3.9 Article

The influence of trap type on evaluating population structure of the semifossorial and social rodent Octodon degus

期刊

ACTA THERIOLOGICA
卷 54, 期 4, 页码 311-320

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.4098/j.at.0001-7051.047.2008

关键词

demography; live-trapping; small mammals; Sherman trap; sociality; Tomahawk trap

类别

资金

  1. National Science Foundation EPSCoR [0553910]
  2. Louisiana Board of Regents Research Competitiveness [2007-2009-RD-A-39]
  3. Sigma Xi Grant-in-Aid of Research
  4. American Society of Mammalogists Grant-in-Aid of Research
  5. FONDECYT [1020861, 1060499]
  6. Centro de Estudios Avanzados en Ecologia y Biodiversidad [FONDAP 1501-001]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Trap type may influence captures of individuals in different age-sex categories in small mammal studies, resulting in biased population and demographic information. We deployed 4 live trap types at burrow systems of the rodent, Octodon degus Molina, 1782, in central Chile to determine trap efficacy in capturing individuals of 6 demographic categories. We captured 2672 individuals in 17 709 trap days (15.1% trapping success). Tomahawks were the most efficient trap capturing half of individuals during both years, followed by mesh Sherman traps, large Sherman traps, and medium Sherman traps in 2005. All trap types equally sampled sexes. Large and medium Sherman traps provided similar demographic structure, where half of the individuals captured were pups; Tomahawk traps sampled more adults than pups. Relative captures of pups were similar across different trap types, suggesting that pups are equally sampled by each of the deployed trap types. Relative captures of adults were lower in Sherman traps, suggesting that this age class avoided solid-walled traps. For Octodon degus, the sole use of Tomahawk traps may produce sufficient, unbiased demographic data. Only 4 trap mortalities occurred (0.15%). Researchers may minimize trap mortality without compromising sufficient demographic sampling by trapping during peak animal activity.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.9
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据