Microtus pinetorum - (Le Conte, 1830)
Woodland Vole
Other English Common Names: woodland vole
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Microtus pinetorum (LeConte, 1830) (TSN 180314)
French Common Names: campagnol sylvestre
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.100495
Element Code: AMAFF11150
Informal Taxonomy: Animals, Vertebrates - Mammals - Rodents
Image 10866

© Michael Patrikeev

 
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus
Animalia Craniata Mammalia Rodentia Cricetidae Microtus
Genus Size: D - Medium to large genus (21+ species)
Check this box to expand all report sections:
Concept Reference
Help
Concept Reference: Wilson, D. E., and D. M. Reeder (editors). 1993. Mammal species of the world: a taxonomic and geographic reference. Second edition. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC. xviii + 1206 pp. Available online at: http://www.nmnh.si.edu/msw/.
Concept Reference Code: B93WIL01NAUS
Name Used in Concept Reference: Microtus pinetorum
Taxonomic Comments: Has been included in genus Pitymys by some authors; however, genic data do not support generic separation of this species from other North American Microtus (Moore and Janacek (1990) and recent taxonomic lists include this species in Microtus (Hall 1981; Jones et al. 1992; Baker et al. (2003), Musser and Carleton, in Wilson and Reeder 1993, 2005).

Van der Meulen (1978) regarded subspecies nemoralis and parvulus as species distinct from pinetorum, as have some other authors, whereas Whitaker and Hamilton (1998) regarded all as inseparable. Musser and Carleton (in Wilson and Reeder 1993, 2005) indicated that further study is warranted.
Conservation Status
Help

NatureServe Status

Global Status: G5
Global Status Last Reviewed: 04Apr2016
Global Status Last Changed: 13Nov1996
Ranking Methodology Used: Ranked by inspection
Rounded Global Status: G5 - Secure
Nation: United States
National Status: N5 (05Sep1996)
Nation: Canada
National Status: N3 (12Apr2017)

U.S. & Canada State/Province Status
Due to latency between updates made in state, provincial or other NatureServe Network databases and when they appear on NatureServe Explorer, for state or provincial information you may wish to contact the data steward in your jurisdiction to obtain the most current data. Please refer to our Distribution Data Sources to find contact information for your jurisdiction.
United States Alabama (S5), Arkansas (S5), Connecticut (S5), Delaware (S4), District of Columbia (S4), Florida (SNR), Georgia (S5), Illinois (S5), Indiana (S4), Iowa (S3), Kansas (S5), Kentucky (S5), Louisiana (S4), Maine (S1), Maryland (S5), Massachusetts (S5), Michigan (S3S4), Minnesota (S3), Mississippi (S5), Missouri (S4), Nebraska (S1), New Hampshire (S4), New Jersey (S5), New York (S5), North Carolina (S5), Ohio (SNR), Oklahoma (S5), Pennsylvania (S5), Rhode Island (SU), South Carolina (SNR), Tennessee (S5), Texas (S3), Vermont (S3), Virginia (S5), West Virginia (S4), Wisconsin (S2)
Canada Ontario (S3?), Quebec (S3)

Other Statuses

Canadian Species at Risk Act (SARA) Schedule 1/Annexe 1 Status: SC (05Jun2003)
Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC): Special Concern (26Nov2010)
Comments on COSEWIC: Reason for designation: This small, rare mammal has a Canadian range restricted to highly fragmented areas of southern Ontario and southern Quebec. However, a lack of adequate monitoring effort and quantification of threats made the re-assessment of this species difficult. There is no evidence to suggest its status has changed since it was last assessed. Threats appear to be limited and not imminent or increasing.

Status history: Designated Special Concern in April 1998. Status re-examined and confirmed in November 2001 and November 2010.

IUCN Red List Category: LC - Least concern

NatureServe Global Conservation Status Factors

Range Extent Comments: North-central New England to central Wisconsin and south to Gulf Coast states from Texas to northern Florida.

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Distribution
Help
Global Range: North-central New England to central Wisconsin and south to Gulf Coast states from Texas to northern Florida.

U.S. States and Canadian Provinces

Due to latency between updates made in state, provincial or other NatureServe Network databases and when they appear on NatureServe Explorer, for state or provincial information you may wish to contact the data steward in your jurisdiction to obtain the most current data. Please refer to our Distribution Data Sources to find contact information for your jurisdiction.
Color legend for Distribution Map
Endemism: occurs (regularly, as a native taxon) in multiple nations

U.S. & Canada State/Province Distribution
United States AL, AR, CT, DC, DE, FL, GA, IA, IL, IN, KS, KY, LA, MA, MD, ME, MI, MN, MO, MS, NC, NE, NH, NJ, NY, OH, OK, PA, RI, SC, TN, TX, VA, VT, WI, WV
Canada ON, QC

Range Map
Note: Range depicted for New World only. The scale of the maps may cause narrow coastal ranges or ranges on small islands not to appear. Not all vagrant or small disjunct occurrences are depicted. For migratory birds, some individuals occur outside of the passage migrant range depicted. For information on how to obtain shapefiles of species ranges see our Species Mapping pages at www.natureserve.org/conservation-tools/data-maps-tools.

