Articles on this page are available in 1 other language: Spanish (3) (learn more)

Overview

Brief Summary

Description

Deermice rarely leave their homes during the day, but feed opportunistically at night on whatever is available: seeds, nuts, fruit, berries, insects and other animal matter, and whatever they find tasty in houses. Deermice have the most extensive range of any North American rodent, and are found in almost every kind of habitat. They climb easily, tunnel through snow or scurry about on its surface, and find shelter everywhere from mattresses to tree cavities to burrows in the ground. Populations fluctuate in cycles of three to five years, sometimes correlated with the amount of food available. The Deermouse is important as a laboratory animal, and can be a factor in the spread of some human diseases, including hantavirus, plague, and Lyme disease.

Links:
Mammal Species of the World
  • Original description: Wagner, A., 1845.  Archiv fur Naturgeschichte, 11, 1:148.
Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 (CC BY 3.0)

© Smithsonian Institution

Source: Smithsonian's North American Mammals

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Distribution

occurs (regularly, as a native taxon) in multiple nations

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0 (CC BY-NC 3.0)

© NatureServe

Source: NatureServe

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

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

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0 (CC BY-NC 3.0)

© NatureServe

Source: NatureServe

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Global Range: Occurs in most of North America except most of Alaska, northern Canada, western and southeastern Mexico (occurs south to southern Baja California and through central Mexico to Colima and Oaxaca), southeastern U.S., and Atlantic coastal plain (see map in Carleton 1989).

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0 (CC BY-NC 3.0)

© NatureServe

Source: NatureServe

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Range Description

This is the most widespread North American rodent. It is found throughout southern Canada, the United States, and north and central Mexico, including Baja California. It is absent from the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico coastal plains of the United States, but its range does extend to the coast in east Texas.
Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial Share Alike 3.0 (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0)

© International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources

Source: IUCN

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Geographic Range

Deer mice are common in North America. They are distributed from the northern tree line in Alaska and Canada southward to central Mexico. They are absent from the southeastern United States and some coastal areas of Mexico within this range.

Biogeographic Regions: nearctic (Native ); neotropical (Native )

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial Share Alike 3.0 (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0)

© The Regents of the University of Michigan and its licensors

Source: BioKIDS Critter Catalog

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

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].
  • 51. Hall, E. Raymond. 1981. The mammals of North America. 2nd ed. Vol. 2. New York: John Wiley and Sons. 1271 p. [14765]
  • 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]
  • 127. Whitaker, John O., Jr. 1980. National Audubon Society field guide to North American mammals. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc. 745 p. [25194]

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Regional Distribution in the Western United States

More info on this topic.

This species can be found in the following regions of the western United States (according to the Bureau of Land Management classification of Physiographic Regions of the western United States):

    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

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Occurrence in North America

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

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Geographic Range

Peromyscus maniculatus is a North American species. It is distributed from the northern tree line in Alaska and Canada southward to central Mexico. It is absent from the southeastern United States and some coastal areas of Mexico within this range (Baker 1983).

Biogeographic Regions: nearctic (Native ); neotropical (Native )

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial Share Alike 3.0 (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0)

© The Regents of the University of Michigan and its licensors

Source: Animal Diversity Web

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Physical Description

Morphology

Physical Description

Deer mice have small bodies. They weigh between 10 and 24 grams and they are typically 119 to 222 mm long, no longer than mus musculus. Tail length varies in different populations and ranges from 45 mm to 105 mm. Deer mice that live in woodlands are typically larger and have larger tails and feet than deer mice that live in prairies. Deer mice have round and slender bodies. The head has a pointed nose with large, black, beady eyes. The ears are large and have little fur covering them. The whiskers are long and prominent. Deer mice have shorter forelimbs than hind limbs.

Deer mice are grayish to reddish brown with white underparts. The fur is short, soft, and dense. The finely-haired tail is dark on top and light on the bottom, with a sharp division between the two colors. This differs from Peromyscus leucopus, where the separation of the two colors on the tail is less distinct. There are other characteristics that help distinguish deer mice from the similar white-footed mice. Deer mice generally have hind feet that are 22 mm or less, while white-footed mice usually have hind feet 22 mm or more. Also, deer mice are more richly colored with a brownish or tawny coat, whereas white-footed mice tend to be more pinkish-buff or grayish, with scattered dark hairs. These characteristics vary depending on location, however, and in some areas the two species are extremely hard to tell apart based on outward appearance.

Range mass: 10 to 24 g.

Range length: 119 to 222 mm.

Other Physical Features: endothermic ; heterothermic ; homoiothermic; bilateral symmetry

Sexual Dimorphism: sexes alike

Average basal metabolic rate: 0.219 W.

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial Share Alike 3.0 (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0)

© The Regents of the University of Michigan and its licensors

Source: BioKIDS Critter Catalog

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Physical Description

Peromyscus maniculatus has a small body size, no longer than that of a house mouse. It is typically 119 to 222 mm long and weighs between 10 and 24 grams. Tail length is variable in different populations and ranges from 45 mm to 105 mm (Baker 1983). Woodland forms are typically larger and have larger tails and feet than prairie forms (LTER 1995). Peromyscus maniculatus has a round and slender body. The head has a pointed nose with large, black, beady eyes. The ears are large and have little fur covering them. The vibrissae are long and prominent. Peromyscus maniculatus has shorter forelimbs than hind limbs (Baker 1983).

Peromyscus maniculatus is grayish to reddish brown with white underparts. The fur is short, soft, and dense. The finely-haired tail is bicolored, the darker top half and the lighter bottom sharply differentiated. This differs from the other species of Peromyscus (Peromyscus leucopus), in which the separation of the two colors is less distinct. There are other characteristics that help distinguish P. maniculatus from the similar P. leucopus. Peromyscus maniculatus generally has hind feet that are 22 mm or less, while P. leucopus usually has hind feet 22 mm or more. Also, Peromyscus maniculatus is more richly colored with a brownish or tawny pelage, whereas P. leucopus tends to be more pinkish-buff or grayish, with scattered dark hairs (LTER 1995). These characteristics vary geographically, however, and in some areas the two species are extremely difficult to distinguish based on external morphology.

Like most murids, Peromyscus maniculatus has a dental formula of 1/1 0/0 0/0 3/3. Its molars are low-crowned and cuspidate. The third upper molar is less wide than the first two, while that of Peromyscus leucopus is approximately as wide as the first two (Baker 1983).

