scholarly journals Fostering house mice onto rats and deer mice: Effects on response to species odors

1992 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. 253-258 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karl L. Wuensch
Keyword(s):  
Deer Mice ◽  
House Mice

Differential effects of food restriction on pituitary-testicular function in mice

1985 ◽  
Vol 248 (2) ◽  
pp. R181-R189 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. L. Blank ◽  
C. Desjardins
Keyword(s):  
Food Intake ◽  
Animal Models ◽  
Food Restriction ◽  
Wheel Running ◽  
Temporal Organization ◽  
Deer Mice ◽  
House Mice ◽  
Testicular Function ◽  
Running Activity ◽  
Wheel Running Activity

The reproductive responses of two species of wild rodents, house mice and deer mice, were evaluated following a 30% reduction in food intake for 5 wk. These animal models were chosen as prototypes of other rodent species because each employs unique functional adjustments when confronted with reduced resources in their natural habitats. Modest inanition failed to alter pituitary-testicular function in house mice; neither spermatogenesis nor plasma concentrations of luteinizing hormone (LH) and testosterone were modified. In sharp distinction, deer mice exposed to restricted food intake showed significant reductions in plasma LH and testosterone and an accompanying loss in spermatogenesis. Reduced food intake also caused pronounced shifts in the temporal organization and amount of wheel-running activity in both animal models, albeit in a dichotomous fashion. House mice exhibited the same amount of wheel-running activity throughout inanition, but the diel periodicity of locomotor behavior was shifted from the dark to the light period. Deer mice, in comparison, significantly curtailed wheel-running activity during the dark hours but ran in precise phase relationship with the light-dark cycle. Taken together, our results establish that the male reproductive system and its supporting neuroendocrine and behavioral correlates can be disrupted by modest levels of food restriction in certain animal models.

scholarly journals Voles Damage Seedlings, But Do Deer Mice and House Mice?

2012 ◽  
Vol 25 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gary Witmer ◽  
Rachael Moulton ◽  
Nathan Snow ◽  
Jenna Swartz
Keyword(s):  
Deer Mice ◽  
House Mice

scholarly journals Survey of peridomestic mammal susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2 infection

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Angela M. Bosco-Lauth ◽  
J. Jeffrey Root ◽  
Stephanie M. Porter ◽  
Audrey E. Walker ◽  
Lauren Guilbert ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Knowledge Base ◽  
Human Population ◽  
Ground Squirrels ◽  
Prairie Dogs ◽  
Deer Mice ◽  
House Mice ◽  
Wild Animals ◽  
Wildlife Species ◽  
Fox Squirrels ◽  
Striped Skunks

AbstractWild animals have been implicated as the origin of SARS-CoV-2, but it is largely unknown how the virus affects most wildlife species and if wildlife could ultimately serve as a reservoir for maintaining the virus outside the human population. Here we show that several common peridomestic species, including deer mice, bushy-tailed woodrats, and striped skunks, are susceptible to infection and can shed the virus in respiratory secretions. In contrast, we demonstrate that cottontail rabbits, fox squirrels, Wyoming ground squirrels, black-tailed prairie dogs, house mice, and racoons are not susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 infection. Our work expands upon the existing knowledge base of susceptible species and provides evidence that human-wildlife interactions could result in continued transmission of SARS-CoV-2.

scholarly journals Urine marking of cages and visual isolation as possible sources of error in behavioural studies of small mammals

1971 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 163-167 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anne I. Dagg ◽  
W. L. Bell ◽  
D. E. Windsor
Keyword(s):  
Small Mammals ◽  
Mus Musculus ◽  
Mesocricetus Auratus ◽  
Microtus Pennsylvanicus ◽  
Deer Mice ◽  
House Mice ◽  
Tamias Striatus ◽  
Organ Weights ◽  
Sources Of Error ◽  
Urine Marking

Chipmunks ( Tamias striatus), jumping mice ( Zapus hudsonius), voles ( Microtus pennsylvanicus), deer mice ( Peromyscus maniculalus), hamsters ( Mesocricetus auratus), house mice ( Mus musculus) and gerbils ( Meriones unguiculalus) were individually confined in dark cages. A corner of each cage had been marked with dried urine. Animals tended (311 of 461 tests) to urinate in the marked corner. Animals did not usually urinate (except adult gerbils) or defecate (except hamsters) in their nests. The effect of visual isolation of individual mice was not apparent in organ weights, but did lead to altered behaviour.

scholarly journals An assessment of seedling damage by wild house mice (Mus musculus) and wild deer mice (Peromyscus spp.)