Range Map Compilers: NatureServe, 2005; Sechrest, 2002


U.S. Distribution by County Help
State County Name (FIPS Code)
IA Allamakee (19005)*, Boone (19015), Clarke (19039)*, Fremont (19071)*, Henry (19087)*, Jefferson (19101)*, Johnson (19103)*, Jones (19105), Lee (19111)*, Linn (19113)*, Lucas (19117), Polk (19153)*, Pottawattamie (19155)*, Union (19175)*, Van Buren (19177), Wapello (19179)*, Webster (19187), Winneshiek (19191)*
MI Allegan (26005)*, Barry (26015)*, Benzie (26019)*, Berrien (26021)*, Charlevoix (26029)*, Cheboygan (26031)*, Clare (26035)*, Clinton (26037)*, Emmet (26047)*, Genesee (26049)*, Gratiot (26057)*, Ingham (26065)*, Kalamazoo (26077)*, Leelanau (26089)*, Livingston (26093)*, Manistee (26101)*, Oakland (26125)*, Shiawassee (26155)*, Washtenaw (26161)*
MN Houston (27055), Winona (27169)
NE Douglas (31055), Nemaha (31127), Richardson (31147), Sarpy (31153), Washington (31177)
WI Chippewa (55017)*, Clark (55019)*, Crawford (55023)*, Dane (55025)*, Grant (55043), Iowa (55049)*, Vernon (55123), Wood (55141)*
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed Help
Watershed Region Help Watershed Name (Watershed Code)
04 Little Calumet-Galien (04040001)+*, Black-Macatawa (04050002)+*, Kalamazoo (04050003)+*, Upper Grand (04050004)+*, Thornapple (04050007)+*, Manistee (04060103)+*, Betsie-Platte (04060104)+*, Boardman-Charlevoix (04060105)+*, Lone Lake-Ocqueoc (04070003)+*, Cheboygan (04070004)+*, Tittabawassee (04080201)+*, Pine (04080202)+*, Shiawassee (04080203)+*, Detroit (04090004)+*, Huron (04090005)+*
07 Buffalo-Whitewater (07040003)+, La Crosse-Pine (07040006)+*, Root (07040008)+, Eau Claire (07050006)+*, Coon-Yellow (07060001)+*, Upper Iowa (07060002)+*, Grant-Little Maquoketa (07060003)+, Maquoketa (07060006)+, Castle Rock (07070003)+*, Lower Wisconsin (07070005)+*, Kickapoo (07070006)+, Flint-Henderson (07080104)+*, Skunk (07080107)+*, Lower Cedar (07080206)+*, Lower Iowa (07080209)+*, Crawfish (07090002)+*, Sugar (07090004)+*, Middle Des Moines (07100004)+, Boone (07100005)+, North Raccoon (07100006)+*, Lake Red Rock (07100008)+*, Lower Des Moines (07100009)+
10 Big Papillion-Mosquito (10230006)+, West Nishnabotna (10240002)+*, Nishnabotna (10240004)+*, Tarkio-Wolf (10240005)+, Thompson (10280102)+*
+ Natural heritage record(s) exist for this watershed
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
Ecology & Life History
Help
Reproduction Comments: Breeds mid-February to mid-November, probably year-round. Oklahoma: apparently all year, with peak October-May; 1-4 litters per year; litter size is 1-5 (average 2.6) (Caire et al. 1989)
Ecology Comments: Home range is estimated at about 0.1 ha. Average population density is up to 2.4 per ha (Miller and Getz 1969). Densities usually are highest in orchards during fall. Not territorial, appears to occur only in loose social groups. Rapid turnover of individuals in population.
Non-Migrant: Y
Locally Migrant: N
Long Distance Migrant: N
Estuarine Habitat(s): Herbaceous wetland
Palustrine Habitat(s): Bog/fen, FORESTED WETLAND, HERBACEOUS WETLAND, Riparian
Terrestrial Habitat(s): Forest - Conifer, Forest - Hardwood, Forest - Mixed, Grassland/herbaceous, Suburban/orchard, Woodland - Conifer, Woodland - Hardwood, Woodland - Mixed
Special Habitat Factors: Burrowing in or using soil, Fallen log/debris
Habitat Comments: Lives in a wide variety of habitats, but in many areas prefers upland wooded areas with a thick layer of loose soil and humus. Can be numerous in orchards and nurseries with ample ground vegetation that provides protective cover. Spends most of time underground in shallow burrow systems. Young are born in nests built beneath logs, below surface litter, or underground.
Adult Food Habits: Herbivore
Immature Food Habits: Herbivore
Food Comments: Feeds on roots, bulbs, seeds, fruits, and other vegetable matter.
Adult Phenology: Crepuscular, Diurnal, Nocturnal
Immature Phenology: Crepuscular, Diurnal, Nocturnal
Phenology Comments: Active throughout the day, year-round.
Length: 15 centimeters
Weight: 39 grams
Economic Attributes
Help
Economic Comments: Sometimes regarded as a pest; can do serious damage to nurseries and orchards. May damage apple trees by removing bark from roots, especially in winter.
Management Summary
Help
Management Requirements: Regarding vole management in fruit orchards in which voles are damaging trees, Tobin and Richmond (1993) recommended frequent close mowing of ground vegetation during the growing season and establishment of a vegetation-free zone under the canopy to reduce vole carrying capacity.
Monitoring Requirements: See Tobin and Richmond (1993) for information on a monitoring technique that is useful in orchards (involves putting out apple slices in runways or burrow openings and checking them 24 hours later).
Population/Occurrence Delineation
Help
Group Name: Small Murid Rodents

