DOCSLIB.ORG

Clarifying the Distribution and Ecology of Pocket Mice in Wyoming

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Clarifying the Distribution and Ecology of Pocket Mice in Wyoming Trapping protocol for difficult to detect small mammals Kristina Harkins1*, Merav Ben-David1, Doug Keinath2 1Department of Zoology and Physiology, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY 82071 2U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Cheyenne, WY 82009 © Laila Bahaa-el-din/Panthera Ecosystems and species’ ranges are changing rapidly In Wyoming » Species of Greatest Conservation NeedWGFD 2010 » Bats: 11 species » Rabbits: 2 species » Rodents: 18 species » Shrews: 5 species Pocket Mice » Family: Heteromyidae – 2 genera » Fur-lined exterior cheek pouches for storing and carrying food » Cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) thought to have negativeCeradini unpublished impact; Ostoja et al. 2013; Richardson et al. 2013 © Tegan May » Most studies done at small scale with small scale habitat variables Heisler et al. 2013 Silky Pocket Mouse Plains Pocket Mouse Olive-backed Pocket Mouse Great Basin Pocket Mouse Perognathus flavus Perognathus flavescens Perognathus fasciatus Perognathus parvus Pocket Mice are Rare 1. Difficult to detect because of standard trapping protocol: • Sherman Live Traps • Peanut Butter (and oats) 2. Wyoming habitat a-typical for pocket mice. 3. Poor competitors and therefore rare. Project Goals Can we create a protocol that maximizes pocket mouse captures? What habitat characteristics are selected by these species? Are pocket mice excluded from desirable locations due to competition with deer mice (Peromyscus maniculatus)? What trapping method can maximize pocket mouse captures? Sampling Effort Typical Trapping Grid: 10 X 10, 10m Spacing Hanser et. al. 2011 Ostoja and Schupp 2009 Dizney et. al. 2008 Manor and Saltz 2008 Mullican et. al. 2005 Kuenzi et. al. 2005 “Average” Trap Area Effort 10 hectares, square 100 traps per grid Proposed Trap Area Effort 35.6 hectares, rectangular and long 160-180 traps per grid Trap and Bait Protocol 4x20 Trapping Grid – 25 meter spacing Trap Types: Bait Types: Set Up: Havahart Peanut Butter 2-3 traps per point Longworth Horse Feed Polyester bedding Sherman Bird Seed Rotate bait types Longworth traps only on 1 trap line per grid © Tegan May © Tegan May Methods <2300m elevation <30% tree canopy cover Methods Trapped 4 consecutive nights per site Each individual uniquely marked PIT Tag or Ear Tag + Hair Clip © Kelly Shank Study Area 2015 47 sites 18 species 4179 unique individuals 72.4% of captures were deer mice 4 pocket mouse species: 149 individuals 2016 52 sites 19 species 1782 unique individuals 72.7% captures were deer mice 4 pocket mouse species: 119 individuals Capture Success 2015 2016 Species Scientific Name Individuals Total Individual Total Deer Mouse Peromyscus maniculatus 2776 5399 1198 2550 Ord's Kangaroo Rat Dipodomys ordii 516 881 227 422 Western Harvest Mouse Reithrodontomys megalotis 159 290 45 99 Olive-backed Pocket Mouse Perognathus fasciatus 130 187 92 155 Least Chipmunk Tamias minimus 110 132 63 91 Sagebrush Vole Lemmiscus curtatus 170 188 23 24 Plains Harvest Mouse Reitrodontomys montanus 101 140 4 5 Prairie Vole Microtus ochrogaster 91 98 15 15 Thirteen-lined Ground Squirrel Ictidomys tridecemlineatus 43 57 42 47 Northern Grasshopper Mouse Onychomys leucogaster 28 35 30 46 Hispid Pocket Mouse Chaetodipus hispidus 5 6 17 29 Microtus Vole Species Microtus species 12 18 3 3 Bushy-tailed Woodrat Neotoma cinerea 9 11 5 6 Great Basin Pocket Mouse Perognathus parvus 9 12 1 1 Wyoming Ground Squirrel Urocitellus elegans 0 0 9 10 Long-tailed Vole Microtus longicaudus 7 7 1 2 Plains Pocket Mouse Perognathus flavescens 5 8 0 0 Montane Vole Microtus montanus 1 1 2 3 Cottontail Rabbit Species Sylvilagus species 2 2 1 1 Silky Pocket Mouse Perognathus flavus 0 0 1 2 Shrew Species Sorex Species 1 1 0 0 Long-tailed Weasel Mustela frenata 0 0 1 1 Grand Total 4179 7478 1782 3517 Species Richness