Abstract
Abstract Context Wild house mice cause substantial economic damage to grain crops in Australia, particularly during mouse plagues. Populations were monitored to detect changes in abundance, with data from surveys used in models to forecast likely mouse outbreaks. However, it is not always feasible to use live-trapping (the ‘gold standard’) for assessing mouse abundance at a large number of monitoring sites spread across south-eastern Australia. A range of alternative methods was tried to assist the grains industry with strategic decisions to reduce crop damage. Aims The aim of this work was to determine which survey methods could provide useful and effective indexes of mouse abundance across a large area. Methods Monitoring of mouse populations was conducted at representative grain farms by using (1) live-trapping at long-term ‘benchmark’ sites (n = 2), and (2) mouse chew cards and active burrow counts at ‘rapid-assessment’ sites (n = 44 farms across 5 regions). Monitoring was conducted for 22 monitoring sessions over 7.5 years through low, medium and high mouse abundance conditions. Key results Live-trapping provided the most useful, but most resource-intensive, information. There were strong relationships between the index of mouse abundance from live-trapping with mouse chew cards and active burrow counts at a local (explaining 63% and 71% of variation respectively) and regional (explaining 71% and 81% of variation respectively) scales. The same quantitative relationship held between the mouse chew cards and trapping regardless of season and year. However, the relationship between active burrow counts and trapping was best in winter and autumn seasons. There was a strong relationship between mouse abundance from live-trapping and active burrows across 1 ha grids (R2 = 0.88). We determined there were 1.3 ± 0.2 (mean ± s.e.) mice per active burrow. Conclusions Live-trapping supplemented with data from chew cards and active burrows remains sufficient to monitor a wide range of sites to show regional trends. Implications It is likely that live-trapping will need to be used for the foreseeable future to provide useful parameters such as breeding condition and population abundance that are required for the forecast models. Supplementary monitoring at rapid-assessment sites (using chew cards in all seasons and active burrow counts particularly in autumn and winter), that can be collected easily without the need for animal handling, will provide additional indications of region-specific changes in mouse abundance and activity.
Subject
Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law,Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics
Reference52 articles.
1. Brown, P. R. (2007). Reducing the impact of feral house mice in agricultural ecosystems. In ‘Pest or Guest: the Zoology of Overabundance’. (Eds D. Lunney, P. Eby, P. Hutchings, and S. Burgin.) pp. 8–15. (Royal Zoological Society of NSW: Sydney, NSW, Australia.)
2. Brown, P. R., and Singleton, G. R. (2002). Impacts of house mice on crops in Australia: costs and damage. In ‘Human Conflicts with Wildlife: Economic Considerations’. (Eds L. Clark, J. Hone, J. A. Shivik, R. A. Watkins, K. C. VerCauteren, and J. K. Yoder.) pp. 48–58. (National Wildlife Research Center: Fort Collins, CO, USA.)
3. Evaluation and cost-effectiveness of strychnine for control of populations of wild house mice () in Victoria.;Wildlife Research,1997
4. Can farm management practices reduce the impact of house mouse populations on crops in an irrigated farming system?;Wildlife Research,2004
5. Ecologically-based management of rodents in the real world: application to a mixed agro-ecosystem in Vietnam.;Ecological Applications,2006
Cited by
3 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献