Population Characteristics of Peromyscus leucopus Introduced to Islands Inhabited by Microtus pennsylvanicus

Oikos ◽  
1978 ◽  
Vol 31 (1) ◽  
pp. 17 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patricia Mehlhop ◽  
James F. Lynch
Keyword(s):  
Peromyscus Leucopus ◽  
Microtus Pennsylvanicus ◽  
Population Characteristics

The distribution and behavior of Peromyscus maniculatus gracilis and Peromyscus leucopus noveboracensis (Rodentia: Cricetidae) in a southeastern Ontario woodlot

1970 ◽  
Vol 48 (6) ◽  
pp. 1187-1199 ◽  
Author(s):  
Donald A. Smith ◽  
S. Wayne Speller
Keyword(s):  
Competitive Exclusion ◽  
Peromyscus Leucopus ◽  
Population Characteristics ◽  
Exclusion Principle ◽  
Dense Population ◽  
Competitive Exclusion Principle ◽  
Upland Forest ◽  
Live Trapping ◽  
Tree Holes ◽  
And Behavior

P. m. gracilis and P. l. noveboracensis are sympatric in southeastern Ontario and some adjacent areas. Similar in appearance, food and breeding habits, and frequently cohabiting certain forests, they may occupy identical niches, contrary to the competitive exclusion principle. A 12-week summer live-trapping study in a woodlot containing upland, mixed, and cedar forest associations showed that although most of their population characteristics were similar, their local distributions, densities, and certain behaviors differed. Noveboracensis inhabited upland forest but avoided mixed and cedar forest associations apparently because suitable refuges were lacking. The less dense population of gracilis was ubiquitous; gracilis and noveboracensis cohabited the upland forest. On release from traps noveboracensis sometimes 'froze' before darting in a zigzag manner to nearby cover, and ran up trees significantly more than gracilis, which usually ran instantly, rapidly, and directly to a more distant ground refuge. Low densities of both species reduced competition for available food and refuges. This may have facilitated cohabitation in the upland forest where differential use of ground- and tree-holes also contributed to reduction of competition and thus to compatibility. Coexistence may be transitory there; with denser populations, potential competition might be minimized by emigration of the more exploratory gracilis.

Variation of individual electromorphs in Microtus pennsylvanicus and Peromyscus leucopus

1984 ◽  
Vol 12 (4) ◽  
pp. 435-440 ◽  
Author(s):  
Terrance Davin ◽  
Raymond P. Morgan ◽  
George A. Feldhamer
Keyword(s):  
Peromyscus Leucopus ◽  
Microtus Pennsylvanicus

Seasonal changes in gut capacity in the white-footed mouse (Peromyscus leucopus) and meadow vole (Microtus pennsylvanicus)

1995 ◽  
Vol 73 (2) ◽  
pp. 243-252 ◽  
Author(s):  
Terry L. Derting ◽  
Edward B. Noakes III
Keyword(s):  
Energy Conservation ◽  
Body Mass ◽  
Seasonal Changes ◽  
Peromyscus Leucopus ◽  
Microtus Pennsylvanicus ◽  
Meadow Vole ◽  
Surface Areas ◽  
Seasonal Environment ◽  
Different Types ◽  
White Footed Mouse

Changes in gut capacity may be important for a species adapting to increased energy requirements or decreased food quality in a seasonal environment. We conducted a comparative study of seasonal changes in gut capacity in two rodent species with diets of different types. Although the lengths and masses of gut organs differed between species within a season, the species did not differ in the types of gut changes that occurred from summer to winter. All organs except the colon had significantly heavier wet and dry masses in winter than in summer. No significant differences in organ lengths, volumes, or surface areas occurred with season. Increased mass of the small intestine was due to large increases in the mass of the mucosa and smaller increases in the mass of the serosa. In winter, Microtus pennsylvanicus had significantly lower body mass than in summer. Peromyscus leucopus had no change in body mass in winter but may have used torpor as an energy-conservation mechanism. Energy-conservation adaptations in each species may have minimized the need for large changes in the gut organs.

Influence of Island Area and Isolation on Population Characteristics of Peromyscus leucopus

1986 ◽  
Vol 67 (2) ◽  
pp. 406-409 ◽  
Author(s):  
G. H. Adler ◽  
M. L. Wilson ◽  
M. J. Derosa
Keyword(s):  
Peromyscus Leucopus ◽  
Population Characteristics ◽  
Island Area

A comparison of population characteristics and reproductive success of resident and immigrant meadow voles

1991 ◽  
Vol 69 (10) ◽  
pp. 2638-2643 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen R. Pugh ◽  
Robert H. Tamarin
Keyword(s):  
Reproductive Success ◽  
Minimum Weight ◽  
Microtus Pennsylvanicus ◽  
Population Characteristics ◽  
Adult Males ◽  
Maximum Weight ◽  
Meadow Voles ◽  
Random Subset ◽  
Weight Criterion ◽  
Allozyme Loci

We used a radionuclide technique combined with a minimum-weight criterion to identify resident and immigrant meadow voles, Microtus pennsylvanicus, on an open grid in South Natick, Massachusetts. Using the same techniques with populations on two fenced grids, we calculated an error rate of 7.2% in residency assignment. Immigrants were not a random subset of the resident population. Among immigrant voles the sex ratio was significantly male biased, whereas among residents it did not differ from 1:1. Immigrants had genotypic ratios that differed significantly from those of residents at three of five allozyme loci examined electrophoretically. Although immigrant males resided on the grid significantly longer than resident adult males, they did not differ significantly in reproductive success, maximum weight, or distance moved between trapping periods. Immigrants seemed to be as successful as residents during a period of low or declining density.

scholarly journals Effect of Blarina brevicauda on trap response of Microtus pennsylvanicus

1982 ◽  
Vol 60 (3) ◽  
pp. 438-442 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rudy Boonstra ◽  
F. Helen Rodd ◽  
David J. Carleton
Keyword(s):  
Mus Musculus ◽  
Peromyscus Leucopus ◽  
Microtus Pennsylvanicus ◽  
Rodent Species ◽  
Lower Probability ◽  
Blarina Brevicauda

The response of Microtus pennsylvanicus to traps with or without various prior occupants is described. Microtus were most frequently captured in traps previously visited by Microtus, but they showed a significant avoidance of traps previously visited by Blarina brevicauda. However, the probability of entry into such traps was no lower than into traps previously visited by other rodent species (Mus musculus, Peromyscus leucopus, or Zapus hudsonicus). There was an even lower probability of entry into traps which were previously empty. Blarina had a significantly higher probability of entering traps previously capturing Blarina than traps previously capturing Microtus or no one. We conclude that this evidence gives no support for the hypothesis that Blarina is a significant predator of Microtus pennsylvanicus.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document