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

Abstract

Lee C. DRICKAMER Drickamer L. C. 1990. Microhabitat preferences of two species of deermice Peromyscus in a northeastern United States deciduous hardwood forest. Acta theriol. 35: 241-252. Differences in microhabitat utilization by two sympatric species of deermice, Peromyscus leucopus and P. maniculatus) were assessed in deciduous hardwood forest. In the initial descriptive experiment, a series of 12 parameters were measured for 1 m 2 areas around live-trap stations. Four subsequent experimental tests involved placing live-traps at specified locations with respect to logs, plant cover above the trap, the base of trees of different sizes, and on trunks of trees of different types and sizes. P. leucopus were caught more often than expected with (1) more plant cover directly above the trap, (2) at the sides of large logs, (3) at the base of medium-to-large sized trees, and (4) on the sides of large oak and sugar maple trees. P. maniculatus were captured more often than expected with (1) at the base of large diameter trees, and (2) on the sides of large beech and sugar maple trees. Mice of both species exhibited similar preferences for some habitat features, including distance from the trap to the nearest tree and amount of herbaceous ground cover around the trap. The differed with respect to many of the habitat features tested, including, diameter of the nearest tree, amount of cover above the trap, and the nature of the ground cover near the trap. These findings suggest ways in which the species differ in microhabitat utilization and further our understanding of the degree of specialization for each species.

Annual Variation in Habitat Use by White-footed Mice, <em>Peromyscus leucopus</em>: The Effects of Forest Patch Size, Edge and Surrounding Vegetation Type

“…Our data on initial and second capture habitat locations support those studies that reported no difference in the relative abundance of mice in those two habitats (Heske 1995;Swihart 1996, 1998). This result is somewhat surprising since forest edge habitats have been shown to have greater structural complexity in the understory vegetation compared to edge habitat (Anderson et al 2003) and White-footed Mice have been shown to prefer areas with more plant cover (Drickamer 1990). One explanation could be that mice are not moving into edge habitat but are already present in high abundances with small territory sizes.…”

Impact of urban factors and invasive species on white-footed mouse (Peromyscus leucopus) habitat use and foraging behavior in an urban forest park.

“…This behavior is consistent with patterns of habitat use in both non-urban (Drickamer 1990;Greenberg 2002) and urban (Jones and Lindquist 2012;Chupp et al 2013) sites. Mice at this site selected for those areas providing greater overhead protection from predators, in the form of the shrub canopy and CWD, supporting previous studies of small mammals in more natural habitats (Adler and Wilson 1987;Brown et al 1988;Greenberg 2002;Bakker 2006;Hodson et al 2010).…”

“…leucopus (Greenberg 2002), and that it provides both foraging opportunities and cover (Drickamer 1990;Edalgo et al 2009;Jones and Lindquist 2012).…”

“…This rodent also persists in areas invaded by Amur honeysuckle, and is sometimes the only small mammal still present in such areas (Mattos and Orrock 2010;Dutra et al 2011;Rose et al 2014;Shields et al 2014). White-footed mice prefer habitats with dense canopy cover (Edalgo et al 2009), large quantities of woody debris (Drickamer 1990), and relatively little vegetative cover (Barnum et al 1992), preferences that we would expect to carry over into honeysuckle patches. However, P. leucopus has demonstrated the ability to use whatever habitat is available (Greenberg 2002;Jones and Lindquist 2012), even in heavily disturbed areas (Bellows et al 2001;Brannon 2005).…”

“…Whitefooted mice can alter foraging behavior and habitat selection in response to habitat or patch-level changes in the vegetative community and structure (Mattos and Orrock 2010;Kellner and Swihart 2014). Peromyscus leucopus makes a good target species due to the large body of knowledge regarding habitat selection (Drickamer 1990;Bellows et al 2001;Brannon 2005), demography (Adler and Wilson 1987;Eagan et al 2011), foraging behavior (Bowers and Dooley 1993;Fanson 2010), diet (Whittaker 1966;Rose et al 2014), path selection (Barnum et al 1992;McMillan and Kaufman 1995), and urban ecology (Barko et al 2003;Chupp et al 2013). White-footed mice are also a common focal species for GUD studies (Bowers and Dooley 1993;Schmidt and Ostfeld 2003;Shaner et al 2007).…”