WILDLIFE SPECIES:  Peromyscus maniculatus

Introductory
WILDLIFE SPECIES: Peromyscus maniculatus



AUTHORSHIP AND CITATION : 
Sullivan, Janet. 1995. Peromyscus maniculatus. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. 
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 
Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). 
Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/ [].




ABBREVIATION : 
PEMA

COMMON NAMES : 
   deer mouse


TAXONOMY : 
The currently accepted scientific name for deer mouse is Peromyscus
maniculatus (Wagner) [51].  It is in the family Cricetidae (New World
mice).  Hall [51] listed 67 subspecies, describing the species as a
series of intergrading populations.  Subspecies in the same area may be
ecologically distinct.

Subspecies mentioned in this text include [51]:

cloudland deer mouse (P. m. nubiterrae)
prairie deer mouse (P. m. bairdii)
forest deer mouse (P. m. gracilis)


ORDER : 
Rodentia

CLASS : 
Mammal

FEDERAL LEGAL STATUS : 
No special status

OTHER STATUS : 
NO-ENTRY

WILDLIFE DISTRIBUTION AND OCCURRENCE
WILDLIFE SPECIES: Peromyscus maniculatus



GENERAL DISTRIBUTION : 
Deer mice occur throughout most of North America and are abundant in
most areas.  Deer mouse is the most widely distributed Peromyscus
species [51].  Deer mice are distributed
from Quebec and New Brunswick
west to Yukon Territory and southeast Alaska; south to Baja California
and through the Sierra Madre to southern Mexico; south in central Texas
to the Gulf of Mexico; and south in the Appalachian Mountains to
northern Georgia [57,127].


ECOSYSTEMS : 
FRES10 White-red-jack pine
FRES11 Spruce-fir
FRES12 Longleaf-slash pine
FRES13 Loblolly-shortleaf pine
FRES14 Oak-pine
FRES15 Oak-hickory
FRES17 Elm-ash-cottonwood
FRES18 Maple-beech-birch
FRES19 Aspen-birch
FRES20 Douglas-fir
FRES21 Ponderosa pine
FRES22 Western white pine
FRES23 Fir-spruce
FRES24 Hemlock-Sitka spruce
FRES25 Larch
FRES26 Lodgepole pine
FRES27 Redwood
FRES28 Western hardwoods
FRES29 Sagebrush
FRES30 Desert shrub
FRES31 Shinnery
FRES32 Texas savanna
FRES33 Southwestern shrubsteppe
FRES34 Chaparral-mountain shrub
FRES35 Pinyon-juniper
FRES36 Mountain grasslands
FRES37 Mountain meadows
FRES38 Plains grasslands
FRES39 Prairie
FRES40 Desert grasslands
FRES41 Wet grasslands
FRES42 Annual grasslands
FRES44 Alpine


STATES : 


    
AK
    
AR
    
CA
    
CO
    
CT
    
DE
    
GA
    
ID
    
IL
    
IN


    
IA
    
KS
    
KY
    
ME
    
MD
    
MA
    
MI
    
MN
    
MO
    
MT


    
NE
    
NV
    
NH
    
NJ
    
NM
    
NY
    
ND
    
OH
    
OK
    
OR


    
PA
    
RI
    
SD
    
TN
    
TX
    
UT
    
VT
    
WA
    
WV
    
WI


    
WY
    
DC






    
AB
    
BC
    
MB
    
NB
    
NF
    
NT
    
NS
    
ON
    
PQ
    
SK
    
YT






    
MEXICO
    




BLM PHYSIOGRAPHIC REGIONS : 
    1  Northern Pacific Border
    2  Cascade Mountains
    3  Southern Pacific Border
    4  Sierra Mountains
    5  Columbia Plateau
    6  Upper Basin and Range
    7  Lower Basin and Range
    8  Northern Rocky Mountains
    9  Middle Rocky Mountains
   10  Wyoming Basin
   11  Southern Rocky Mountains
   12  Colorado Plateau
   13  Rocky Mountain Piedmont
   14  Great Plains
   15  Black Hills Uplift
   16  Upper Missouri Basin and Broken Lands


KUCHLER PLANT ASSOCIATIONS : 
   Deer mice occur in nearly all Kuchler types except those
   in the extreme southeastern United States.


SAF COVER TYPES : 
   Deer mice occur in nearly all SAF cover types except those
   in the extreme southeastern United States


SRM (RANGELAND) COVER TYPES : 
   Deer mice occur in nearly all SRM cover types except those
   in the extreme southeastern United States.


PLANT COMMUNITIES : 
Deer mice are nearly ubiquitous in North America [57]; they inhabit a
wide variety of plant communities including grasslands, brushy areas,
woodlands, and forests [127].  In a survey of small mammals on 29 sites
in subalpine forests in Colorado and Wyoming, the deer mouse had the
highest frequency of occurrence; however, it was not always the most
abundant small mammal [95].  Deer mice were trapped in four of six
forest communities in eastern Washington and northern Idaho, and they
were the only rodent in ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) savanna [55].
In northern New England deer mice are present in both coniferous and
deciduous forests [29].  Deer mice are often the only Peromyscus species
in northern boreal forest [3].  Subspecies differ in their use of plant
communities and vegetation structures.  There are two main groups of
deer mouse:  the prairie deer mouse and the woodland or forest deer mouse
group (typified by P. m. gracilis but consisting of many subspecies)
[127].

In the following states, deer mice were listed in the specified
vegetative community as the most common or most frequent rodent or small
mammal:

Oregon:  Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) [25]
eastern Washington/northern Idaho:  big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata),
   grasslands (2 types), coniferous forest (4 types) [131]
eastern Washington:  cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum)-dominated grasslands [92]
southeastern Idaho:  big sagebrush [97], big sagebrush/crested
  wheatgrass (Agropyron cristatum) [67], Russian-thistle (Salsola kali),
  crested wheatgrass, and fenceline [48]
Nevada:  pinyon (Pinus spp.)-juniper (Juniperus spp.) [80], big
   sagebrush-antelope bitterbrush (Purshia tridentata), and
   curlleaf mountain-mahogany (Cercocarpus ledifolius) [87]
Utah:  pinyon-juniper [4]
southeastern Montana:  buffalograss (Buchloe dactyloides), snowberry
   (Symphoricarpos spp.)-dominated riparian areas, big sagebrush,
   and ponderosa pine [76]
Wyoming:  lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta) [132]
Colorado:  pinyon-juniper [36]
Southwest:  ponderosa pine [22]
Arizona:  ponderosa pine [46]
West Virginia:  red spruce (Picea rubens) and red spruce-northern
   hardwoods [66]

BIOLOGICAL DATA AND HABITAT REQUIREMENTS
WILDLIFE SPECIES: Peromyscus maniculatus



TIMING OF MAJOR LIFE HISTORY EVENTS : 
Deer mice are active year-round, although activity is minimal in cold
and/or wet weather.  They are nocturnal [79].

Breeding Season:  In most parts of their range deer mice breed from
March to October [86].  Deer mouse breeding tends to be determined more
by food availability than by season per se.  In Plumas County,
California, deer mice bred through December in good mast (both soft and
hard masts) years but ceased breeding in June of a poor mast year [3].
Deer mice breed throughout the year in the Willamette Valley, but in
other areas on the Oregon coast there is usually a lull during the
wettest and coldest weather [79].  In southeastern Arizona at least
one-third of captured deer mice were in breeding condition in winter
[17].  In Virginia breeding peaks occur from April to June and from
September to October [130].

Nesting:  Female deer mice construct nests using a variety of materials
including grasses, roots, mosses, wool, thistledown, and various
artificial fibers [79].

Gestation, Litter Size, and Productivity:  Peromyscus species gestation
periods range from 22 to 26 days [72].  Typical litters are composed of
three to five young; litter size ranges from one to nine young.  Most
female deer mice have more than one litter per year [79].  Three or four
litters per year is probably typical; captive deer mice have borne as
many as 14 litters in one year.  Males usually live with the family and
help care for the young [86].

