Articles on this page are available in 1 other language: Spanish (17) (learn more)
Overview
Brief Summary
The meadow vole measures 8.9 to 13 cm in length (head and body) and has a 3.6- to 6.6-cm tail. They weigh between 20 and 40 g depending on age, sex, and location (see table). Mature males are approximately 20 percent heavier than females (Boonstra and Rodd, 1983). Meadow voles lose weight during the winter, reaching a low around February, then regain weight during spring and summer, reaching a high around August in many populations (see table; Iverson and Turner, 1974).
The meadow vole inhabits grassy fields, marshes, and bogs (Getz, 1961a). Compared with the prairie vole, the meadow vole prefers fields with more grass, more cover, and fewer woody plants (Getz, 1985; Zimmerman, 1965). The meadow vole also tends to inhabit moist to wet habitats, whereas the prairie vole is relatively uncommon in sites with standing water (Getz, 1985).
Meadow voles consume green succulent vegetation, sedges, seeds, roots, bark, fungi, insects, and animal matter (see table). They are agricultural pests in some areas, feeding on pasture, hay, and grain (Johnson and Johnson, 1982; Burt and Grossenheider, 1980). At high population densities, the meadow vole has been known to girdle trees, which can damage orchards (Byers, 1979, cited in Reich, 1981). In seasonal habitats, meadow voles favor green vegetation when it is available and consume other foods more when green vegetation is less available (Johnson and Johnson, 1982; Riewe, 1973; Getz, 1985). Although Zimmerman (1965) found some evidence of food selection, he found that meadow voles generally ate the most common plants in their habitat. Meadow voles living on prairies consume more seeds and fewer dicots and monocots than voles in a bluegrass habitat (Lindroth and Batzli, 1984). The meadow vole's large cecum allows it to have a high digestive efficiency of 86 to 90 percent (Golley, 1960). Coprophagy (eating of feces) has been observed in this species (Ouellete and Heisinger, 1980).
- Please refer to the original article for references and additional information.
Trusted
Description
Links:
Mammal Species of the World
Click here for The American Society of Mammalogists species account
- Original description: Ord, G., 1815. in A new geographical, historical, and commercial grammar; and present state of the several kingdoms of the world (W. Guthrie, compiler), 2nd Amer. ed., Johnson and Warner, Philadelphia, 2:1-603., p. 292.
Trusted
Distribution
Range Description
Trusted
Geographic Range
Microtus pennsylvanicus is the most widespread vole in North America. Its east to west range is continuous from central Alaska to the Atlantic coast. South of the Canadian border, its western limit is the Rocky mountains. The meadow vole is found as far south as New Mexico and Georgia (Maser and Storm 1970).
Biogeographic Regions: nearctic (Native )
Trusted
National Distribution
Canada
Origin: Native
Regularity: Regularly occurring
Currently: Present
Confidence: Confident
Type of Residency: Year-round
United States
Origin: Native
Regularity: Regularly occurring
Currently: Present
Confidence: Confident
Type of Residency: Year-round
Trusted
Global Range: (>2,500,000 square km (greater than 1,000,000 square miles)) Occurs throughout most of Canada and Alaska south through the northern half of the U.S., to Oregon, northern Utah, central New Mexico, Kansas, northern Missouri, Georgia, and South Carolina; also disjunctly (by 500 km) in Florida and in Chihuahua, Mexico (Hall 1981). Range has expanded southward in the Great Plains since the mid-1960s as the climate has become cooler and more mesic (Frey 1992).
Trusted
Physical Description
Morphology
Physical Description
The total length of M. pennsylvanicus ranges from 128 to 195 mm with a tail about 40% of the body length. The dorsal surface is dark blackish brown to dark reddish brown with coarse black hairs. The ventral surface is grey or white and may be tinged with light brown. The winter pelage is duller and more grey. There is no sexual variation in size or color. The skull is moderately heavy, rather long, and slightly angular. The upper cheek tooth row is relatively long, about 7.2 mm, and the third premolar, usually a distinguishing characteristic among the voles, has an anterior complex, a posterior loop, and seven triangles in between, four lingual and three labial (Maser and Storm 1970, Jackson 1961).
Range mass: 33.0 to 65.0 g.
Average mass: 43.67 g.
Range length: 128.0 to 195.0 mm.
Sexual Dimorphism: sexes alike
Average basal metabolic rate: 0.428 W.
Trusted
Size
Size in North America
Trusted
Ecology
Habitat
Habitat and Ecology
Home range seldom exceeds 0.25 acres (Banfield 1974). Successful homing of 11 of 848 voles displaced 1.2 km indicates that dispersal distance probably is more than 1 km (Ostfeld and Manson 1996). Diet consists mainly of vegetable matter, such as grasses, roots and seeds. Active day and night throughout the year.
This species can an affect old-field succession through seedling predation (Ostfeld and Canham 1993). It may inflict serious damage on apple trees by feeding on bark and vascular tissues of lower trunks and roots (Tobin and Richmond 1993). Expanding populations apparently are displacing the southern bog lemming via competitive exclusion in southeastern Kentucky (Krupa and Haskins 1996).
Systems
- Terrestrial
Trusted
Habitat
Microtus pennsylvanicus can be found in mainly in meadows, lowland fields, grassy marshes, and along rivers and lakes. They are also occasionally found in flooded marshes, high grasslands near water, and orchards or open woodland if grassy (Jackson 1961).