2012 ◽  
Vol 42 (6) ◽  
pp. 1168-1172 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gary W. Witmer ◽  
Nathan P. Snow ◽  
Rachael S. Moulton ◽  
Jenna L. Swartz
Keyword(s):  
Pinus Ponderosa ◽  
Mus Musculus ◽  
Ponderosa Pine ◽  
Deer Mice ◽  
House Mice ◽  
Seedling Mortality ◽  
Management Actions ◽  
Resource Managers ◽  
Pine Seedlings ◽  
Wild House Mice

Although it is known that voles will damage seedlings, we do not know the extent to which deer mice (Peromyscus spp.) and house mice (Mus musculus Linnaeus, 1758) damage seedlings. Knowing this information can assist resource managers in better targeting problem species and implementing appropriate management actions. We planted and monitored ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa Douglas ex Lawson & C. Lawson) and narrow-leaf cottonwood (Populus angustifolia E. James) seedlings in metal stock tanks occupied by deer mice or house mice to assess the potential for damage by these rodents. Both species damaged leaves and stems of cottonwood seedlings, but house mice did more damage. House mouse damage resulted in mortality of over half of the cottonwood seedlings, whereas deer mice caused a much lower level of seedling mortality. Only slight damage was done by either species to pine seedlings. Neither species damaged the roots of seedlings, despite the extensive burrowing by house mice. Although voles are often considered to be the primary rodent species causing seedling damage, we have shown that deer mice and especially house mice could also cause substantial damage to deciduous seedlings. However, our work suggests that rodent control to prevent damage to conifer seedlings might not be warranted in general unless there are extenuating circumstances and the species causing the damage are identified to assist with targeting control methods more precisely.

Dod, Sex, Time, and Effort in a Small Mammal: Energy Allocation Strategies for Survival and Reproduction

Behaviour ◽  
1990 ◽  
Vol 114 (1-4) ◽  
pp. 191-205 ◽  
Author(s):  
Glenn Perrigo
Keyword(s):  
House Mouse ◽  
Activity Wheel ◽  
Energy Allocation ◽  
Body Growth ◽  
Deer Mice ◽  
House Mice ◽  
Fat Reserves ◽  
Survival And Reproduction ◽  
Similar Body ◽  
Allocation Strategies

AbstractThe relationship between food energy and work effort (foraging) is crucial to small mammals such as the house mouse (Mus domesticus). Energy allocation processes were studied by using a special caging system in which animals were required to work for 45 mg food pellets by running on an activity wheel. Two experimental themes were investigated: 1) When weaning female mice were forced to work harder for less food, their highest energy allocation priority was to maintain fat reserves; body growth was next in importance while achieving puberty had the lowest prority of all. The relative insensitivity of fat deposition to high foraging costs suggests a strategy for survival whereby dispersing animals maintain emergency fat reserves at the expense of growth and fertility. In male mice, however, reproductive development is independent from body growth. Both sexes employed fundamentally different energy allocation strategies during peripubertal development. Some of these sex differences were gonad-dependent, while others were not. The time spent foraging while exposed to cold ambient temperature is also critical during peripubertal development, and this relationship probably determines whether or not house mice will breed continuously or seasonally in feral habitats. 2) Deer mice (Pemmyscus maniculatus) and house mice were challenged to produce litters at increasingly greater work requirements. Deer mice supported heavier litters and produced more pups at weaning than house mice, mainly because deer mice were more efficient at food use. With regard to circadian organisation, deer mice accomplished almost all of their locomotor tasks during darkness while house mice exhibited day-to-day flexibility in locomotor activity, especially during lactation. Deer mice attempted to wean five or six pups, regardless of how severe the feeding conditions; however, pups became progressively stunted as females worked harder and obtained less food. In contrast, house mice had more pups at birth than deer mice, but females killed and cannibalized offspring throughout the first 12 days of lactation. Most surviving house mouse pups thus attained similar body weights at weaning. These divergent energy allocation patterns may reflect strategies arising from opportunism (house mice) versus seasonality (deer mice).

