Odor as a Component of Trap Entry Behavior in Small Rodents
For many years students of small rodent ecology have utilized live-traps and capture-mark-release techniques for examining basic population parameters. In a great majority of studies, estimates of population size, and related parameters such as density, sex and age distribution, are based on one of a number of derivatives of Petersen’s index, all of which demand traps to have an equal sampling efficiency. Since a trap remains passive, and effects capture only after a rodent has purposely entered it, it cannot be used to sample a population of rodents in the same way that, for example, a drift net will sample a population of pelagic fish. Rodents do not blunder into live traps (although a few studies have employed pitfall traps) — they will only be caught if they can overcome any inhibition which they show towards the trap (Shillíto 1963). Although phenomena such as “trap-shyness” and “trap-proneness” have long been recognized, (in which certain individuals are caught less or more frequently than would be expected by chance if the traps were sampling the population randomly (Chitty and Kempson 1949)), it is surprising that so little attention has been paid to whether the ability of a given trap to catch a given individual is influenced by residues left behind by a previous occupant. If residues do influence the subsequent pattern of trap entry, estimates and analyses will be inaccurate and distorted by an unknown amount.
KeywordsDeer Mouse Trap Site Live Trap Apodemus Sylvaticus Previous Occupant
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Boonstra, R. and C.J. Krebs, 1976, The effect of odour on trap responses in Microtus townsendii. J. Zool. Lond. 180: 467–476.Google Scholar
- Daly, M., Wilson, M.I. and Faux, S.F. 1978, Seasonally variable effects of conspecific odors upon capture of deer mice (Peromyscus maniculatus gambelii). Behay. Biol. 23: 254–259.Google Scholar
- Daly, M., Wilson, M.I. and Behrends, P. 1980, Factors affecting rodents’ responses to odours of strangers encountered in the field: experiments with odour-baited traps. Behay. Ecol. and Sociobiol. 6: 323–329.Google Scholar
- Montgomery, W.I. 1979, An examination of interspecific, sexual and individual biases affecting rodent captures in Longworth traps. Acta Theriologica 24: 35–45.Google Scholar
- Myllymäki, A. 1977, Intraspecific competition and home range dynamics in the field vole, Microtus agrestis. Oikos 29: 553–569.Google Scholar
- Rowe, F.P. 1970, The response of wild mice (Mus musculus) to live traps marked by their own and foreign mouse odour. J. Zool. Lond. 162: 517–520.Google Scholar
- Shillito, E.E. 1963, Exploratory behaviour in the short-tailed vole, Microtus agrestis. Behaviour 21: 145–154.Google Scholar
- Summerlin, C.T. and Wolfe, J.L. 1973, Social influences on trap response of the cotton rat, Sigmodon hispidus. Ecology 54: 1156–1159.Google Scholar
- Stoddart, D.M. 1980, Some responses of a free living community of rodents to the odors of predators in “Chemical Signals in Vertebrates”, Müller-Schwarze, D., and Silverstein, R.M., eds. Plenum, NY, p. 1–10.Google Scholar
- Stoddart, D.M. 1982, Demonstration of olfactory discrimination by the short-tailed vole, Microtus agrestis L. Anim. Behay. 30: 293–294.Google Scholar
- Stoddart, D.M. (in press) Does trap odour influence estimation of population size of the short-tailed vole, Microtus agrestis L? J. Anim. Ecol. 51:Google Scholar