Habitat Regions: temperate
Trusted
Comments: Found in a wide variety of habitats from dry pastures and wooded swamps to marshes and orchards. Needs loose organic soils for tunneling. Builds extensive underground tunnels. Nests in these tunnels under rocks or logs, and in self-constructed grassy clumps.
Trusted
Migration
Non-Migrant: Yes. At least some populations of this species do not make significant seasonal migrations. Juvenile dispersal is not considered a migration.
Locally Migrant: No. No populations of this species make local extended movements (generally less than 200 km) at particular times of the year (e.g., to breeding or wintering grounds, to hibernation sites).
Locally Migrant: No. No populations of this species make annual migrations of over 200 km.
Trusted
Trophic Strategy
Food Habits
Meadow voles feed mainly on the fresh grass, sedges, and herbs that are found locally within their range. They will also eat a variety of seeds and grains. From May until August they subsists on green and succulent vegetation. During the fall they switch to grains and seeds, and during the winter they have been known to feed on the bark and roots of shrubs and small trees. These voles will also eat tubers and bulbs when available. When this species overlaps the range of cranberries, meadow voles feed extensively on these fruits. They also eat other types of fruit. Meadow voles will eat flesh and are cannibalistic, especially on new born young. They do not show much storage behavior, but occasionally make small caches of tubers during the fall. Meadow voles are voracious eaters, consuming close to 60% of the body weight. When eating, these animals sit up and will stand to gnaw bark or a grain stalk (Jackson 1961).
Animal Foods: mammals; insects
Plant Foods: leaves; roots and tubers; wood, bark, or stems; seeds, grains, and nuts; fruit
Foraging Behavior: stores or caches food
Primary Diet: herbivore (Folivore , Frugivore , Granivore )
Trusted
Comments: Diet consists mainly of vegetable matter, such as grasses, roots and seeds.
Trusted
Associations
Ecosystem Roles
Especially because they are so abundant in the habitats where they are found, meadow voles have crucial ecosystem roles. Many predator species rely on voles to make up a significant portion of their diet, especially owls, small hawks and falcons. In addition, meadow voles consume large quantities of grass and recycle the nutrients held in the grass through their droppings. They also help to aerate and turn the soil through their digging activities.
Trusted
Predation
Meadow voles are aggressive and will attack when cornered or captured. They take refuge from predators in their system of burrows and grass tunnels. Below is a list of some predators.
Known Predators:
- owls (Strigiformes)
- birds of prey (Falconiformes)
- snakes (Serpentes)
- red foxes (Vulpes vulpes)
- weasels (Mustela)
Trusted
Known predators
Tyto alba
Squamata
Strigiformes
Mustela
Vulpes vulpes
Falconiformes
Based on studies in:
USA: California, Cabrillo Point (Grassland)
This list may not be complete but is based on published studies.
Trusted
General Ecology
Home range seldom exceeds 0.25 acres (Banfield 1974). Successful homing of 11 of 848 voles displaced 1.2 km indicates that dispersal distance likely is more than 1 km (Ostfeld and Manson 1996, J. Mamm. 77:870-873).
Cyclic density fluctuations may occur every 2-5 years (Krebs and Myers 1974). High densities of 50-60 per acre not unusual; average densities probably closer to 8-10 per acre (Baker 1983).
Can affect old-field succession through seedling predation (Ostfeld and Canham 1993).
Trusted
Life History and Behavior
Behavior
Communication and Perception
Meadow voles have keen hearing and a good sense of smell. Vocalizations are primarily used in defensive situations.
Trusted
Cyclicity
Comments: Active day and night throughout the year. At any one time half the population is active (Ambrose 1973).
Trusted
Life Expectancy
Lifespan/Longevity
Meadow voles are short-lived, rarely living for longer than one year in the wild.
Trusted
Lifespan, longevity, and ageing
Trusted
Reproduction
Reproduction
Mating in M. pennsylvanicus is promiscuous. They breed all year round with March through November being the main breeding season. The number of young in a litter varies from two to nine with six or seven as the most common litter size. Number is correlated with the size of the female, with younger females giving birth to smaller litters. Breeding is virtually continuous and the female will mate immediately after giving birth. First mating in females occurs when they are about half grown at an age of 25 days. Males mate when they reach the age of about 45 days (Jackson 1961).
Breeding interval: Females will mate again as soon as they give birth, so they can have a large number of litters in one year. One female in captivity had 17 litters in one year.
Breeding season: Year-round
Range number of offspring: 3.0 to 10.0.
Average gestation period: 21.0 days.
Average weaning age: 14.0 days.
Key Reproductive Features: iteroparous ; year-round breeding ; gonochoric/gonochoristic/dioecious (sexes separate); sexual ; fertilization (Internal ); viviparous
Average birth mass: 2.46 g.
Average gestation period: 21 days.
Average number of offspring: 5.5.
Average age at sexual or reproductive maturity (male)
Sex: male: 37 days.
Average age at sexual or reproductive maturity (female)
Sex: female: 29 days.
Baby voles are born helpless, but grow quickly. Females care for and nurse their young in the nest until they are weaned at two weeks old. Soon after weaning the young move away, or disperse, from their mother's home range.
