Articles on this page are available in 1 other language: Spanish (3) (learn more)
Overview
Brief Summary
Description
Links:
Mammal Species of the World
- Original description: Baird, Spencer., 1858. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 10:116.
Trusted
Distribution
Range Description
Trusted
Geographic Range
The California leaf-nosed bat, the most northern member of the Phyllostomidae, lives in Northen Mexico, Baja California, southern Arizona, southern California and southern Nevada (Constantine 1998).
Biogeographic Regions: nearctic (Native )
Trusted
National Distribution
United States
Origin: Native
Regularity: Regularly occurring
Currently: Present
Confidence: Confident
Type of Residency: Year-round
Trusted
Global Range: Baja California, Sonora, and northern Sinaloa, Mexico, north to southern California, southern and western Arizona, and southern Nevada (Jones and Carter 1976). Hall (1981) included Tamaulipas and San Luis Potosi in the range of CALIFORNICUS. Northern Sinaloa and southwestern Chihuahua to southern Nevada, southern California; Baja California and Tamaulipas (Koopman, in Wilson and Reeder 1993).
Trusted
Physical Description
Morphology
Physical Description
The Macrotus californicus has short broad wings and huge ears and eyes (Tuttle 1998). It's skull has no post orbital processes and a complete premaxillae.
Average mass: 8-17 g.
Average wingspan: 33-35 cm.
Average mass: 11.7 g.
Average basal metabolic rate: 0.082 W.
Trusted
Size
Size in North America
Trusted
Diagnostic Description
Differs from Leptonycteris and Choeronycteris in Arizona in having a shorter rostrum, no bristlelike papillae on the tongue, first upper incisor in contact with the canine and usually also in contact with the second premolar, ears joined together near the base, and a larger number of chromosomes (2N=40 vs. 2N=32 or 16) (Hoffmeister 1986). Differs from M. WATERHOUSII by having chromosomes 2N=40 rather than 2N=46, interorbital width of 3.8 mm or less, smaller canines, larger ears, and larger auditory bullae (Davis and Baker 1974, Anderson and Nelson 1965; see also Hoffmeister 1986).
Trusted
Ecology
Habitat
Habitat and Ecology
Systems
- Terrestrial
Trusted
Habitat
This species can be found in the caves and abandoned mines in deserts of South West North America. In the winter, they choose roosts that are geothermically heated (Tuttle 1998).
Terrestrial Biomes: desert or dune ; chaparral
Trusted
Comments: Lowland desert scrub. Uses caves or abandoned mine tunnels for rest site during day. Small groups may also use natural rock shelters in canyon walls. Uses shelter of open buildings, bridges, rocks, and mines for temporary night roosts. Old mine tunnels or caves may be used as nurseries.
Trusted
Migration
Non-Migrant: Yes. At least some populations of this species do not make significant seasonal migrations. Juvenile dispersal is not considered a migration.
Locally Migrant: No. No populations of this species make local extended movements (generally less than 200 km) at particular times of the year (e.g., to breeding or wintering grounds, to hibernation sites).
Locally Migrant: No. No populations of this species make annual migrations of over 200 km.
Trusted
Trophic Strategy
Food Habits
M. californicus is an insectivore. It uses its unuusal hovering ability to capture insects from the ground instead of from the air. It also uses its keen sense of vision over echolocation whenever light is adequate (Bell 1986). They feed up to 1.3km from their roost (Harris 1999).
Foods eaten include: crickets, moths, beetles, and grasshoppers, cicadas and caterpillars.
Animal Foods: insects
Primary Diet: carnivore (Insectivore )
Trusted
Comments: Eats mainly large, night-flying insects (beetles, grasshoppers, moths) taken in flight and insect larvae, which may be taken from bushes or ground. Flys low, within a meter of the ground, or hovers while foraging. Individuals from southern Arizona and Sonora, Mexico, are known to include fruit in the diet. See Gardner (1977) for further details.
Trusted
Associations
Known prey organisms
Insecta
This list may not be complete but is based on published studies.
- Myers, P., R. Espinosa, C. S. Parr, T. Jones, G. S. Hammond, and T. A. Dewey. 2006. The Animal Diversity Web (online). Accessed February 16, 2011 at http://animaldiversity.org. http://www.animaldiversity.org
Trusted
General Ecology
Usually found roosting in groups, but individuals do not cluster. Males live in small bachelor groups in July and August, join females in September. Has few predators. Maximum life expectancy estimated at more than 10 years (Anderson 1969). Forages up to 1.3 km from roost. Most activity probably closer to roost (Vaughan 1959).
Trusted
Life History and Behavior
Cyclicity
Comments: Does not hibernate. May be less active during the winter. Rests during the day. Begins to leave daytime roost to forage for food about 1 hour after sunset, returns before sunrise. Rests during the night between periods of activity.