Development of Young:  Deer mice are born blind, naked, and helpless;
development is rapid.  Young deer mice have full coats by the end of the
second week; their eyes open between 13 and 19 days; and they are fully
furred and independent in only a few weeks [79].  Females lactate for 27
to 34 days after giving birth; most young are weaned at about 18 to 24
days.  Young reach adult size at about 6 weeks and continue to gain
weight slowly thereafter [72].

Age of first estrus averages about 48 days; the earliest recorded was 23
days.  The youngest wild female to produce a litter was 55 days old; it
was estimated that conception had occurred when she was about 32 days
old [72].

Dispersal:  Deer mouse pups usually disperse after weaning and before
the birth of the next litter, when they are reaching sexual maturity.
Occasionally juveniles remain in the natal area, particularly when
breeding space is limited [126].  Most deer mice travel less than 500
feet (152 m) from the natal area to establish their own home range
[114].

Longevity and Mortality:  Most deer mice in the wild have very short
life spans, usually less than 1 year [79].  O'Farrell [88] reported that
a population of deer mice in big sagebrush/grasslands had completely
turned over (e.g., there were no surviving adults of the initial
population) over the course of one summer.  One captive male deer mouse
lived 32 months [79], and there is a report of a forest deer mouse that
lived 8 years in captivity (another mouse was fertile until almost 6
years of age) [31].


PREFERRED HABITAT : 
Habitat Preferences:  In some forests and woodlands, disturbance appears
to favor deer mice although they are also common in climax (old-growth)
associations [3].  In Oregon and Washington Douglas-fir stands, deer
mouse abundance was negatively correlated with proportion of coarse
fragments in the soil.  In Washington the highest deer mouse numbers
occurred in moderately moist, old-growth Douglas-fir, but the second
highest population was in a clearcut [26].  In western Oregon deer mouse
capture rates decreased substantially with distance from streams in
mature Douglas-fir forest [81].  In the northern Sierra Nevada deer mice
are primarily forest-dwelling and are not as abundant in brushlands.
However, this differential distribution varies with elevation.  At 2,200
feet (670 m) elevation, deer mice were less common in forests than
brush, from 3,500 to 5,000 feet (1,067-1,524 m) elevation deer mice were
more common in forests than brush, and above 5,000 feet (1,524 m) deer
mice were the only mouse species in sagebrush (Artemisia spp.)
communities.  They were less abundant in forests above 5,000 feet than
in forests at lower elevations [60].

Preference for disturbed habitats has also been reported for some
sagebrush and grassland communities.  In Nevada big sagebrush-antelope
bitterbrush range, deer mouse captures were positively associated with
relatively high amounts of litter, shorter shrubs, and greater shrub
intersection [87].  In western South Dakota deer mice are associated
with black-tailed prairie dog (Cynomys ludovicianus) towns, occurring in
and near towns in higher abundance than in surrounding grasslands [104].
In grasslands and adjacent vegetative communities, deer mice are usually
more abundant in early seral and/or severely disturbed areas than in
undisturbed communities [37].  In Nebraska sandhills prairie deer mice
were found more often in grass-forb communities than in sagebrush,
grass, or on open ground, but were common in all types [74].  Geier and
Best [45] ranked the deer mouse as selective of particular habitats in
Iowa riparian areas; deer mice were positively associated with forb
cover and negatively associated with mean length of downed logs, plant
species richness, vertical stratification, and grass cover.

A lack of preference for habitat features has been described for deer
mice in several communities.  On the Oregon coast deer mice occupy all
habitats from beach to forest [79]; a similarly wide distribution of
deer mice was also found on islands off the coast of British Columbia
[9,77].  In Colorado deer mice were equally prevalent in stands
dominated by aspens (Populus spp.) and stands dominated by conifers
[102].  In Illinois deer mouse abundance was not correlated with any of
the tested habitat parameters:  bare ground, annual cover, perennial
cover, grass cover, woody vegetation, and vegetative density [3].  In
New Hampshire forests deer mice were captured in nearly all areas,
showing no preference for a particular vegetative community [47].  On
Mount Desert Island, Maine, deer mice were found in both coniferous and
deciduous forests [40].

Habitat preferences that are not apparent at the species level may be
resolved by closer attention to taxonomy.  Different deer mouse
subspecies are strongly associated with habitat parameters.  For
example, the prairie deer mouse avoids wooded areas, even if the surface
layer is grass-dominated.  It is likely that deer mouse subspecies
replace other deer mouse subspecies over the course of succession [3].

Logging Effects:  Logging frequently has a positive effect on deer mouse
populations although some studies report no change or negative effects
on deer mouse abundance.  Increased cover in slash and increased
production of seed by annuals probably contribute to the positive
effect.  The following studies all report increased deer mouse
populations following logging or logging and slash-burning:

Oregon:  in clearcuts in Douglas-fir forests; deer mice were present
   in all successional stages with no strong correlation between
   habitat features and deer mouse abundance [25,44,58,59]
British Columbia:  in 15- to 17-year old clearcuts in Pacific silver
   fir (Abies amabilis)-western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla)-mountain
   hemlock (T. mertensiana); deer mice were the most abundant rodents
   in all stages [126]
northwestern California: in clearcut and slash-burned Douglas-fir [123]
Wyoming:  in lodgepole pine, Douglas-fir, and climax Engelmann spruce
   (Picea engelmannii) stands [19]
central Colorado:  in small circular clearcuts in Engelmann spruce-subalpine
   fir (Abies lasiocarpa) stands [103]
Southwest:  in ponderosa pine; deer mouse abundance increased directly with
   increased amounts of slash [22]
New Mexico and Arizona:  after fall thinning of pinyon-juniper woodlands;
   there was a negative correlation between juniper stocking density and deer
   mouse abundance [2]
Arizona:  deer mouse abundance was positively correlated with slash
   in pinyon-juniper woodlands [68] in harvested ponderosa pine where
   cull logs and large diameter limbs were left scattered rather than
   piled [46]
West Virginia:  in clearcut plots in coniferous forest [66]

The following studies report no change or decreased deer mouse numbers
with logging:

West Virginia :  in clearcuts in deciduous forests; although deer mice
   decreased after logging, they were the most abundant  rodent on
   all plots [66]; deer mice were slightly more abundant in older hardwood
   stands than in other stages including recently harvested areas, but
   were present in all seres [16]
Alaska:  deer mice were more numerous on timbered habitat than in
   clearcuts; however, traplines in clearcuts were 2,000 feet (600 m)
   from the nearest tree seed source [53]

Grazing Effects:  In northern Nevada and southern Idaho high elevation
riparian areas within big sagebrush habitat, there were more deer mice
in grazed areas than in ungrazed areas on a sagebrush-dominated study
site; however, on an aspen and willow (Salix spp.)-dominated study site
there were more deer mice on the ungrazed site than the grazed site
[23].  In another study there was little difference in deer mouse
abundance between grazed and ungrazed plots in big sagebrush-antelope
bitterbrush/Idaho fescue (Festuca idahoensis) range in Nevada [87].  In
northeastern Colorado riparian areas, deer mice were negatively
associated with grass cover, litter, and shrub presence [99].  In New
Mexico deer mice were common in both grazed and ungrazed montane
riparian areas [118].  Kaufman and others [62] predicted that
grassland-inhabiting, fire-positive wildlife species such as the deer
mouse would have higher relative abundance in moderately- to
heavily-grazed grasslands than on lightly-grazed or ungrazed grasslands
because of the lesser amount of litter on heavily-grazed areas [63].
Deer mouse abundance was higher on grazed sagebrush/grassland than on
ungrazed sites [11].

Other Vegetation Management:  Application of herbicide to control shrubs
and weeds had little effect on deer mouse population in logged western
hemlock-western red-cedar-Douglas-fir plots in British Columbia [117].

