The National Agricultural Statistics Service surveyed by telephone and mail in January and February 1997 all known producers of channel catfish letalurus punctatus to acquire current information about wildlife‐caused losses in calendar year 1996. Many producers tried to prevent wildlife‐caused losses of their catfish by shooting (57%), vehicle patrol (55%), or frightening (36%), at an estimated cost of >$5 million. Yet, 69% of catfish producers cited some wildlife‐caused losses. Birds were most frequently cited as a cause of losses, and double‐crested cormorants Phalacrocorax auritus was the species cited most frequently (53%). The next most frequently cited birds were herons Ardea spp. (48%), egrets Egretta spp. (16%), and pelicans Pelecanus spp. (8%). Muskrats Ondatra zibethicus were cited by 10% of producers, primarily for damaging dikes and roads. The main problems caused by wildlife were feeding on catfish (67%), injuring catfish (40%) or disturbing feeding patterns of the catfish (23%). The total estimated cost of losses was $12 million. Overall, wildlife damage and damage prevention may have cost catfish producers > $17 million, about 4% of the total $425 million of catfish sales in 1996. Of the 44% of all catfish producers who were familiar with Wildlife Services (WS), 51% had ever contacted WS for assistance, 55% used methods suggested by WS to reduce their losses, and 40% received direct assistance from WS in 1996. Mississippi producers, who most frequently received direct assistance from WS, had proportionately lower wildlife‐caused losses.

No abstract

Both habitat structure and risk of predation are thought to influence rodent community composition in different habitats, but experiments on the degree to which these factors determine the use of habitat by rodents are lacking. I sought to discover (1) if cover density altered habitat choice and (2) if cover density affected the vulnerability to predators of two rodents, a habitat specialist and a habitat generalist. In laboratory experiments, the habitat specialist, the red-backed vole (Clethrionomys gapperi), preferred greater densities of both vertical (wall) and horizontal (ceiling) cover. The habitat generalist, the deer mouse (Peromyscus maniculatus), also preferred greater densities of vertical and horizontal cover, but its preferences were weaker and more inconsistent than those of C. gapperi In tests of vulnerability to domestic ferrets, C. gapperi were more vulnerable in arenas with less vertical cover, while P. maniculatus did not differ in vulnerability between the two vertical cover densities used. Vulnerability to predators in differing densities of horizontal cover was not tested because of the reduced differences in preference for this cover type between the rodent species. Risk of predation is one explanation for C. gapper's inherent preference for denser cover.

No abstract

No abstract