Ecological Relationships of Peromyscus leucopus noveboracensis and P. maniculatus gracilis in Central New York

Abstract

collected both forms from the same study areas in central New York, although P. m. gracilis was much less abundant and more restricted in its distribution than P. l. noveboracensis. P. m. nubiterrae replaces P. m. gracilis along the Appalachian Mountain chain southward from western New York. Workers in this area have generally reported that P. m. nubiterrae occurs at higher elevations and in cooler, moister habitats than P. l.

Microhabitat preferences of two species of deermice Peromyscus in a northeastern United States deciduous hardwood forest

“…leucopus and P. maniculatus have been co-existing for many decades in the area of range overlap extending from southern Ontario, Canada northeastward throughout much of New England in the United States and southeastern Canada. Whether the microhabitat differences observed in the present study and similar endeavors (Jameson 1949, Klein 1960, M'Closkey and Lajoie 1975, Dueser and Shugart 1978, Drickamer 1987a, testing both macrohabitat and microhabitat characteristics, are due to a long history of co-existence or to a more recent overlap resulting from range extension by one or both species is difficult to ascertain. What is evident, when we examine the relatively static distribution picture existing for the past several decades, is that there are a variety of critical parameters on which these two species differ, including seasonality of recruitment, activity differences under varying weather conditions, time of night when they are most active, macrohabitat selection, and a series of microhabitat features.…”

“…Results of macrohabitat studies differ regarding the habitat relationships of the two species of deermice even within same general region of North America. In central New York state, Klein (1960) reported P. maniculatus preferred forest stands of black maple and birch, whereas P. leucopus were captured most frequently in areas dominated by oak, though the latter species did not exhibit any strong overall habitat preference and was thus more of a generalist. In southeastern Ontario, Smith and Speller (1970) reported P. maniculatus was more of a generalist, being recorded in all forest types, whereas P. leucopus were restricted to upland hardwood forests.…”

Using thinning as a management tool for gypsy moth: the influence on small mammal abundance

“…Both species have been captured and have shown microhabitat separation in the study area (Violet, 1973;Bardwell, 1979). However, P. maniculatus shows greater affinity to higher elevation habitats in the Appalachian Mountains, to larger openings, or to areas with larger trees (Wilson, 1945;Klein, 1960;Barry et al, 1984;Buckner and Shure, 1985;Parren and Capen, 1985). Attributes common to both P. maniculatus and P. leucopus, such as food preferences (Hamilton, 1941) can explain the increased abundance of deermice in thinned stands, although our findings do not allow more specific explanation of the trend since we were unable to distinguish the deermouse from the white-footed mouse.…”

“…It is difficult to explain the effect of thinning in our study because of the differential habitat use exhibited by species in this genus. The deermouse, Peromyscus maniculatus nubiterae, and white-footed mouse, Peromyscus leucopus novaborancensis are sympatric in forest habitats of Appalachia (Wilson, 1945;Klein, 1960;Wolff and Hurlbutt, 1982;Barry et al, 1984;Buckner and Shure, 1985) and occur in a wide range of habitat types. Both species have been captured and have shown microhabitat separation in the study area (Violet, 1973;Bardwell, 1979).…”

Captures of Two Species of Peromyscus at Live Traps Baited with Male and Female Odors

“…The two species are sympatric in northeastern hardwood forests (Klein, 1960;Smith and Speller, 1970). The two species are sympatric in northeastern hardwood forests (Klein, 1960;Smith and Speller, 1970).…”