, Volume 73, Issue 4, pp 351–359 | Cite as

Body size and craniometry of the herb field mouse from Lithuania in the context of species range

  • Linas BalčiauskasEmail author
  • Laima Balčiauskienė
  • Rimvydas Juškaitis
Original Article


We present morphometric and craniometric measurements of the herb field mouse (Apodemus uralensis) from Lithuania and analyze variation of body and skull size across species range. We suppose species is characterized by high size variability, not following Bergmann’s or Murphy’s rules. Preliminary, distinct size differences have been registered in the eastern and southern edges of the distribution range, with these populations having largest individuals according to average body and skull size. In terms of tail length and condylobasal length of the skull, Lithuanian mice on the north-western edge of the species range are among the largest, but in terms of body weight, body length, zygomatic skull width and the length of maxillary toothrow, adult A. uralensis from Lithuania are small and correspond to those from populations on the western edge of the range. The relative skull width (ratio of zygomatic skull width to condylobasal length) of Lithuanian A. uralensis is the smallest across the entire range. In A. uralensis from Lithuania, sex dimorphism is weakly expressed, with hind foot length and postorbital constriction larger in adult males, while the height of the mandibula and length of the mandibular diastema is larger in adult females. Juvenile and subadult A. uralensis from Lithuania differ in body weight, but not in size.