Trusted
Life Expectancy
Lifespan/Longevity
Average lifespan
Status: wild: 10.4 years.
Trusted
Lifespan, longevity, and ageing
Trusted
Reproduction
Reproduction
During the summer, most males form separate colonies close to female groups of around 100-500 members. However, a handful of dominant males stay within the female colony and have harem groups consisting of 5-25 females and young (Tuttle 1998).
Mating System: polygynous
Mating takes place in the fall. For the first several months of gestation, the embryo develops extremely slowly. Development speeds up in the spring, and young are born in June. (Tuttle 1998).
Breeding season: Mating takes place in the fall, birth in the spring
Range number of offspring: 1 to 2.
Average number of offspring: 1.
Average gestation period: 8 months.
Average weaning age: 1 months.
Average age at sexual or reproductive maturity (female): 6 months.
Average age at sexual or reproductive maturity (male): 12 months.
Key Reproductive Features: iteroparous ; seasonal breeding ; gonochoric/gonochoristic/dioecious (sexes separate); viviparous
Average gestation period: 270 days.
Average number of offspring: 1.
Average age at sexual or reproductive maturity (female)
Sex: female: 120 days.
Infants are born with open eyes and ears and a full coat of fur. Infants nurse for one month. While females become sexually mature their first fall, males take a full year to reach sexual maturity (Harris 1999).
Parental Investment: female parental care
Trusted
Insemination, ovulation, and fertilization occur mainly late September-early October; embryonic development is delayed, gestation lasts about 8 months (Anderson 1969). In Arizona, females usually bear 1 young in May or June. Young are weaned in about 1 month. Females first breed in their first fall, males the following year. Females form maternity colonies.
Trusted
Molecular Biology and Genetics
Molecular Biology
Statistics of barcoding coverage: Macrotus californicus
Public Records: 0
Species: 7
Species With Barcodes: 1
Trusted
Conservation
Conservation Status
IUCN Red List Assessment
Red List Category
Red List Criteria
Version
Year Assessed
Assessor/s
Reviewer/s
Justification
History
- 1996Vulnerable
Trusted
Conservation Status
Populations of this species are definitely decreasing. Human disturbances in caves and the reestablishment of mines is driving these animals out of their homes.
Temperate North American bats are now threatened by a fungal disease called “white-nose syndrome.” This disease has devastated eastern North American bat populations at hibernation sites since 2007. The fungus, Geomyces destructans, grows best in cold, humid conditions that are typical of many bat hibernacula. The fungus grows on, and in some cases invades, the bodies of hibernating bats and seems to result in disturbance from hibernation, causing a debilitating loss of important metabolic resources and mass deaths. Mortality rates at some hibernation sites have been as high as 90%. While there are currently no reports of Macrotus californicus mortalities as a result of white-nose syndrome, the disease continues to expand its range in North America.
US Federal List: no special status
CITES: no special status
IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: least concern
- Cryan, P. 2010. "White-nose syndrome threatens the survival of hibernating bats in North America" (On-line). U.S. Geological Survey, Fort Collins Science Center. Accessed September 16, 2010 at http://www.fort.usgs.gov/WNS/.
- National Park Service, Wildlife Health Center, 2010. "White-nose syndrome" (On-line). National Park Service, Wildlife Health. Accessed September 16, 2010 at http://www.nature.nps.gov/biology/wildlifehealth/White_Nose_Syndrome.cfm.
Trusted
National NatureServe Conservation Status
United States
Rounded National Status Rank: N3 - Vulnerable
Trusted
Trends
Population
Population Trend
Trusted
Threats
Threats
Trusted
Comments: Roosts in mine tunnels and thus vulnerable to their loss or inaccessibility.
Trusted
Management
Conservation Actions
Trusted
Relevance to Humans and Ecosystems
Benefits
Economic Importance for Humans: Positive
M. californicus, an insectivorous bat, helps to control pest populations.
Positive Impacts: controls pest population
Trusted
Wikipedia
California Leaf-nosed Bat
The California Leaf-nosed Bat (Macrotus californicus) is a species of bat in the family Phyllostomidae. It is found in Mexico and the United States. Its natural habitat is hot deserts. It is threatened by habitat loss.
Contents |
Habitat
California leaf-nosed bats can be found in Sonoran and Mojave Desert scrub habitats in the Colorado River valley in southern California, Nevada and Arizona, and throughout western Mexico. It is non-migratory and does not hibernate.