Home Range:  Stickel [114] compiled studies on deer mouse home ranges
across North America.  Most studies concluded that the size of the deer
mouse home range was directly related to food supply, and varies with
season.  There is often, but not always, an inverse relationship between
deer mouse population density and home range size.  The smallest average
home range, 0.08 acre (0.032 ha), was recorded in Arkansas young oak
(Quercus spp.)-pine forest, and the largest average, 4.66 acres (1.2
ha), was in New Mexico mesquite (Prosopis spp.)  range [114].  Deer mice
use and maintain several home sites or refuges within the home range.
Prairie deer mice travel over a different area within the home range on
successive nights, returning to the nest on the same path used for the
outward trip.  The extent of travel and intensity of use of the home
range varies with habitat change and loss or gain of conspecific
neighbors.  Home range fidelity is fairly strong.  At least half of deer
mice on an Alberta study site that were displaced more than 5,000 feet
(1,500 m) from the capture site returned to the home area [119].  Adults
shift home ranges in response to habitat alteration or disturbance.  One
adult female, caught four times within a 75-foot (26 m) radius, shifted
her home range 1,000 feet (305 m) [114].

Deer mice have considerable tolerance of conspecifics; individuals have
overlapping ranges and sometimes associate in nests, particularly in
winter [5,72].  In South Dakota grasslands deer mice congregate in
groups of 15 or more during winter [37].

Population Density:  Normal population densities in Canada range from
one to seven deer mice per acre (1-25/ha) [5].  Dalquest [28] estimated
an average deer mouse population density of 400 per acre (0.04 ha) in
thickly forested ravines in western Washington.


COVER REQUIREMENTS : 
Deer mice are often active in open habitat; most subspecies do not
develop hidden runways the way many voles (Microtus and Clethrionomys
spp.) do [3,125].  In open habitat within forests deer mice have a
tendency to visit the nearest timber [43].  In central Ontario deer mice
used downed wood for runways [85].

Deer mice nest in burrows dug in the ground or construct nests in raised
areas such as brush piles, logs, rocks, stumps, under bark, and in
hollows in trees [79,85,127].  Nests are also constructed in various
structures and artifacts including old boards and abandoned vehicles.
Nests have been found up to 79 feet (24 m) above the ground in
Douglas-fir trees [79].


FOOD HABITS : 
Deer mice are omnivorous; the main dietary items usually include
arthropods and seeds.  Deer mice also consume nuts, berries and other
small fruits, and fungi.  The prairie deer mouse prefers seeds of
foxtail (Alopecurus spp.) and wheat (Triticum aestivum), caterpillars,
and corn (Zea mays) where available [127].  In southeastern Montana deer
mice in big sagebrush/grasslands consumed arthropods and seeds; the
proportion changed with the year of study [107].

In Colorado pinyon-juniper woodlands 77 percent of the deer mouse diet
was pinyon seeds when the seeds were available.  True pinyon (Pinus
edulis) seeds were preferred over Mexican pinyon (P. cembroides) seeds
[36].  In the Pacific Northwest deer mice consumed over 200 Douglas-fir
seeds each in one night [41].  In southeastern Idaho crested wheatgrass
seeds are important in deer mouse diets when available; when they are
not available caterpillars are the most important item.  Availability of
seeds and caterpillars varies seasonally [67].  In northern Sierra
Nevada brushfields, deer mice consumed the largest proportion of seeds
in January, the largest proportion of fruits in October and November,
the largest proportion of arthropods in April, June, and July, and the
largest proportion of leaves (though never more than 20 percent by
volume) in April [61].  Kelrick and MacMahon [65] reported that antelope
bitterbrush seed was the most nutritious seed available in sagebrush
steppe, and big sagebrush seed the least nutritious.  Deer mice
exhibited a preference for antelope bitterbrush seeds (in penned feeding
trials) even if the deer mice had been trapped in other vegetative
communities [33].

Deer mice cache food in hollow logs or other protected areas [127].  A
single mouse may cache up to 3.2 quarts (3 L) of food for winter use [85].


PREDATORS : 
Deer mice are important prey for snakes (Viperidae), owls (Strigidae),
mink (Mustela vison), marten (Martes americana) and other weasels
(Mustelidae), skunks (Mephites and Spilogale spp.), bobcat (Lynx rufus),
domestic cat (Felis cattus), coyote (Canis latrans), foxes (Vulpes and
Urocyon spp.), and ringtail (Bassariscus astutus) [79].


MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS : 
Some deer mouse subspecies have undergone range extensions at the
expense of other subspecies due to habitat alteration [3].  Lehmkuhl
and Ruggiero [73] listed the forest deer mouse at risk of local extinction
with increasing amounts of forest fragmentation.

Impact on Vegetation:  Peromyscus species rarely alter vegetative cover
since they do not eat leaves, twigs, or stems to any great extent.  Seed
predation may reduce establishment rate of preferred plant species [3].

Economic Impact:  Hooven [58] summarized a number of publications on
seed predation by deer mice.  He concluded that deer mice are capable of
causing substantial loss of tree seed crops.  Deer mice are probably the
major seed predator of Douglas-fir [79,84].  Some seedlings establish
from rodent seed caches, but they are usually in small groups and often
subject to disease and/or intense competition [84].  Numerous studies on
rodent control methods and their effectiveness have been published [79].
Rodenticides often temporarily reduce deer mouse populations, but rarely
effect complete population kill.  For example, Hoffer and others [56]
reported that rodenticide reduced Peromyscus species to "target levels"
in redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) stands, but the treatment left
survivors.  Deer mouse migration into depopulated areas is rapid; even a
small number of mice can quickly repopulate a treated area, rendering
control efforts futile.  In British Columbia removal of deer mice only
slightly increased the amount of surviving tree seed in both forested
areas and clearcuts [116].

Economic Benefit:  Deer mice are important in the diets of many
economically important furbearers, as well as that of other wildlife
[79].  Deer mice consume insects that cause damage to crop trees.  In
northern Ontario, deer mice and shrews (Sorcidae) consumed 13 percent of
the white pine weevils in a jack pine (Pinus banksiana) plantation [8].

FIRE EFFECTS AND USE
WILDLIFE SPECIES: Peromyscus maniculatus



DIRECT FIRE EFFECTS ON ANIMALS : 
Causes of direct mortality due to fire include burns, heat stress,
asphyxiation, physiological stress, trampling by other animals, and
predation.  Indirect causes include loss of food supply, loss of nest
sites, predation, increased parasitism and disease, increased
competition, and changes in social interaction.  Small mammals such as
the deer mouse often survive fire by moving into underground burrows or
by moving to unburned areas [37].  Mortality within burrows is difficult
to assess but hypothesized to be low [62,64].  Wirtz [128] reported that
deer mice survived chaparral fires in burrows.  No dead animals were
found after prescribed fire in mixed-grass prairie, a community
inhabited by deer mice [110].  There are a few reports of direct
mortality of deer mice from fire.  Chew and others [21] found two
carcasses of Peromyscus species in 1.7-acre (0.7 ha) transect after a
chaparral wildfire in an area supporting both deer mice and California
mice (P.  californicus).  Attempts to radiotrack deer mice during a
prescribed fire were largely unsuccessful; one female burrowed under an
8-inch (20 cm) diameter log that was scorched by the fire but did not
burn.  The mouse survived the fire [111].  In west-central Oregon
Douglas-fir stands, Gashwiler [43] observed deer mice on clearcut and
slash-burned (October) areas while fires were still active; some were
captured within 2 feet (0.6 m) of a smoldering fire.  He reported that
12 of 16 (75% of) mice marked prior to the fire were recaptured on the
burned area within 15 days of fire initiation.  In November, 13 of the
16 original marked animals were recaptured on the burned area.  The
total number of deer mice captured on the burn (21) was three times the
number of deer mice captured on the adjacent unburned control plot [43].

