Small mammal use of field borders planted as beneficial insect habitat

Abstract

Field borders established for wildlife conservation have been recognized as a possible venue for also promoting beneficial insect populations, such as parasitic wasps and pollinators, on agricultural lands. However, traditional fallow field borders lack nectar sources required to sustain beneficial insect communities, and their value to small mammals is not well‐understood. In October–November 2009, we trapped small mammals in four field‐border treatments (planted native, warm‐season grasses and prairie flowers, planted prairie flowers only, fallow vegetation, and frequently mowed vegetation) replicated around nine organic crop fields, and developed closed‐population models in Program MARK to estimate abundance in each border. We also measured vegetation cover within each border treatment from June to August 2009. We captured 491 individuals of two species, the hispid cotton rat (Sigmodon hispidus) and house mouse (Mus musculus). Cotton rat abundance was ≥2 times greater in grass and flower borders and flowers‐only borders than in fallow borders, likely because of greater vegetation density and availability of preferred foods in planted borders. No cotton rats were captured in mowed borders, and house mouse abundance was ≥5 times lower in mowed borders than in other border types. Lower abundance of cotton rats and house mice in mowed borders emphasizes the importance of structurally complex non‐crop vegetation for supporting small‐mammal communities in agricultural landscapes. Field borders planted to promote beneficial insects may be a useful tool for maximizing the ecological services provided by non‐crop vegetation. © 2012 The Wildlife Society.

Integrating small mammal community variables into aircraft–wildlife collision management plans at Namibian airports

“…Where tall grass was found to interfere with feeding and ground movement of birds, it also provides nesting sites and food diversity for other species (Barras & Seamans 2002). Mowing, or other means of reducing grass cover, has been found to reduce small mammal cover and food at airports (Blackwell et al 2013) and to decrease populations in general (Birney et al 1976;Edge et al 1995;Peles & Barrett 1996;Washburn & Seamans 2007;Garrett et al 2012;Moorman et al 2013). In the present study the significantly lower abundance of small mammals in mown compared to unmown transects at both airports, particularly in the non-growing seasons, indicates the effectiveness of mowing to reduce small mammal presence.…”

Peer Review #2 of "Multiple ecosystem services from field margin vegetation for ecological sustainability in agriculture: scientific evidence and knowledge gaps (v0.1)"

“…These benefits can be particularly important after disturbances caused by agricultural practices like tillage, pesticide application and harvesting (Lee, Menalled & Landis, 2001). Field margin establishment and management is one of the affordable measure by a majority of the farmers due to the associated multiple benefits including biodiversity, conservation and functional values (Moorman et al, 2013). Understanding the various benefits of field margin and non-crop vegetation in agriculture and environment is particularly important for proper management.…”

“…Small mammals studied in the context of field margin and adjacent vegetation include the harvest mouse, Reithrodontomys megalotis (Canády, 2013;Sullivan & Sullivan ,2006), several mole species (Talpidae) (Zurawska-Seta & Barczak, 2012), house mouse, Mus musculus (Sullivan & Sullivan, 2006;Moorman et al, 2013), deer mouse, Peromyscus maniculatus, Great Basin pocket mouse, Perognathus parvus and various vole species (Sullivan & Sullivan, 2006).…”

Small mammal use of native warm‐season and non‐native cool‐season grass forage fields

“…tion was never hayed in wildlife fields, so food and cover remained continuously available. Similarly, Moorman et al (2013) reported large numbers of cotton rat captures in field borders planted with native warm-season grasses and wildflowers that retained food and cover throughout the growing season, and they reported no captures in mowed borders where resources were removed. House mice and white-footed mice are omnivorous habitat generalists; therefore, plant community composition likely is of less importance to these species than it is to herbivorous cotton rats (Whitaker 1966, Randolph et al 1991.…”

“…Incorporating both native warm-season and cool-season forage as separate but adjacent units or fields in the same forage production system will provide a continual highquality forage resource and provide small mammals with nearby escape cover because the 2 field types should be hayed at different times. Additionally, leaving small fields or field borders unharvested will create refugia for small mammals after cover is removed from forage fields (Moorman et al 2013).…”