Criteria for Trap Evaluation

Temme, Manfred; Jackson, WB

doi:10.1520/stp34961s

Cited by 2 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Neophobia models allowed capture probability to vary during the first (neo1) or first and second (neo2) sampling occasions, while holding capture probability constant for the remaining occasions. Motivation for these models came from literature accounts of neophobia for Rattus (Temme and Jackson 1979, Inglis et al 1996, Clapperton 2006. The next subset of models was parameterized to model capture probability, recapture probability, or both capture and recapture probability as a function of island, habitat, or site.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We documented lower capture probability for R. diardii on the first and second occasion, likely due to neophobia. Neophobia has been observed in laboratory, commensal, and wild Rattus populations (Temme and Jackson 1979, Inglis et al 1996, Clapperton 2006. Suncus murinus capture probability also increased over time, suggesting neophobia, although this effect was not strongly supported in models.…”

Section: Modeling Capture and Recapture Probabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Distribution, Density, and Biomass of Introduced Small Mammals in the Southern Mariana Islands

2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although it is generally accepted that introduced small mammals have detrimental effects on island ecology, our understanding of these effects is frequently limited by incomplete knowledge of small mammal distribution, density, and biomass. Such information is especially critical in the Mariana Islands, where small mammal density is inversely related to effectiveness of Brown Tree Snake (Boiga irregularis) control tools, such as mouse-attractant traps. We used mark-recapture sampling to determine introduced small mammal distribution, density, and biomass in the major habitats of Guam, Rota, Saipan, and Tinian, including grassland, Leucaena forest, and native limestone forest. Of the five species captured, Rattus diardii (sensu Robins et al. 2007) was most common across habitats and islands. In contrast, Mus musculus was rarely captured at forested sites, Suncus murinus was not captured on Rota, and R. exulans and R. norvegicus captures were uncommon. Modeling indicated that neophobia, island, sex, reproductive status, and rain amount influenced R. diardii capture probability, whereas time, island, and capture heterogeneity influenced S. murinus and M. musculus capture probability. Density and biomass were much greater on Rota, Saipan, and Tinian than on Guam, most likely a result of Brown Tree Snake predation pressure on the latter island. Rattus diardii and M. musculus density and biomass were greatest in grassland, whereas S. murinus density and biomass were greatest in Leucaena forest. The high densities documented during this research suggest that introduced small mammals (especially R. diardii) are impacting abundance and diversity of the native fauna and flora of the Mariana Islands. Further, Brown Tree Snake control and management tools that rely on mouse attractants will be less effective on Rota, Saipan, and Tinian than on Guam. If the Brown Tree Snake becomes established on these islands, high-density introduced small mammal populations will likely facilitate and support a high-density Brown Tree Snake population, even as native species are reduced or extirpated.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Modeling Capture and Recapture Probabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Distribution, Density, and Biomass of Introduced Small Mammals in the Southern Mariana Islands

2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Motivation for these models came from literature accounts of neophobia for introduced Rattus spp. (Temme and Jackson 1979, Inglis et al 1996, Clapperton 2006. Building on the framework of the top model, we next added a set of models parameterized to model capture probability, recapture probability, or both capture and recapture probability as a function of island, habitat, or site.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…capture rates in Haguruma live-traps relate to the wire-mesh construction of this trap, which may reduce the neophobic response observed for many Rattus spp. (Temme and Jackson 1979, Inglis et al 1996, Clapperton 2006 relative to the more enclosed Sherman trap. We suspect that low S. murinus and M. musculus Haguruma capture rates relate to reduced trap effectiveness due to the combination of feeding behavior (limited observations suggest that these species were less likely than R. diardii spp.…”

Section: Trap Capture Ratesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating Abundance Estimate Precision and the Assumptions of a Count‐Based Index for Small Mammals

2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Conservation and management of small mammals requires reliable knowledge of population size. We investigated precision of mark‐recapture and removal abundance estimates generated from live‐trapping and snap‐trapping data collected at sites on Guam (n = 7), Rota (n = 4), Saipan (n = 5), and Tinian (n = 3), in the Mariana Islands. We also evaluated a common index, captures per unit effort (CPUE), as a predictor of abundance. In addition, we evaluated cost and time associated with implementing live‐trapping and snap‐trapping and compared species‐specific capture rates of selected live‐ and snap‐traps. For all species, mark‐recapture estimates were consistently more precise than removal estimates based on coefficients of variation and 95% confidence intervals. The predictive utility of CPUE was poor but improved with increasing sampling duration. Nonetheless, modeling of sampling data revealed that underlying assumptions critical to application of an index of abundance, such as constant capture probability across space, time, and individuals, were not met. Although snap‐trapping was cheaper and faster than live‐trapping, the time difference was negligible when site preparation time was considered. Rattus diardii spp. captures were greatest in Haguruma live‐traps (Standard Trading Co., Honolulu, HI) and Victor snap‐traps (Woodstream Corporation, Lititz, PA), whereas Suncus murinus and Mus musculus captures were greatest in Sherman live‐traps (H. B. Sherman Traps, Inc., Tallahassee, FL) and Museum Special snap‐traps (Woodstream Corporation). Although snap‐trapping and CPUE may have utility after validation against more rigorous methods, validation should occur across the full range of study conditions. Resources required for this level of validation would likely be better allocated towards implementing rigorous and robust methods.

show abstract

Criteria for Trap Evaluation

Cited by 2 publications

References 11 publications

Distribution, Density, and Biomass of Introduced Small Mammals in the Southern Mariana Islands

Distribution, Density, and Biomass of Introduced Small Mammals in the Southern Mariana Islands

Evaluating Abundance Estimate Precision and the Assumptions of a Count‐Based Index for Small Mammals

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About