Use Class: Not applicable
Minimum Criteria for an Occurrence: Evidence of historical presence, or current and likely recurring presence, at a given location. Such evidence minimally includes collection or reliable observation and documentation of one or more individuals in appropriate habitat where the species is presumed to be established and breeding.
Mapping Guidance: Separate sites separated by less than 1000 meters should be mapped as separate polygons.
Separation Barriers: Barriers include: wide highways with heavy traffic (subjective determination) and highways with continuous solid barriers that prevent rodent passage; major water bodies, arbitrarily set at those greater than 50 meters across in ice-free areas and those greater than 200 meters wide if frozen regularly.
Separation Distance for Unsuitable Habitat: 2 km
Separation Distance for Suitable Habitat: 5 km
Separation Justification: Home ranges may be quite small, but at least some species exhibit good dispersal ability that may take them several kilometers from their natal area (Maier 2002). Peromyscus that have been displaced up to 3 km may return home within a few days (see Maier 2002). Displaced Neotoma fuscipes dispersed up to at least 1.6 km from their release point in five nights (Smith 1965). A male Dicrostonyx richardsoni moved more than 3 kilometers per day several times (Engstrom, in Wilson and Ruff 1999). Some species can traverse significant distances of unsuitable habitat. For example, Peromyscus leucopus may move between wooded areas separated by a deforested agricultural gap of up to at least 2 km (Krohne and Hoch 1999). In New Brunswick, a tagged subadult male Peromyscus maniculatus was captured at locations 1.77 km apart after a period of 2 weeks in September, suggesting that dispersal may extend at least this far (Bowman et al. 1999). In Kansas, individual Peromyscus maniculatus were captured at trap sites up to 1.32 km apart (Rehmeier et al. 2004). Dispersal can play a key role in the population dynamics of murid rodents.

Patterns of genetic (DNA) variation indicate that gene flow can be low among subpopulations of Neotoma magister and that effective dispersal is limited among subpopulations separated by as little as 3 km (Castleberry et al. 2002).

Separation distance for suitable habitat is a compromise between the typical small home range sizes of these mammals and their sometimes considerable dispersal ability and the likely low probability that two occupied locations separated by less than several kilometers of suitable habitat would represent independent populations.

Roads, especially divided highways, are major barriers to dispersal in small mammals (Oxley et al. 1974, Wilkins 1982, Garland and Bradley 1984).

Date: 08Mar2005
Author: Hammerson, G., and S. Cannings
Notes: Group contains most members of the family Muridae: mice, voles, lemmings, woodrats, etc.
Population/Occurrence Viability
Help
U.S. Invasive Species Impact Rank (I-Rank) Not yet assessed
Help
Authors/Contributors
Help
Element Ecology & Life History Edition Date: 22May2014
Element Ecology & Life History Author(s): Hammerson, G.

Zoological data developed by NatureServe and its network of natural heritage programs (see Local Programs) and other contributors and cooperators (see Sources).

References
Help
  • Allen, C. R., S. Demarais, and R. S. Lutz. 1994. Red imported fire ant impact on wildlife: an overview. The Texas Journal of Science 46(1):51-59.

  • Aquin, P. 1999. Évaluation de la situation des groupes taxonomiques des mammifères du Québec. Ministère de l'Environnement et de la Faune. 5 pages.

  • BEE, J.W., G.E. GLASS, R.S. HOFFMANN, AND R.R. PATTERSON. 1981. MAMMALS IN KANSAS. UNIV.KANS.MUS.NAT.HIST., PUB.ED. SERIES NO.7.

  • BOONSTRA,R., C.KREBS, M.GAINES, M.JOHNSON, AND I.CRANE. 1987 NATAL PHILOPATRY AND BREEDING SYSTEMS IN VOLES (MICROTUS SSP.). JOURNAL OF ANIMAL ECOLOGY, 56:655-673.

  • Baker, R. H. 1983. Michigan mammals. Michigan State University Press. 642 pp.

