A comparison of the effectiveness of pitfall and longworth live-trapping techniques in population studies of house mice

Banach, Anna

doi:10.4098/at.arch.87-17

Cited by 10 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Recruitment between census n and census « + l was estimated by the number of individuals < 72 mm long (approximately 6 weeks old) captured/100 trap nights at census n + 1 (we assumed that mice < 72 mm at census n would be > 72 mm at census n + 1, Singleton (1987)). Wild mice may enter the trappable population at 4-5 weeks of age (Singleton, 1987). Mortality between censuses is expressed as the finite mortality rate (Krebs, 1989): the percentage of individuals trapped during census n which were not retrapped during census w + 1.…”

Section: Demographic Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

Can the nematode Capillaria hepatica regulate abundance in wild house mice? Results of enclosure experiments in southeastern Australia

Barker

Singleton²,

Spratt³

1991

Parasitology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The hypothesis that a liver-inhabiting nematode, Capillaria hepatica, can regulate abundance of the house mouse (Mus domesticus) was tested in enclosures, in southeastern Australia. Changes in mouse abundance, and the relationship between mortality and host abundance were compared in three treatment and three control populations. Any effect of C. hepatica on mouse abundance was masked by an unknown regulating factor(s). This factor(s) caused density-dependent mortality in the control and treatment populations and, together with strong seasonal trends in parasite transmission, confounded our test of the ability of C. hepatica to regulate the abundance of house mice. The seasonal trends in transmission have important implications for the potential of this parasite as a biological control agent and for models of the interaction of C. hepatica and mouse populations. Transmission of C. hepatica apparently occurred throughout the 18 month study, further supporting its potential as a biological agent in the control of mouse plagues in this region.

show abstract

Section: Demographic Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

Can the nematode Capillaria hepatica regulate abundance in wild house mice? Results of enclosure experiments in southeastern Australia

Barker

Singleton²,

Spratt³

1991

Parasitology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Each trapping grid consisted of 5 × 5 trap stations, 10m apart, with one small aluminum box trap (Elliott, Type C; 23 × 9 × 8 cm in dimension) set at each station. This grid design was adopted because it was one of the most commonly used grids for monitoring mice in grain crops (Brown et al 1997;Davis et al 2003;Mutze & Sinclair 2004), and reflected the small home ranges of mice in maturing crops (Krebs et al 1995) and their average trappability of >50% (Singleton 1987). The grids were placed 20 m from the edge of the crop to minimize any potential edge effects and were at least 200 m apart to prevent individual mice from being captured on more than 1 grid.…”

Section: Trappingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Live-trapping is traditionally used to monitor house mice because they are highly trappable (Singleton 1987). Accordingly, trap success (animals caught per 100 trap nights) is the most commonly used index of house mouse density (Singleton & Redhead 1989;Brown & Singleton 1998;Ruscoe et al 2001).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of population estimators and indices for monitoring house mice in sorghum crops

Kaboodvandpour

Free

Leung

2010

Integrative Zoology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

House mice (Mus musculus domesticus Schwarz & Schwarz, 1943) are monitored in Australia and China to track changes in mouse population densities and forecast their potential damage to cereal crops. The present study compared population indices based on the number of different mice caught and overall trap success from live-trapping with an oil card index (OC) and a tracking index (T) for monitoring mice in sorghum crops immediately before crop maturation. T was measured as the percentage of track board covered with mouse footprints night(-1), and OC as the percentage of card removed by mice night(-1). The reliability of these abundance indices was quantified by Pearson correlation coefficient with the trappable population size (Ñ), which was estimated by capture-recapture over eight consecutive nights on 175 × 5 trapping grids, in sorghum crops on two properties on the Darling Downs, Queensland. Because of differences among individual mice in capture probability, Model M(h) of program MARK was used to account for such heterogeneity and to estimate the size of each mouse population. The number of individual animals caught was more strongly correlated with Ñ than trap success and, therefore, might be a more reliable index; the data suggest that three trapping occasions provide optimal precision for this index. T correlated significantly with Ñ only at sites where the canopy of sorghum plants was closed, and its use should, therefore, be restricted to this habitat. OC did not correlate with Ñ because none or very little of the cards was eaten at low to moderate mouse densities. T and the number of animals caught over three trapping nights are recommended for monitoring mice in sorghum crops immediately prior to crop maturation.