by Site Significant 16 14 variation 12 10 8 within small 2015 6 2016 mammal OF NUMBER SITES 4 2 0 communities 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NUMBER OF SPECIES TRAPPED AT A SITE What trapping method can maximize pocket mouse captures? Do granivorous rodents select seeds? Multi-state Model » Individual variation » Bait and trap switching All Pocket Mouse Captures © Tegan May 200 180 160 140 120 100 80 Captures 60 40 20 0 Havahart Havahart Havahart Sherman Sherman Sherman Bird Seed Horse Feed Peanut Bird Seed Horse Feed Peanut Butter Butter Trap+Bait Preferences – Pocket Mice Compositional analysis of habitat use. HA_BS HA_HF LW_BS LW_HF LW_PB HA_PB SH_BS SH_PB SH_HF HA_BS --------- HA_HF ----------------------------------------- LW_BS --------------------------------------------------- LW_HF ------------------------------------------------------------- LW_PB ------------------------------------------------------------- HA_PB ----------------------------------------- SH_BS ------------------ ---------- SH_PB ------------------ SH_HF ------------------ HA = Havahart, LW = Longworth, SH = Sherman BS = Bird Seed, HF = Horse Feed, PB = Peanut Butter HA_BS HA_HF All Longworths HA_PB SH_BS SH_PB SH_HF +++ ++ + + + -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Additional Species Deer Mice Kangaroo Rat All Voles HA_PB +++ HA_BS +++ LW_PB ++ HA_BS +++ HA_PB +++ LW_BS + HA_HF +++ HA_HF +++ LW_HF + HA_HF + LW_PB + LW_PB + HA_BS + SH_PB + LW_BS + HA_PB + LW_HF -- SH_BS -- LW_BS -- SH_PB -- -- -- LW_HF -- -- SH_BS -- -- -- SH_BS -- -- -- SH_PB -- -- -- SH_HF -- -- -- SH_HF -- -- -- SH_HF -- -- -- Trap performance 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 Empty Traps 0.4 Captures Percent Bushy-tailed Woodrat 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 Havahart Sherman Longworth Overall • Shift our trap protocol ideas • 67% all captures in Havaharts • Future studies • Target trapping © Tegan May Final thoughts about the future! Acknowledgments Advisors Technicians Dr. Merav Ben-David Tegan May (x3!) Dr. Doug Keinath Maddy Pfaff Committee Members Bre Dodge Dr. Jake Goheen Alicia Sullivan Dr. Shannon Albeke Briana All Lab Mates Bobby Riotto Dr. Carolyn Ekrich Volunteers Adi Barocas Michael Tweedie Bobby Riotto Taylor Berge Cody Trainer Megan Dai Sean Harkins WYNDD family And many, All our dogs many more! Questions? .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Likely to Have Habitat Within Iras That ALLOW Road
    Item 3a - Sensitive Species National Master List By Region and Species Group Not likely to have habitat within IRAs Not likely to have Federal Likely to have habitat that DO NOT ALLOW habitat within IRAs Candidate within IRAs that DO Likely to have habitat road (re)construction that ALLOW road Forest Service Species Under NOT ALLOW road within IRAs that ALLOW but could be (re)construction but Species Scientific Name Common Name Species Group Region ESA (re)construction? road (re)construction? affected? could be affected? Bufo boreas boreas Boreal Western Toad Amphibian 1 No Yes Yes No No Plethodon vandykei idahoensis Coeur D'Alene Salamander Amphibian 1 No Yes Yes No No Rana pipiens Northern Leopard Frog Amphibian 1 No Yes Yes No No Accipiter gentilis Northern Goshawk Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Ammodramus bairdii Baird's Sparrow Bird 1 No No Yes No No Anthus spragueii Sprague's Pipit Bird 1 No No Yes No No Centrocercus urophasianus Sage Grouse Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Cygnus buccinator Trumpeter Swan Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Falco peregrinus anatum American Peregrine Falcon Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Gavia immer Common Loon Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Histrionicus histrionicus Harlequin Duck Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Lanius ludovicianus Loggerhead Shrike Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Oreortyx pictus Mountain Quail Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Otus flammeolus Flammulated Owl Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Picoides albolarvatus White-Headed Woodpecker Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Picoides arcticus Black-Backed Woodpecker Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Speotyto cunicularia Burrowing
