Six reasons why feral house mouse populations might have low recapture rates.

Abstract

Many feral house mouse populations have low recapture rates (0-20%) in live-trapping studies carried out at 2-4-week intervals. We consider six hypotheses to explain low recapture rates. We radio-collared 155 house mice between September 1992 and May 1993 in agricultural fields on the Darling Downs of south-eastern Queensland during a phase of population increase. Low recapture rates during the breeding season were due to low trappability and during the non-breeding period to nomadic movements. During the breeding season radio-collared mice of both sexes survived well and moved mostly small distances (<ll m). Low trappability has consequences for the precision of population indices that rely on catch per unit effort. Capture-recapture models robust to heterogeneity of trap responses should be used to census feral Mus populations.

Temporal behaviour profiles of Mus musculus in nature are affected by population activity

“…In our studies, we attempted to chip mice with RFID transponders for automated recognition of individual mice, but found the recapture rate to be too low for reliable analysis. This is consistent with findings in the literature that 95% of the mouse population may have dispersed in as little as 6-7 weeks [36]. This indicates that in a field study recognition of individual mice is not feasible, and is only possible in enclosure studies.…”

“…Attempts to study temporal patterns in animal behaviour under natural conditions have often been performed in outdoor enclosures, and although enclosure studies are closer to a natural situation than laboratory studies, they still miss many aspects of natural diversity in Physiology & Behavior 139 (2015) 351-360 behaviour, physiology, genetics, ecology, etc. (see also [36,39,56,69,9,32]. Most importantly, dispersal, which is generally induced by social factors such as dominance/submission, aggression and/or the availability of mates cannot occur in an enclosure.…”

What Affects Bait Uptake by House Mice in Australian Grain Fields?

“…The number of marked mice always decreased during the removal trappings, but the number of first captures did not follow an obvious pattern. The low number of recaptures confirms earlier findings (Krebs et al 1994). No difference was noted in body mass and body length between RB-positive and RB-negative mice, but lower body mass would be expected for (RB negative) immigrants (Carlsen et al 1999).…”

The genetic structure of Escherichia coli populations in feral house mice

“…High levels of dispersal could be expected to minimize differences in the clonal composition of E. cofi populations between localities. However, during inter-plague periods when mouse population size is low the home range of breeding pairs is quite small and little dispersal occurs (Krebs et al, 1994). In addition, the spatial distribution of the mice becomes far more patchy during the inter-plague periods as mice are restricted to small areas of favourable habitat (Singleton, 1989).…”