  • Baker, R. J., L. C. Bradley, R. D. Bradley, J. W. Dragoo, M. D. Engstrom, R. S. Hoffman, C. A. Jones, F. Reid, D. W. Rice, and C. Jones. 2003a. Revised checklist of North American mammals north of Mexico, 2003. Museum of Texas Tech University Occasional Papers 229:1-23.

  • Banfield, A. W. F. 1974. The mammals of Canada. University of Toronto Press, Toronto, Canada. 438 pp.

  • Banfield, A. W. F. 1977. Les Mammifères du Canada. Publié pour le Musée national des sciences naturelles, Musées nationaux du Canada, par les Presses de l'Université Laval. 406 p.

  • Banfield, A.W.F. 1974. Les Mammifères du Canada. Musée national des Sciences naturelles. Les Presses de l'Université Laval, Québec. 406 p.

  • Banfield, A.W.F. 1974. The Mammals of Canada. National Museums of Canada, National Museum of Natural Sciences, Ottawa, and University of Toronto Press, Toronto, Ontario. xxv + 438 pp.

  • Banks, E. M., R. J. Brooks, and J. Schnell. 1975. A radiotracking study of home range and activity of the brown lemming (Lemmus trimucronatus). Journal of Mammalogy 56:888-901.

  • Beaudin, L. et M.Quintin. 1983. Guide des mammifères terrestres du Québec, de l'Ontario et des Martimes. Éditions du Nomade Inc., Québec. 301 p.

  • Beaulieu, H. 1992. Liste des espèces de la faune vertébrée susceptibles d'être désignées menacées ou vulnérables. Ministère du Loisir, de la Chasse et de la Pêche. 107 p.

  • Birney, E. C. 1983. Status of small mammal species reaching distributional limits in southern and western Minnesota. Final report submitted to the Nongame Wildlife Program, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Unpaged.

  • Bowman, J. C., M. Edwards, L. S. Sheppard, and G. J. Forbes. 1999. Record distance for a non-homing movement by a deer mouse, Peromyscus maniculatus. Canadian Field-Naturalist 113:292-293.

  • Brooks, R. J., and E. M. Banks. 1971. Radio-tracking study of lemming home range. Communications in Behavioral Biology 6:1-5.

  • Brooman, R.C. 1949. Additional specimens of Pitymys pinetorum scalopsoides for Elgin County, Ontario. The Canadian Field-Naturalist 63: 114-115.

  • CRAIN, J.L. AND J.W. CLIBURN. 1965. A PRELIMINARY STUDY OF THE MAMMALS OF SOUTHEASTERN MISSISSIPPI. J. MISS. ACAD. SCI. 2:271-280.

  • Caire, W., J. D. Tyler, B. P. Glass, and M. A. Mares. 1989. Mammals of Oklahoma. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman. Oklahoma. 567 pp.

  • Castleberry, S., B., T. L. King, P. B. Wood, and W. M. Ford. 2002. Microsatellite DNA analysis of population structure in Allegheny woodrats (Neotoma magister). Journal of Mammalogy 83:1058-1070.

  • Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC). 1999. Canadian Species at Risk: April 1999. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. 17 pp.

  • Connor, P.F. 1971. The mammals of Long Island, New York. NYS Museum and Science Service Bull. 416. 78 pp.

  • Conroy, C. J., and J. A. Cook. 2000. Molecular systematics of a Holarctic rodent (MICROTUS: Muridae). Journal of Mammalogy 81:344-359.

  • Dawson, N. 2001. A survey of Ontario trappers to estimate wildlife population levels and population changes: 1999-2000 Summary Report. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Northwest Region, Wildlife Assessment Program. Unpaginated.

  • Desrosiers, N., J. Jutras et R. Morin. 2002. Atlas des micromammifères du Québec. Société de la faune et des parcs du Québec, Direction du développement de la faune, Fondation de la faune du Québec. 92 p.

  • Dobbyn, J.S. 1994. Atlas of the Mammals of Ontario. Federation of Ontario Naturalists, Don Mills, Ontario. 120 pp.

  • Dobbyn, J.S. 1994. Atlas of the mammals in Ontario. Federation of Ontario Naturalists, 355 Leslie Road, Don Mills, Ontario, M3B 2W8. 120 pp.

  • Douglass, R. J. 1977. Population dynamics, home ranges, and habitat associations of the yellow-cheeked vole, Microtus xanthognathus, in the Northwest Territories. Canadian Field-Naturalist 91:237-47.

  • Elson, P.F. 1937. The Pine Mouse in Elgin County, Ontario with notes on two other sites. The Canadian Field-Naturalist 51: 36-37.

  • Forbes, J.E. 1972. The New York pine vole situation. pp. 4-13 in Proc. of New York pine mouse symposium. J.E. Forbes (ed.). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Albany, NY.

  • GEHLBACH, FREDERICK R. 1991. THE EAST-WEST TRANSITION ZONE OF TERRESTRIAL VERTEBRATES IN CENTRAL TEXAS: A BIOGEOGRAPHICAL ANALYSIS. TEXAS J. SCI. 43(4):415-427.

