Javelina (Tayassu tajacu) are an economically important big game species in the southwestern United States, but are considered nuisance wildlife in urban areas. We radiotracked individuals from 6 herds to identify diurnal bed sites of urban-dwelling javelina in 1992-93. We compared microsite habitat characteristics at 46 diurnal javelina bed sites with the same characteristics at 49 random plots. Characteristics of Led sites included south- and east-facing sites with >20% slope, >50% shrub cover, and chaparral habitat with >75 cm dbh trees. Javelina also selected sites where visibility was completely obstructed by dense vegetation and-or rocks within 3-4 m.

We used mist nets to capture bats in two ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) habitats in the Coconino National Forest, Arizona during June and July, 1993 to 1995. We captured 1,123 bats representing 12 species in ponderosa pine forest habitat and 561 bats representing 15 species in ponderosa pine-oak forest habitat. Four species comprised 76% of all captures: Myotis volans (23.7%), Eptesicus fuscus (23.1%), M. evotis (16.0%), and M. occultus (13.4%). Based on netting effort alone we captured more E. fuscus, Lasiurus cinereus, and M. evotis and fewer Antrozous pallidus, Lasionycteris noctivagans, and M. auriculus in the ponderosa pine habitat than in the pine-oak habitat. Pregnant and lactating bats from nine species accounted for 60% of all female captures. Because some of these species roost in pine forest, intensive forest management practices in ponderosa pine habitats during summer months may negatively influence their reproductive success.

Little information exists on the roost habitat characteristics of reproductive forest bats; hence, we used radiotelemetry to locate 121 roosts of species of bats in 2 study areas on the Coconino National Forest (CNF), northern Arizona, during 1993-95. Only pregnant or lactating bats were examined in the study. Ninety-seven (80%) roosts were in ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) snags. Snags used by bats were larger in diameter at breast height (dbh) and were more likely to have exfoliating bark (bark peeling away from the snag, thus creating space between the bark and the snag) than random snags in both areas. In both study areas, roost snags were surrounded by forest with higher tree densities, greater tree species diversity, and trees had larger basal areas than forest surrounding random snags. Forests immediately surrounding roost snags also had higher densities of snags and logs than random snag areas. In the southern study area, roost snags were located closer to water than random snags and were more likely near the tops of slopes. Roost snags in the northern study area were on steeper slopes and were less likely within a recently harvested area. Radiomarked bats frequently used multiple roosts: 37 of 76 (49%) bats used ≥2 snags during the study. We recommend preserving all large snags with exfoliating bark and suggest steps to ensure that sufficient numbers of such snags are maintained for roosting bats in the future.