In some instances, deer mice leave the burn area immediately after a
fire, possibly due to the presence of loose ash or to a lack of food.
Tevis [123] reported that one-third of the deer mice marked before a
broadcast (slash) fire were recaptured in the postfire period; all but
four were captured on the edge of the burn but none were recaptured on
the burned area.  Colonizers did not enter the burned area until
rainfall packed down the deep ash layer.  By 2.5 weeks after the fire,
deer mouse numbers were twice the prefire level [123].  Four deer mice
marked prior to a prescribed fire in oak savanna were not caught again
after the fire; the cause for their absence was unknown (possibilities
include fire mortality, predation, death by other causes, and
emigration) [120].


HABITAT RELATED FIRE EFFECTS : 
In many communities deer mice abundance was higher on burned areas than
on adjacent unburned areas by the first growing season after fire.  In
other communities there was no clear response, and in some communities
deer mice decreased after fire.  Deer mice are often the first animals
to invade an area that has been burned [3,37,80].  Burned areas often
support increased numbers of insects and seeds of annual plants which
are beneficial to deer mice [58].  In many reports deer mouse abundance
was negatively correlated with amount of litter [52].  Fire in grassland
immediately reduces litter and aboveground vegetation; total biomass
usually is higher than prefire levels by the summer following a spring
prescribed fire [101].  Deer mice in grasslands tend to use burned plots
more than adjacent unburned plots [90,101].  In Minnesota tallgrass
prairie, prairie deer mouse populations were negatively associated with
litter depth; large beetles (a favored food of deer mice) were
associated with sparse litter [121].  Fire in ecotones may increase
available habitat for prairie deer mice.  In Wisconsin deer mice were
only found on frequently burned areas where woodland had been
successfully converted to brush-prairie [6].

The success of the deer mouse on burned areas is attributed to its
nocturnal habits, erratic movements, tolerance of open space/bare
ground, and lack of competition [96].  In
California the ratio of deer
mice to California mice decreases with succession from grassland
created by prescribed fire to mature chaparral [7].  In Yellowstone
National Park, deer mice were able to find adequate food the first
growing season after wildfire, even though plant cover was less than 10
percent [30].  In Kansas tallgrass prairie deer mice selected recently
burned areas over areas that had burned in previous years.  These areas
were characterized by a large proportion of exposed soil, lush
vegetation, and little or no plant litter [64].  In Arizona ponderosa
pine forests, the increased number of deer mice after fire was
attributed to increased food and cover in the form of stumps and fallen
logs; the highest deer mouse populations occurred in the areas with
significantly more cover and forbs [75].

In northern Idaho, deer mice were the most commonly trapped small mammal
on the Trapper Peak Burn (in subalpine fir [Abies lasiocarpa)] 3 years
after fire [115].  In Kansas tallgrass prairie deer mice increased after
fire largely due to immigration from unburned areas.  The positive
response to fire was evident by July following an April fire, and
continued through the following spring [62,64].  In eastern Oregon grass
and forb-dominated flood meadows, deer mouse numbers were higher on
control plots than on burned plots the first year following a fall
prescribed fire.  Deer mouse numbers were, however, four times greater
on burned areas than on control areas the third winter after the fire
[27].  In northern California brushfields deer mouse numbers remained
relatively constant in burned areas even though the deer mouse
population crashed due to drought in control areas [24].  In California
chaparral deer mice disappeared immediately after a wildfire, were
present within 1 year after the fire, and reached a maximum population
the third year after the fire [93].

The frequency of fire affects deer mouse abundance.  In Kansas tallgrass
prairie, deer mouse abundance was higher the first year after fire on
plots burned every 4 years than on annually burned plots.  The average
relative density of deer mice in all 4 years of a 4-year fire cycle was
also higher than the average relative density with annual fire [62].  A
similar result was obtained in New Brunswick mixed-grass prairie; annual
fires resulted in lower deer mouse abundance than fires at longer
intervals [110].

Although deer mouse populations generally increase within a year after
fire, effects are variable, especially in nonforested habitats.  Lists of
reports describing positive, negative, and neutral responses to fire
follow.

In the following studies, deer mice were more abundant on burned areas
than on adjacent unburned areas, or were more abundant on burned areas
than on the same area prior to fire.  Numbers in parentheses indicate
postfire year(s) of peak deer mouse abundance (numbers in brackets are
reference numbers).

Grassland and Prairie
California:  annual grassland [70]
central Wisconsin:  spring prescribed fire in marshland (1) [52]
South Dakota:  spring prescribed fire in mixed-grass prairie (1) [37];
   2 years after the fire deer mouse numbers had dropped to below
   prefire levels [14,15,38]
Kansas:  spring and fall prescribed fire in tallgrass prairie (1);
   numbers declined to prefire levels by the second year [62]
southern Illinois:  plots in annually burned tallgrass prairie had
   higher deer mouse densities than unburned plots [100]
New Brunswick:  mixed-grass prairie (1) [110]

Deciduous woodlands
Minnesota:  prescribed fire in bur oak (Quercus macrocarpa) savanna
   and tallgrass prairie [120]

Chaparral and Scrub
California:  chaparral (3) [94],  chaparral [7], chaparral; deer mice
   were not present in prefire samples,  nor on control plots, but were
   common in burned plots (2) [129]

Pinyon-Juniper
Nevada:  severe prescribed fire reducing pinyon-juniper to grassland (1) [80]
Utah:  chained and burned pinyon-juniper (2) [4]
Colorado:  pinyon-juniper [32]

Sagebrush
Nevada:  fall prescribed fire in sagebrush/grass [82]
Wyoming:  fall prescribed fire in mountain big sagebrush (Artemisia
   tridentata ssp. vaseyana)/grassland (2) [83]

Forest
Oregon:  clearcut and slash-burned Douglas-fir [58]
California:  clearcut and slash-burned Douglas-fir (1) [123]
Arizona:  ponderosa pine (1) [75], severe spring wildfire in ponderosa
   pine [18]
South Dakota:  annual prescribed fire in ponderosa pine and adjacent
   grasslands [106]
Colorado:  wildfire in lodgepole pine [98]
Wyoming:  wildfire in lodgepole pine [113]
southeastern  Manitoba:  clearcut and slash-burned jack pine (1) [108]
northeastern Minnesota:  cut and burned jack pine stands (1,3) [1]
north-central Ontario:  logged and slash-burned upland black spruce
   (Picea mariana) and northern hardwoods [78]

In the following studies deer mice were less abundant on burned plots
than on adjacent unburned plots or were less abundant on burned plots
than on the same plots prior to fire:

Grassland
Illinois:  prescribed fire in restored tallgrass prairie; there was
   no resident population of deer mice on adjacent unburned areas to
   supply immigrants [112]

Chaparral
California:  chaparral [70]

Sagebrush
Washington:  wildfire in antelope bitterbrush-big sagebrush [39]
eastern Idaho:  severe wildfire in big sagebrush/grassland; deer
   mice used both burned and unburned areas [50]
southwestern Idaho:  prescribed fire in shrub-steppe; deer mouse
   abundance 1 year after fire was lower on burned and seeded grasslands
   than on partially burned or control plots [49]

Forest
Wyoming:  deer mice were abundant on both burned and unburned coniferous
   forest plots; peak abundance occurred in August on unburned plots [109]

In the following studies, deer mice showed no preference for either
burned or unburned plots:

Grassland
southeastern Arizona:  big sacaton (Sporobolus wrightii) [13]
Minnesota:  fall prescribed fire in tallgrass and shortgrass prairie,
   sampled 10 months after the fire [20]

Chaparral
southern California:  coastal sage scrub [91]


FIRE USE : 
An extensive body of research has been published on fire effects on animals
in semidesert grassland, oak savanna, and Madrean oak woodlands of southeastern
Arizona, including the response of deer mice to fire. See the
Research Project Summary of this work for more information on
deer mice and more than 100 additional species of small mammals,
birds, grasshoppers, and herbaceous and woody plant species.