    [Show full text]
  • Impact of Grazing Systems on Rodent and Cottontail Rabbit Populations in South Texas Meenakshi Nagendran
    South Dakota State University Open PRAIRIE: Open Public Research Access Institutional Repository and Information Exchange Theses and Dissertations 1987 Impact of Grazing Systems on Rodent and Cottontail Rabbit Populations in South Texas Meenakshi Nagendran Follow this and additional works at: http://openprairie.sdstate.edu/etd Part of the Natural Resources and Conservation Commons Recommended Citation Nagendran, Meenakshi, "Impact of Grazing Systems on Rodent and Cottontail Rabbit Populations in South Texas" (1987). Theses and Dissertations. 188. http://openprairie.sdstate.edu/etd/188 This Thesis - Open Access is brought to you for free and open access by Open PRAIRIE: Open Public Research Access Institutional Repository and Information Exchange. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Open PRAIRIE: Open Public Research Access Institutional Repository and Information Exchange. For more information, please contact [email protected]. IMPACT OF GRAZING SYSTEMS ON RODENT AND COTTONTAIL RABBIT POPULATIONS IN SOUTH TEXAS BY MEENAKSHI NAGENDRAN A thesis submitted in partial fulfilllm' ent of the requirements for the degree Master of Science Major in Wtldlife' and Fisheries Sciences (Wildlife Option) South Dakota 1987State University IMPACT OF GRAZING SYSTEMS OrJ RODENT AND COTIONTAIL RABBIT POPULATIONS IN SOUTH TEXAS This thesis is approved as a creditable and independent investigation by a candidate for the degree, Master of Science, and is acceptable for meeting the thesis requirements for this degree. Acceptance of this thesis does not imply that the conclusions reached by the candidate are necessarily the conclusions of the major department. Thesis Advisor Date Head, Dept. of Wildlife Date and Fisheries Sciences ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I wish to extend my sincerest gratitude to all my friends and mentors without whose assistance nothing would have been possible.
    [Show full text]
  • Mammals of the California Desert
    MAMMALS OF THE CALIFORNIA DESERT William F. Laudenslayer, Jr. Karen Boyer Buckingham Theodore A. Rado INTRODUCTION I ,+! The desert lands of southern California (Figure 1) support a rich variety of wildlife, of which mammals comprise an important element. Of the 19 living orders of mammals known in the world i- *- loday, nine are represented in the California desert15. Ninety-seven mammal species are known to t ':i he in this area. The southwestern United States has a larger number of mammal subspecies than my other continental area of comparable size (Hall 1981). This high degree of subspeciation, which f I;, ; leads to the development of new species, seems to be due to the great variation in topography, , , elevation, temperature, soils, and isolation caused by natural barriers. The order Rodentia may be k., 2:' , considered the most successful of the mammalian taxa in the desert; it is represented by 48 species Lc - occupying a wide variety of habitats. Bats comprise the second largest contingent of species. Of the 97 mammal species, 48 are found throughout the desert; the remaining 49 occur peripherally, with many restricted to the bordering mountain ranges or the Colorado River Valley. Four of the 97 I ?$ are non-native, having been introduced into the California desert. These are the Virginia opossum, ' >% Rocky Mountain mule deer, horse, and burro. Table 1 lists the desert mammals and their range 1 ;>?-axurrence as well as their current status of endangerment as determined by the U.S. fish and $' Wildlife Service (USWS 1989, 1990) and the California Department of Fish and Game (Calif.