Parental Investment: altricial ; female parental care
Trusted
Breeds throughout year, if snow provides an insulating layer. Peak breeding activity occurs April-October. Gestation lasts about 21 days. Litter size is 1-9 (average 4-5); litter size is smaller in fall than in spring/summer; 5-10 litters per year.
Trusted
Molecular Biology and Genetics
Molecular Biology
Statistics of barcoding coverage: Microtus pennsylvanicus
Public Records: 0
Species: 124
Species With Barcodes: 1
Trusted
Conservation
Conservation Status
IUCN Red List Assessment
Red List Category
Red List Criteria
Version
Year Assessed
Assessor/s
Reviewer/s
Justification
History
- 1996Lower Risk/least concern
Trusted
Conservation Status
The meadow vole is very abundant and has no special status.
US Federal List: no special status
CITES: no special status
State of Michigan List: no special status
IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: least concern
Trusted
National NatureServe Conservation Status
Canada
Rounded National Status Rank: N5 - Secure
United States
Rounded National Status Rank: N5 - Secure
Trusted
NatureServe Conservation Status
Rounded Global Status Rank: G5 - Secure
Reasons: Widespread in North America; common in many areas.
Trusted
Status
Trusted
Trends
Population
Population Trend
Trusted
Threats
Threats
Trusted
Management
Conservation Actions
Trusted
Management Requirements: The most effective means of reducing damage in orchards is to reduce vole population with rodenticides (toxic baits) (Tobin and Richmond 1993). These, however, may be hazardous to nontarget species (see Swihart 1990), and proper selection, timing, and application are essential for obtaining the best results (Tobin and Richmond 1993). Regarding vole management in fruit orchards, Tobin and Richmond (1993) recommended frequent close mowing of ground vegetation during the growing season and establishment of a vegetation-free zone under the canopy to reduce vole carrying capacity.
Responded to experimental prairie fire by moving to unburned area (Clark and Kaufman 1990).
Trusted
Relevance to Humans and Ecosystems
Benefits
Economic Importance for Humans: Negative
When abundant, the meadow can be a pest. It can do considerable damage to growing grain and is also a problem in orchards and forestry plantings (Jackson 1961).
Negative Impacts: crop pest
Trusted
Economic Importance for Humans: Positive
Microtus pennsylvanicus destroys many weeds especially weed grasses, and serves as food for some fur animals and other predators (Jackson 1961).
Trusted
Economic Uses
Comments: May inflict serious damage on apple trees by feeding on bark and vascular tissues of lower trunks and roots (Sullivan and Sullivan 1988, Swihart 1990, Tobin and Richmond 1993).
Trusted
Risks
Species Impact: Expanding populations apparently are displacing the southern bog lemming via competitive exclusion in southeastern Kentucky (Krupa and Haskins 1996).
Trusted
Wikipedia
Meadow Vole
The Meadow Vole (Microtus pennsylvanicus), sometimes called the Field Mouse or Meadow Mouse, is a North American vole found across Canada, Alaska and the northern United States. Its range extends further south along the Atlantic coast. One subspecies, the Florida Salt Marsh Vole (M. p. dukecampbelli), is found in Florida, and is classified as endangered. It is also found in Chihuahua, Mexico.
The Meadow Vole is active year-round, usually at night. It also digs underground burrows where it stores food for the winter and females give birth to their young. Although these animals tend to live close together, they are aggressive towards one other. This is particularly evident in males during the breeding season. It can cause damage to fruit trees, garden plants and commercial grain crops.
Contents |
Taxonomy
The Meadow Vole is a small mammal and is one of twenty-six other rodent species native to North America called a vole.[2] The meadow vole's scientific name is Microtus pennsylvanicus. It is classified in Kingdom Animalia, Phylum Chordata, Class Mammalia, Order Rodentia, and Family Muridae.[3][4]
Distribution
The meadow vole has the widest distribution of any North American species of Microtus. It ranges from Labrador west to Alaska and south from Labrador and New Brunswick to South Carolina and extreme northeastern Georgia; east through Tennessee, Missouri, north-central Nebraska, the northern half of Wyoming, and central Washington to Alaska; south through Idaho into north-central Utah. It is excluded only from the extreme polar regions. A disjunct subset of its range occurs from central Colorado to northwestern New Mexico.[5][6]
Plant communities
Meadow voles are most commonly found in grasslands, preferring moister areas, but are also found in wooded areas.[6]
In eastern Washington and northern Idaho meadow voles are found in relative abundance in sedge (Carex spp.) fens but not in adjacent cedar (Thuja spp.)-hemlock (Tsuga spp.), Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), or ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) forests. Meadow voles are also absent from fescue (Festuca spp.)-snowberry (Symphoricarpos spp.) associations. It was speculated that moisture is a major factor in habitat use; possibly the presence of free water is a deciding factor. In southeastern Montana meadow voles were the second most abundant small mammal (after deer mice (Peromyscus maniculatus)) in riparian areas within big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata)-buffalo grass (Buchloe dactyloides) habitats.[7] Meadow voles are listed as riparian-dependent vertebrates in the Snake River drainage of Wyoming. Raphael[8] compiled 11 studies on small mammals; meadow voles were reported in only 3 of 29 sites in subalpine forests of the central Rocky Mountains. Davis[9] suggested in 1939 that meadow vole range extensions were likely to be related to irrigation practices. Meadow voles are now common in hayfields, pastures, and along ditches in the Rocky Mountain states.[10]