  • Garland, T., Jr. and W. G. Bradley. 1984. Effects of a highway on Mojave Desert rodent populations. American Midland Naturalist 111:47-56.

  • Godin, A. J. 1977. Wild mammals of New England. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore. 304 pp.

  • Goodpaster, W.W. and Hoffmeister, D.F. 1952. Notes on the mammals of western Tennessee. Journal of Mammalogy 33(3):

  • Gordon, D.C. 1986. Mammals of Jefferson and Lewis counties, New York. Humphrey Press, Canandaigua, N.Y. 135 pp.

  • HALL, E.R. 1981. THE MAMMALS OF NORTH AMERICA, SECOND EDITION, 2 VOLUMES. JOHN WILEY & SONS, NEW YORK. (1:600 P., 2:581 P.).

  • HALL,E. 1955. HANDBOOK OF MAMMALS IN KANSAS. UNIV KS MUS NAT HIST AND KBS.

  • HAMILTON, W.J. JR., AND J.O. WHITAKER, JR. 1979. MAMMALS OF THE EASTERN UNITED STATES, SECOND EDITION. CORNELL UNIVERSITY PRESS, ITHACA, NEW YORK. 346 P.

  • HAYDEN, D.C. AND W.F. MACCALLUM. 1976. EFFECTS OF PROLONGED FLOODING ON SMALL MAMMAL POPULATIONS IN AN AREA OF THE LOWER MISSISSIPPI RIVER VALLEY. J. MISS. ACAD. SCI. 21:84-88.

  • Hall, E. R. 1981a. The Mammals of North America, second edition. Vols. I & II. John Wiley & Sons, New York, New York. 1181 pp.

  • Hall, E. Raymond and Keith R. Kelson. 1959. The Mammals of North America. The Ronald Press Company, New York. 1083 pp.

  • Hall, E.R. et K.R. Kelson. 1959. The Mammals of North America. vol. II. The Ronald Press Company, NY. 751 p.

  • Hamilton, W. J., Jr., and J. O. Whitaker, Jr. 1979. Mammals of the eastern United States. Cornell Univ. Press, Ithaca, New York. 346 pp.

  • Hazard, E. B. 1982. The mammals of Minnesota. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, Minnesota. 280 pp.

  • Heaney, L. R., and E. C. Birney. 1975. Comments on the distribution and natural history of some mammals in Minnesota. Canadian Field-Naturalist 89(1):29-34.

  • JONES, C. AND C. CARTER. 1989. ANNOTATED CHECKLIST OF THE RECENT MAMMALS OF MISSISSIPPI. OCCAS. PAPERS MUS., TEXAS TECH UNIV. 128:1-9.

  • Jackson, Hartley T. 1961. Mammals of Wisconsin. University of Wisconsin Press. Madison, WI 53701. 504pp.

  • Jike, L., G. O. Batzli, L. L. Geta. 1988. Home ranges of prairie voles as determined by radiotracking and by powdertracking. Journal of Mammalogy 69:183-186.

  • Jones, J. K., Jr. and C. Jones. 1992. Revised checklist of recent land mammals of Texas, with annotations. The Texas Journal of Science 44(1):53-74.

  • Jones, J. K., Jr., C. Jones, and D. J. Schmidly. 1988. Annotated checklist of recent land mammals of Texas. Occasional Papers The Museum Texas Tech University 119:1-26.

  • Jones, J. K., S. Demarais, and C. T. McAllister. 1995. Contribution to a bibliography of recent Texas mammals 1981-1990. Special Publications, The Museum Texas Tech University 38:1-64.

  • KENNEDY, M.L. 1968. A SURVEY OF THE MAMMALS OF DE SOTO COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI. M.S. THESIS, MEMPHIS STATE UNIVERSITY.

  • KENNEDY, M.L., ET. AL. 1974. A REVIEW OF MISSISSIPPI MAMMALS. STUDIES IN NATURAL SCIENCES. 2(1):1-36.

  • KENNEDY, M.L., ET. AL. 1982. FIRST RECORD OF THE MEADOW JUMPING MOUSE (ZAPUS HUDSONIUS) IN MISSISSIPPI. J. MISS. ACAD. SCI. 27:149-150.

  • Krohne, D. T., and G. A. Hoch. 1999. Demography of Peromyscus leucopus populations on habitat patches: the role of dispersal. Canadian Journal of Zoology 77:1247-1253.

  • LOWERY, G.H., JR. 1974. THE MAMMALS OF LOUISIANA AND ITS ADJACENT WATERS. LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY PRESS. 565 P.

  • Linzey, D.W. 2016. Mammals of Great Smoky Mountains National Park: 2016 revision. Southeastern Naturalist 15(Monograph 8):1?93.

  • Linzey, D.W. and Linzey, A.V. 1968. Mammals of the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. Journal of the Elisha Mit- chell Science Society 84(3):384-414

  • Linzey, D.W. and Linzey, A.V. 1973. Notes on food of smallmammals from Great Smoky Mountains National Park. Journal of the Elisha Mitchell Science Society 89(1-2):6-14.

