A Population Study of the Prairie Vole (Microtus ochrogaster) in Northeastern KansasMartin, Edwin Perry
Science
A Population Study of the Prairie Vole (Microtus ochrogaster) in Northeastern Kansas
Martin, Edwin Perry
Microtus
Nothing concerning the home range of _Microtus ochrogaster_ was found in
the literature. Several workers, including Blair (1940) and Hamilton
(1937c), have studied the home range of _M. pennsylvanicus_. Blair
(1940:153) reported a larger range for males than for females in all
habitats and in all seasons represented in his sample. In _M.
ochrogaster_, however, I found that the mean monthly range for both
sexes was 0.09 of an acre. Blair (_loc. cit._) reported no individuals
with a range so small as that mean, but Hamilton (_op. cit._:261)
mentioned two voles with ranges of less than 1200 square feet. The mean
total range used by an individual during the entire time it was being
trapped showed a slight difference between the sexes. Males used an
average of 0.14 of an acre whereas females used an average of but 0.12
of an acre. This suggested that, as in _M. pennsylvanicus_ (Hamilton,
_loc. cit._), males tended to wander more than females and to shift
their home range more often.
The largest monthly range recorded was 0.28 of an acre used by a female
in March, 1951, and calculated on the basis of four captures. The
largest monthly range of a male was 0.25 of an acre for a vole caught
eight times in November, 1950. The smallest monthly range was 0.02 of an
acre; several individuals of both sexes were restricted to areas of this
size. Juveniles, not included in the home range study, were usually
restricted to 0.01 or, at most, 0.02 of an acre. Seasonal differences in
the sizes of home ranges were not significant. However, the voles caught
in the winter often enough to be used for home range studies were too
few for a thorough study of seasonal variation in the size of home
ranges.
One female was captured 22 times in the seven-month period of October,
1950, to April, 1951. She used an area of 0.83 of an acre, but this
actually comprised two separate ranges. From October, 1950, through
December, 1950, she was taken 17 times within an area of 0.12 of an
acre; and from January, 1951, to April, 1951, she was taken five times
within an area of 0.15 of an acre. The largest area assumed to represent
one range of a female was 0.38 of an acre, recorded on the basis of six
captures in three months. The largest area encompassed by the record of
an individual male was 0.41 of an acre. He, too, shifted his range,
being taken five times on an area of 0.07 of an acre and twice, two
months later, on an area of 0.09 of an acre. Presumably, the remainder
of his calculated total range was used but little, or not at all. The
largest single range of a male was 0.36 of an acre, calculated on the
basis of 18 captures in seven months. The smallest total range for both
sexes was 0.02 of an acre.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account