    [Show full text]
  • Special Publications Museum of Texas Tech University Number 63 18 September 2014
    Special Publications Museum of Texas Tech University Number 63 18 September 2014 List of Recent Land Mammals of Mexico, 2014 José Ramírez-Pulido, Noé González-Ruiz, Alfred L. Gardner, and Joaquín Arroyo-Cabrales.0 Front cover: Image of the cover of Nova Plantarvm, Animalivm et Mineralivm Mexicanorvm Historia, by Francisci Hernández et al. (1651), which included the first list of the mammals found in Mexico. Cover image courtesy of the John Carter Brown Library at Brown University. SPECIAL PUBLICATIONS Museum of Texas Tech University Number 63 List of Recent Land Mammals of Mexico, 2014 JOSÉ RAMÍREZ-PULIDO, NOÉ GONZÁLEZ-RUIZ, ALFRED L. GARDNER, AND JOAQUÍN ARROYO-CABRALES Layout and Design: Lisa Bradley Cover Design: Image courtesy of the John Carter Brown Library at Brown University Production Editor: Lisa Bradley Copyright 2014, Museum of Texas Tech University This publication is available free of charge in PDF format from the website of the Natural Sciences Research Laboratory, Museum of Texas Tech University (nsrl.ttu.edu). The authors and the Museum of Texas Tech University hereby grant permission to interested parties to download or print this publication for personal or educational (not for profit) use. Re-publication of any part of this paper in other works is not permitted without prior written permission of the Museum of Texas Tech University. This book was set in Times New Roman and printed on acid-free paper that meets the guidelines for per- manence and durability of the Committee on Production Guidelines for Book Longevity of the Council on Library Resources. Printed: 18 September 2014 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Special Publications of the Museum of Texas Tech University, Number 63 Series Editor: Robert J.
    [Show full text]
  • Perognathus Flavescens) in Eastern Nebraska
    Western North American Naturalist Volume 72 Number 4 Article 11 2-8-2013 Current status of the plains pocket mouse (Perognathus flavescens) in eastern Nebraska Keith Geluso University of Nebraska, Kearney, NE, [email protected] Greg D. Wright University of Nebraska, Kearney, NE, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/wnan Part of the Anatomy Commons, Botany Commons, Physiology Commons, and the Zoology Commons Recommended Citation Geluso, Keith and Wright, Greg D. (2013) "Current status of the plains pocket mouse (Perognathus flavescens) in eastern Nebraska," Western North American Naturalist: Vol. 72 : No. 4 , Article 11. Available at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/wnan/vol72/iss4/11 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Western North American Naturalist Publications at BYU ScholarsArchive. It has been accepted for inclusion in Western North American Naturalist by an authorized editor of BYU ScholarsArchive. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. Western North American Naturalist 72(4), © 2012, pp. 554–562 CURRENT STATUS OF THE PLAINS POCKET MOUSE (PEROGNATHUS FLAVESCENS) IN EASTERN NEBRASKA Keith Geluso1,3 and Greg D. Wright1,2 ABSTRACT.—Distribution of the plains pocket mouse (Perognathus flavescens) overlaps tallgrass prairies in northeastern parts of the species’ range in the central United States. Distribution and abundance of the plains pocket mouse appears negatively impacted by agricultural practices during the last century due to the scarcity of records throughout the region. In eastern Nebraska, few plains pocket mice have been captured and no published account exists in recent decades.