  • Lowery, George H. 1974. The mammals of Louisiana and its adjacent waters. Kingsport Press, Inc. Kingsport, Tennessee. 565 pp.

  • MISSISSIPPI MUSEUM OF NATURAL SCIENCE. 1989. COUNTY INFORMATION FOR MAMMALS OF MISSISSIPPI.

  • MacMillen, R. E. 1964. Population ecology, water relations and social behavior of a southern California semidesert rodent fauna. University of California Publications in Zoology 71:1-59.

  • Maier, T. J. 2002. Long-distance movements by female white-footed mice, Peromyscus leucopus, in extensive mixed-wood forest. Canadian Field-Naturalist 116:108-111.

  • Masters, R. E. 1998. Small mammal response topine-grass and restoration for red-cockaded woodpeckers, mammals, habitat, Peromyscus sp., Peromyscus leucopus, souris à pattes blanches, white-footed mouse, microtus pinetorum, campagnol sylvestre, woodland vo

  • Merritt, J.F. 1987. Guide to the Mammals of Pennsylvania. University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 408 pp. B87MER01PAUS.

  • Miller, D.H. and L.L. Getz. 1969. Life-history notes on Microtis pinetorum central Connecticut. J. Mamm. 50:777-784.

  • Moore, D. W., and L. L. Janecek. 1990. Genic relationships among North American MICROTUS (Mammalia: Rodentia). Ann. Carnegie Mus. 59:249-259.

  • Mumford, R. E., and J. O. Whitaker, Jr. 1982. Mammals of Indiana. Indiana University Press, Bloomington. 537 pp.

  • Mumford, Russell E. 1969. Distribution of the Mammals of Indiana. Indiana Academy of Science, Indianapolis, Indiana. 114 pp.

  • New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Checklist of the amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals of New York State, including their protective status. Nongame Unit, Wildlife Resources Center, Delmar, NY.

  • OWEN, JAMES G. 1990. AN ANALYSIS OF THE SPATIAL STRUCTURE OF MAMMALIAN DISTRIBUTION PATTERNS IN TEXAS. ECOLOGY 71(5):1823-1832.

  • OWEN, JAMES G. 1990. PATTERNS OF MAMMALIAN SPECIES RICHNESS IN RELATION TO TEMPERATURE, PRODUCTIVITY, AND VARIANCE IN ELEVATION. J. MAMM. 71(1):1-13.

  • Oxley, D. J., M. B. Fenton and G. R. Carmody. 1974. The effects of roads on populations of small mammals. Journal of Applied Ecology 11: 51-59.

  • Plante, Y., P. T. Boag, and B. N. White. 1989. Macrogeographic variation in mitochondrial DNA of meadow voles (MICROTUS PENNSYLVANICUS). Can. J. Zool. 67:158-167.

  • Prescott J. et P. Richard. 2004.. Mammifères du Québec et de l'est du Canada. Editions Michel Quintin, 2ème édition. 399 pages.

  • Prescott, J. et P. Richard. 1996. Mammifères du Québec et de l'Est du Canada. Éditions Michel Quintin. 399 p.

  • Rehmeier, R. L., G. A. Kaufman, and D. W. Kaufman. 2004. Long-distance movements of the deer mouse in tallgrass prairie. Journal of Mammalogy 85:562-568.

  • Repenning, C. A. 1983. PITYMYS MEADENSIS Hibbard from the Valley of Mexico and the classification of North American species of PITYMYS (Rodentia: Cricetidae). J. Vert. Paleontol. 2:471-482.

  • Ross, P. D. 1997. Status report on the woodland vole (Microtus pinetorum) in Canada, Microtus pinetorum, Woodland vole ou Pine vole, Campagnol sylvestre. Centre for biodiversity and conservation biology, Royal Ontario Museum, Ontario. 38 p.

  • Ross, P.D. 1997. Status Report on the Woodland Vole (Microtus pinetorum) in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. 44 pp.

  • Ross, P.D. 1997. Status report on the Woodland Vole (MICROTUS PINETORUM) in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC), 38 pp.

  • Ross, P.D. 1998. Status Report on Woodland Vole (Microtus pinetorum). Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation Biology. Royal Ontario Museum. Ontario. 44 p.

  • SMOLEN, M.J. 1981. MAMMALIAN SPECIES NO. 147, MICROTUS PINETORUM. THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF MAMMALOGISTS, 7 P.

  • Saunders, W.E. 1924. The Pine Mouse in Ontario. The Canadian Field-Naturalist 38: 37-38.

  • Schwartz, C. W., and E. R. Schwartz. 1981. The wild mammals of Missouri. University of Missouri Press, Columbia. 356 pp.

  • Sealander, J.A. and G.A. Heidt. 1990. Arkansas Mammals: Their Natural History, Classification and Distribution. University of Arkansas Press, Fayetteville. 308 pp.