In Pipestone National Monument, Minnesota, meadow voles were present in riparian shrublands, tallgrass prairie, and other habitats.[11] In east-central Ohio meadow voles were captured in reconstructed common cattail (Typha latifolia) wetlands.[12] In Virginia meadow voles were least abundant in eastern redcedar (Juniperus virginiana) glades and most abundant in fields with dense grass cover.[13]
Timing of major life events
Meadow voles are active year-round.[14][15]
Meadow voles are active day or night, with no clear 24-hour rhythm in many areas.[16] Most changes in activity are imposed by season, habitat, cover, temperature, and other factors. Meadow voles have to eat frequently, and their active periods (every 2 to 3 hours) are associated with food digestion.[14][15] In Canada meadow voles are active the first 3 hours after dawn and during the 2- to 4-hour period before sunset. Most of the nonactive period is spent in the nest.[15]
Gestation lasts 20 to 23 days.[15] Neonates are pink and hairless, with closed eyes and ears. Fur begins to appear by days, and young are completely furred except for the belly by 7 days. Eyes and ears open by 8 days. Weaning occurs from 12 to 14 days. Young born in spring and early summer attain adult weight in 12 weeks, but undergo a fall weight loss. Young born in late summer continue growing through the fall and maintain their weight through the winter. Maximum size is reached between 2 and 10 months.[15][6]
Typical meadow vole litters consist of 4 to 6 young, with extremes of 1 and 11 young. On average 2.6 young are successfully weaned per litter. Litter size is not significantly correlated with latitude, elevation, or population density. Fall, winter, and spring litters tend to be smaller than summer litters. Reich[6] found that litter size was positively correlated with body size, and is not significantly different in primaparous and multiparous females. Another report stated that primaparous females had fewer young per litter than multiparous females.[15] Litter size was constant in summer breeding periods at different population densities.[6] Female meadow voles reach reproductive maturity earlier than males; some ovulate and become pregnant as early as 3 weeks. Males are usually 6 to 8 weeks old before mature sperm are produced.[15] One captive female meadow vole produced 17 litters in 1 year for a total of 83 young. One of her young produced 13 litters (totalling 78 young) before she was 1 year old.[17] If breeding began in April, it was estimated that 100 pairs of montane voles (Microtus montanus) in 40 acres could create a density of 8,900 voles by September.[18]
Patterns of mortality apparently vary among meadow vole populations. According to Banfield[14] the average meadow vole lifespan is less than 1 month because of high nestling and juvenile mortality. The average time that adults are recapturable in a given habitat is about 2 months, suggesting that the average extended lifespan (i.e. how much time adult meadow voles have left) is about 2 months, not figuring in emigration.[14] Getz[19] reported mortality of 88 percent for the first 30 days after birth. Golley[20] reported that postnestling juveniles had the highest mortality rate (61%), followed by young adults (58%) and older age groups (53%). He estimated that nestlings had the lowest mortality rate (50%). Estimated mean longevity ranges from 2 to 3 months to 10 to 16 months.[6] Banfield[14] reported that the maximum lifespan in the wild is 16 months, and Johnson and Johnson[15] stated that few voles live more than 2 years.
Meadow vole populations fluctuate annually and also tend to reach peak densities at 2- to 5-year intervals, with population declines in intervening years.[14][15][21] Breeding often ceases in January and starts again in March. [15] Over the course of a year, meadow vole populations tend to be lowest in early spring; the population increases rapidly through summer and fall.[15]
In years of average population sizes, typical meadow vole population density is about 15 to 45 meadow voles per acre in old-field habitat. In peak years meadow vole population densities may reach 150 meadow voles per acre in marsh habitat (more favorable for meadow voles than old fields).[14] Fritzell[22] stated that peak meadow vole abundance can exceed 1,482 meadow voles per acre (600/ha) in northern prairie wetlands. Meadow voles in optimal habitats in Virginia (old fields with dense vegetation) reached densities of 983 per acre (398/ha); populations declined to 67 per acre (27/ha) at the lowest point in the cycle.[13] Different factors influencing population density have been assigned primary importance by different authors. Reich[6] listed the following factors as having been suggested by different authors: food quality, predation, climatic events, density-related physiological stress, and the presence of genetically determined behavioral variants among dispersing individuals.