Apodemus uralensis Species range Skull and body measurements Lithuania 


Compliance with ethical standards

Ethical approval

All applicable national, and institutional guidelines for the care and use of animals were followed.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. Alcántara M (1991) Geographical variation in body size of the wood mouse Apodemus sylvaticus L. Mammal Rev 21(3):143–150. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Amshokova AK (2010) Variability of craniometric patterns of the lesser common field mouse (Sylvaemus uralensis Pall.) at various altitudinal levels in the Central Caucasus. Vestnik Nizhnegorodskogo universiteta im. NI Lobachevskogo 3:126–133 (in Russian)Google Scholar
  3. Baláž I, Ambros M, Tulis F (2012) Biology and distribution of the species of the family Muridae (Rodentia) in Slovakia. 2nd part: Apodemus flavicollis, Apodemus sylvaticus, Apodemus uralensis, Apodemus agrarius. Constantine the Philosopher University in Nitra, Faculty of Natural Sciences, NitraGoogle Scholar
  4. Balčiauskas L (2004) Methods of investigation of terrestrial ecosystems. Part I. Animal surveys. VUL, Vilnius in LithuanianGoogle Scholar
  5. Balčiauskas L, Balčiauskienė L (2011) Estimation of root vole body mass using bone measurements from prey remains. North-West J Zool 7(1):143–147Google Scholar
  6. Balčiauskas L, Balčiauskienė L, Janonytė A (2012) Reproduction of the root vole (Microtus oeconomus) at the edge of its distribution range. Turk J Zool 36:668–675. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Balčiauskienė L, Balčiauskas L (2016) Pelvis of the striped field mouse Apodemus agrarius (Pallas, 1771): sexual dimorphism and relation to body weight. North-West J Zool 12(1):50–57Google Scholar
  8. Balčiauskienė L, Balčiauskas L, Mažeikytė JR (2004) Sex- and age-related differences in tooth row length of small mammals: mice. Acta Zool Lit 14(3):54–65. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Balčiauskienė L, Juškaitis R, Mažeikytė R (2002) Identification of shrews and rodents from skull remains according to the length of a tooth row. Acta Zool Lit 12(4):353–361. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Čanády A, Mošanský L (2015) Craniometric data of Apodemus sylvaticus in Slovakia. Biologia 70(7):974–981. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Čanády A, Mošanský L, Hýbelová M, Pavelková P (2014) Morphometric variability of Apodemus uralensis in Slovakia (Rodentia: Muridae). Lynx, n. s. (Praha) 45:5–14Google Scholar
  12. Cichocki J, Ruprecht AL, Ważna A (2011) Distribution of pygmy field mouse Apodemus uralensis population in Poland: review of the studies and new data. Fragmenta Faunistica 54(1):77–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Darvish J, Siahsarvie R, Feizi MHP, Ghorbani F (2011) New record on pigmy field mouse (Muridae, Rodentia) from Northeast Iran. Hystrix Ital J Mammal 21(2):115–126. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. de Mendonça PG, Benedek AM (2012) Molecular discrimination and morphological description of Apodemus sylvaticus and A. uralensis from Cefa nature reserve (Romania). Acta Zool Bulg 64(3):283–288Google Scholar
  15. Demeter A, Lázár P (1984) Morphometric analysis of field mice Apodemus: character selection for routine identification (Mammalia). Ann Hist-Nat Mus Natl Hung 76:297–322Google Scholar
  16. Frynta D, Žižková M (1992) Postnatal growth of wood mouse (Apodemus sylvaticus) in captivity. In: Horácek I, Vohralík V (eds) Prague studies in mammalogy. Charles University Press, Prague, pp 57–69Google Scholar
  17. Headrick TC (2010) Statistical simulation: power method polynomials and other transformations. Chapman and Hall/CRC, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  18. Heroldová M, Suchomel J (2016) Drobní savci v porostech řepy cukrové a jejich význam z hlediska škod na řepné produkci. Listy Cukrovarnicke Reparske 3:96–99Google Scholar
  19. Holišová V, Pelikán J, Zejda J (1962) Ecology and population dynamic in Apodemus microps Krat. and Ros. (Mamm.: Muridae). Práce Brněn Zákl ČSAV 34:493–540Google Scholar
  20. Jangjoo M, Darvish J, Vigne JD (2011) Application of outline analysis on fossil and modern specimens of Apodemus. Iran J Anim Biosyst 7(2):43–155Google Scholar
  21. Jojić V, Bugarski-Stanojević V, Blagojević J, Vujošević M (2014) Discrimination of the sibling species Apodemus flavicollis and A. sylvaticus (Rodentia, Muridae). Zool Anz 253(4):261–269. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Juškaitis R, Balčiauskas L, Alejūnas P (2016) Distribution, habitats and abundance of the herb field mouse (Apodemus uralensis) in Lithuania. Biologia 71(8):960–965. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kryštufek B, Sozen M, Bukhnikashvili A (2008) Apodemus uralensis. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2008: e.T1905A8801937. Accessed 15 March 2016
  24. Kryštufek B, Vohralík V (2007) Distribution of field mice (Apodemus)(Mammalia: Rodentia) in Anatolia. Zool Middle East 42(1):25–36. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kryštufek B, Vohralík V (2009) Mammals of Turkey and Cyprus. Rodentia II: Cricetinae, Muridae, Spalacidae, Calomyscidae, Capromyidae, Hystricidae, Castoridae. Založba Annales, KoperGoogle Scholar
  26. Lashkova E (2003) Morphometric variation in wood mice, Sylvaemus (Muridae) from Ukraine fauna. Vestnik Zool 37(3):31–41 (in Russian)Google Scholar
  27. Medvedev SG, Tretyakov KA (2014) Fleas of small mammals in St. Petersburg Entomol Rev 94(9):1297–1305. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Meiri S, Dayan T, Simberloff D (2005) Biogeographical patterns in the western Palearctic: the fasting-endurance hypothesis and the status of Murphy's rule. J Biogeogr 32(3):369–375. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Pavlinov IYA, Lissovsky AA (2012) The mammals of Russia: a taxonomic and geographic reference. KMK Scientific Press Ltd., MoscowGoogle Scholar
  30. Pucek Z (1981) Keys to vertebrates of Poland. Mammals. PWN – Polish Scientific Publishers, WarszawaGoogle Scholar
  31. Quintela FM, Fornel R, Freitas TR (2016) Geographic variation in skull shape of the water rat Scapteromys tumidus (Cricetidae, Sigmodontinae): isolation-by-distance plus environmental and geographic barrier effects? An Acad Bras Cienc 88(1):451–466. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Savickyj BP, Kučmel SV, Burko LD (2005) Mammals of Belarus. BGU, Minsk (in Russian)Google Scholar
  33. Shar S, Batsaikhan N, Dolch D, Gardner SL, Kullmer O, Lebedev VS, Lkhagvasuren D, Menz U, Samiya R, Stubbe M, Ansorge Н (2015) First report of the herb field mouse, Apodemus uralensis (Pallas, 1811) from Mongolia. Mong J Biol Sci 13(1–2):35–42. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Shintaku Y, Motokawa M (2016) Geographic variation in skull morphology of the large Japanese field mice, Apodemus speciosus (Rodentia: Muridae) revealed by geometric morphometric analysis. Zool Sci 33(2):132–145. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Spitzenberger F, Bauer K (2001) Zwergwaldmaus Apodemus (Sylvaemus) uralensis (Pallas, 1811). In: Spitzenberger F (ed) Die Säugetierfauna Österreichs. Austria Medien Service, Graz, pp 502–505Google Scholar
  36. StatSoft, Inc (2004) STATISTICA (data analysis software system), version 6. Accessed 25 May 2011
  37. Steiner HM (1978) Apodemus microps Kratochvil und Rosicky, 1952 – Zwergwaldmaus. In: Niethammer J, Krapp F (eds) Handbuch der Säugetiere Europas 1, Rodentia I. Akademische Verlagsgesellschaft, Wiesbaden, pp 359–367Google Scholar
  38. Stillwell RC (2010) Are latitudinal clines in body size adaptive? Oikos 119(9):1387–1390. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  39. Takada Y, Sakai E, Uematsu Y, Tateishi T (2006) Morphological variation of large Japanese field mice, Apodemus speciosus on the Izu and Oki Islands. Mammal Stud 31(1):29–40.[29:MVOLJF]2.0.CO;2Google Scholar
  40. Tête N, Fritsch C, Afonso E, Coeurdassier M, Lambert JC, Giraudoux P, Scheifler R (2013) Can body condition and somatic indices be used to evaluate metal-induced stress in wild small mammals? PLoS One 8:e66399. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  41. Zagorodniuk IV (1993) Identification of east European Sylvaemus sylvaticus (Rodentia) and their geographic occurrence. Vestnik Zool 27(6):37–47 (in Russian)Google Scholar
  42. Zagorodniuk IV (2005) Regularities of development of geographical variation in sibling complexes of mammals (on example of genus Sylvaemus). Rep Natil Acad Sci Ukr 9:171–180 (in Russian)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Slovak Academy of Sciences 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Nature Research CentreVilniusLithuania

Personalised recommendations