Range mass: 10 to 24 g.

Range length: 119 to 222 mm.

Other Physical Features: endothermic ; heterothermic ; homoiothermic; bilateral symmetry

Sexual Dimorphism: sexes alike

Average basal metabolic rate: 0.219 W.

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial Share Alike 3.0 (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0)

© The Regents of the University of Michigan and its licensors

Source: Animal Diversity Web

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Size

Length: 22 cm

Weight: 33 grams

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0 (CC BY-NC 3.0)

© NatureServe

Source: NatureServe

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Size in North America

Length:
Range: 120-225 mm

Weight:
Range: 10-30 g
Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 (CC BY 3.0)

© Smithsonian Institution

Source: Smithsonian's North American Mammals

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Ecology

Habitat

Comments: Uses a wide variety of upland and riparian habitats from open areas and brushlands to coniferous and deciduous forests. Nest sites as varied as habitat. May be placed in buildings, burrows, under logs, in thick vegetation, or in tree cavities.

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0 (CC BY-NC 3.0)

© NatureServe

Source: NatureServe

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Habitat and Ecology

Habitat and Ecology
This species is ecologically diverse, with its 57 subspecies divided into two ecotypes: long-tailed, large-eared forest inhabitants and short-tailed, small-eared inhabitants of open country. Altogether, it is found in virtually every habitat within its range (tundra, taiga, temperate and boreal forests, swamps and bogs, prairies, deserts, and scrublands).

Systems
  • Terrestrial
Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial Share Alike 3.0 (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0)

© International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources

Source: IUCN

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Deer mice live in many different habitats throughout their range. They can be found in alpine habitats, northern boreal forest, desert, grassland, brushland, agricultural fields, southern montane woodland, and dry upper tropical habitats. Also, deer mice are found on boreal, temperate, and tropical islands. However, their most common habitats are prairies, bushy areas, and woodlands.

Habitat Regions: temperate ; tropical ; terrestrial

Terrestrial Biomes: desert or dune ; savanna or grassland ; forest ; scrub forest ; mountains

Other Habitat Features: suburban ; agricultural

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial Share Alike 3.0 (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0)

© The Regents of the University of Michigan and its licensors

Source: BioKIDS Critter Catalog

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

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].
  • 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]
  • 43. Gashwiler, Jay S. 1959. Small mammal study in west-central Oregon. Journal of Mammalogy. 40(1): 128-139. [14005]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 127. Whitaker, John O., Jr. 1980. National Audubon Society field guide to North American mammals. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc. 745 p. [25194]

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Preferred Habitat

More info for the terms: climax, cover, density, litter, presence, shrub, shrubs, succession, tree

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.
  • 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]
  • 5. Banfield, A. W. F. 1974. The mammals of Canada. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press. 438 p. [21084]
  • 9. Bendell, James F. 1961. Some factors affecting the habitat selection of the white-footed mouse. Canadian Field-Naturalist. 75(4): 244-255. [25542]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 28. Dalquest, Walter W. 1941. Ecologic relationships of four small mammals in western Washington. Journal of Mammalogy. 22(2): 170-173. [25529]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 72. Layne, James N. 1966. Postnatal development and growth of Peromyscus floridanus. Growth. 30: 23-45. [28262]
  • 74. Lemen, Cliff A.; Freeman, Patricia W. 1986. Habitat selection and movement patterns in sandhills rodents. Prairie Naturalist. 18(3): 129-141. [25539]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 123. Tevis, Lloyd, Jr. 1956. Effect of a slash burn on forest mice. Journal of Wildlife Management. 20(4): 405-409. [91]
  • 126. Walters, Bradley B. 1991. Small mammals in a subalpine old-growth forest and clearcuts. Northwest Science. 65(1): 27-31. [15155]
  • 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]

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Associated Plant Communities

More info for the term: frequency

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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 97. Reynolds, Timothy D. 1980. Effects of some different land management practices on small mammal populations. Journal of Mammalogy. 61(3): 558-561. [1962]
  • 127. Whitaker, John O., Jr. 1980. National Audubon Society field guide to North American mammals. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc. 745 p. [25194]
  • 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]
  • 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]

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Habitat: Rangeland Cover Types

More info on this topic.

This species is known to occur in association with the following Rangeland Cover Types (as classified by the Society for Range Management, SRM):

More info for the term: cover

   Deer mice occur in nearly all SRM cover types except those
   in the extreme southeastern United States.

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Habitat: Cover Types

More info on this topic.

This species is known to occur in association with the following cover types (as classified by the Society of American Foresters):

More info for the term: cover

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

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Habitat: Ecosystem

More info on this topic.

This species is known to occur in the following ecosystem types (as named by the U.S. Forest Service in their Forest and Range Ecosystem [FRES] Type classification):

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

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Habitat: Plant Associations

More info on this topic.

This species is known to occur in association with the following plant community types (as classified by Küchler 1964):

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

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Peromyscus maniculatus occupies many different ecological zones throughout its range. Deer mice can be found in alpine habitats, northern boreal forest, desert, grassland, brushland, agricultural fields, southern montane woodland, and arid upper tropical habitats. Also, P. maniculatus is found on boreal, temperate, and tropical islands. However, its most common habitats are prairies, bushy areas, and woodlands (King 1968).

Habitat Regions: temperate ; tropical ; terrestrial

Terrestrial Biomes: desert or dune ; savanna or grassland ; forest ; scrub forest ; mountains

Other Habitat Features: suburban ; agricultural

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial Share Alike 3.0 (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0)

© The Regents of the University of Michigan and its licensors

Source: Animal Diversity Web

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Deer mice inhabit nearly all types of dry-land habitats within their range: short-grass prairies, grass-sage communities, coastal sage scrub, sand dunes, wet prairies, upland mixed and cedar forests, deciduous forests, ponderosa pine forests, other coniferous forests, mixed deciduous-evergreen forests, juniper/piñon forests, and other habitats (Holbrook, 1979; Kaufman and Kaufman, 1989; Ribble and Samson, 1987; Wolff and Hurlbutt, 1982). Few studies have found microhabitat features that distinguish the deer mouse, and some studies have come to different conclusions regarding habitat structure preferences (Ribble and Samson, 1987). For example, Vickery (1981) found that deer mice appeared to prefer areas with moderate to heavy ground and mid-story cover to more open ground areas, whereas others have found more deer mice in more open than in more vegetated areas (see Kaufman and Kaufman, 1989).