Normal population cycles do not occur when dispersal is prevented; under normal conditions dispersers have been shown to be behaviorally, genetically, and demographically different from residents.[6] Birney and others[23] hypothesized that there is a threshold density of cover needed for meadow vole populations to increase. Above the threshold amount the quantity of cover influences the amplitude and possibly the duration of the population peak. Local patches of dense cover could serve as source populations or reservoirs to colonize less favorable habitats with sparse cover.[23]
Meadow voles form extensive colonies and develop communal latrine areas. They are socially aggressive and agonistic; females dominate males and males fight amongst themselves.[14]
Habitat
Optimal meadow vole habitat consists of moist, dense grassland with substantial amounts of plant litter. Habitat selection is largely influenced by relative ground cover of grasses and forbs; soil temperature, moisture, sodium, potassium, and pH levels; humidity; and interspecific competition.[23][24] Meadow voles are most commonly associated with sites having high soil moisture.[25] They are often restricted to the wetter microsites when they occur in sympatry with prairie voles (Microtus ochrogaster) or montane voles.[23] In an Iowa prairie restoration project, meadow voles experienced an initial population increase during the initial stage of vegetation succession (old field dominated by foxtail grass (Setaria spp.), red clover (Trifolium pratense), annual ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia), alfalfa (Medicago sativa), and thistles [Cirsium spp.]). However, meadow vole populations reached their peak abundance during the perennial grass stage of succession from old field to tallgrass prairie.[26]Geier and Best[27] found meadow voles in habitat devoid of tree cover in which grasses dominated the herb layer. They listed the meadow vole as a species with low tolerance for habitat variation (i. e., a species that is intolerant of variations in habitat, is restricted to few habitats, and/or uses habitats less evenly than tolerant species).[27]
In most areas meadow voles clearly prefer habitat with dense vegetation. In tallgrass prairie at Pipestone National Monument, meadow voles were positively associated with dense vegetation and litter.[11] Conley and others[28] reported that variables important to meadow vole habitat in Virginia include vegetative cover reaching a height of 8 to 16 inches (20-41 cm) and presence of litter. Meadow voles appeared to be randomly distributed within a grassland habitat in southern Quebec.[29] Grant and Morris[29] were not able to establish any association of meadow vole abundance with particular plant species. They were also unable to distinguish between food and cover as the determining factor in meadow vole association with dense vegetation.
In eastern Massachusetts meadow vole density on a mosaic of grassy fields and mixed woods was positively correlated with decreasing vertical woody stem density and decreasing shrub cover. Meadow vole density was highest on plots with more forbs and grasses and less woody cover; meadow voles preferred woody cover over sparse vegetation where grassy cover was not available.[30]
In West Virginia the only forested habitats in which meadow voles were captured were seedling stands.[31] In South Dakota meadow voles prefer grasslands to Rocky Mountain juniper (Juniperus scopulorum) woodlands.[32] In New Mexico meadow voles were captured in stands of grasses, wild rose (Rosa spp.), prickly-pear (Opuntia spp.), and various forbs; meadow voles were also captured in wet areas with tall marsh grasses.[33]
Open habitat with a thick mat of perennial grass favors voles.[34] In west-central Illinois meadow voles were the most common small mammals on Indian grass (Sorghastrum nutans)-dominated and switchgrass (Panicum virginicus)-dominated study plots. They were present in very low numbers on orchard grass (Dactylis glomerata)-dominated plots. The most stable population of meadow voles occurred on unburned big bluestem (Andropogon gerardii)-dominated plots.[35] In Ontario meadow voles and white-footed mice (Peromyscus leucopus) occur together in ecotones. Meadow voles were the most common small mammals in oak savanna/tallgrass prairie dominated by northern pin oak (Quercus palustris) and grasses including bluejoint reedgrass (Calamagrostis canadensis), prairie cordgrass (Spartina pectinata), big bluestem, switchgrass, and Indian grass.
In Michigan strip clearcuts in a conifer swamp resulted in an increase in the relative abundance of meadow voles. Meadow voles were most abundant in clearcut strip interiors and least abundant in uncut strip interiors. Slash burning did not appear to affect meadow vole numbers about 1.5 years after treatment.[36]
In Pennsylvania three subadult meadow voles were captured at least 1.6 miles (2.6 km) from the nearest appreciable suitable meadow vole habitat, suggesting that meadow voles are adapted to long-distance dispersal.[37]
In Ohio the effects of patch shape and proportion of edge were investigated by mowing strips between study plots. The square plots were 132 feet per side (40m x 40m), and the rectangular patches were 52.8 feet by 330 feet (16m x 100m). Square habitat patches were not significantly different than rectangular patches in meadow vole density. There were no apparent edge effects in patches of this size, suggesting that meadow voles are edge-tolerant. Habitat patch shape did affect dispersal and space use behaviors. In rectangular patches home ranges were similar in size to those in square patches, but were elongated.[38]
Meadow voles tend to remain in home ranges and defend at least a portion of the home range from conspecifics. Home ranges overlap and have irregular shapes.[15] Meadow vole home range size depends on season, habitat, and population density: ranges are larger in summer than winter, ranges in marshes are larger than ranges in meadows, and ranges are smaller at higher population densities.[6] Home ranges vary in size from 0.08 to 2.3 acres (0.32-0.9 ha). Females have smaller home ranges than males, but are more highly territorial than males; there is often a period when juveniles from one litter are still present in the adult female's home range when the next litter is borne.[14][15] Female territoriality tends to determine density in suboptimal habitats; the amount of available forage has been suggested as the determining factor in female territory size and therefore also determines reproductive success.[39]
Cover requirements
Nests are used as nurseries, resting areas, and as protection against weather. They are constructed of woven grass. Nests are usually subterranean or are constructed under boards, rocks, logs, brush piles, hay bales, fenceposts, or in grassy tussocks. Meadow voles dig shallow burrows,[15] and in burrows, nests are constructed in enlarged chambers. In winter nests are often constructed on the ground surface under a covering of snow, usually against some natural formation such as a rock or log.[14][15]
Meadow voles form runways or paths in dense grasses.[14][15]
Food Habits
Meadow voles eat most available species of grasses, sedges, and forbs including many agricultural plant species.[15][6] In summer and fall grasses are cut into match-length sections to reach the succulent portions of the leaves and to reach seedheads. Leaves, flowers, and fruits of forbs are also typical components of the summer diet. Fungi, primarily endogones (Endogone spp.), have been reported in meadow vole diets. Meadow voles occasionally consume insects and snails. Meadow voles occasionally scavenge on animal remains, and cannibalism is frequent in periods of high population density. Meadow voles may damage woody vegetation by girdling when population density is high.[6]
In winter meadow voles consume green basal portions of grass plants, often hidden under snow. Other winter diet components include seeds, roots, and bulbs. Meadow voles occasionally strip the bark from woody plants. Seeds and tubers are stored in nests and burrows.[14][15] Evidence of coprophagy is sparse but it is thought to occur.[15]
In an old-field community in Quebec, plants preferred by meadow voles included quackgrass (Elytrigia repens), sedges, fescues (Festuca spp.), wild strawberry (Fragaria virginiana), timothy (Phleum pratense), bluegrasses (Poa spp.), and bird vetch (Vicia cracca).[40]
Meadow Voles also like to eat wheat. They consume up to 60% of their body weight by eating.