Breeding and feeding strategies in deer mice and house mice when females are challenged to work for their food

1987 ◽  
Vol 35 (5) ◽  
pp. 1298-1316 ◽  
Author(s):  
Glenn Perrigo
Keyword(s):  
Deer Mice ◽  
Feeding Strategies ◽  
House Mice

Mus musculus and Peromyscus maniculatus: homing ability in relation to habitat utilization

1977 ◽  
Vol 55 (1) ◽  
pp. 169-182 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul K. Anderson ◽  
George E. Heinsohn ◽  
Paul H. Whitney ◽  
Jean-Pierre Huang
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
Home Range ◽  
House Mouse ◽  
Mus Musculus ◽  
Habitat Utilization ◽  
Deer Mice ◽  
House Mice ◽  
Home Ranges ◽  
Homing Behaviour ◽  
Large Home Range

House mice displaced from established home ranges in grassland on Great Gull Island, New York, exhibited homing behaviour. This behaviour was associated with large home range, wandering before home range establishment, and forays outside the range. When both house mice and deer mice inhabiting granaries in grassland in Alberta were displaced, homing behaviour was poorly expressed in house mice, but well developed in deer mice. The poorly developed homing tendency of Alberta house mice was associated with a pattern of habitat utilization that appeared to limit familiarity with areas outside the home range. While this result does not explicitly eliminate a role for a direction-finding ability in house mouse homing, it does emphasize the importance of familiarity with terrain external to the home range.

An Ultrastructural Comparison of Hepatocytes from ADH+ and ADH−Peromyscus Maniculatus

1996 ◽  
Vol 54 ◽  
pp. 30-31
Author(s):  
J. T. Ellzey ◽  
D. Borunda ◽  
B. P. Stewart
Keyword(s):  
South Carolina ◽  
Adult Male ◽  
Uranyl Acetate ◽  
Model System ◽  
Deer Mice ◽  
En Bloc ◽  
Genetic Stock ◽  
Hepes Buffer ◽  
Transmission Electron ◽  
Color Scanner

Genetically alcohol deficient deer mice (ADHN/ADHN) (obtained from the Peromyscus Genetic Stock Center, Univ. of South Carolina) lack hepatic cytosolic alcohol dehydrogenase. In order to determine if these deer mice would provide a model system for an ultrastructural study of the effects of ethanol on hepatocyte organelles, 75 micrographs of ADH+ adult male deer mice (n=5) were compared with 75 micrographs of ADH− adult male deer mice (n=5). A morphometric analysis of mitochondrial and peroxisomal parameters was undertaken.The livers were perfused with 0.1M HEPES buffer followed by 0.25% glutaraldehyde and 2% sucrose in 0.1M HEPES buffer (4C), removed, weighed and fixed by immersion in 2.5% glutaraldehyde in 0.1M HEPES buffer, pH 7.4, followed by a 3,3’ diaminobenzidine (DAB) incubation, postfixation with 2% OsO4, en bloc staining with 1% uranyl acetate in 0.025M maleate-NaOH buffer, dehydrated, embedded in Poly/Bed 812-BDMA epon resin, sectioned and poststained with uranyl acetate and lead citrate. Photographs were taken on a Zeiss EM-10 transmission electron microscope, scanned with a Howtek personal color scanner, analyzed with OPTIMAS 4.02 software on a Gateway2000 4DX2-66V personal computer and stored in Excel 4.0.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document