Public Domain

Supplier: Bob Corrigan

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

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.

Home range reportedly averages 1 ha or less, may range from a few hundred to a few thousand sq m, depending on circumstances. In New Brunswick, a tagged subadult male was captured at locations 1.77 km apart after a period of 2 weeks in September, suggesting that dispersal may extend at least this far (Bowman et al. 1999). In Kansas, individual Peromyscus maniculatus were captured at trap sites up to 1.32 km apart (Rehmeier et al. 2004).

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0 (CC BY-NC 3.0)

© NatureServe

Source: NatureServe

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Trophic Strategy

Comments: Eats arthropods, other invertebrates, fruit, nuts/seeds, green plant material, and fungi (Wolfe et al. 1985). Insects, worms, and snails most important in summer. May store food.

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0 (CC BY-NC 3.0)

© NatureServe

Source: NatureServe

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Food Habits

Deer mice are omnivorous. They eat a wide variety of plant and animal matter depending on what is available, including Insecta and other invertebrates, seeds, fruits, flowers, nuts, and other plant products. Deer mice sometimes eat their own feces, a practice called coprophagy. In cooler climates, deer mice hide food in secret stockpiles during the autumn months.

Animal Foods: insects; terrestrial non-insect arthropods

Plant Foods: seeds, grains, and nuts; fruit; flowers

Foraging Behavior: stores or caches food

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial Share Alike 3.0 (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0)

© The Regents of the University of Michigan and its licensors

Source: BioKIDS Critter Catalog

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

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

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Food Habits

Peromyscus maniculatus is omnivorous. It eats a wide variety of plant and animal matter depending on what is available, including insects and other invertebrates, seeds, fruits, flowers, nuts, and other plant products. Deer mice sometimes eat their own feces (coprophagy). In cooler climates, deer mice cache food in secret granaries during the autumn months (Baker 1983).

Animal Foods: insects; terrestrial non-insect arthropods

Plant Foods: seeds, grains, and nuts; fruit; flowers

Foraging Behavior: stores or caches food

Primary Diet: omnivore

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial Share Alike 3.0 (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0)

© The Regents of the University of Michigan and its licensors

Source: Animal Diversity Web

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Deer mice are omnivorous and highly opportunistic, which leads to substantial regional and seasonal variation in their diet. They eat principally seeds, arthropods, some green vegetation, roots, fruits, and fungi as available (Johnson, 1961; Menhusen, 1963; Whitaker, 1966). The nonseed plant materials provide a significant proportion of the deer mouse's daily water requirements (MacMillen and Garland, 1989). Food digestibility and assimilation for most of their diet have been estimated to be as high as 88 percent (Montgomery, 1989). Deer mice may cache food during the fall and winter in the more northern parts of their range (Barry, 1976; Wolff, 1989). They are nocturnal and emerge shortly after dark to forage for several hours (Marten, 1973).

Public Domain

Supplier: Bob Corrigan

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Associations

Ecosystem Roles

Deer mice are important for spreading seeds of many types of plants and the spores of fungi. They are also an important food source for various predators.

Ecosystem Impact: disperses seeds

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial Share Alike 3.0 (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0)

© The Regents of the University of Michigan and its licensors

Source: BioKIDS Critter Catalog

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Predation

Deer mice are a staple in the diet of a wide variety of animals. Night-hunting predators, including serpentes, strigiformes, and various carnivora, are their biggest threat.

Known Predators:

  • snakes (Serpentes)
  • owls (Strigiformes)
  • weasels (Mustela)
  • foxes (Vulpes)
  • coyotes (Canis_latrans)
  • bobcats (Lynx_rufus)

Anti-predator Adaptations: cryptic

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial Share Alike 3.0 (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0)

© The Regents of the University of Michigan and its licensors

Source: BioKIDS Critter Catalog

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

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].
  • 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]

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Ecosystem Roles

Peromyscus maniculatus helps disperse the seeds of a number of species of plants, and also the spores of mycorrhizal fungi. In addition, deer mice are a food source for a wide variety of animals at higher trophic levels.

Ecosystem Impact: disperses seeds

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial Share Alike 3.0 (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0)

© The Regents of the University of Michigan and its licensors

Source: Animal Diversity Web

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Predation

Deer mice are a staple in the diet of a wide variety of animals. Night-hunting predators, including snakes, owls, and various carnivorous mammals, are their biggest threat.

Known Predators:

Anti-predator Adaptations: cryptic

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial Share Alike 3.0 (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0)

© The Regents of the University of Michigan and its licensors

Source: Animal Diversity Web

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Known predators

Peromyscus maniculatus is prey of:
Soricidae
Felidae
Strix varia
Mustela
Strigiformes
Accipitridae
Canis latrans
Lynx rufus
Vulpes vulpes
Athene cunicularia
Bubo virginianus
Asio otus
Tyto alba
Buteo swainsoni

Based on studies in:
USA: Illinois (Forest)
USA: Montana (Tundra)
USA: California, Cabrillo Point (Grassland)

This list may not be complete but is based on published studies.
  • A. C. Twomey, The bird population of an elm-maple forest with special reference to aspection, territorialism, and coactions, Ecol. Monogr. 15(2):175-205, from p. 202 (1945).
  • L. D. Harris and L. Paur, A quantitative food web analysis of a shortgrass community, Technical Report No. 154, Grassland Biome. U.S. International Biological Program (1972), from p. 17.
  • D. L. Pattie and N. A. M. Verbeek, Alpine birds of the Beartooth Mountains, Condor 68:167-176 (1966); Alpine mammals of the Beartooth Mountains, Northwest Sci. 41(3):110-117 (1967).
Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 (CC BY 3.0)

© SPIRE project

Source: SPIRE

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Known prey organisms

Peromyscus maniculatus preys on:
wood
bark
roots
alpine vegetation
invertebrates
Artemisia frigida
Bouteloua gracilis
Kochia
seeds
fungus forb/shrub
lichen forb/shrub
Coleoptera
Diptera
Papilionoidea
Orthoptera
Araneae
misc. fur
fin
feather
Arthropoda
Certhia americana