Biology
The California leaf-nosed bat weighs between 12 and 20 grams, has a wingspan of over 30 centimeters and a body length of over 6 centimeters, and is brown in color. As its name implies, it has a triangular fleshy growth of skin, called a noseleaf, protruding above the nose. This bat is the only bat of the family Phyllostomidae in the United States to have large ears, usually over 2.5 centimeters. It is also one of the most maneuverable in flight. With short, broad wings, it can fly at low speeds using minimal energy. Because of this adaptation, it is not suited for long-distance travel, and is non-migratory.[2]
This bat has an unusual reproductive pattern. After breeding occurs in the fall, the embryos develop very slowly until March, when growth continues at a more normal rate before birth in May or June. Twins are common.[2]
This bat is a "gleaning" insectivore which captures prey such as crickets, grasshoppers, beetles, and sphinx moths straight from the ground or foliage rather than in flight. It prefers to use its large eyes to detect prey, although in total darkness it will switch to echolocation. It typically hunts within a few feet of the ground, using its superior eyesight to search for insects. It does not alight to capture its prey, but hovers above it and snags it off the substrate. It then carries its prey to an open roost such as a porch or open building to dismember, then consume it.[2]
Human Impact
They are susceptible to human disturbance, which can be especially detrimental to the species during summer months, when these bats are rearing young. Human disturbance of caves in which they roost is a major threat. Furthermore, because they often roost in abandoned mines, reclamation practices and re-working old mines can severely impact populations. Because California leaf-nosed bats do not hibernate or migrate, the relatively warm mine shafts are critical for its survival in the northern portions of its range.[2]
Roosting habits and terrestrial locomotion
California. In the study area Macrotus roosts in the daytime exclusively in caves, deserted mine tunnels and deep grottos.[3] They are usually within 30 to 80 feet of the entrance of the tunnel, and seemed not to require dark retreats. On many occasions leaf-nosed bats roost in tunnels less than 20 feet deep and fairly brightly lit. In order to be suitable the Macrotus retreat must be mostly enclosed and have overhead protection from the weather.[3] Roosting chambers are usually large enough to provide considerable ceiling surface and flying space, and thus adequate space allows the animal to find a place to roost while flying. The coolness of the roost also plays a factor in Macrotus selection of roosts, which is why Macrotus would choose to roost in a cool cave in the hot summers. Macrotus prefer to hang from sloping parts of the ceiling and actively grab the rock with ease due to the irregularity of the surface.[3] the bat seems to rest much of the time while hanging onto the rock with only one foot. The free foot is often used for scratching and for grooming the fur, a when the bat is engaged in these activities the body usually swings gently like an erratically disturbed pendulum.[3]
Foraging habits and flight
The flight of the Macrotus Is remarkable chiefly for its extreme maneuverability. The bat flies fairly rapidly on occasion, but the usual foraging flight is slow and buoyant, and more nearly silent that of most bats.[3] In level flight Macrotus wings make a soft fluttering sound that is less sharp and carrying than the sounds made by the wing beats of most other bats. The method of landing is most interesting. The bat flies six to eight inches below the ceiling and upon the wings making a deep down stoke that is directed nearly straight forward the hind limbs and uropatagium.[3] These movements cause the bat to swoop upward toward the ceiling and as the bat nears the ceiling the wings are pulled back in an upstroke while the bat rolls over 180 degrees so that its back is facing downward and the long legs reach for the ceiling.[3] Stated briefly, then the alighting maneuver consists of an upward swoop and a half-roll, at the end of which the feet wing rapidly toward the ceiling, seize it, and the wings give a final beat to steady the bat. Often these landings must require remarkably precise judgement of speed and distance, as many landings are made in the midst of a fairly closely spaced group of bats.[3] Macrotus has two main methods of launching into flight, by dropping form the ceiling and taking flight after a short downward swoop, and by taking flight directly form the roosting place. The bat often hovers, both when foraging and when flying in its daytime retreat. Macrotus seems to hover easily, and it’s able to hover for several seconds at a time. These bats usually forage within three feet of the ground and often drop down closer to the ground nearer the surface where they can occasionally hover for a few seconds.[3] Even bats released in the daytime flew fairly close to the ground. Leaf-nosed bats seem to be totally insectivorous, and their food clearly reflects the bats’ foraging habits. Some insects regularly eaten by Macrotus are almost certainly taken from the ground or from vegetation. The bats’ stomachs often contain orthopteran insects, noctuid moths and caterpillars, and beetles of the families Scarabaeidae and Carabidae, along with unidentified material.[3] The lists of food items of Macrotus contain a plethora of insects that seldom fly, are flightless, or that fly in the daytime; this constitutes strong evidence that this bat consumes insects that are on the ground or on vegetation. Most leaf-nosed bats forage sometime between one hour after sundown and four hours after sundown, and then retire to a night roosting place. Actually, each bat seems to have a pre-midnight foraging period of roughly one hour.[3] The greatest activity in the early morning seems to occur between two and one half hours before sunrise and thirty minutes before sunrise. Bats generally begin returning with full stomachs to their daytime roosts about tow hours before sunrise, and the last bats usually return approximately twenty minutes before sunrise.[3]