References for species: Peromyscus maniculatus

1. Ahlgren, Clifford E. 1966. Small mammals and reforestation following prescribed burning. Journal of Forestry. 64: 614-618. [206]

2. Albert, Steven K.; Luna, Nelson; Chopito, Albert L. 1995. Deer, small mammal, and songbird use of thinned pinon-juniper plots: preliminary results. In: Shaw, Douglas W.; Aldon, Earl F.; LoSapio, Carol, technical coordinators. Desired future conditions for pinon-juniper ecosystems: Proceedings of the symposium; 1994 August 8-12; Flagstaff, AZ. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-258. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 54-64. [24797]

3. Baker, Rollin H. 1968. Habitats and distribution. In: King, John Arthur, ed. Biology of Peromyscus (Rodentia). Special Publication No. 2. Stillwater, OK: The American Society of Mammalogists: 98-126. [25452]

4. Baker, M. F.; Frischknecht, N. C. 1973. Small mammals increase on recently cleared and seeded juniper rangeland. Journal of Range Management. 26(2): 101-103. [5754]

5. Banfield, A. W. F. 1974. The mammals of Canada. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press. 438 p. [21084]

6. Beck, Alan M.; Vogl, Richard J. 1972. The effects of spring burning on rodent populations in a brush prairie savanna. Journal of Mammalogy. 53(2): 336-346. [196]

7. Bell, M. M.; Studinski, G. H. 1972. Habitat manipulation and its relationship to avian and small rodent populations on the Decanso District of the Cleveland National Forest. Unpublished paper on file at: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT. 21 p. [17047]

8. Bellcoq, M. I.; Smith, S. M. 1992. Management of small mammals for the biological control of white pine weevil. In: Proceedings, 54th Midwest Fish and Wildlife Conference. 54: 352-354. [Abstract]. [25762]

9. Bendell, James F. 1961. Some factors affecting the habitat selection of the white-footed mouse. Canadian Field-Naturalist. 75(4): 244-255. [25542]

10. Bernard, Stephen R.; Brown, Kenneth F. 1977. Distribution of mammals, reptiles, and amphibians by BLM physiographic regions and A.W. Kuchler's associations for the eleven western states. Tech. Note 301. Denver, CO: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 169 p. [434]

11. Romo, James T.; Redmann, Robert E.; Kowalenko, Brendan L.; Nicholson, Andrew R. 1995. Growth of winterfat following defoliation in northern mixed prairie of Saskatchewan. Journal of Range Management. 48(3): 240-245. [25556]

12. Black, Hugh C.; Taber, Richard D. 1977. Mammals in western coniferous forest ecosystems: an annotated bibliography. Bull. No. 2. Seattle, WA: U.S./International Biological Program, Ecosystem Analysis Studies, Coniferous Forest Biome. 199 p. [13473]

13. Bock, Carl E.; Bock, Jane H. 1978. Response of birds, small mammals, and vegetation to burning sacaton grasslands in southeastern Arizona. Journal of Range Management. 31(4): 296-300. [3075]

14. Bock, Carl E.; Bock, Jane H. 1983. Responses of birds and deer mice to prescribed burning in ponderosa pine. Journal of Wildlife Management. 47(3): 836-840. [476]

15. Bone, Steven D.; Klukas, Richard W. 1990. Prescribed fire in Wind Cave National Park. In: Alexander, M. E.; Bisgrove, G. F., technical coordinators. The art and science of fire management: Proceedings, 1st Interior West Fire Council annual meeting and workshop; 1988 October 24-27; Kananaskis Village, AB. Inf. Rep. NOR-X-309. Edmonton, AB: Forestry Canada, Northwest Region, Northern Forestry Centre: 297-302. [14145]

16. Brooks, Robert T.; Healy, William M. 1988. Response of small mammal communities to silvicultural treatments in eastern hardwood forests of West Virginia and Massachusetts. In: Szaro, Robert C.; Severson, Kieth E.; Patton, David R., technical coordinators. Management of amphibians, reptiles, and small mammals in North America; 1988 July 19-21; Flagstaff, AZ. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-166. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 313-318. [25544]

17. Brown, James H.; Zeng, Zongyong. 1989. Comparative population ecology of eleven species of rodents in the Chihuahuan Desert. Ecology. 70(5): 1507-1525. [9469]

18. Campbell, R. E.; Baker, M. B., Jr.; Ffolliott, P. F.; [and others]. 1977. Wildfire effects on a ponderosa pine ecosystem: an Arizona case study. Res. Pap. RM-191. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 12 p. [4715]

19. Campbell, Thomas M.; Clark, Tim W. 1980. Short-term effects of logging on red-backed voles and deer mice. The Great Basin Naturalist. 40(2): 183-189. [25530]

20. Chance, Robert L. 1986. The effect of fall burning on small mammals in Blue Mound State Park, Luverne, Minnesota. In: Clambey, Gary K.; Pemble, Richard H., eds. The prairie: past, present and future: Proceedings, 9th North American prairie conference; 1984 July 29 - August 1; Moorhead, MN. Fargo, ND: Tri-College University Center for Environmental Studies: 157-159. [3562]

21. Chew, Robert M.; Butterworth, Bernard B.; Grechman, Richard. 1959. The effects of fire on the small mammal populations of chaparral. Journal of Mammalogy. 40(2): 253. [2703]

22. Clary, Warren P. 1987. Overview of ponderosa pine bunchgrass ecology and wildlife habitat enhancement with emphasis on southwestern United States. In: Fisser, Herbert G., ed. Wyoming shrublands: Proceedings, 16th Wyoming shrub ecology workshop; 1987 May 26-27; Sundance, WY. Laramie, WY: University of Wyoming, Department of Range Management, Wyoming Shrub Ecology Workshop: 11-21. [13913]

23. Clary, Warren P.; Medin, Dean E. 1992. Vegetation, breeding bird, and small mammal biomass in two high-elevation sagebrush riparian habitats. In: Clary, Warren P.; McArthur, E. Durant; Bedunah, Don; Wambolt, Carl L., compilers. Proceedings--symposium on ecology and management of riparian shrub communities; 1991 May 29-31; Sun Valley, ID. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-289. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station: 100-110. [19103]

24. Cook, Sherburne F., Jr. 1959. The effects of fire on a population of small rodents. Ecology. 40(1): 102-108. [230]

25. Corn, Paul Stephen; Bury, R. Bruce. 1991. Small mammal communities in the Oregon Coast Range. In: Ruggiero, Leonard F.; Aubry, Keith B.; Carey, Andrew B.; Huff, Mark H., technical coordinators. Wildlife and vegetation of unmanaged Douglas-fir forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-285. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station: 241-254. [17316]

26. Corn, Paul Stephen; Bury, R. Bruce; Spies, Thomas A. 1988. Douglas-fir forests in the Cascade Mountains of Oregon and Washington: is the abundance of small mammals related to stand age and moisture? In: Szaro, Robert C.; Severson, Kieth E.; Patton, David R., technical coordinators. Management of amphibians, reptiles, and small mammals in North America: Proceedings of the symposium; 1988 July 19-21; Flagstaff, AZ. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-166. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 340-352. [7123]

27. Cornely, J. E.; Britton, C. M.; Sneva, F. A. 1983. Manipulation of flood meadow vegetation and observations on small mammal populations. Prairie Naturalist. 15: 16-22. [14509]

28. Dalquest, Walter W. 1941. Ecologic relationships of four small mammals in western Washington. Journal of Mammalogy. 22(2): 170-173. [25529]

29. DeGraaf, Richard M.; Snyder, Dana P.; Hill, Barbara J. 1991. Small mammal habitat associations in poletimber and sawtimber stands of four forest cover types. Forest Ecology and Management. 46: 227-242. [17248]

30. Despain, Don G. 1978. Effects of natural fires in Yellowstone National Park. Information Paper No. 34. [Place of publication unknown]: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Yellowstone National Park. 2 p. [15670]

31. Dice, Lee R. 1933. Longevity in Peromyscus maniculatus gracilis. Journal of Mammalogy. 14: 147-148. [25531]

32. Douglass, Richard J. 1989. The use of radio-telemetry to evalutate microhabitat selection by deer mouse. Journal of Mammalogy. 70(3): 648-652. [25533]