Based on studies in:
USA: Illinois (Forest)
USA: Montana (Tundra)
USA: California, Cabrillo Point (Grassland)

This list may not be complete but is based on published studies.
  • A. C. Twomey, The bird population of an elm-maple forest with special reference to aspection, territorialism, and coactions, Ecol. Monogr. 15(2):175-205, from p. 202 (1945).
  • L. D. Harris and L. Paur, A quantitative food web analysis of a shortgrass community, Technical Report No. 154, Grassland Biome. U.S. International Biological Program (1972), from p. 17.
  • D. L. Pattie and N. A. M. Verbeek, Alpine birds of the Beartooth Mountains, Condor 68:167-176 (1966); Alpine mammals of the Beartooth Mountains, Northwest Sci. 41(3):110-117 (1967).
  • Myers, P., R. Espinosa, C. S. Parr, T. Jones, G. S. Hammond, and T. A. Dewey. 2006. The Animal Diversity Web (online). Accessed February 16, 2011 at http://animaldiversity.org. http://www.animaldiversity.org
Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 (CC BY 3.0)

© SPIRE project

Source: SPIRE

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

General Ecology

Territorial behavior is most prevalent at high population densities.

Population density generally is lowest in spring, highest in fall (sometimes up to about 30/ha; densities as high as 109 and 163 per ha have been reported, Kirkland and Layne 1989).

In Kansas, populations increased initially following grassland fire, decreased in subsequent years (Kaufman et al. 1988, Clark and Kaufman 1990). In Virginia, populations were highest in the year following a large mast crop (Wolff 1996, J. Mamm. 77:850-856).

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0 (CC BY-NC 3.0)

© NatureServe

Source: NatureServe

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Habitat-related Fire Effects

More info for the terms: competition, cover, density, fire cycle, forbs, frequency, litter, prescribed fire, relative density, succession, wildfire

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]
  • 1. Ahlgren, Clifford E. 1966. Small mammals and reforestation following prescribed burning. Journal of Forestry. 64: 614-618. [206]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 24. Cook, Sherburne F., Jr. 1959. The effects of fire on a population of small rodents. Ecology. 40(1): 102-108. [230]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 39. Gano, K. A.; Rickard, W. H. 1982. Small mammals of a bitterbrush-cheatgrass community. Northwest Science. 56(1): 1-7. [990]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 78. Martell, Arthur M. 1984. Changes in small mammal communities after fire in northcentral Ontario. Canadian Field-Naturalist. 98(2): 223-226. [10507]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 123. Tevis, Lloyd, Jr. 1956. Effect of a slash burn on forest mice. Journal of Wildlife Management. 20(4): 405-409. [91]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Timing of Major Life History Events

More info for the terms: litter, mast

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].
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 31. Dice, Lee R. 1933. Longevity in Peromyscus maniculatus gracilis. Journal of Mammalogy. 14: 147-148. [25531]
  • 72. Layne, James N. 1966. Postnatal development and growth of Peromyscus floridanus. Growth. 30: 23-45. [28262]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 88. O'Farrell, Michael J. 1978. Home range dynamics of rodents in a sagebrush community. Journal of Mammalogy. 59(4): 657-668. [1788]
  • 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]
  • 126. Walters, Bradley B. 1991. Small mammals in a subalpine old-growth forest and clearcuts. Northwest Science. 65(1): 27-31. [15155]
  • 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]

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Life History and Behavior

Behavior

Communication and Perception

Deer mice have large eyes and ears as well as keen noses and long whiskers for perceiving their environment. They communicate by grooming one another, posturing with their bodies, producing scent, and making a variety of squeaky noises. Sometimes when disturbed they drum their front paws rapidly up and down against a hard surface. This may serve as a warning signal to other deer mice.

Communication Channels: visual ; tactile ; acoustic ; chemical

Other Communication Modes: pheromones ; scent marks

Perception Channels: visual ; acoustic

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial Share Alike 3.0 (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0)

© The Regents of the University of Michigan and its licensors

Source: BioKIDS Critter Catalog

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Communication and Perception

Deer mice perceive their environment through keen senses of hearing, touch, smell, and vision. They communicate using tactile, visual, chemical, and auditory signals. They groom one another, posture, emit pheromones, mark their territories with scent, and make a variety of squeaky vocalizations. Sometimes when disturbed they drum their front paws rapidly up and down against a hard surface; this may serve as a warning signal to other deer mice.

Communication Channels: visual ; tactile ; acoustic ; chemical

Other Communication Modes: pheromones ; scent marks

Perception Channels: visual ; acoustic

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial Share Alike 3.0 (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0)

© The Regents of the University of Michigan and its licensors

Source: Animal Diversity Web

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Cyclicity

Comments: Primarily nocturnal. Active throughout the year.

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0 (CC BY-NC 3.0)

© NatureServe

Source: NatureServe

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Life Expectancy

Lifespan/Longevity

In captivity, deer mice can live as long as eight years. However, in the wild, life expectancy is much shorter, usually less than a year.

Range lifespan

Status: captivity:
8 (high) years.

Typical lifespan

Status: wild:
1 (high) years.

Average lifespan

Status: wild:
<1 years.

Average lifespan

Status: captivity:
8.3 years.

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial Share Alike 3.0 (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0)

© The Regents of the University of Michigan and its licensors

Source: BioKIDS Critter Catalog

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Lifespan/Longevity

In captivity, P. maniculatus can live as long as eight years. However, in the wild, life expectancy is much shorter, usually less than a year (Baker 1983).

Range lifespan

Status: captivity:
8 (high) years.

Typical lifespan

Status: wild:
1 (high) years.

Average lifespan

Status: wild:
<1 years.

Average lifespan

Status: captivity:
8.3 years.

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial Share Alike 3.0 (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0)

© The Regents of the University of Michigan and its licensors

Source: Animal Diversity Web

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Lifespan, longevity, and ageing

Maximum longevity: 8.3 years (captivity) Observations: In the wild, most animals probably live less than 2 years but in the laboratory may live up to 8.3 years (Ronald Nowak 1999).
Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 (CC BY 3.0)

© Joao Pedro de Magalhaes

Source: AnAge

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Reproduction

Breeding season shorter in north and at high elevations than elsewhere. In the northeastern U.S., reproduction is curtailed in fall and winter. See Kirkland and Layne (1989) for information on breeding seasons in different areas. Gestation 23 days. Litter size averages 5-6 in north, 4.5 in south, multiple litters/year (1-2 in north, more in south). Young independent in about 16-25 days (varies geographically). Young of year may attain sexual maturity by 2 months, or may not breed in some areas. Some litters fathered by more than 1 male; mating system ranges from promiscuity to facultative monogamy (Kirkland and Layne 1989).

