Access

You are not currently logged in.

Access your personal account or get JSTOR access through your library or other institution:

login

Log in to your personal account or through your institution.

If You Use a Screen Reader

This content is available through Read Online (Free) program, which relies on page scans. Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.

INFLUENCE OF EXPERIMENTAL HABITAT MANIPULATIONS ON A DESERT RODENT POPULATION IN SOUTHERN UTAH

Jiping Zou, Jerran T. Flinders, Hal L. Black and Steven G. Whisenant
The Great Basin Naturalist
Vol. 49, No. 3 (31 July 1989), pp. 435-448
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41712668
Page Count: 14
  • Read Online (Free)
  • Subscribe ($19.50)
  • Cite this Item
Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
INFLUENCE OF EXPERIMENTAL HABITAT MANIPULATIONS ON A DESERT RODENT POPULATION IN SOUTHERN UTAH
Preview not available

Abstract

This paper addresses how habitat manipulations in a black sagebrush (Artemisia nova) -dominated area, John's Valley of southern Utah, affected resident desert rodent populations. Rodents studied included the deer mouse (Peromyscus maniculatus), Great Basin pocket mouse (Perognathus parvus), sagebrush vole (Lagurus curtatus), Orel's kangaroo rat (Dipodomys ordii), and least chipmunk (Eutamias minimus). The experimental design involved analyses of treatment and control (nontreatment) plots rather than pre-and posttreatment of all plots. Habitat manipulations emphasized cutting of shrubs (rotobeating), treatment of plants with a herbicide (2,4-D), and reseeding with a mixture of grasses, forbs, and shrubs. Posttreatment trapping indicated the deer mouse was the most abundant rodent in treatment and control plots. Data indicate the prescribed habitat treatments had no significant negative affects on the deer mouse demes on the control or treatment plots. Habitat treatments may have negatively impacted recruitment in pocket mice. Least chipmunks were not captured in plots treated by rotobeating. Our habitat manipulations may have contributed to interspecific competition in this rodent community through the reduction of both food and cover.

Page Thumbnails

  • Thumbnail: Page 
435
    435
  • Thumbnail: Page 
436
    436
  • Thumbnail: Page 
437
    437
  • Thumbnail: Page 
438
    438
  • Thumbnail: Page 
439
    439
  • Thumbnail: Page 
440
    440
  • Thumbnail: Page 
441
    441
  • Thumbnail: Page 
442
    442
  • Thumbnail: Page 
443
    443
  • Thumbnail: Page 
444
    444
  • Thumbnail: Page 
445
    445
  • Thumbnail: Page 
446
    446
  • Thumbnail: Page 
447
    447
  • Thumbnail: Page 
448
    448