Predators
Meadow voles are an important prey for many hawks, owls, and mammalian carnivores, and they are also taken by some snakes.[6] Almost all species of raptors take microtine (Microtus spp.) rodents as prey. Birds not usually considered predators of mice do take voles; examples include gulls (Larus spp.), northern shrike (Larius borealis), black-billed magpie (Pica pica), common raven (Corvus corvax), American crow (C. brachyrhynchos), great blue heron (Ardea herodias), and American bittern (Botaurus lentiginosus).[15] In Ohio meadow voles comprised 90 percent of the individual prey remains in long-eared owl (Asio otus) pellets on a relict wet prairie,[41] and in Wisconsin meadow voles comprised 95 percent of short-eared owl (A. flammeus) prey.[42] Most mammalian predators take microtine prey.[15] The short-tailed shrew (Blarina brevicauda) is major predator; meadow voles avoid areas frequented by short-tailed shrews.[6] Other major mammalian predators include badger (Taxidea taxus), striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), weasels (Mustela spp.), marten (Martes americana), and domestic cat (Felis cattus). Other animals reported to have ingested voles include trout (Salmo spp.), Pacific giant salamander (Dicampton ensatus), garter snake (Thamnophis spp.), yellow-bellied racer (Coluber constrictor), gopher snake (Pituophis melanoleucas), rattlesnake (Crotalus viridis), and rubber boa (Charina bottae).[15]
In northern prairie wetlands meadow voles are a large portion of the diets of red fox (Vulpes vulpes), mink (Mustela vison), short-eared owl, and northern harrier (Circus cyaneus).[22] Voles (Microtus spp.) are frequently taken by racers (Coluber spp.); racers and voles often use the same burrows.[43]
Management
Meadow voles are abundant in agricultural habitats. The list of crops that are damaged by meadow voles is long and includes root and stem crops (asparagus, kohlrabi), tubers, leaf and leafstalks, immature inflorescent vegetables (artichoke, broccoli), low-growing fruits (beans, squash), the bark of fruit trees, pasture, grassland, hay, and grains.[15] Meadow voles are listed as pests on forest plantations.[44] In forest plantations in British Columbia an apparently abundant (not censused) meadow vole population was associated with a high rate of "not sufficient regeneration"; damage to tree seedlings was attributed to meadow voles and lemmings (Synaptomys spp.).[45] In central New York colonization of old fields by trees and shrubs was reduced due to seedling predation by meadow voles, particularly under the herb canopy.[46]
Management of meadow vole abundance in agricultural areas includes reduction of habitat in waste places such as roadsides and fencerows by mowing, plowing, and herbicide application. Predators, particularly raptors, should be protected to keep meadow vole populations in check. Direct control methods include trapping, fencing, and poisoning; trapping and fencing are of limited effectiveness. Poisons are efficient. Repellents are largely ineffective at present.[15] Pauls[47] reported that plastic mesh cylinders were effective in preventing seedling damage by meadow voles and other rodents. Properly timed cultivation and controlled fires are at least partially effective in reducing meadow vole abundance.
The cycle of meadow vole abundance is an important proximate factor affecting the life histories of its major predators. Meadow voles are usually the most abundant small mammals in northern prairie wetlands, often exceeding 40 percent of all individual small mammals present.[22] Numbers of short-eared owls, northern harriers, rough-legged hawks (Buteo lagopus), coyotes (Canis latrans), and red foxes were related to large numbers of meadow voles in a field in Wisconsin.[42] Other authors have also stated that predator numbers are positively associated with meadow vole abundance.[15][48]
Ecto- and endoparasites have been reported for meadow voles by a number of authors and include trematodes, cestodes, nematodes, acanthocephalans, anoplura, siphonaptera, diptera, and acarina[15][6]
Human diesases transmitted by microtine rodents include cystic hydatid disease, tularemia, bubonic plague, babesiasis, and giardiasis.[15]
Ecological importance
As with many other small mammal species, M. pennsylvanicus plays important ecological roles.[49] The meadow vole is an important food source for many predators such as snakes, owls, hawks, and carnivorous mammals. The meadow vole also disperses mycorrhizal fungi. It is a major consumer of grass and disperses grass nutrients in its feces.[49] After disruptive site disturbances such as forest or meadow fires, the meadow vole's activities contribute to habitat restoration.[49] The meadow vole prefers open, non-forest habitats and colonizes such open areas created by fire or other clearing disturbances. Very few meadow voles are found in forest or woodland areas. In newly opened areas, the meadow vole is quite abundant.[49] In these new open areas, the vole quickly becomes a food source for predators.[50]
See also
Notes
This article incorporates public domain material from the United States Department of Agriculture document "Microtus pennsylvanicus".