show abstract

“…Much of the previous work on wild house mice used capturemark-recapture techniques to estimate population size (e.g. Singleton 1987Singleton , 1989. Pitfall traps (Singleton 1987) and Ugglan multiple-capture traps (Jacob et al 2002) have been tested but were not considered as effective as Longworth live-capture traps.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Singleton 1987Singleton , 1989. Pitfall traps (Singleton 1987) and Ugglan multiple-capture traps (Jacob et al 2002) have been tested but were not considered as effective as Longworth live-capture traps. Trapping (using Longworth or Elliott live-capture traps) is the 'gold standard' because capture-mark-recapture techniques can be employed.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

It’s a trap: effective methods for monitoring house mouse populations in grain-growing regions of south-eastern Australia

Brown

Henry²,

Pech³

et al. 2022

Wildl. Res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Context. Wild house mice cause substantial economic damage to grain crops in Australia, particularly during mouse plagues. Populations were monitored to detect changes in abundance, with data from surveys used in models to forecast likely mouse outbreaks. However, it is not always feasible to use live-trapping (the 'gold standard') for assessing mouse abundance at a large number of monitoring sites spread across south-eastern Australia. A range of alternative methods was tried to assist the grains industry with strategic decisions to reduce crop damage.Aims. The aim of this work was to determine which survey methods could provide useful and effective indexes of mouse abundance across a large area.Methods. Monitoring of mouse populations was conducted at representative grain farms by using (1) live-trapping at long-term 'benchmark' sites (n ¼ 2), and (2) mouse chew cards and active burrow counts at 'rapid-assessment' sites (n ¼ 44 farms across 5 regions). Monitoring was conducted for 22 monitoring sessions over 7.5 years through low, medium and high mouse abundance conditions.Key results. Live-trapping provided the most useful, but most resource-intensive, information. There were strong relationships between the index of mouse abundance from live-trapping with mouse chew cards and active burrow counts at a local (explaining 63% and 71% of variation respectively) and regional (explaining 71% and 81% of variation respectively) scales. The same quantitative relationship held between the mouse chew cards and trapping regardless of season and year. However, the relationship between active burrow counts and trapping was best in winter and autumn seasons. There was a strong relationship between mouse abundance from live-trapping and active burrows across 1 ha grids (R 2 ¼ 0.88). We determined there were 1.3 AE 0.2 (mean AE s.e.) mice per active burrow.Conclusions. Live-trapping supplemented with data from chew cards and active burrows remains sufficient to monitor a wide range of sites to show regional trends.Implications. It is likely that live-trapping will need to be used for the foreseeable future to provide useful parameters such as breeding condition and population abundance that are required for the forecast models. Supplementary monitoring at rapid-assessment sites (using chew cards in all seasons and active burrow counts particularly in autumn and winter), that can be collected easily without the need for animal handling, will provide additional indications of region-specific changes in mouse abundance and activity.

show abstract

A comparison of the effectiveness of pitfall and longworth live-trapping techniques in population studies of house mice

Cited by 10 publications

References 24 publications

Can the nematode Capillaria hepatica regulate abundance in wild house mice? Results of enclosure experiments in southeastern Australia

Can the nematode Capillaria hepatica regulate abundance in wild house mice? Results of enclosure experiments in southeastern Australia

Comparison of population estimators and indices for monitoring house mice in sorghum crops

It’s a trap: effective methods for monitoring house mouse populations in grain-growing regions of south-eastern Australia

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About