Patchiness in distribution of rodents and mustelids in New Zealand forests
Alison Fern Watkins A , Judith L. McWhirter B and Carolyn M. King A CA Department of Biological Sciences, University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand.
B Department of Statistics, University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand.
C Corresponding author. Email: c.king@waikato.ac.nz
Wildlife Research 37(1) 13-18 https://doi.org/10.1071/WR09088
Submitted: 2 July 2009 Accepted: 3 December 2009 Published: 1 March 2010
Abstract
Context. Relative density indices assuming uniform distribution of the target species are often the only cost-effective method for monitoring a population over the long term and at landscape scale, and the only source of valuable historical data. Yet, theoretical models emphasise the dangers of ignoring spatial heterogeneity, especially in short-term field data.
Aims. To test whether Brown’s index of patchiness (BIP) can offer a simple means of checking rodent and mustelid survey data for violations of the assumption of uniform distribution.
Methods. We use BIP to interrogate long-term legacy data collected by index trapping of mice (Mus musculus), rats (Rattus rattus and R. norvegicus) and stoats (Mustela erminea) in New Zealand forests.
Key results. We found evidence of moderately patchy distributions that were independent of abundance in all three species. In two South Island beech (Nothofagus) forest valleys, 19% (6 of 31) of mouse samples and 8% (3 of 36) of stoat samples were significantly patchy, correlated with a seedfall event; in mixed forest at Pureora in the North Island, significant patchiness in distribution of ship rats was recorded in 19% (16 of 84) of Fenn trap samples and 5% (2 of 42) of rodent trap samples.
Conclusions. Moderate patchiness is common. The consequences for any given study depend on the purpose of the work, but may be more important for practical management than for population modeling.
Additional keywords: distribution survey, mice, patchiness, rats, stoats.
Acknowledgements
Many thanks to Dr J. A. Brown (Biomathematics Research Centre, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand) for her comments on the problem of unavailable traps; to Dan Uznanski for writing the program IOPUT used to adapt Brown’s patchiness index for use with this material; and to Tristan Leslie, Myra and Malcolm Watkins, and Keith McGillivray for their assistance with many tasks including checking that the field data were correctly digitised. All the field data were collected using the standard sampling technology of the time but before the current system of ethical approvals was developed. Thanks to Dr Stan Boutin and to three anonymous referees for their helpful comments.
Blackwell, G. L. , Potter, M. A. , and Minot, E. O. (2001). Rodent and predator population dynamics in an eruptive system. Ecological Modelling 142, 227–245.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Graham, I. M. (2002). Estimating weasel Mustela nivalis abundance from tunnel tracking indices at fluctuating field vole Microtus agrestis density. Wildlife Biology 8, 279–287.
Slade, N. A. , and Blair, S. M. (2000). An empirical test of using counts of individuals captured as indices of population size. Journal of Mammalogy 81, 1035–1045.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Watkins, A. F. , McWhirter, J. L. , and King, C. M. (in press). Variable detectability in long-term population surveys of small mammals. European Journal of Wildlife Management ,
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
White, P. C. L. , and King, C. M. (2006). Predation on native birds in New Zealand beech forests: the role of functional relationships between stoats and rodents. The Ibis 148, 765–771.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