- ^ Linzey, A.V. & Hammerson, G. (2008). "Microtus pennsylvanicus". IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2009.2. International Union for Conservation of Nature. http://www.iucnredlist.org/apps/redlist/details/13452. Retrieved 04 February 2010.
- ^ Elbroch, M., Murie, O.J. (1963). Meadow Vole. In Animal Tracks, Third Edition (pages 124-130). Peterson Field Guides.
- ^ Baillie, J. 1996. Microtus pennsylvanicus. (2007). IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. IUCN 2007.
- ^ Carleton, M.D., Musser, G. G. (2005). Superfamily Muroidea. In D. E. Wilson and D. M. Reeder eds. Mammal Species of the World a Taxonomic and Geographic Reference (Pages 894-1531). Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.
- ^ Askham, Leonard R. 1992. Voles. In: Black, Hugh C., ed. "Silvicultural approaches to animal damage management in Pacific Northwest forests". Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-287. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station: 187-204.
- ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n Reich, Lawrence M. 1981. Microtus pennsylvanicus. Mammalian Species. No. 159: 1-8.
- ^ MacCracken, James G.; Uresk, Daniel W.; Hansen, Richard M. 1985. "Rodent-vegetation relationships in southeastern Montana". Northwest Science. 59(4): 272-278; 1985.
- ^ 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.
- ^ Davis, W. B. 1939. Recent mammals of Idaho. Caldwell, ID: Caxton Printers Ltd.
- ^ Hoffman, George R. 1960. "The small mammal components of six climax plant associations in eastern Washington and northern Idaho". Ecology. 41(3): 571-572.
- ^ a b Snyder, Ellen J.; Best, Louis B. 1988. "Dynamics of habitat use by small mammals in prairie communities". The American Midland Naturalist. 119(1): 128-136.
- ^ Lacki, Michael J.; Hummer, Joseph W.; Webster, Harold J. 1991. "Effect of reclamation technique on mammal communities inhabiting wetlands on mined lands in east-central Ohio". Ohio Journal of Science. 91(4): 154-158.
- ^ a b Linzey, Alicia V.; Cranford, Jack A. 1984. "Habitat selection in the southern bog lemming, Synaptomys cooperi, and the meadow vole, Microtus pennsylvanicus, in Virginia". Canadian Field-Naturalist. 98: 463-469.
- ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l Banfield, A. W. F. 1974. The mammals of Canada. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press.
- ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z aa Johnson, Murray L.; Johnson, Sherry. 1982. "Voles: Microtus species". In: Chapman, Joseph A.; Feldhamer, George A., eds. Wild mammals of North America: Biology, management, and economics. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press: 326-354.
- ^ Webster, A. Bruce; Brooks, Ronald J. 1981. "Daily movements and short activity periods of free-ranging meadow voles Microtus pennsylvanicus". Oikos. 37(1): 80-87.
- ^ Bailey, Vernon. 1924. "Breeding, feeding, and other life habits of meadow mice (Microtus)". Journal of Agricultural Research. 27(8): 523-536.
- ^ Negus, Norman C.; Pinter, Aelita J. 1965. "Litter sizes of Microtus montanus in the laboratory". Journal of Mammalogy. 46(3): 434-445.
- ^ Getz, Lowell L. 1960. A population study of the vole, Microtus pennsylvanicus. The American Midland Naturalist. 64: 392-405.
- ^ Golley, Frank B. 1961. Interaction of natality, mortality and movement during one annual cycle in a Microtus population. The American Midland Naturalist. 66(1): 152-159.
- ^ Krebs, Charles J.; Myers, Judith H. 1974. "Population cycles in small mammals". In: MacFadyen, A, ed. Advances in ecological research: volume 8. Advances in ecological research. London: Academic Press: 267-399.
- ^ a b c Fritzell, Erik K. 1989. "Mammals in prairie wetlands". In: Vander Valk, Arnold, ed. Northern prairie wetlands. Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press: 268-301.
- ^ a b c d Birney, Elmer C.; Grant, W. E.; Baird, Donna Day. 1976. "Importance of vegetative cover to cycles of Microtus populations". Ecology. 57(5): 1043-1051.
- ^ 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.
- ^ Pendleton, G. W. 1984. Small mammals in prairie wetlands: habitat use and the effects of wetland modification. Brookings, SD: South Dakota State University. Thesis
- ^ Schwartz, Orlando A.; Whitson, Paul D. 1986. "A 12-year study of vegetation and mammal succession on a reconstructed tallgrass prairie in Iowa". The American Midland Naturalist. 117(2): 240-249.
- ^ a b 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.
- ^ Conley, Walt; Tipton, Alan R.; Kukila, Susan. 1976. "Habitat preference in Microtus pennsylvanicus: a preliminary multivariate analysis". Virginia Journal of Science. 27(2): 43.
- ^ a b Grant, P. R.; Morris, Ralph D. 1971. "The distribution of Microtus pennsylvanicus within grassland habitat". Canadian Journal of Zoology. 49(7): 1043-1052.
