Wood Mouse Apodemus Sylvaticus Populations Research Articles

Strong "bottom-up" influences on small mammal populations: State-space model analyses from long-term studies.

“Bottom‐up” influences, that is, masting, plus population density and climate, commonly influence woodland rodent demography. However, “top‐down” influences (predation) also intervene. Here, we assess the impacts of masting, climate, and density on rodent populations placed in the context of what is known about “top‐down” influences. To explain between‐year variations in bank vole Myodes glareolus and wood mouse Apodemus sylvaticus population demography, we applied a state‐space model to 33 years of catch‐mark‐release live‐trapping, winter temperature, and precise mast‐collection data. Experimental mast additions aided interpretation. Rodent numbers in European ash Fraxinus excelsior woodland were estimated (May/June, November/December). December–March mean minimum daily temperature represented winter severity. Total marked adult mice/voles (and juveniles in May/June) provided density indices validated against a model‐generated population estimate; this allowed estimation of the structure of a time‐series model and the demographic impacts of the climatic/biological variables. During two winters of insignificant fruit‐fall, 6.79 g/m2 sterilized ash seed (as fruit) was distributed over an equivalent woodland similarly live‐trapped. September–March fruit‐fall strongly increased bank vole spring reproductive rate and winter and summer population growth rates; colder winters weakly reduced winter population growth. September–March fruit‐fall and warmer winters marginally increased wood mouse spring reproductive rate and September–December fruit‐fall weakly elevated summer population growth. Density dependence significantly reduced both species' population growth. Fruit‐fall impacts on demography still appeared after a year. Experimental ash fruit addition confirmed its positive influence on bank vole winter population growth with probable moderation by colder temperatures. The models show the strong impact of masting as a “bottom‐up” influence on rodent demography, emphasizing independent masting and weather influences; delayed effects of masting; and the importance of density dependence and its interaction with masting. We conclude that these rodents show strong “bottom‐up” and density‐dependent influences on demography moderated by winter temperature. “Top‐down” influences appear weak and need further investigation.

Balanced dispersal or source–sink–do both models describe wood mice in farmed landscapes?

To test two models of how wood mouse Apodemus sylvaticus populations in different patches might interact, we estimated parameters from capture‐mark‐recapture data in four habitats (set‐aside, crop, boundary and woodlot) at two sites in arable farmland. In the source–sink model, populations in ‘source’ patches have fitness>1, while in ‘sink’ patches fitness is<1; dispersal is constrained so there is a net flow of individuals from sources to sinks. In the balanced dispersal model, patches may vary in quality and carrying capacity, but there are no sinks and no constraints on dispersal; fitness is equal across patches. Our results broadly support balanced dispersal. Patches close together were more likely to exchange individuals than those far apart, there was no evidence of density‐dependent dispersal and little evidence for directionality of movement. Overall population growth rates were similar in all patches (range: 0.99–1.05). Times when no animals were known to be alive occurred in some patches and could be attributed to stochastic events. On one crop patch, however, extinction followed high abundance, and coincided with poor recruitment, suggesting sink dynamics. Recruitment rates were highest in boundary and crop, but surprisingly, the proportion of individuals in reproductive condition, timing of breeding and pregnancy rates did not vary between habitats. Apparent survival rates were lowest in crop, although recapture rates were high. While female body size in December did not vary between habitats, males on set‐aside were smaller than elsewhere. In general, the balanced dispersal model best described arable wood mouse populations, but dynamics on one patch suggested an ‘attractive’ sink. Our results demonstrate that more than one model for dispersal dynamics between populations may apply within the same landscape, for the same species.