    [Show full text]
  • Vascular Plant and Vertebrate Inventory of Chiricahua National Monument
    In Cooperation with the University of Arizona, School of Natural Resources Vascular Plant and Vertebrate Inventory of Chiricahua National Monument Open-File Report 2008-1023 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey National Park Service This page left intentionally blank. In cooperation with the University of Arizona, School of Natural Resources Vascular Plant and Vertebrate Inventory of Chiricahua National Monument By Brian F. Powell, Cecilia A. Schmidt, William L. Halvorson, and Pamela Anning Open-File Report 2008-1023 U.S. Geological Survey Southwest Biological Science Center Sonoran Desert Research Station University of Arizona U.S. Department of the Interior School of Natural Resources U.S. Geological Survey 125 Biological Sciences East National Park Service Tucson, Arizona 85721 U.S. Department of the Interior DIRK KEMPTHORNE, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey Mark Myers, Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2008 For product and ordering information: World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS For more information on the USGS-the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment: World Wide Web:http://www.usgs.gov Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS Suggested Citation Powell, B.F., Schmidt, C.A., Halvorson, W.L., and Anning, Pamela, 2008, Vascular plant and vertebrate inventory of Chiricahua National Monument: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2008-1023, 104 p. [http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2008/1023/]. Cover photo: Chiricahua National Monument. Photograph by National Park Service. Note: This report supersedes Schmidt et al. (2005). Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Wildlife Ruby Lake Natillntllwildlife Refuge
    I 49. 44/2: R 82/3/993 P RLE Wildlife Ruby lake NatillntllWildlife Refuge ZIMMERMAN LIBRARY UNIV. OF NEW MEXteo FEB 1 0 1994 U.S. Regional Depos1to A Refuge for Nesting and Migrating Waterfowl and Other Wildlife The Habitat Ruby Lake National Wildlife Refuge was established in The refuge, at an elevation of 6,000 feet, consists of an 1938. It encompasses 37,632 acres at the south end of extensive bulrush marsh interspersed with pockets of Ruby Valley. This land was once covered by a 200 foot open water. Fish are abundant. Islands scattered deep, 300,800-acre lake known as Franklin Lake. Today throughout provide good nesting habitat for many bird 12,000 acres of marsh remain on the refuge. Just north of species. the refuge, a 15,000-acre seasonal wetland is now referred to as Franklin Lake. Over 200 springs flow into the marsh along its west border _...)/ creating riparian habitat which is used by many songbirds, To Elko �� and Welle snipe, rail and small mammals. They also provide a water FRANKLIN source for larger mammals. With slight increases in LAKE elevation, wet meadows gradate into grasslands and sagebrush-rabbitbrush habitat. Pinon pines and juniper cover the slopes of the Ruby Mountains that rise to 11,000 feet along the west side of the refuge. Canyons provide habitat for a variety of wildlife. Rock cliffs provide raptors with nesting and perching sites. A mountainside of dead trees, home for ROAD cavity dwelling birds, was the result of a 1979 wildfire. BRESSMAN CABIN LOOP MAIN BOAT LANDING -4,__,,� ·�I! I N � 0 3 Miles 0 2 4 Kilometer� RANCH dead pinon tree General Key BIRDS bam ,wallow � Season 6 The following bird list includes 207 species observed on Sp - Spring (March through May) or near the refuge.