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0 (CC BY-NC 3.0)

© NatureServe

Source: NatureServe

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Deer mice are polygynous, meaning that male deer mice each mate with more than one female.

Mating System: polygynous ; polygynandrous (promiscuous)

Females deer mice can have many litters in a year. In the wild, reproduction may not occur during winter or other unfavorable seasons. Females are able to become pregnant again shortly after giving birth. The pregnancy of a female deer mouse that is not nursing young lasts from 22.4 to 25.5 days and the pregnancy of a female deer mouse that is nursing young lasts 24.1 to 30.6 days. Deer mice may have litters containing from one to eleven young with typical litters containing four, five, or six babies. Litter size increases each time a female deer mouse gives birth until the fifth or sixth litter and decreases afterwards.

Deer mice are very helpless at birth but develop quickly. At birth, each baby has a mass of about 1.5 g. The young are born hairless with wrinkled, pink skin, closed eyes, and folded over ears. Juvenile hair begins to develop on the second day after birth. On the third day, the ears unfold with the ear canal opening on the tenth day. Eyes open on the fifteenth day, and the young are weaned between day 25 and 35.

Deer mice can reproduce when they are 35 days old, but they usually breed for the first time at 49 days.

Breeding interval: Deer mice breed every three to four weeks during the warmer months and less frequently during the winter.

Breeding season: Deer mice breed year round, but most breeding occurs during the warmer months.

Range number of offspring: 1 to 11.

Average number of offspring: 4 to 6.

Range gestation period: 22.4 to 30.6 days.

Range weaning age: 25 to 35 days.

Average time to independence: 35 days.

Range age at sexual or reproductive maturity (female): 35 (low) days.

Average age at sexual or reproductive maturity (female): 49 days.

Key Reproductive Features: iteroparous ; year-round breeding ; gonochoric/gonochoristic/dioecious (sexes separate); fertilization ; viviparous ; post-partum estrous

Average birth mass: 2 g.

Average number of offspring: 5.

Like all female eutheria, deer mice provide nourishment to their young before birth through the placenta. After the young are born, mother deer mice produce milk for their offspring. While nursing, the mother carries her young clinging to her nipples or one at a time in her mouth. Once weaned, the young usually leave the nest and become independent of their mother, although sometimes the mother will tolerate their presence for longer periods. Often when the mother has a second litter, she forces the first litter out of the nest.

Parental Investment: altricial ; pre-fertilization (Provisioning, Protecting: Female); pre-hatching/birth (Provisioning: Female, Protecting: Female); pre-weaning/fledging (Provisioning: Female, Protecting: Female); pre-independence (Provisioning: Female, Protecting: Female)

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial Share Alike 3.0 (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0)

© The Regents of the University of Michigan and its licensors

Source: BioKIDS Critter Catalog

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Peromyscus maniculatus is polygynous (Kirkland and Layne 1989).

Mating System: polygynous ; polygynandrous (promiscuous)

Female Peromyscus maniculatus are seasonally polyestrous with an estrous cycle of about five days. In the wild, reproduction may not occur during winter or other unfavorable seasons (LTER 1998). Females exhibit post-partum estrus and are able to become pregnant shortly after giving birth (Baker 1983). The gestation period of a nonlactating female deer mouse lasts from 22.4 to 25.5 days and 24.1 to 30.6 days in a lactating female (Kirkland and Layne 1989). Litter size is highly variable between populations. Peromyscus maniculatus may have litters containing from one to eleven young with typical litters containing four, five, or six individuals (Baker 1983). Litter size increases with each birth until the fifth or sixth litter and decreases thereafter (LTER 1998).

Peromyscus maniculatus is very altricial at birth but develops quickly. At birth, the deer mouse has a mass of about 1.5 g. The young are born hairless with wrinkled, pink skin, closed eyes, and folded over ear pinnae. Juvenile hair begins to develop on the second day after birth. On the third day, the pinnae unfold with the ear canal opening on the tenth day. Eyes open on the fifteenth day, and the young are weaned between day 25 and 35.

Conception can occur as early as 35 days, but the first estrus typically occurs around 49 days (King 1968).

Breeding interval: Deer mice breed every three to four weeks during the warmer months and less frequently during the winter.

Breeding season: Deer mice breed year round, but most breeding occurs during the warmer months.

Range number of offspring: 1 to 11.

Average number of offspring: 4 to 6.

Range gestation period: 22.4 to 30.6 days.

Range weaning age: 25 to 35 days.

Average time to independence: 35 days.

Range age at sexual or reproductive maturity (female): 35 (low) days.

Average age at sexual or reproductive maturity (female): 49 days.

Key Reproductive Features: iteroparous ; year-round breeding ; gonochoric/gonochoristic/dioecious (sexes separate); fertilization ; viviparous ; post-partum estrous

Average birth mass: 2 g.

Average number of offspring: 5.

While nursing, the mother carries her young clinging to her nipples or one at a time in her mouth (Baker 1983). Once weaned, the young usually leave the nest and become independent of their mother, although sometimes the mother will tolerate their presence for longer periods. Often when the mother has a second litter, she forces the first litter out of the nest (King 1968).

Parental Investment: altricial ; pre-fertilization (Provisioning, Protecting: Female); pre-hatching/birth (Provisioning: Female, Protecting: Female); pre-weaning/fledging (Provisioning: Female, Protecting: Female); pre-independence (Provisioning: Female, Protecting: Female)

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial Share Alike 3.0 (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0)

© The Regents of the University of Michigan and its licensors

Source: Animal Diversity Web

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Molecular Biology and Genetics

Molecular Biology

Statistics of barcoding coverage: Peromyscus maniculatus

Barcode of Life Data Systems (BOLDS) Stats
Public Records: 0
Specimens with Barcodes: 110
Species With Barcodes: 1
Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 (CC BY 3.0)

© Barcode of Life Data Systems

Source: Barcode of Life Data Systems (BOLD)

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Conservation

Conservation Status

National NatureServe Conservation Status

Canada

Rounded National Status Rank: N5 - Secure

United States

Rounded National Status Rank: N5 - Secure

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0 (CC BY-NC 3.0)

© NatureServe

Source: NatureServe

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

NatureServe Conservation Status

Rounded Global Status Rank: G5 - Secure

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0 (CC BY-NC 3.0)

© NatureServe

Source: NatureServe

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

IUCN Red List Assessment


Red List Category
LC
Least Concern

Red List Criteria

Version
3.1

Year Assessed
2008

Assessor/s
Linzey, A.V.

