The Efficiency of Discarded Drink Containers for Small Mammal Detection on a Mediterranean Mountain

Torre, Ignasi; Jiménez, Irene P.; Ribas, Alexis; Arrizabalaga, Antoni

doi:10.3106/ms2019-0025

Cited by 4 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Methods used to monitor small mammals have traditionally relied on trapping (Ferguson, 2020; Flowerdew et al 2004; Krebs et al 2011, 2019; Shiels et al 2020). A few noninvasive methods have alternatively been used, including skeletal remains found in owl pellets (Torre et al 2015, van Strien et al 2015, Heisler et al 2016, Mancini et al 2019) or discarded bottles (Kolenda et al 2018, Torre et al 2019), hair tubes (Sanecki and Green 2005), DNA from fecal pellets (Moran et al 2008, Ferreira et al 2018), and camera traps (Villette et al 2016, Littlewood et al 2021). However, the information that can be obtained from sampled individuals varies widely between methods and is limited for those that are noninvasive.…”

Section: Figurementioning

confidence: 99%

Relative efficiency of two models of snap traps for sampling boreal small mammals

Jung

Pretzlaw

2022

Wildlife Society Bulletin

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Snap traps have long been a cost-effective means of monitoring small mammal (<60 g) diversity and abundance, particularly at larger spatial or temporal scales. Yet, studies on the relative efficiency of snap trap models are surprisingly rare in the literature. We assessed the relative efficacy of Victor Mouse and Woodstream Museum Special snap traps for sampling boreal small mammals. Paired traps were set for 2-3 nights at 40-50 trapping stations at each of 110 sites, for a total sampling effort of 28,910 trap nights. We captured 1,013 small mammals representing 13 species. Overall, Museum Special traps caught almost twice as many small mammals as Victor traps. There was no difference in the sex or age-class of the overall capture in the 2 trap models. However, Museum Special traps were triggered without capturing a small mammal 31% more often than Victor traps. Results for the six most frequently captured species (Myodes rutilus, Microtus pennsylvanicus, Microtus oeconomus, Microtus xanthognathus, Peromyscus maniculatus, and Sorex cinereus) mirrored those for overall captures. Moreover, the percent of the total capture in Museum Special traps ranged between 57-80% for each of the above species, indicating species-specific responses to trap type. Our data further demonstrate the superior ability of Museum Special traps to capture boreal small mammals compared to Victor traps, which is likely attributed to a more sensitive trigging mechanism. Implications of our results suggest caution when mixing trap models in monitoring programs, or when interpreting results obtained with different trap models. We encourage similar comparisons in different

show abstract