    [Show full text]
  • Hispid Pocket Mouse Chaetodipus Hispidus
    Wyoming Species Account Hispid Pocket Mouse Chaetodipus hispidus REGULATORY STATUS USFWS: No special status USFS R2: No special status USFS R4: No special status Wyoming BLM: No special status State of Wyoming: Nongame Wildlife CONSERVATION RANKS USFWS: No special status WGFD: NSSU (U), Tier III WYNDD: G5, S1S3 Wyoming Contribution: LOW IUCN: Least Concern STATUS AND RANK COMMENTS The Wyoming Natural Diversity Database has assigned Hispid Pocket Mouse (Chaetodipus hispidus) a state conservation rank ranging from S1 (Critically Imperiled) to S3 (Vulnerable) because of uncertainty about the proportion of range occupied and population trends for this species in Wyoming. NATURAL HISTORY Taxonomy: Historically, there were four recognized subspecies of Hispid Pocket Mouse, and only C. h. paradoxus was found in Wyoming 1-5. A recent DNA-based study determined that the previously accepted subspecies are neither morphologically nor genetically distinct and instead proposed new subspecies boundaries delineated by four geographically and ecologically disjunct mitochondrial clades 6. Following this taxonomic revision, Wyoming remains within the distribution of the newly defined subspecies C. h. paradoxus 6. Description: It is possible to identify Hispid Pocket Mouse in the field. It is the largest Wyoming pocket mouse species; adults weigh between 40–60 g and can reach total lengths of 200–223 mm 2. Tail, hind foot, and ear length ranges from 90–113 mm, 25–28 mm, and 12–13 mm, respectively 2. Hispid Pocket Mouse is named for its distinctly coarse dorsal pelage, which is buff to yellowish orange mixed with black hairs, thus leading to an overall brownish or even olive appearance 1, 2, 4, 5, 7.
    [Show full text]
  • The Mammals of Harmon County, Oklahoma1
    42 PROC. OF THE OKLA. ACAD. OF SCI. FOR 1968 The Mammals of Harmon County, Oklahoma1 2 ROBERT E. MABTIN , Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, and JOHN R. PRESTON', Fort Worth Museum of Science and History, Fort Worth 'n1e present report constitutes the first attempt to comprehensively survey the mammals of Hannon County, Oklahoma. Before 1939 few sur­ veys had been made of the mammalian fauna of southwestern Oklahoma, although an expedition under the command of Captain R. B. Marcy in 1852 (Marcy, IBM) made collections of and observations on mammals as part ot a geographical survey along the tributaries of the Red River. The ex­ pedition traversed the Prairie Dog Town Fork of the Red River in the vicinity ot Harmon Co. Barnett (1934), Conover (1927), and Steele (1964) recorded comments on mammal observations made by early settlers from 1880 to 1900. Bailey's (1905) account ot Texas mammals is partly ap­ plicable to BOuthwestern Oklahoma. Blair (1939, 19~4) presents the most comprehensive information on the mammals ot southwestern Oklahoma and adjacent areas, including information on some species in Harmon Co. Since 1954 there have been a few studies of areas near Harmon Co. Halloran and Glass (19~9) and Glass and Halloran (1961 ) reported on the mammals ot the Wichita Mountains. Milstead and Tinkle (1959) , Packard and Gamer (1964), Dalquest (1968) • and Packard and .Judd (1968) provided records tor areas in Texas adjacent to or near Harmon Co. PREsENT SURVEY Most collecting was in the southwestern quadrant of the county (Fig. 1). In December 1959, a 1.5-acre study area was established 5 miles SW ot Hollis to sample rodent populations.
    [Show full text]
  • Inventory of Mammals at Walnut Canyon, Wupatki, and Sunset Crater National Monuments
    National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Natural Resource Program Center Inventory of Mammals at Walnut Canyon, Wupatki, and Sunset Crater National Monuments Natural Resource Technical Report NPS/SCPN/NRTR–2009/278 ON THE COVER: Top: Wupatki National Monument; bottom left: bobcat (Lynx rufus); bottom right: Wupatki pocket mouse (Perogna- thus amplus cineris) at Wupatki National Monument. Photos courtesy of U.S. Geological Survey/Charles Drost. Inventory of Mammals at Walnut Canyon, Wupatki, and Sunset Crater National Monuments Natural Resource Technical Report NPS/SCPN/NRTR—2009/278 Author Charles Drost U.S. Geological Survey Southwest Biological Science Center 2255 N. Gemini Drive Flagstaff, AZ 86001 Editing and Design Jean Palumbo National Park Service, Southern Colorado Plateau Network Northern Arizona University Flagstaff, Arizona December 2009 U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service Natural Resource Program Center Fort Collins, Colorado The National Park Service, Natural Resource Program Center publishes a range of reports that address natural resource topics of interest and applicability to a broad audience in the National Park Service and others in natural resource management, including scientists, conservation and environmental constituencies, and the public. The Natural Resource Technical Report Series is used to disseminate results of scientific studies in the physical, biological, and social sciences for both the advancement of science and the achievement of the National Park Service mission. The series provides contributors with a forum for displaying comprehensive data that are often deleted from journals because of page limitations. All manuscripts in the series receive the appropriate level of peer review to ensure that the information is scientifically credible, technically accurate, appropriately written for the intended audience, and designed and published in a professional manner.