Reviewer/s
McKnight, M. (Global Mammal Assessment Team) & Amori, G. (Small Nonvolant Mammal Red List Authority)

Contributor/s

Justification
Listed as Least Concern in view of its wide distribution, presumed large population, tolerance of a broad range of habitats, occurrence in a number of protected areas, and because it is unlikely to be in decline.

History
  • 1996
    Lower Risk/least concern
    (Baillie and Groombridge 1996)
Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial Share Alike 3.0 (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0)

© International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources

Source: IUCN

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Deer mice are abundant, often among the most abundant mice of certain areas. Densities can reach 11 mice per acre. Many factors including availablity of food, water, and nest sites are thought to affect how many deer mice can live in an area. However, only the availability of food has been studied in enough detail to show it has an effect on population density.

IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: least concern

US Federal List: no special status

CITES: no special status

State of Michigan List: no special status

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial Share Alike 3.0 (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0)

© The Regents of the University of Michigan and its licensors

Source: BioKIDS Critter Catalog

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Peromyscus maniculatus is an abundant species, often among the most abundant mouse species of certain areas (LTER 1998). Densities can reach 11 mice per acre (Baker 1983). Quantity and quality of foods, availability of water, number and distribution of nest sites, architecture of living and dead vegetation, and depth and density of litter are some ecological factors proposed to affect the density of P. maniculatus. However, only the availability of food has been studied in enough detail to show it has an effect on population density (Kirkland and Layne 1989).

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

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial Share Alike 3.0 (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0)

© The Regents of the University of Michigan and its licensors

Source: Animal Diversity Web

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Status

Two subspecies (P. maniculatus anacapae, the Anacapa Deermouse, and P. maniculatus clementis, the San Clemente Deermouse) are Near Threatened.
Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 (CC BY 3.0)

© Smithsonian Institution

Source: Smithsonian's North American Mammals

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Population

Population
It is extremely abundant in some habitats, varying both seasonally and annually.

Population Trend
Stable
Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial Share Alike 3.0 (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0)

© International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources

Source: IUCN

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Threats

Comments: In coastal British Columbia, a population apparently was unaffected by herbicide treatment of a Douglas-fir plantation (Sullivan 1990).

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0 (CC BY-NC 3.0)

© NatureServe

Source: NatureServe

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Major Threats
There are no major threats to this species.
Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial Share Alike 3.0 (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0)

© International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources

Source: IUCN

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Management

Conservation Actions

Conservation Actions
It occurs in a number of protected areas.
Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial Share Alike 3.0 (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0)

© International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources

Source: IUCN

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Management Considerations

More info for the terms: competition, tree

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].
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Use of Fire in Population Management

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.

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Relevance to Humans and Ecosystems

Benefits

Economic Uses

Comments: Probably the primary reservoir for the newly discovered hantavirus, which was responsible for several human deaths in the southwestern U.S. in 1993; infection of humans has been recorded in several states in the western and central U.S.; those in contact with deer mice and other wild rodents should be cautioned about this disease; call the CDC Hantavirus Hotline 1-800-532-9929 for more information (Science 262:832-836; Peromyscus Newsletter, No. 16, September 1993). See also Childs et al. (1995).

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0 (CC BY-NC 3.0)

© NatureServe

Source: NatureServe

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Economic Importance for Humans: Negative

Deer mice eat seeds of valued forest trees, sometimes preventing the trees from growing back. In addition, deer mice can be destructive by raiding stored grains and other food supplies, gathering litter, and gnawing. Finally, deer mice are hosts for strain of hantavirus called Sin Nombre virus (also called Four Corners or Muerto Canyon virus). This virus, which can be transferred to humans from deer mice, causes an often deadly disease known as hantavirus pulmonary syndrome.

Negative Impacts: injures humans (carries human disease); crop pest; household pest

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial Share Alike 3.0 (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0)

© The Regents of the University of Michigan and its licensors

Source: BioKIDS Critter Catalog

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Economic Importance for Humans: Positive

Deer mice provide food for a number of carnivores, some of which are economically valuable fur-bearing mammals. Also, deer mice eat some insects that are considered pests.

Positive Impacts: controls pest population

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial Share Alike 3.0 (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0)

© The Regents of the University of Michigan and its licensors

Source: BioKIDS Critter Catalog

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Economic Importance for Humans: Negative

Deer mice consume seeds of valued forest trees, sometimes preventing regrowth. In addition, P. maniculatus can be destructive by raiding stored grains and other food supplies, gathering litter, and gnawing (Baker 1983). Finally, P. maniculatus is a host for strain of hantavirus called Sin Nombre virus (also called Four Corners or Muerto Canyon virus). This virus, which can be contracted by humans from deer mice, causes an often fatal disease termed hantavirus pulmonary syndrome (Rowe et al. 1995).

Negative Impacts: injures humans (carries human disease); crop pest; household pest

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial Share Alike 3.0 (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0)

© The Regents of the University of Michigan and its licensors

Source: Animal Diversity Web

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Economic Importance for Humans: Positive

Peromyscus maniculatus provides food for a number of carnivores, some of which are economically valuable fur-bearing mammals. Also, deer mice consume some insects that are considered pests (Baker 1983).

Positive Impacts: controls pest population

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial Share Alike 3.0 (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0)

© The Regents of the University of Michigan and its licensors

Source: Animal Diversity Web

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Wikipedia

Peromyscus maniculatus

North American Deer Mouse Range Map

Peromyscus maniculatus is a rodent native to North America. It is most commonly called the deer mouse, although that name is common to most species of Peromyscus, and thus is often called the North American Deer Mouse and is fairly widespread across the continent, with the major exception being the southeast United States and the far north.