33. Everett, Richard L.; Meeuwig, Richard O.; Stevens, Richard. 1978. Deer mouse preference for seed of commonly planted species, indigenous weed seed, and sacrifice foods. Journal of Range Management. 31(1): 70-73. [896]

34. Eyre, F. H., ed. 1980. Forest cover types of the United States and Canada. Washington, DC: Society of American Foresters. 148 p. [905]

35. Fleharty, Eugene D. 1972. Some aspects of small mammal ecology in a Kansas remnant prairie. In: Zimmerman, James H., ed. Proceedings, 2nd Midwest prairie conference; 1970 September 18-20; Madison, WI. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Arboretum: 97-103. [2802]

36. Floyd, Mary E. 1982. The interaction of pinon pine and gambel oak in plant succession near Dolores, Colorado. The Southwestern Naturalist. 27(2): 143-147. [932]

37. Forde, Jon D. 1983. The effect of fire on bird and small mammal communities in the grasslands of Wind Cave National Park. Houghton, MI: Michigan Technological University. 140 p. Thesis. [937]

38. Forde, Jon D.; Sloan, Norman F.; Shown, Douglas A. 1984. Grassland habitat management using prescribed burning in Wind Cave National Park, South Dakota. Prairie Naturalist. 16(3): 97-110. [938]

39. Gano, K. A.; Rickard, W. H. 1982. Small mammals of a bitterbrush-cheatgrass community. Northwest Science. 56(1): 1-7. [990]

40. Garman, Steven L.; O'Connell, Allan F., Jr.; Connery, Judith Hazen. 1994. Habitat use and distribution of the mice Peromyscus leucopus and P. maniculatus on Mount Desert Island, Maine. Canadian Field-Naturalist. 108(1): 67-71. [25534]

41. Garman, E. H.; Orr-Ewing, A. L. 1949. Direct-seeding experiments in the southern coastal region of British Columbia 1923-1949. Tech. Publ. T.31. [Victoria, BC]: Department of Lands and Forests, British Columbia Forest Service. 45 p. [25567]

42. Garrison, George A.; Bjugstad, Ardell J.; Duncan, Don A.; [and others]. 1977. Vegetation and environmental features of forest and range ecosystems. Agric. Handb. 475. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 68 p. [998]

43. Gashwiler, Jay S. 1959. Small mammal study in west-central Oregon. Journal of Mammalogy. 40(1): 128-139. [14005]

44. Gashwiler, Jay S. 1970. Plant and mammal changes on a clearcut in west-central Oregon. Ecology. 51(6): 1018-1026. [8523]

45. Geier, Anthony R.; Best, Louis B. 1980. Habitat selection by small mammals of riparian communities: evaluating effects of habitat alterations. Journal of Wildlife Management. 44(1): 16-24. [25535]

46. Goodwin, John G., Jr.; Hungerford, C. Roger. 1979. Rodent population densities and food habits in Arizona ponderosa pine forests. Res. Pap. RM-214. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 12 p. [15888]

47. Gore, Jeffery A. 1988. Habitat structure and the distribution of small mammals in a northern hardwoods forest. In: Szaro, Robert C.; Severson, Kieth E.; Patton, David R., technical coordinators. Management of amphibians, reptiles, and small mammals in North America: Proceedings of the symposium; 1988 July 19-21; Flagstaff, AZ. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-166. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment: 319-327. [7120]

48. Groves, Craig R.; Keller, Barry L. 1983. Ecological characteristics of small mammals on a radioactive waste disposal area in southeastern Idaho. The American Midland Naturalist. 109(2): 253-265. [1047]

49. Groves, Craig R.; Steenhof, Karen. 1988. Responses of small mammals and vegetation to wildfire in shadscale communities of southwestern Idaho. Northwest Science. 62(5): 205-210. [6584]

50. Halford, Douglas K. 1981. Repopulation and food habits of Peromyscus maniculatus on a burned sagebrush desert in southeastern Idaho. Northwest Science. 55(1): 44-49. [1058]

51. Hall, E. Raymond. 1981. The mammals of North America. 2nd ed. Vol. 2. New York: John Wiley and Sons. 1271 p. [14765]

52. Halvorsen, Harvey H.; Anderson, Raymond K. 1983. Evaluation of grassland management for wildlife in central Wisconsin. In: Kucera, Clair L., ed. Proceedings, 7th North American prairie conference; 1980 August 4-6; Springfield, MO. Columbia, MO: University of Missouri: 267-279. [3228]

53. Harris, A. S. 1968. Small mammals and natural reforestation in southeast Alaska. Research Note PNW-75. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 7 p. [25536]

54. Higgins, Kenneth F.; Kruse, Arnold D.; Piehl, James L. 1989. Effects of fire in the Northern Great Plains. Ext. Circ. EC-761. Brookings, SD: South Dakota State University, Cooperative Extension Service, South Dakota Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit. 47 p. [14749]

55. Hoffman, George R. 1960. The small mammal components of six climax plant associations in eastern Washington and northern Idaho. Ecology. 41(3): 571-572. [12472]

56. Hoffer, Marvin C.; Passof, Peter C.; Krohn, Robert. 1969. Field evaluation of DRC-714 for deer-mouse control in a redwood habitat. Journal of Forestry. 67: 158-159. [25537]

57. Hooper, Emmet T. 1968. Classification. In: King, John Arthur, ed. Biology of Peromyscus (Rodentia). Special Publication No. 2. Stillwater, OK: The American Society of Mammalogists: 27-74. [25451]

58. Hooven, Edward F. 1973. Effects of vegetational changes on small forest mammals. In: Hermann, Richard K.; Lavender, Denis P., eds. Even-age management: Proceedings of a symposium; 1972 August 1; [Location of conference unknown]. Paper 848. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University, School of Forestry: 75-97. [16241]

59. Hooven, Edward F. 1973. Response of the Oregon creeping vole to the clearcutting of a Douglas-fir forest. Northwest Science. 47(4): 256-264. [8521]

60. Hameson, E. W., Jr. 1951. Local distribution of white-footed mice, Peromyscus maniculatus and P. boylei, in the northern Sierra Nevada, California. Journal of Mammalogy. 32(2): 197-203. [25538]

61. Jameson, E. W., Jr. 1952. Food of deer mice, Peromyscus maniculatus and P. boylei, in the northern Sierra Nevada, California. Journal of Mammalogy. 33(1): 50-60. [21605]

62. Kaufman, Donald W.; Finck, Elmer J.; Kaufman, Glennis A. 1990. Small mammals and grassland fires. In: Collins, Scott L.; Wallace, Linda L., eds. Fire in North American tallgrass prairies. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press: 46-80. [14195]

63. Kaufman, Donald W.; Kaufman, Glennis A.; Finck, Elmer J. 1989. Rodents and shrews in ungrazed tallgrass prairie manipulated by fire. In: Bragg, Thomas A.; Stubbendieck, James, eds. Prairie pioneers: ecology, history and culture: Proceedings, 11th North American prairie conference; 1988 August 7-11; Lincoln, NE. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska: 173-177. [14039]

64. Kaufman, Glennis A.; Kaufman, Donald W.; Finck, Elmer J. 1988. Influence of fire and topography on habitat selection by Peromyscus maniculatus and Reithrodontomys megalotis in ungrazed tallgrass prairie. Journal of Mammalogy. 69(2): 342-352. [5183]

65. Kelrick, Michael Ira; MacMahon, James A. 1985. Nutritional and physical attribributes of seeds of some common sagebrush-steppe plants: some implications for ecological theory and management. Journal of Range Management. 38(1): 65-69. [16086]

66. Kirkland, Gordon L., Jr. 1977. Responses of small mammals to the clearcutting of northern Appalachian forests. Journal of Mammalogy. 58(4): 600-609. [14455]

67. Koehler, David K.; Anderson, Stanley H. 1991. Habitat use and food selection of small mammals near a sagebrush/crested wheatgrass interface in southeastern Idaho. The Great Basin Naturalist. 51(3): 249-255. [16868]

