Relative Efficiency of Different Small Mammal Traps

作者: John A. Sealander , Douglas James

DOI: 10.2307/1376194

关键词: Trap (computing)Population densityPopulationEfficiencySample (material)Sampling (statistics)BiologyQualitative evidenceSmall mammalEcology

摘要: At some time in any study of small mammal populations the investigator is faced with problem whether particular kind trap used will adequately sample population. It common knowledge that exclusive use one type tend to bias estimate population density due varying amounts selectivity obtaining a sample, since different types traps vary efficiency respect numbers, genera and species caught. Trap size correlated mechanical sensitivity also are obviously selective specimen taken. An apparent avoidance certain kinds by may involve odor, appearance animal, or placement. However, anthropocentric concepts involved here which difficult evaluate. Painting camouflaging them various ways have been overcome real assumed behavior this sort without giving much quantitative evidence success. Successful fur-trappers apparently employ these methods considerable success reaction animal trap. There be individual variation response traps, as suggested Young et al. (1952), Tanaka (1952, 1956) Geis (1955), would, if present, introduce numbers trapped. The individuals thus an important factor consider sampling Although bait preferences (Fitch, 1954) play part seasonal response, they probably little importance determining same all compared at season would nullify factor. Cockrum (1947) found live-trapping provided …

参考文章(19)
Ryo Tanaka, On Differential Response to Live Traps of Marked and Unmarked Small Mammals 日本動物学彙報. ,vol. 29, pp. 44- 51 ,(1956)
J. J. Christian, Mammals Caught in Post Holes Journal of Mammalogy. ,vol. 17, pp. 416- 416 ,(1936) , 10.1093/JMAMMAL/17.4.416-A
Woodrow W. Goodpaster, Donald F. Hoffmeister, Life History of the Golden Mouse, Peromyscus nuttalli, in Kentucky Journal of Mammalogy. ,vol. 35, pp. 16- 27 ,(1954) , 10.2307/1376068
R. Y. Edwards, How Efficient are Snap Traps in Taking Small Mammals Journal of Mammalogy. ,vol. 33, pp. 497- 498 ,(1952) , 10.1093/JMAMMAL/33.4.497-A
W. E. Howard, A Trigger Mechanism for Small-Mammal Live Traps Journal of Mammalogy. ,vol. 34, pp. 513- 514 ,(1953) , 10.1093/JMAMMAL/34.4.513
Howard Young, Robert L. Strecker, John T. Emlen, Localization of Activity in Two Indoor Populations of House Mice, Mus musculus Journal of Mammalogy. ,vol. 31, pp. 403- 410 ,(1950) , 10.2307/1375107
Clarence J. Goodnight, E. J. Koestner, Comparison of Trapping Methods in an Illinois Prairie Journal of Mammalogy. ,vol. 23, pp. 435- 438 ,(1942) , 10.2307/1375056
Henry S. Fitch, Seasonal Acceptance of Bait by Small Mammals Journal of Mammalogy. ,vol. 35, pp. 39- 47 ,(1954) , 10.2307/1376071
C. David Fowle, R. Y. Edwards, The Utility of Break-Back Traps in Population Studies of Small Mammals Journal of Wildlife Management. ,vol. 18, pp. 503- ,(1954) , 10.2307/3797085