  • See SERO listing

  • Smith, M. H. 1965. Dispersal capacity of the dusky-footed wood rat, Neotoma fuscipes. American Midland Naturalist 74:457-463.

  • Smolen, M. J. 1981. Microtus pinetorum. Mammalian Species 147:1-7.

  • Smolen, M.J. 1981. Microtus pinetorum. Am. Soc. Mamm., Mammalian Species No. 147. 7 pp.

  • Société de la faune et des parcs du Québec. 2003. Les espèces menacées [en ligne]. Disponible sur le site Internet. - Accès :«http://www.fapaq.gouv.qc.ca/fr/etu_rec/esp_mena_vuln/index.htm». La société, 2003 [Réf. 3 novembre 2003] .

  • Storer, T. I., F. C. Evans, and F. G. Palmer. 1944. Some rodent populations in the Sierra Nevada of California. Ecological Monographs 14:166-192.

  • Sutherland, D.A. 1997. COSSARO Candidate V,T,E Species Evaluation Form - October 1997 - Woodland Vole (Microtus pinetorum). Unpublished report prepared by Natural Heritage Information Centre for Committee on the Status of Species at Risk in Ontario (COSSARO), Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 3 pp.

  • Sutherland, D.A., and A.E. Zammit. 2001. COSSARO Candidate V,T,E Species Evaluation Form for Woodland Vole (Microtus pinetorum). Unpublished report prepared for Committee On the Status of Species At Risk in Ontario. 3 + appendices.

  • Swihart, R. K. 1990. Quebracho, thiram, and methiocarb reduce consumption of apple twigs by meadow voles. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 18:162-166.

  • Tamarin, R. H., editor. 1985. Biology of New World Microtus. American Soc. Mamm. Special Publication (8):1-893.

  • Tobin, M. E., and M. E. Richmond. 1993. Vole management in fruit orchards. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 5. ii + 18 pp.

  • WARD, R.P. 1965. THE MAMMALS OF MISSISSIPPI. J. MISS. ACAD. SCI. 11:309-330.

  • WARD, R.P., ET. AL. 1961. A PRELIMINARY CHECKLIST OF MAMMALS INHABITING FORESTED AREAS OF THE LOESS OF WEST-CENTRAL MISSISSIPPI. J. MISS. ACAD. SCI. 7:70-71.

  • WOLFE, J.L., AND R.R. LOHOEFENER. 1982. SMALL MAMMALS ON FIVE HABITATS, DESOTO NATIONAL FOREST, MISSISSIPPI, P.O. #40-2-22246. U.S. FOREST SERVICE. 28P.

  • Whitaker, J. O., Jr. 1980. The Audubon Society field guide to North American mammals. Alfred A. Knopf, New York. 745 pp.

  • Whitaker, J. O., and W. J. Hamilton. 1998. Mammals of the eastern United States. Comstock Publishing, Ithaca, New York.

  • Whitaker, John O., Jr., and Russell E. Mumford. 2009. Mammals of Indiana. Indiana University Press, Bloomington and Indianapolis, IN.

  • Wilkins, K. T. 1982. Highways as barriers to rodent dispersal. Southwestern Naturalist 27: 459-460.

  • Wilson, D. E., and D. M. Reeder (editors). 2005. Mammal species of the world: a taxonomic and geographic reference. Third edition. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland. Two volumes. 2,142 pp. [Available online at: http://www.bucknell.edu/msw3/ ]

  • Wilson, D. E., and D. M. Reeder (editors). 1993. Mammal species of the world: a taxonomic and geographic reference. Second edition. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC. xviii + 1206 pp. Available online at: http://www.nmnh.si.edu/msw/.

  • Wilson, D. E., and D. M. Reeder (editors). 2005. Mammal species of the world: a taxonomic and geographic reference. Third edition. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore. Two volumes. 2,142 pp. Available online at: https://www.departments.bucknell.edu/biology/resources/msw3/

  • Wilson, D. E., and S. Ruff. 1999. The Smithsonian book of North American mammals. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. 750 pp.

  • Wolde, J.L. and R. Lohoefener. 1983. The small mammal fauna of a longleaf - slash pine forest in southern Mississippi. J. Miss. Acad. Sci. 28:37-47.

  • Wolfe, J.L. 1971. Mississippi land mammals. Mississippi Museum of Natural Science, Jackson, Mississippi 44 pp.

  • van der Meulen, A. J. 1978. MICROTUS and PITIMYS (Arvicolidae) from Cumberland Cave, Maryland, with a comparison of some New and Old World species. Annals of Carnegie Museum 47:101-145.

Use Guidelines & Citation

Use Guidelines and Citation

The Small Print: Trademark, Copyright, Citation Guidelines, Restrictions on Use, and Information Disclaimer.

Note: All species and ecological community data presented in NatureServe Explorer at http://explorer.natureserve.org were updated to be current with NatureServe's central databases as of March 2019.
Note: This report was printed on

Trademark Notice: "NatureServe", NatureServe Explorer, The NatureServe logo, and all other names of NatureServe programs referenced herein are trademarks of NatureServe. Any other product or company names mentioned herein are the trademarks of their respective owners.