    [Show full text]
  • SALT MARSH HARVEST MOUSE Reithrodontomys Raviventris
    U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Sacramento Fish & Wildlife Office Species Account SALT MARSH HARVEST MOUSE Reithrodontomys raviventris CLASSIFICATION: Endangered Federal Register 35:16047 ; October 13, 1970 http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/federal_register/fr27. pdf STATE LISTING STATUS: Listed as an endangered species in 1971. CRITICAL HABITAT: None designated RECOVERY PLAN: FINAL Draft Recovery Plan for Tidal Marsh Ecosystems of Northern and Central California edocket.access.gpo.gov/2010/2010-2279.htm Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse edocket.access.gpo.gov/2010/pdf/2010- Valary Bloom, USFWS 2279.pdf (52 KB) 5-YEAR REVIEW: Completed February 2010. No change recommended. http://www.fws.gov/ecos/ajax/docs/five_year_review/doc3221.pdf (853 KB) DESCRIPTION The salt marsh harvest mouse ( Reithrodontomys raviventris ), also known as the "red-bellied harvest mouse," is a small native rodent in the Cricetidae family, which includes field mice, lemmings, muskrats, hamsters and gerbils. There are two subspecies: the northern ( R. r. halicoetes ) and southern ( R. r. raviventris ). The northern subspecies lives in the marshes of the San Pablo and Suisun bays, the southern in the marshes of Corte Madera, Richmond and South San Francisco Bay. (See field identification below) The scientific name Reithrodontomys raviventris means "grooved-toothed mouse with a red belly." Both subspecies do have grooved upper front teeth but generally only the southern subspecies has a cinnamon- or rufous-colored belly. Salt marsh harvest mice are critically dependent on dense cover and their preferred habitat is pickleweed (Salicornia virginica). Harvest mice are seldom found in cordgrass or alkali bulrush. In marshes with an upper zone of peripheral halophytes (salt-tolerant plants), mice use this vegetation to escape the higher tides, and may even spend a considerable portion of their lives there.
    [Show full text]
  • Rodents' Responses to Manipulated Plant Litter and Seed Densities
    Rodents’ responses to manipulated plant litter and seed densities: implications for restoration Nancy Nicolai Department of Biology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM, USA ABSTRACT Rodent populations in arid grasslands do not always track seed production, possibly due to high levels of plant litter. When natural disturbances are suppressed, litter accumulates becoming physically complex, causing rodents to harvest fewer seeds per equivalent time foraging. It also alters security from predation. Restoring natural disturbances may be an important element in conserving rodent communities. The aim of this study was to assess the influence of two levels of plant litter cover and seed densities on nocturnal rodent population characteristics in a semiarid grassland. Specifically, I hypothesized that kangaroo rats, pocket mice, grasshopper mice, and total rodents would be higher in the sparse plant litter treatment than dense litter, whereas deer mice would be lower in sparse plots. I further hypothesized that kangaroo rats and deer mice would be higher in the seed augmented treatment compared to the unseeded treatment. A prescribed fire removed litter in four of eight plots prior to sowing native seeds 1 year postfire into two burned and two unburned plots. Rodents were live-trapped during spring and fall 1 year. Sparse litter treatment had higher total rodent abundance, biomass, and frequency of offspring compared to dense plots indicating use of stored seeds. Banner-tailed kangaroo rats had higher abundance, implying reduced predation risk. Pocket mice body mass was greater in dense plots. After winter, seeded plots had higher kangaroo rat body mass and grasshopper mice abundance than unseeded, reflecting the use of stored seeds.
    [Show full text]