68. Kruse, William H. 1995. Effects of fuelwood harvesting on small mammal populations in a pinon-juniper woodland. In: Shaw, Douglas W.; Aldon, Earl F.; LoSapio, Carol, technical coordinators. Desired future conditions for pinon-juniper ecosystems: Proceedings of the symposium; 1994 August 8-12; Flagstaff, AZ. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-258. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 91-96. [24801]

69. Kuchler, A. W. 1964. Manual to accompany the map of potential vegetation of the conterminous United States. Special Publication No. 36. New York: American Geographical Society. 77 p. [1384]

70. Lawrence, George E. 1966. Ecology of vertebrate animals in relation to chaparral fire in the Sierra Nevada foothills. Ecology. 47(2): 278-291. [147]

71. Lawrence, William H.; Kverno, Nelson B.; Hartwell, Harry D. 1961. Guide to wildlife feeding injuries on conifers in the Pacific Northwest. Portland, OR: Western Forestry and Conservation Association, Washington Forest Protection Association, Industrial Forestry Association. 44 p. In cooperation with: University of Washington, College of Forestry. [21472]

72. Layne, James N. 1966. Postnatal development and growth of Peromyscus floridanus. Growth. 30: 23-45. [28262]

73. Lehmkuhl, John F.; Ruggiero, Leonard F. 1991. Forest fragmentation in the Pacific Northwest and its potential effects on wildlife. In: Ruggiero, Leonard F.; Aubry, Keith B.; Carey, Andrew B.; Huff, Mark H., technical coordinators. Wildlife and vegetation of unmanaged Douglas-fir forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-285. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station: 35-46. [17304]

74. Lemen, Cliff A.; Freeman, Patricia W. 1986. Habitat selection and movement patterns in sandhills rodents. Prairie Naturalist. 18(3): 129-141. [25539]

75. Lowe, Philip O.; Ffolliott, Peter F.; Dieterich, John H.; Patton, David R. 1978. Determining potential wildlife benefits from wildfire in Arizona ponderosa pine forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-52. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 12 p. [4481]

76. MacCracken, James G.; Uresk, Daniel W.; Hansen, Richard M. 1985. Rodent-vegetation relationships in southeastern Montana. Northwest Science. 59(4): 272-278; 1985. [1499]

77. Marinelli, Lui; Millar, John S. 1989. The ecology of beach-dwelling Peromyscus maniculatus on the Pacific Coast. Canadian Journal of Zoology. 67: 412-417. [25540]

78. Martell, Arthur M. 1984. Changes in small mammal communities after fire in northcentral Ontario. Canadian Field-Naturalist. 98(2): 223-226. [10507]

79. Maser, Chris; Mate, Bruce R.; Franklin, Jerry F.; Dyrness, C. T. 1981. Natural history of Oregon Coast mammals. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-133. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 496 p. [10238]

80. Mason, R. 1977. Response of wildlife populations to prescribed burning in pinyon-juniper woodlands. In: Klebenow, D.; Beall; [and others]. Controlled fire as a management tool in the pinyon juniper woodland. Summary Progress Report FY 1977. Reno, NV: University of Nevada, Nevada Agricultural Experiment Station: 22-39. [25710]

81. McComb, William C.; McGarigal, Kevin; Anthony, Robert G. 1993. Small mammal and amphibian abundance in streamside and upslope habitats of mature Douglas-fir stands, western Oregon. Northwest Science. 67(1): 7-15. [20564]

82. McGee, John Michael. 1976. Some effects of fire suppression and prescribed burning on birds and small mammals in sagebrush. Laramie, WY: University of Wyoming. 114 p. Dissertation. [16998]

83. McGee, John M. 1982. Small mammal populations in an unburned and early fire successional sagebrush community. Journal of Range Management. 35(2): 177-180. [1601]

84. Moore, A. W. 1940. Wild animal damage to seed and seedlings on cut-over Douglas-fir lands of Oregon and Washington. Technical Bulletin No. 706. Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 28 p. [9254]

85. Naylor, Brian J. 1994. Managing wildlife habitat in red pine and white pine forests of central Ontario. Forestry Chronicle. 70(4): 411-419. [24002]

86. Nowak, Ronald M.; Paradiso, John L. 1983. Walker's mammals of the world. 4th edition. 4th edition. Baltimore, MD: The John Hopkins University Press. 568 p. [25151]

87. Oldemeyer, John L.; Allen-Johnson, Lydia R. 1988. Cattle grazing and small mammals on the Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge, Nevada. In: Szaro, Robert C.; Severson, Kieth E.; Patton, David R., technical coordinators. Management of amphibians, reptiles, and small mammals in North America: Proceedings of the symposium; 1988 July 19-21; Flagstaff, AZ. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-166. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 391-398. [7128]

88. O'Farrell, Michael J. 1978. Home range dynamics of rodents in a sagebrush community. Journal of Mammalogy. 59(4): 657-668. [1788]

89. Orr-Ewing, A. L. 1950. Life history of the deer mouse. Forestry Chronicle. 26(2): 115-126. [16234]

90. Peterson, Sharon K.; Kaufman, Glennis A.; Kaufman, Donald W. 1985. Habitat selection by small mammals of the tall-grass prairie: experimental patch choice. Prairie Naturalist. 17(2): 65-70. [25532]

91. Price, Mary V.; Waser, Nickoas M. 1984. On the relative abundance of species: postfire changes in a coastal sage scrub rodent community. Ecology. 65(4): 1161-1169. [6197]

92. Pyke, David A. 1986. Demographic responses of Bromus tectorum and seedlings of Agropyron spicatum to grazing by small mammals: occurrence and severity of grazing. Journal of Ecology. 74: 739-754. [4517]

93. Quinn, Ronald D. 1979. Effects of fire on small mammals in the chaparral. Cal-Neva Wildlife Transactions: 125-133. [5984]

94. Quinn, Ronald D. 1990. Habitat preferences and distribution of mammals in California chaparral. Res. Pap. PSW-202. Berkeley, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. 11 p. [15761]

95. Raphael, Martin G. 1987. Nongame wildlife research in subalpine forests of the central Rocky Mountains. In: Management of subalpine forests: building on 50 years of research: Proceedings of a technical conference; 1987 July 6-9; Silver Creek, CO. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-149. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 113-122. [23229]

96. Ream, Catherine H., compiler. 1981. The effects of fire and other disturbances on small mammals and their predators: an annotated bibliography. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-106. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 55 p. [19324]

97. Reynolds, Timothy D. 1980. Effects of some different land management practices on small mammal populations. Journal of Mammalogy. 61(3): 558-561. [1962]

98. Roppe, Jerry A.; Hein, Dale. 1978. Effects of fire on wildlife in a lodgepole pine forest. The Southwestern Naturalist. 23(2): 279-287. [261]

99. Samson, Fred B.; Knopf, Fritz L.; Hass, Lisa B. 1988. Small mammal response to the introduction of cattle into a cottonwood floodplain. In: Szaro, Robert C.; Severson, Kieth E.; Patton, David R., technical coordinators. Management of amphibians, reptiles, and small mammals in North America: Proceedings of the symposium; 1988 July 19-21; Flagstaff, AZ. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-166. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 432-438. [7131]

100. Schramm, Peter; Clover, Catherine A. 1994. A dramatic increase of the meadow jumping mouse (Zapus hudsonius) in a post-drought, restored, tallgrass prairie. In: Wickett, Robert G.; Lewis, Patricia Dolan; Woodliffe, Allen; Pratt, Paul, eds. Spirit of the land, our prairie legacy: Proceedings, 13th North American prairie conference; 1992 August 6-9; Windsor, ON. Windsor, ON: Department of Parks and Recreation: 81-86. [24679]