Effect of diet on basal heat production
Insect feeders Insectivorous more closely resemble temperate zone taxa in their proclivity to relax thermoregulatory control when at rest and in their tendency to have lower basal metabolic rates.[3] This apparently results form the fact that insectivorous species tend generally to be smaller and gain considerable metabolic savings by reducing body temperature ambient temperature differentials.[3]
Aerodynamic considerations
Most bats have upper wing loadings than do birds, and he mentioned that this difference my be due to the way bats forage. Most insectivorous birds forage by making repeated, short flights. Bats, on the other hand, remain on the wing for most if not all of the time they are foraging, and insects are captured by virtue of bats ability to maneuver rapidly.[3] In birds the slots formed by the alula and primary flight feathers allow these animals to have high wing loadings and fairly low staling speeds. In the unslotted wings of bats the wings do not yield such refinements in flight characteristics, but within the size and wing loadings of bats there is little need for increasing lift. In comparison the flight of bats is much is clearly less efficient than that of birds. The upstroke consumes relatively more power in bats than in birds because the wing surfaces in bats are continuous and do not allow the passage of air as do the spaces between the primaries of a bird.[3]
Lift
Irregular membranes known as the propatagium (the membrane anterior to the humorous and radius) shape the wing. The plagiopatagium (membrane posterior to the humorous)has a greater surface than the chiropatagium (membranes between the digits), particularly the fifth, the position of the hind limb, which anchors the posterior edge of the plagiopatagium, and by the angles that the propatagium and dactylopatagium minus (membrane the second and third digits) make with the posterior parts of the wing membranes. Air pressure against the ventral surfaces of the wing membranes is greater than that against the dorsal surfaces; this helps to maintain a smoother camber.[3] Macrotus californicus seems to spread its uropatagium widely only when hovering or performing other maneuvers requiring a departure form straight level flight, but the extreme maneuverability observed in Macrotus californicus is probably due to the specializations of its sensory equipment.[3]
Bone anatomy
In Macrotus the position of the hind limbs during level flight differs even more form that in most other mammals. The hind limbs are held behind the bat in a spider-leg- like posture, with the femur extending dorsad and caudad, and with the shank partially flexed and extending caudad and more or less downward.[3]
Vertebral column The number of post cervical vertebrae in Macrotus are as follows: twelve thoracic, six lumbar, five sacral, seven caudal.[3]
| Wikimedia Commons has media related to: Macrotus californicus |
References
- ^ Arroyo-Cabrales, J. & Ticul Alvarez Castaneda, S. (2008). "Macrotus californicus". IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2009.2. International Union for Conservation of Nature. http://www.iucnredlist.org/apps/redlist/details/12652. Retrieved 01 February 2010.
- ^ a b c d Steven J. Phillips, Patricia Wentworth Comus (eds.) (2000). A Natural History of the Sonoran Desert. University of California Press. pp. 464–466. ISBN 0-520-21980-5.
- ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t Vaughan, Terry A. Functional Morphology of Three Bats: Eumops, Myotis, Macrotus. 1st ed. Vol. 12. KC: University of Kansas Museum of Natural History, 1958. Print.
- Species Profile at Bat Conservation International. [1].
- Vaughan, Terry A. Functional Morphology of Three Bats: Eumops, Myotis, Macrotus. 1st ed. Vol. 12. KC: University of Kansas Museum of Natural History, 1958. Print.
- Baker, Robert J., J. Knox. Jones, and Dilford C. Carter. Biology of Bats of the New World Family Phyllostomatidae. Lubbock: Texas Tech, 1976. Print.
Unreviewed
Names and Taxonomy
Taxonomy
Comments: Considered a subspecies of M. WATERHOUSII by Anderson and Nelson (1965) and Hall (1981). Regarded as a distinct species by Davis and Baker (1974) (based on morphometric and karyotypic evidence); Jones and Carter (1976), Honacki et al. (1982), Jones et al. (1986, 1992), and Koopman (in Wilson and Reeder 1993) followed Davis and Baker (1974) in regarding CALIFORNICUS as a distinct species. See Baker et al. (1989) for a classification of the higher categories of New World Phyllostomidae (relationship of the genus Macrotus to other members of the family is uncertain). See Van Den Bussche (1992) for an analysis of phylogenetic relationships of phyllostomid bats based on restriction-site variation in the ribosomal-DNA gene complex (Macrotus regarded as sole member of subfamily Macrotinae).
Trusted
Disclaimer
EOL content is automatically assembled from many different content providers. As a result, from time to time you may find pages on EOL that are confusing.
To request an improvement, please leave a comment on the page. Thank you!




