 individuals of eight species) netted around water and at corridors 
within forests on the Coastal Plain of North Carolina during summer (Grider et al., 2016). Acoustic 
sampling in South Carolina showed that Carolina bay wetlands (pond habitats in Coastal Plain 
depressions) that had been ditched and drained showed greater echolocation activity of this species 
in comparison with interior upland pine-hardwood forest (Menzel et al., 2005). The species was 
detected most often in association with intact Carolina bay habitat and were more likely to be pres¬ 
ent in bottomland habitats rather than upland habitats and pine communities, highlighting the 
potential importance of such habitats to the species in this region (Ford et al., 2006). Menzel et al. 
(2003) examined documented records of all species of bats across the four physiographic provinces 