101. Schramm, Peter; Willcutts, Brian J. 1983. Habitat selection of small mammals in burned and unburned tallgrass prairie. In: Brewer, Richard, ed. Proceedings, 8th North American prairie conference; 1982 August 1-4; Kalamazoo, MI. Kalamazoo, MI: Western Michigan University, Department of Biology: 49-55. [3122]

102. Scott, Virgil E.; Crouch, Glenn L. 1988. Summer birds and mammals of aspen-conifer forests in west-central Colorado. Res. Pap. RM-280. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 6 p. [13254]

103. Scott, Virgil E.; Crouch, Glenn L.; Whelan, Jill A. 1982. Responses of birds and small mammals to clearcutting in a subalpine forest in central Colorado. Res. Note RM-422. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 6 p. [4494]

104. Sharps, Jon C.; Uresk, Daniel W. 1990. Ecological review of black-tailed prairie dogs and associated species in western South Dakota. The Great Basin Naturalist. 50(4): 339-344. [14895]

105. Shiflet, Thomas N., ed. 1994. Rangeland cover types of the United States. Denver, CO: Society for Range Management. 152 p. [23362]

106. Shown, Douglas A. 1982. The effects of prescribed burning on bird and small mammal communities in the grasslands of Wind Cave National Park. Houghton, MI: Michigan Technological University. 94 p. Thesis. [10471]

107. Sieg, Carolyn Hull; Uresk, Daniel W.; Hansen, Richard M. 1986. Seasonal diets of deer mice on bentonite mine spoils and sagebrush grasslands in southeastern Montana. Northwest Science. 60(2): 81-89. [2146]

108. Sims, H. Percy; Buckner, Charles H. 1973. The effect of clear cutting and burning of Pinus banksiana forests on the populations of small mammals in southeastern Manitoba. The American Midland Naturalist. 90(1): 228-231. [14449]

109. Spildie, David R.; Stanton, Nancy L.; Buskirk, Steven; Miller, Steven. 1991. Small mammal distribution on a burn chronosequence in northwestern Wyoming. In: Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America. 72(2): 256-257. Abstract. [25541]

110. Springer, Joseph Tucker. 1988. Immediate effects of a spring fire on small mammal populations in a Nebraska mixed-grass prairie. In: David, Arnold; Stanford, Geoffrey, eds. The prairie: roots of culture; foundation of our economy: Proceedings, 10th North American prairie conference; 1986 June 22-26; Denton, TX. Dallas, TX: Native Prairie Association of Texas: 20.02: 1-5. [25572]

111. Springer, Joseph Tucker. 1988. Individual responses of some small mammals to a prairie fire. In: David, Arnold; Stanford, Geoffrey, eds. The prairie: roots of culture; foundation of our economy: Proceedings, 10th North American prairie conference; 1986 June 22-26; Denton, TX. Dallas, TX: Native Prairie Association of Texas: 20.03: 1-6. [25571]

112. Springer, J. Tucker; Schramm, Peter. 1972. The effects of fire on small mamal populations in a restored prairie with special reference to the short-tail shrew, Blarina brevicauda. In: Zimmerman, James H., ed. Proceedings of the second Midwest prairie conference; 1970 September 18-20; Madison, WI. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Arboretum: 91-96. [2801]

113. Stanton, Nancy; Buskirk, Steven; Miller, Steve. 1990. Habitat distribution of small mammal communities in Grand Teton National Park. In: Boyce, Mark S.; Plumb, Glenn E., eds. National Park Service Research Center, 14th annual report. Laramie, WY: University of Wyoming, National Park Service Research Center: 109-115. [14919]

114. Stickel, Lucille F. 1968. Home range and travels. In: King, John Arthur, ed. Biology of Peromyscus (Rodentia). Special Publication No. 2. Stillwater, OK: The American Society of Mammalogists: 373-411. [25453]

115. Ferrell, W. K.; Olson, D. S. 1952. Preliminary studies on the effect of fire on forest soils in the western white pine region of Idaho. Research Note No. 4. Moscow, ID: University of Idaho, Forest, Wildlife and Range Experiment Station, Research Notes. 7 p. [8579]

116. Sullivan, Thomas P. 1979. Repopulation of clear-cut habitat and conifer seed predation by deer mice. Journal of Wildlife Management. 43(4): 861-871. [28263]

117. Sullivan, Thomas P.; Sullivan, Druscilla S. 1982. Responses of small-mammal populations to a forest herbicide application in a 20-year-old conifer plantation. Journal of Applied Ecology. 19: 95-106. [18426]

118. Szaro, Robert. 1991. Wildlife communities of southwestern riparian ecosystems. In: Rodiek, Jon E.; Bolen, Eric G., eds. Wildlife and habitats in managed landscapes: an overview. Washington, DC: Island Press: 173-201. [20787]

119. Teferi, Taye; Millar, J. S. 1993. Long distance homing by the deer mouse, Peromyscus maniculatus. Canadian Field-Naturalist. 107(1): 109-111. [23429]

120. Tester, John R. 1965. Effects of a controlled burn on small mammals in a Minnesota oak-savanna. The American Midland Naturalist. 74(1): 240-244. [279]

121. Tester, John R.; Marshall, William H. 1961. A study of certain plant and animal interrelations on a native prairie in northwestern Minnesota. Occasional Papers: No. 8. Minneapolis, MN: The University of Minnesota, Minnesota Museum of Natural History. 51 p. [25709]

122. Tester, John R.; Marshall, William H. 1962. Minnesota prairie management techniques and their wildlife implications. Proceedings, 27th North American Wildlife Conference. 27: 267-287. [14960]

123. Tevis, Lloyd, Jr. 1956. Effect of a slash burn on forest mice. Journal of Wildlife Management. 20(4): 405-409. [91]

124. Thorn, Eugene R.; Tzilkowski, Walter M. 1991. Mammal caching of oak acorns in a red pine and a mixed-oak stand. In: McCormick, Larry H.; Gottschalk, Kurt W., eds. Proceedings, 8th central hardwood forest conference; 1991 March 4-6; University Park, PA. Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-148. Radnor, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station: 299-304. [15319]

125. Wagg, J. W. Bruce. 1964. White spruce regeneration on the Peace and Slave River lowlands. Publ. No. 1069. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Department of Forestry, Forest Research Branch. 35 p. [12998]

126. Walters, Bradley B. 1991. Small mammals in a subalpine old-growth forest and clearcuts. Northwest Science. 65(1): 27-31. [15155]

127. Whitaker, John O., Jr. 1980. National Audubon Society field guide to North American mammals. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc. 745 p. [25194]

128. Wirtz, W. O., II. 1982. Postfire community structure of birds and rodents in southern California chaparral. In: Conrad, C. Eugene; Oechel, Walter C., technical coordinators. Proceedings of the symposium on dynamics and management of Mediterranean-type ecosystems; 1981 June 22-26; San Diego, CA. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-58. Berkeley, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station: 241-246. [6025]

129. Wirtz, William O., II; Hoekman, David; Muhm, John R.; Souza, ie L Sherrie L. 1988. Postfire rodent succession following prescribed fire in southern California chaparral. In: Szaro, Robert C.; Severson, Kieth E.; Patton, David R., technical coordinators. Management of amphibians, reptiles, and small mammals in North America: Proceedings of the symposium; 1988 July 19-21; Flagstaff, AZ. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-166. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 333-339. [7122]

130. Wolff, Jerry O. 1994. Reproductive success of solitarily and communally nesting white-footed mice and deer mice. Behavioral Ecology. 5(2): 206-209. [25543]

131. Rickard, W. H. 1960. The distribution of small mammals in relation to the climax vegetation mosaic in eastern Washington and northern Idaho. Ecology. 41(1): 99-106. [8454]

132. Raphael, Martin G. 1988. Habitat associations of small mammals in a subalpine forest, southeastern Wyoming. In: Szaro, Robert C.; Severson, Kieth E.; Patton, David R., technical coordinators. Management of amphibians, reptiles, and small mammals in North America: Proceedings of the symposium; 1988 July 19-21; Flagstaff, AZ. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-166. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 359-367. [7124]

FEIS Home