A review of Elliott trapping methods for small mammals in Australia.

Abstract

Tasker EM and Dickman CR, 2002. A review of Elliott trapping methods for small mammals in Australia. Australian Mammalogy 23: 77-87.Much of the knowledge of small mammal ecology in Australia has come from Elliott trapping, however the results of these studies are influenced by the way in which trapping is carried out. We review some of the major factors affecting the results of Elliott trapping: trap spacing, local placement, presence of odours on the trap (from conspecifics, similar species, predators, and humans), and duration of trapping. Most factors clearly influence trapping results and should be routinely considered, and preferably controlled, in future studies which use Elliott traps.Key words: Elliott trap, trapping, small mammals, odours, trap response, trap configuration. Research, University of S ydney NSW 2006, Australia. Email: etasker@bio.usyd.edu.au; cdickman@bio.usyd.edu.au. Manuscript received 3 August 2001; accepted 10 November 2001. E.M. Tasker and C.R. Dickman, School of Biological Sciences and Institute of Wildlife SINCE its design in Victoria in 1965 (by KevinElliott, a mechanical engineer and amateur naturalist), the Elliott trap has become the most commonly used tool for trapping small mammals in temperate Australian environments, and the basis for many ecological studies. Trapping with 'Elliotts' is generally regarded as standard, and no single publication clearly sets out an optimal way of setting traps, or the biases of different modifications.One obvious but important feature of the Elliott trap is that it can only capture an animal if the animal itself decides to go in the trap. Thus, it becomes particularly important in Elliott trapping to examine the factors that influence the likelihood of an animal entering a trap, and to maximize the chances of it doing so.In general, various things affect the success of any mammal trapping program, with weather, season, elevation, and habitat type being obvious examples of environmental influences (see review in Smith et al. 1975). In addition, trapping results are influenced by the methods used, for example, choice of trap and bait (Sealander and James 1958;Gurnell 1976;O'Farrell et al. 1994). Traps that can be more effective than Elliott traps for certain small mammals in forested Australian environments include: pitfall traps for the eastern pygmy-possum Cercartetus nanus, white-footed dunnart Sminthopsis leucopus, and common dunnart Sminthopsis murina (Bennett et al. 1989;Laurance 1992;Fox 1995), and wooden nest boxes for arboreal species such as the feathertail glider Acrobates pygmaeus (Ward 2000) and yellowfooted antechinus or mardo Antechinus flavipes leucogaster (Wardell-Johnson 1986). Most small terrestrial mammals in south-eastern Australia, however, are readily captured in Elliott traps set on the ground, and many scansorial species in Elliott traps mounted on tree brackets (e.g., Laurance 1992).The arrangement of traps in either a grid or line affects what can be done with the data collected; with a line recommended for inventor...

The importance of grasstrees (Xanthorrhoea preissii) as habitat for mardo (Antechinus flavipes leucogaster) during post-fire recovery

“…Medium-sized aluminium traps (33 × 10 × 9 cm: Elliott Scientific Equipment, Upwey, Victoria) were baited with a mixture of rolled oats, honey, vanilla essence and peanut butter. Shredded paper was provided as nesting material and insulation (Tasker and Dickman 2002). Traps were set for four consecutive nights per trapping session, which was considered to be the optimal effort required to capture A. flavipes within a study area without causing excessive stress to the animals (Carati 1981;Tasker and Dickman 2002).…”

“…Shredded paper was provided as nesting material and insulation (Tasker and Dickman 2002). Traps were set for four consecutive nights per trapping session, which was considered to be the optimal effort required to capture A. flavipes within a study area without causing excessive stress to the animals (Carati 1981;Tasker and Dickman 2002). Trapping Session 1 commenced in April 2005 (mid autumn) with one site from each burn age (6 months, 5 and 14 years post-burn) trapped concurrently (totalling a three-week period).…”

Recovery of mammal diversity in tropical forests: a functional approach to measuring restoration

“…To determine the structure of small–medium mammal assemblages at the sites, small–medium mammals were sampled over a consecutive 3‐day/3‐night period (Tasker & Dickman ) on four separate occasions at each site, covering both the wet (February–March 2014 and February–March 2015) and dry season (September–October 2013 and September–October 2014). Trapping occurred within a 50 × 10 m transect at the center of each site, and comprised six cage traps (30 × 30 × 60 cm; treadle wire‐cage type; Mascot Wire Works, Enfield, New South Wales, Australia) and 20 Elliott A traps (10 × 10 × 30 cm aluminum box traps; Elliott type A, Elliot Scientific, Upwey, Victoria, Australia) baited with a mixture of oats, honey, vanilla essence, peanut butter, sardines, and apple.…”

Sex allocation, terminal investment and the effects of environmental constraints on maternal investment in subtropical antechinus

“…A total of 200 Elliot traps were used per night, mainly along a disused track to facilitate inspection. Trap locations, separated by 5-10 m, were permanently marked with flagging tape, and in each spot between one to three traps were placed, depending on the presence of clear runways (Tasker & Dickman 2002). …”