- ^ Adler, Gregory H. 1988. "The role of habitat structure in organizing small mammal populations and communities". 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: 289-299.
- ^ 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.
- ^ Sieg, Carolyn Hull. 1988. "The value of Rocky Mountain juniper (Juniperus scopulorum) woodlands in South Dakota as small mammal habitat". 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: 328-332.
- ^ Finley, Robert B., Jr. 1986. "Distributions and habitats of voles in southeastern Colorado and northeastern New Mexico". The Southwestern Naturalist. 31(2): 263-266.
- ^ M'Closkey, Robert T.; Hecnar, Stephen J. 1994. "Small mammals of the Ojibway Prairie Provincial Nature Reserve, Windsor, Ontario". 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: 75-80.
- ^ Moreth, Louis H.; Schramm, Peter. 1973. "A comparative survey of small mammal populations in various grassland habitats with emphasis on restored prairie". In: Hulbert, Lloyd C., ed. Third Midwest prairie conference pr; 1972 September 22-23; Manhattan, KS. Manhattan, KS: Kansas State University, Division of Biology: 79-84.
- ^ Verme, Louis J.; Ozoga, John J. 1981. "Changes in small mammal populations following clear-cutting in upper Michigan conifer swamps". Canadian Field-Naturalist. 95(3): 253-256.
- ^ Kirkland, Gordon L., Jr. 1988. "Meadow voles (Microtus pennsylvanicus) on forest clearcuts: the role of long-distance dispersal". Journal of the Pennsylvania Academy of Science;;. 62(2): 83-85.
- ^ Harper, Steven J.; Bollinger, Eric K.; Barrett, Gary W. 1993. "Effects of habitat patch shape on population dynamics of meadow voles (Microtus pennsylvanicus)". Journal of Mammalogy. 74(4): 1045-1055.
- ^ Jones, Eric N. 1990. "Effects of forage availability on home range and population density of Microtus pennsylvanicus". Journal of Mammalogy. 71(3): 382-389.
- ^ Bergeron, Jean-Marie; Jodoin, Louise. 1989. "Patterns of resource use, food quality, and health status of voles (Microtus pennsylvanicus) trapped from fluctuating populations". Oecologia. 79: 306-314.
- ^ Osborn, Eric D.; Hoagstrom, Carl W. 1989. "Small mammals of a relict wet prairie in Ohio". In: Bragg, Thomas B.; 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: 247-250.
- ^ a b Evrard, James O.; Snobl, DeWayne A.; Doeneir, Paul B.; Dechant, Jill A. 1991. "Nesting short-eared owls and voles in St. Croix County". Passenger Pigeon. 53(3): 223-226.
- ^ Madison, Dale M. 1978. "Behavioral and sociochemical susceptibility of meadow voles (Microtus pennsylvanicus) to snake predators". The American Midland Naturalist. 100(1): 23-28.
- ^ Askham, Leonard R. 1992. "Voles". In: Black, Hugh C., ed. Silvicultural approaches to animal damage management in Pacific Northwest forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-287. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station: 187-204.
- ^ Sullivan, Thomas P.; Martin, Wayne L. 1991. "Influence of site factors on incidence of vole and lemming feeding damage to forest plantations". Western Journal of Applied Forestry. 6(3): 64-67.
- ^ Gill, David S.; Marks, P. L. 1991. "Tree and shrub seedling colonization of old fields in central New York". Ecological Monographs. 61(2): 183-205.
- ^ Pauls, Ronald W. 1986. "Protection with vexar cylinders from damage by meadow voles of tree and shrub seedlings in northeastern Alberta". In: Salmon, Terrell P.; Marsh, Rex E.; Beadle, Dorothy E., eds. Proceedings--12th vertebrate pest conference; 1986 March 4-6; San Diego, CA. Davis, CA: University of California: 199-204.
- ^ Walley, W. J. 1972. "Summer observations of the short-eared owl in the Red River Valley". Prairie Naturalist. 4(2): 39-41.
- ^ a b c d Lautenschlager, R.A., Sullivan, T. P., Wagner, R. G. (1999). Clearcutting and burning of northern spruce-fir forests: implications for small mammal communities. Journal of Applied Ecology vol. 36 issue 3, pages 327–344.
- ^ Cantú-Salazar, L; Hidalgo-Mihart, M. G.; González-Romero, A.; López-González, C. A. (2004). Historical and present distribution of coyote (Canis latrans) in Mexico and Central. America Journal of Biogeography vol. 31, issue 12, pages 2025–2038.
References
| Wikimedia Commons has media related to: Microtus pennsylvanicus |
| Wikispecies has information related to: Microtus pennsylvanicus |
Unreviewed
Names and Taxonomy
Taxonomy
Comments: Includes M. nesophilus and M. provectus, island populations that formerly were regarded as distinct species (see Modi 1986; Musser and Carleton, in Wilson and Reeder 1993, 2005). Microtus breweri from Muskeget Island, Massachusetts, sometimes has been included in this species; see Moyer et al. (1988) for recent study of relationships between these two taxa. Microtus pennsylvanicus has been proposed as conspecific with Old World M. agrestis, but chromosome differences support their recognition as distinct species (see Musser and Carleton).
Trusted
Disclaimer
EOL content is automatically assembled from many different content providers. As a result, from time to time you may find pages on EOL that are confusing.
To request an improvement, please leave a comment on the page. Thank you!



