Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Archive
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Subscribers
    • Institutions
    • Advertisers
  • About Us
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Index/Abstracts
  • Connect
    • Feedback
    • Help
  • Alerts
  • Free Issue
  • Call for Papers
  • Other Publications
    • UWP
    • Land Economics
    • Landscape Journal
    • Native Plants Journal

User menu

  • Register
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Ecological Restoration
  • Other Publications
    • UWP
    • Land Economics
    • Landscape Journal
    • Native Plants Journal
  • Register
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Ecological Restoration

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Archive
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Subscribers
    • Institutions
    • Advertisers
  • About Us
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Index/Abstracts
  • Connect
    • Feedback
    • Help
  • Alerts
  • Free Issue
  • Call for Papers
  • Follow uwp on Twitter
  • Visit uwp on Facebook
EditorialArticles
Open Access

Use of Four Grassland Types by Small Mammal Species in Southern Minnesota

Jeff Port, Christine Crawford, Bethany Campbell, Rose Larson, Patty Lin-Celeste and Melody Walton
Ecological Restoration, December 2019, 37 (4) 256-262; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3368/er.37.4.256
Jeff Port
(corresponding author), Department of Biological Sciences, 3900 Bethel Dr., Bethel University, St. Paul, MN 55112, .
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: [email protected]
Christine Crawford
Department of Biological Sciences, Bethel University, St. Paul, MN.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Bethany Campbell
Department of Biological Sciences, Bethel University, St. Paul, MN.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Rose Larson
Department of Biological Sciences, Bethel University, St. Paul, MN.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Patty Lin-Celeste
Department of Biological Sciences, Bethel University, St. Paul, MN.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Melody Walton
Department of Biological Sciences, Bethel University, St. Paul, MN.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Figures

  • Tables
  • Figure 1.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 1.

    Planting design at the Schottler Wildlife Management Area (WMA) south of Austin, Minnesota in Mower county, SE Minnesota. CSG = cool season grass dominated fields, WSG = warm season grass dominated fields, F = forb fields lacking cup plant and compass plant, and TF = forb fields characterized by the presence of cup plant and compass plant. Both TF and F has greater than 65% forbs by rooted abundance. Each plot was approximately 11 acres in size. Study utilized approximately half of the total WMA area. Plots inside the yellow boundary were used for small mammal surveys. Photo Credit: Google Earth.

Tables

  • Figures
    • View popup
    Table 1.

    Summary of unique captures at the Schottler Wildlife Management Area south of Austin, Minnesota between 2008 and 2011–2014. Trapping occurred on successive nights during the first three weeks of June and totaled 7680 traps nights.

    Species captured20082011201220132014Total
    Meadow vole Microtus pennsylvanicus84385332114211233
    Prairie vole Microtus ochrogaster2149266512434
    White footed/Deer mouse Peromyscus sp12835470102
    Northern short-tailed shrew Blarina brevicauda1190920
    Meadow jumping mouse Zapus hudsonius031004
    Least shrew Cryptotis parva003003
    Ermine Mustela erminea9020011
    • View popup
    Table 2.

    Combined (2008, 2011–2014) mean number of unique captures by species and reconstruction type at the Schottler Wildlife Management Area south of Austin, Minnesota across the study period. CSG = cool season grass dominated fields, WSG = warm season grass dominated fields, F = forb fields lacking cup plant and compass plant, and TF = forb fields characterized by the presence of cup plant and compass plant. Values represent the mean ± SE.

    Unique captures by plot typeCSGWSGFTF
    Meadow vole Microtus pennsylvanicus54 ± 18.962 ± 24.964 ± 21.967 ± 19.1
    Prairie vole Microtus ochrogaster17 ± 10.927 ± 17.321 ± 12.121 ± 12.7
    White footed/Deer mouse Peromyscus sp7 ± 3.44 ± 2.15 ± 3.05 ± 0.6
    Northern short-tailed shrew Blarina brevicauda0.4 ± 0.21 ± 1.02 ± 0.91 ± 0.4
    Meadow jumping mouse Zapus hudsonius0.2 ± 0.200.4 ± 0.40.2 ± 0.2
    Least shrew Cryptotis parva0.2 ± 0.20.2 ± 0.20.2 ± 0.20
    Ermine Mustela erminea1 ± 1.01 ± 0.60.2 ± 0.20.4 ± 0.4
    • View popup
    Table 3.

    Total unique captures for key species within the grassland reconstructions at the Schottler Wildlife Management Area south of Austin, Minnesota. Only species with a minimum of 10 captures within a year were included. CSG = cool season grass dominated fields, WSG = warm season grass dominated fields, F = forb fields lacking cup plant and compass plant, and TF = forb fields characterized by the presence of cup plant and compass plant.

    YearSpeciesTotalCSGWSGFTF
    2014Microtus pennsylvanicus42183116115107
    Microtus ochrogaster120534
    2013Microtus pennsylvanicus118021
    Peromyscus sp.471410158
    2012Microtus pennsylvanicus33274849183
    Microtus ochrogaster26655905962
    Peromyscus sp.3516199
    2011Microtus pennsylvanicus385961068994
    Microtus ochrogaster14929394140
    2008Microtus pennsylvanicus84952248
    Peromyscus sp.121812
    • View popup
    Table 4.

    Mean weight of unique captures of male M. pennsylvanicus by plot type. CSG = cool season grass dominated fields, WSG = warm season grass dominated fields, F = forb fields lacking cup plant and compass plant, and TF = forb fields characterized by the presence of cup plant and compass plant. * significantly different (p < 0.05) from forb (F) plots.

    PlotMean weight (g)Number of individuals
    CSG32.0 ± 1.0*110
    F28.5 ± 1.199
    TF29.4 ± 0.8105
    WSG31.2 ± 0.9124
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Ecological Restoration: 37 (4)
Ecological Restoration
Vol. 37, Issue 4
1 Dec 2019
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • Index by author
  • Back Matter (PDF)
  • Ed Board (PDF)
  • Front Matter (PDF)
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Ecological Restoration.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Use of Four Grassland Types by Small Mammal Species in Southern Minnesota
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Ecological Restoration
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Ecological Restoration web site.
Citation Tools
Use of Four Grassland Types by Small Mammal Species in Southern Minnesota
Jeff Port, Christine Crawford, Bethany Campbell, Rose Larson, Patty Lin-Celeste, Melody Walton
Ecological Restoration Dec 2019, 37 (4) 256-262; DOI: 10.3368/er.37.4.256

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Use of Four Grassland Types by Small Mammal Species in Southern Minnesota
Jeff Port, Christine Crawford, Bethany Campbell, Rose Larson, Patty Lin-Celeste, Melody Walton
Ecological Restoration Dec 2019, 37 (4) 256-262; DOI: 10.3368/er.37.4.256
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Bookmark this article

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Acknowledgements
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Choosing Plant Diversity Metrics: A Tallgrass Prairie Case Study
  • A Conceptual Planning Framework to Improve Integration of Reclamation with Site Remediation
  • Genetic Diversity, Mating System, and Reproductive Output of Restored Melaleuca acuminata Populations are Comparable to Natural Remnant Populations
Show more Articles

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • ecosystem function
  • grassland
  • Microtus
  • reconstructions
UW Press logo

© 2025 Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System

Powered by HighWire