“…In addition, we also ran the analyses using the middle point of each area (instead of the locality of the institution), but obtained results did not differ from those reported in the text. Sources: 1, Thomomys bottae (Loeb et al 1991); 2, Mus musculus (Kristan and Hammond 2003); 3, Clethrionomys gapperi, Microtus pennsylvanicus, Microtus longicaudus, and Phenacomys intermedius (Norrie and Millar 1990); 4, Peromyscus maniculatus (Green and Millar 1987); 5, Microtus ochrogaster (Gross et al 1985;Hammond and Wunder 1991;Hammond 1993); 6, P. maniculatus (French and Porter 1994); 7, Peromyscus leucopus and P. maniculatus (Derting and Noakes 1995);8, M. ochrogaster and M. pennsylvanicus (Young Owl and Batzli 1998); 9, P. maniculatus (Hammond and Kristan 2000); 10, P. leucopus (Derting and Hornung 2003); 11, Microtus pinetorum (Derting and Austin 1998); 12, Abrothrix andinus (Bozinovic et al 1988(Bozinovic et al , 1990 and Phyllotis darwini (Sabat and Bozinovic 2000); 13, Akodon azarae (del Valle et al 2006); 14, Clethrionomys glareolus and Arvicola terrestris (Lee andHouston 1993, 1995) and Microtus agrestis (McDevitt and Speakman 1994;Lee and Houston 1995); 15, A. terrestris (Woodall 1989); 16, Apodemus agrarius (Brokowska 1995); 17, Otomys sloggetti (Schwaibold and Pillay 2003); 18, Meriones unguiculatus and Microtus brandti (Pei et al 2001a(Pei et al , 2001b. ments as a response to changing environmental conditions.…”