Like other Peromyscus species, it is a vector and carrier of emerging infectious diseases such as hantaviruses and Lyme disease.[2][3]

It is closely related to Peromyscus leucopus, the white-footed mouse.

Overview[edit]

The scientific name for a deer mouse is Peromyscus maniculatus.[4] The species has 66 subspecies.[5] They are all tiny mammals that are plentiful in number.[6] The deer mouse is described as a small rodent that lives in the Americas and is closely related to the white-footed mouse, Peromyscus leucopus.[4] Because the two species are extremely similar in appearance, they are best distinguished through red blood cell agglutination tests or karyotype techniques. The deer mouse can also be distinguished physically by its long and multicolored tail.[7] Deer mice are very often used for laboratory experimentation due to their self cleanliness and easy care.[4]

Physical description[edit]

The deer mouse is small in size, only 3 to 4 inches (8 to 10 cm) long, not including the tail. They have large beady eyes and large ears giving them good sight and hearing. Their soft fur can vary in color, from white to black, but all deer mice have a distinguishable white underside and white feet.[4]

Behavior[edit]

Deer mice are nocturnal creatures who spend the day time in areas such as trees or burrows where they have nests made of plant material.[4] The pups within litters of deer mice are kept by the mother within an individual home range. The deer mice do not mingle in groups with their litters. During the development stages, the mice within one litter interact much more than mice of two different litters. Although deer mice live in individual home ranges, these ranges do tend to overlap. When overlapping occurs, it is more likely to be with opposite sexes rather than with the same sex. Deer mice that live within overlapping home ranges tend to recognize one another and interact a lot.[8]

Reproduction and life span[edit]

Breeding season[edit]

Deer mice can reproduce throughout the year, though in most parts of their range, they breed from March to October.[9] Deer mouse breeding tends to be determined more by food availability rather than by season. 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.[10] 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.[11] In southeastern Arizona at least one-third of captured deer mice were in breeding condition in winter.[12] In Virginia breeding peaks occur from April to June and from September to October.[13]

Nesting[edit]

Female deer mice construct nests using a variety of materials including grasses, roots, mosses, wool, thistledown, and various artificial fibers.[11] The male deer mice are allowed by the female to help nest the litter and keep them together and warm for survival.[5]

In a study, less than half of both male and female deer mice left their original home range to reproduce. This means that there is intrafamilial mating and that the gene flow among deer mice as a whole is limited.[14]

Gestation, litter size and productivity[edit]

Deer mice reproduce profusely and are highest in numbers among their species compared to other local mammals. Peromyscus species gestation periods range from 22 to 26 days.[15] Typical litters are composed of three to five young;[4] litter size ranges from one to nine young. Most female deer mice have more than one litter per year.[11] 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.[9]

Development of young[edit]

Deer mice pups are altricial, i.e. 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.[11] Females lactate for 27 to 34 days after giving birth; most young are weaned at about 18 to 24 days. The young reach adult size at about 6 weeks and continue to gain weight slowly thereafter.[15]

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.[15]

Dispersal[edit]

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.[16] Most deer mice travel less than 500 feet (152 m) from the natal area to establish their own home range.[17]

Longevity and mortality[edit]

While their maximum life span is 96 months, the mean life expectancy is 45.5 months for females and 47.5 for males.[18] In many areas deer mice live less than 1 year.[11] O'Farrell 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.[19] One captive male deer mouse lived 32 months,[11] 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).[20]

Habitat[edit]

Peromyscus maniculatus are found in places including Alaska, Canada, and parts of South America.[4] The majority of deer mice nest is up high in large hollow trees. The deer mouse nests alone for the most part but will sometimes nest with a deer mouse of the opposite sex.[14] They are populous in the western mountains and live in wooded areas and areas that were previously wooded. The deer mouse is generally a nocturnal creature.[6] Deer mice can be found active on top of snow or beneath logs during the winter seasons.[5]

Deer mice inhabit a wide variety of plant communities including grasslands, brushy areas, woodlands, and forests.[21] 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.[22] 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.[23] In northern New England deer mice are present in both coniferous and deciduous forests.[24] Deer mice are often the only Peromyscus species in northern boreal forest.[10] 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.[21]

Cover requirements[edit]

Deer mice are often active in open habitat; most subspecies do not develop hidden runways the way many voles (Microtus and Clethrionomys spp.) do.[10][25] In open habitat within forests deer mice have a tendency to visit the nearest timber.[26] In central Ontario deer mice used downed wood for runways.[27]

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.[11][21][27] 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.[11]

Predators[edit]

Deer mice are important prey for snakes (Viperidae), owls (Strigidae), mink (Neovison vison), marten (Martes americana) and other weasels (Mustelidae), skunks (Mephites and Spilogale spp.), bobcat (Lynx rufus), domestic cat (Felis catus), coyote (Canis latrans), foxes (Vulpes and Urocyon spp.), and ringtail (Bassariscus astutus).[11]

Diet[edit]

Deer mice are omnivorous; the main dietary items usually include seeds, fruits, arthropods, leaves, and fungi; fungi has the least amount of intake. Throughout the year, the deer mouse will change its eating habits to reflect on what is available to eat during that season. During winter months, the arthropods compose of one-fifth of the deer mouse's food. These include spiders, caterpillars, and heteropterans. During the spring months, seeds become available to eat, along with insects, which are consumed in large quantities. Leaves are also found in the stomachs of deer mice in the spring seasons. During summer months, the mouse consumes seeds and fruits. During the fall season, the deer mice will slowly change its eating habits to resemble the winter's diet.[6]

References[edit]

 This article incorporates public domain material from the United States Department of Agriculture document "Peromyscus maniculatus".