Copyright Notice: Copyright © 2019 NatureServe, 2511 Richmond (Jefferson Davis) Highway, Suite 930, Arlington, VA 22202, U.S.A. All Rights Reserved. Each document delivered from this server or web site may contain other proprietary notices and copyright information relating to that document. The following citation should be used in any published materials which reference the web site.

Citation for data on website including State Distribution, Watershed, and Reptile Range maps:
NatureServe. 2019. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://explorer.natureserve.org. (Accessed:

Citation for Bird Range Maps of North America:
Ridgely, R.S., T.F. Allnutt, T. Brooks, D.K. McNicol, D.W. Mehlman, B.E. Young, and J.R. Zook. 2003. Digital Distribution Maps of the Birds of the Western Hemisphere, version 1.0. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia, USA.

Acknowledgement Statement for Bird Range Maps of North America:
"Data provided by NatureServe in collaboration with Robert Ridgely, James Zook, The Nature Conservancy - Migratory Bird Program, Conservation International - CABS, World Wildlife Fund - US, and Environment Canada - WILDSPACE."

Citation for Mammal Range Maps of North America:
Patterson, B.D., G. Ceballos, W. Sechrest, M.F. Tognelli, T. Brooks, L. Luna, P. Ortega, I. Salazar, and B.E. Young. 2003. Digital Distribution Maps of the Mammals of the Western Hemisphere, version 1.0. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia, USA.

Acknowledgement Statement for Mammal Range Maps of North America:
"Data provided by NatureServe in collaboration with Bruce Patterson, Wes Sechrest, Marcelo Tognelli, Gerardo Ceballos, The Nature Conservancy-Migratory Bird Program, Conservation International-CABS, World Wildlife Fund-US, and Environment Canada-WILDSPACE."

Citation for Amphibian Range Maps of the Western Hemisphere:
IUCN, Conservation International, and NatureServe. 2004. Global Amphibian Assessment. IUCN, Conservation International, and NatureServe, Washington, DC and Arlington, Virginia, USA.

Acknowledgement Statement for Amphibian Range Maps of the Western Hemisphere:
"Data developed as part of the Global Amphibian Assessment and provided by IUCN-World Conservation Union, Conservation International and NatureServe."

NOTE: Full metadata for the Bird Range Maps of North America is available at:
http://www.natureserve.org/library/birdDistributionmapsmetadatav1.pdf.

Full metadata for the Mammal Range Maps of North America is available at:
http://www.natureserve.org/library/mammalsDistributionmetadatav1.pdf.

Restrictions on Use: Permission to use, copy and distribute documents delivered from this server is hereby granted under the following conditions:
  1. The above copyright notice must appear in all copies;
  2. Any use of the documents available from this server must be for informational purposes only and in no instance for commercial purposes;
  3. Some data may be downloaded to files and altered in format for analytical purposes, however the data should still be referenced using the citation above;
  4. No graphics available from this server can be used, copied or distributed separate from the accompanying text. Any rights not expressly granted herein are reserved by NatureServe. Nothing contained herein shall be construed as conferring by implication, estoppel, or otherwise any license or right under any trademark of NatureServe. No trademark owned by NatureServe may be used in advertising or promotion pertaining to the distribution of documents delivered from this server without specific advance permission from NatureServe. Except as expressly provided above, nothing contained herein shall be construed as conferring any license or right under any NatureServe copyright.
Information Warranty Disclaimer: All documents and related graphics provided by this server and any other documents which are referenced by or linked to this server are provided "as is" without warranty as to the currentness, completeness, or accuracy of any specific data. NatureServe hereby disclaims all warranties and conditions with regard to any documents provided by this server or any other documents which are referenced by or linked to this server, including but not limited to all implied warranties and conditions of merchantibility, fitness for a particular purpose, and non-infringement. NatureServe makes no representations about the suitability of the information delivered from this server or any other documents that are referenced to or linked to this server. In no event shall NatureServe be liable for any special, indirect, incidental, consequential damages, or for damages of any kind arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information contained in any documents provided by this server or in any other documents which are referenced by or linked to this server, under any theory of liability used. NatureServe may update or make changes to the documents provided by this server at any time without notice; however, NatureServe makes no commitment to update the information contained herein. Since the data in the central databases are continually being updated, it is advisable to refresh data retrieved at least once a year after its receipt. The data provided is for planning, assessment, and informational purposes. Site specific projects or activities should be reviewed for potential environmental impacts with appropriate regulatory agencies. If ground-disturbing activities are proposed on a site, the appropriate state natural heritage program(s) or conservation data center can be contacted for a site-specific review of the project area (see Visit Local Programs).

Feedback Request: NatureServe encourages users to let us know of any errors or significant omissions that you find in the data through (see Contact Us). Your comments will be very valuable in improving the overall quality of our databases for the benefit of all users.