Small Mammal Use of Microhabitat Reviewed

Jorgensen, Eric E.

doi:10.1644/ber-019

Cited by 87 publications

(61 citation statements)

References 80 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…While studies of microhabitat generally indicate that coexisting species partition available habitat (Jorgensen, 2004), our results for B. musculus were somewhat contradictory. We detected a positive correlation between Relative SD Habitat Used and species richness; in assemblages with more species, B. musculus used a higher proportion of the available habitat.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 95%

Variation in habitat use of coexisting rodent species in a tropical dry deciduous forest

Poindexter¹,

Schnell²,

Sánchez-Hernández³

et al. 2012

Mammalian Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a b s t r a c tUse of habitat is a critical component related to structure of small-mammal communities, with partitioning occurring primarily along dimensions of microhabitat, although use of microhabitat often does not explain fully use at a macrohabitat level. Through grid studies of small mammals in coastal Colima, Mexico (during January 2003-2005, we appraised influence of available habitat, species richness, abundance, and cumulative abundance of other small mammals on variation in habitat used by species. We evaluated 14 habitat variables (reflecting ground cover, slope, canopy, and vegetation density on vertical and horizontal axes) and developed a composite variable (principal component 1) reflecting general openness of habitat through which we addressed habitat use. For the four most common mammalian species (Sigmodon mascotensis, Heteromys pictus, Baiomys musculus, and Oryzomys couesi), two measures of variation in habitat used were employed to estimate niche breadth, one of which assessed variation in habitat use relative to variation present on a grid. Sigmodon mascotensis and B. musculus preferred areas that were more open, and H. pictus and O. couesi occupied less-open areas; breadth of habitat use did not differ interspecifically. Habitat use was more variable on grids with more variability in habitat, although not greater than chance expectations. Findings do not lend support to the resource-breadth hypothesis as an explanation for population densities of species at a local level or the habitat-heterogeneity hypothesis as a predictor of species richness. Variation in habitat used by S. mascotensis did not proportionally increase when diverse habitat was available but was greater when the species was more abundant. For H. pictus, when cumulative abundance of other small mammals was greater, breadth of habitat used was greater. Intraspecific density-dependent habitat selection may result in S. mascotensis selecting a greater variety of habitats, while greater interspecific abundance is related to a greater range in use of habitats by H. pictus. Baiomys musculus used a higher proportion of habitat relative to that available when more species were present on a grid. Variation in habitat used by O. couesi was unrelated to any factor examined. Overall, the four species responded in notably different ways with respect to availability of habitat, abundance, and presence of other species.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 95%

Variation in habitat use of coexisting rodent species in a tropical dry deciduous forest

Poindexter¹,

Schnell²,

Sánchez-Hernández³

et al. 2012

Mammalian Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Furthermore, annual population fluctuations (Brady and Slade 2004) or other confounding factors such as scale, disease, predation, pest control, external food sources (e.g. garbage), and population maintenance via overflow from nearby high-quality habitats can obscure responses to environmental stress (Kaufman et al 1983;Jorgensen 2002Jorgensen , 2004. Observing multiple characteristics simultaneously, for example indicator species and temporal disturbance indicators like SOC and track-cover, will help land managers develop accurate assessments of land condition, especially because small mammal populations can fluctuate annually or periodically (Brady and Slade 2004;Jorgensen 2002).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Small mammals as indicators of short-term and long-term disturbance in mixed prairie

Leis

Leslie

Engle

et al. 2007

Environ Monit Assess

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Disturbance by military maneuvers over short and long time scales may have differential effects on grassland communities. We assessed small mammals as indicators of disturbance by military maneuvers in a mixed prairie in southern Oklahoma USA. We examined sites on two soil series, Foard and Lawton, across a gradient of disturbance intensity. A MANOVA showed that abundance of small mammals was associated (p = 0.03) with short-term (cover of vehicle tracks) disturbance but was not associated (p = 0.12) with long-term (loss of soil organic carbon, SOC) disturbance intensity. At the individual species level, Sigmodon hispidus (cotton rat) and Peromyscus maniculatus (deer mouse) occurred across all levels of disturbance and in both soil types. Only P. maniculatus abundance changed (p < 0.01) with short-term disturbance and increased by about one individual per 5% of additional track-cover. Abundance of P. maniculatus also increased (p = 0.04) by about three individuals per 1% increase in soil carbon. Chaetodipus hispidus (hispid pocket mouse) and Reithrodontomys fulvescens (fulvous harvest mouse) only occurred in single soil types limiting their potential as more general indicators. Abundance of P. maniculatus was positively related to shifts in plant species composition and likely reflected changes in vegetation structure (i.e. litter depth) and forage availability resulting from disturbance. Peromyscus maniculatus may be a useful biological indicator of ecosystem change because it responded predictably to both long-term and short-term disturbance and, when coupled with soil, plant, and disturbance history variables, can reveal land condition trends.

show abstract

“…Plant communities and microhabitat structure were quantified at all trap-sites with captures and at a variable number (minimum 16, maximum 22) of control points in each habitat, which were randomly selected from the subset of trap-sites with no capture during the sampling period. At each point we established 13 2 Â 2 m plots along two perpendicular lines, the first at their intersection and the others two meters apart, giving a total sampling area of 52 m 2 per point, which is sufficient to assess microhabitat (for a review about sampling area, see Jorgensen, 2004). Vegetation cover at 0.5 m, 1 m and canopy height was estimated at each point as well as cover of rock, bare ground and litter.…”

Section: Small Mammal Capturesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Habitat selection by two sympatric rodent species in the Monte desert, Argentina. First data for Eligmodontia moreni and Octomys mimax

Traba

Acebes

Campos

et al. 2010

Journal of Arid Environments

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Small Mammal Use of Microhabitat Reviewed

Cited by 87 publications

References 80 publications

Variation in habitat use of coexisting rodent species in a tropical dry deciduous forest

Variation in habitat use of coexisting rodent species in a tropical dry deciduous forest

Small mammals as indicators of short-term and long-term disturbance in mixed prairie

Habitat selection by two sympatric rodent species in the Monte desert, Argentina. First data for Eligmodontia moreni and Octomys mimax

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About