  1. ^ Linzey, A.V. (2008). "Peromyscus maniculatus". IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2009.2. International Union for Conservation of Nature. Retrieved 5 February 2010. 
  2. ^ Netski, Dale, Brandonlyn Thran, and Stephen St. Jeor (1999). "Sin Nombre Virus Pathogenesis in Peromyscus maniculatus". Journal of Virology 73 (1): 585–591. 
  3. ^ Crossland, J. and Lewandowski, A. (2006). "Peromyscus – A fascinating laboratory animal model". Techtalk 11 (1–2). 
  4. ^ a b c d e f g The New Encyclopædia Britannica. 2007. (Vol. 12, p. 631). Chicago: Encyclopædia Britannica.
  5. ^ a b c Hanney, Peter W. Rodents: Their Lives and Habits. New York: Taplinger Publishing Company, 1975.
  6. ^ a b c Jameson, E W (1952). "Food of Deer Mice, Peromyscus maniculatus and P. boylei, in the Northern Sierra Nevada, California". Journal of Mammalogy 33 (1): 50–60. doi:10.2307/1375640. JSTOR 1375640. 
  7. ^ Tessier, Nathalie, Sarah Noel, and Francois Lapointe (2004). "A new method to discriminate the deer mouse (Peromyscus maniculatus) from the white-footed mouse (Peromyscus leucopus) using species-specific primers in multiplex PCR". Canadian Journal of Zoology 82 (11): 1832–35. doi:10.1139/z04-173. 
  8. ^ Dewsbury, Donald (1988). "Kinship, Familiarity, Aggression, and Dominance in Deer Mice (Peromyscus maniculatus) in Seminatural Enclosures". Journal of Comparative Psychology 102 (2): 124–8. doi:10.1037/0735-7036.102.2.124. PMID 3165063. 
  9. ^ a b Nowak, Ronald M.; Paradiso, John L. 1983. Walker's mammals of the world. 4th edition. 4th edition. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press
  10. ^ a b c 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
  11. ^ a b c d e f g h i 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.
  12. ^ Brown, J. H.; Zeng, Z. (1989). "Comparative Population Ecology of Eleven Species of Rodents in the Chihuahuan Desert". Ecology 70 (5): 1507–1525. doi:10.2307/1938209. JSTOR 1938209. 
  13. ^ Wolff, Jerry O. (1994). "Reproductive success of solitarily and communally nesting white-footed mice and deer mice". Behavioral Ecology 5 (2): 206–209. doi:10.1093/beheco/5.2.206. 
  14. ^ a b Wolff, Jerry, and Deborah Durr (1986). "Winter Nesting Behavior of Peromyscus leucopus and Peromyscus maniculatus". Journal of Mammalogy 67.2 67 (2): 409–12. JSTOR 1380900. 
  15. ^ a b c Layne, JN (1966). "Postnatal development and growth of Peromyscus floridanus". Growth 30 (1): 23–45. PMID 5959707. 
  16. ^ Walters, Bradley B (1991). "Small mammals in a subalpine old-growth forest and clearcuts". Northwest Science 65 (1): 27–31. 
  17. ^ 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
  18. ^ Institute of Laboratory Animal Resources (U.S.). Committee on Animal Models for Research on Aging; National Research Council (U.S.). Committee on Animal Models for Research on Aging (1981). Mammalian models for research on aging. National Academies. ISBN 978-0-309-03094-6. Retrieved 11 May 2011. 
  19. ^ O'Farrell, Michael J (1978). "Home range dynamics of rodents in a sagebrush community". Journal of Mammalogy 59 (4): 657–668. doi:10.2307/1380131. JSTOR 1380131. 
  20. ^ Dice, Lee R. 1933. Longevity in Peromyscus maniculatus gracilis. Journal of Mammalogy. 14: 147–148
  21. ^ a b c Whitaker, John O., Jr. 1980. National Audubon Society field guide to North American mammals. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc.
  22. ^ 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
  23. ^ Hoffman, G. R. (1960). "The Small Mammal Components of Six Climax Plant Associations in Eastern Washington and Northern Idaho". Ecology 41 (3): 571–572. doi:10.2307/1933338. 
  24. ^ 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 (3–4): 227–242. doi:10.1016/0378-1127(91)90234-M. 
  25. ^ 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
  26. ^ Gashwiler, Jay S. (1959). "Small mammal study in west-central Oregon". Journal of Mammalogy 40 (1): 128–139. doi:10.2307/1376123. JSTOR 1376123. 
  27. ^ a b Naylor, Brian J. (1994). "Managing wildlife habitat in red pine and white pine forests of central Ontario". Forestry Chronicle 70 (4): 411–419. doi:10.5558/tfc70411-4. 
Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike 3.0 (CC BY-SA 3.0)

Source: Wikipedia

Unreviewed

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Names and Taxonomy

Taxonomy

Comments: The taxonomic and geographic relationships among P. maniculatus, P. oreas, and P. sitkensis on islands and the adjacent mainland in the Pacific Northwest have been poorly understood (Carleton 1989). Hogan et al. (1993) analyzed chromosomes, allozymes, and mtDNA of Pacific Northwest Peromyscus and concluded that P. oreas, P. sitkensis, P. maniculatus algidus, P. m. hylaeus, P. m. keeni, P. m. macrorhinus, and P. m. prevostensis should be recognized as members of the newly constituted species Peromyscus keeni; further, they suspected that P. m. carli, P. m. doylei, and P. m. triangularis also are members of Peromyscus keeni. Musser and Carleton (in Wilson and Reeder 2005) adopted this revision and assigned P. m. carli, P. m. doylei, and P. m. triangularis to P. keeni. Even with this split, P. maniculatus exhibits much morphological, biochemical, and chromosomal variation suggestive that more than one species is represented (Musser and Carleton, in Wilson and Reeder 2005).

Hogan et al. (1997) examined mtDNA variation in the P. maniculatus species group (P. maniculatus, P. keeni, P. polionotus, P. sejugis, and P. melanotis) and concluded that the group as currently recognized is polyphyletic, unless P. slevini is removed. Additionally, the phylogenetic analysis revealed that P. m. coolidgei is closer to P. sejugis than to the other examined subspecies of P. maniculatus. "The systematic integrity of P. maniculatus is further complicated by the sister-species relationship between keeni and P. sejugis-P. m. coolidgei. These relationships suggest either a high degree of lineage sorting within P. maniculatus or that some of the currently recognized subspecies may be distinct species." Further taxonomic study is needed (Baker et al. 2003; Musser and Carleton, in Wilson and Reeder 2005).

Rapid phenotypic change can occur in long-established island populations, and temporal stability of morphological characters in such populations, even over short time periods (< 100 years) cannot be assumed (Pergams and Ashley 1999).

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0 (CC BY-NC 3.0)

© NatureServe

Source: NatureServe

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

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

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Common Names

deer mouse

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

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!