Myodes gapperi - (Vigors, 1830)
Southern Red-backed Vole
Other English Common Names: Gapper's Red-backed Vole, southern red-backed vole
Synonym(s): Clethrionomys gapperi (Vigors, 1830)
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Clethrionomys gapperi (Vigors, 1830) (TSN 180294)
French Common Names: campagnol de Gapper, campagnol à dos roux de Gapper
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.105153
Element Code: AMAFF09020
Informal Taxonomy: Animals, Vertebrates - Mammals - Rodents
 
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus
Animalia Craniata Mammalia Rodentia Cricetidae Myodes
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: Clethrionomys gapperi
Taxonomic Comments: Includes subspecies occidentalis and caurinus, which formerly were included in the species now known as Myodes californicus. Some authors have suggested that rutilis and gapperi are conspecific, but this has not been accepted by most authorities (Jones et al. 1992; Musser and Carleton, in Wilson and Reeder 1993, 2005).

See Musser and Carleton (in Wilson and Reeder 2005) for an extensive discussion of the basis for correcting the generic name from Clethrionomys to Myodes.
Conservation Status
Help

NatureServe Status

Global Status: G5
Global Status Last Reviewed: 04Apr2016
Global Status Last Changed: 12Nov1996
Ranking Methodology Used: Ranked by inspection
Rounded Global Status: G5 - Secure
Nation: United States
National Status: N5 (05Sep1996)
Nation: Canada
National Status: N5 (22Jan2016)

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 Alaska (S4), Arizona (S3), Colorado (S5), Connecticut (S5), Georgia (S3S4), Idaho (S4), Iowa (S2), Kentucky (S3), Maine (S5), Maryland (S5), Massachusetts (S5), Michigan (S3S4), Minnesota (SNR), Montana (S4), New Hampshire (S5), New Jersey (S5), New Mexico (S3), New York (S5), North Carolina (S5), North Dakota (SNR), Ohio (SH), Oregon (S4?), Pennsylvania (S5), Rhode Island (S4), South Carolina (S2S3), South Dakota (S4), Tennessee (S4), Utah (S2S3), Vermont (S5), Virginia (S5), Washington (S5), West Virginia (S4), Wisconsin (S5), Wyoming (S5)
Canada Alberta (S5), British Columbia (S5), Labrador (S5), Manitoba (S5), New Brunswick (S5), Newfoundland Island (SNA), Northwest Territories (S5), Nova Scotia (S5), Ontario (S5), Prince Edward Island (S5), Quebec (S5), Saskatchewan (S5), Yukon Territory (S2S3)

Other Statuses

IUCN Red List Category: LC - Least concern

NatureServe Global Conservation Status Factors

Range Extent Comments: Most of forested Canada (northern British Columbia to Labrador) south through the Rocky Mountains to central New Mexico and east-central Arizona, northern Great Plains (to Iowa), northern Great Lakes, New England and Appalachian Mountains (to northern Georgia).

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Distribution
Help
Global Range: Most of forested Canada (northern British Columbia to Labrador) south through the Rocky Mountains to central New Mexico and east-central Arizona, northern Great Plains (to Iowa), northern Great Lakes, New England and Appalachian Mountains (to northern Georgia).

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 AK, AZ, CO, CT, GA, IA, ID, KY, MA, MD, ME, MI, MN, MT, NC, ND, NH, NJ, NM, NY, OH, OR, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, UT, VA, VT, WA, WI, WV, WY
Canada AB, BC, LB, MB, NB, NFexotic, NS, NT, ON, PE, QC, SK, YT

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: Sechrest, 2002


U.S. Distribution by County Help
State County Name (FIPS Code)
AK Ketchikan Gateway (02130), Prince of Wales-Outer Ketchikan (CA) (02201), Wrangell-Petersburg (CA) (02280)
AZ Apache (04001), Greenlee (04011)*
GA Rabun (13241), Towns (13281), Union (13291)
IA Cerro Gordo (19033)*, Hancock (19081), Winnebago (19189), Worth (19195)*
KY Bell (21013)*, Harlan (21095), Letcher (21133)
OH Jefferson (39081)*
PA Berks (42011)*, Lehigh (42077)*, Northampton (42095)*, Schuylkill (42107)*
SC Oconee (45073)
SD Custer (46033), Day (46037)*, Lawrence (46081), Marshall (46091), Meade (46093), Pennington (46103), Roberts (46109)
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed Help
Watershed Region Help Watershed Name (Watershed Code)
02 Middle Delaware-Musconetcong (02040105)+*, Lehigh (02040106)+*, Schuylkill (02040203)+*, Lower Susquehanna-Penns (02050301)+*, Lower Susquehanna-Swatara (02050305)+*
03 Seneca (03060101)+, Tugaloo (03060102)+
05 Upper Ohio (05030101)+*, North Fork Kentucky (05100201)+, Middle Fork Kentucky (05100202)+, Upper Cumberland (05130101)+
06 Upper Little Tennessee (06010202)+, Powell (06010206)+*, Hiwassee (06020002)+
07 Upper Minnesota (07020001)+, Shell Rock (07080202)+*, Winnebago (07080203)+
09 Western Wild Rice (09020105)+*
10 Beaver (10120107)+, Middle Cheyenne-Spring (10120109)+, Rapid (10120110)+, Middle Cheyenne-Elk (10120111)+, Lower Cheyenne (10120112)+, Lower Belle Fourche (10120202)+, Redwater (10120203)+, Upper James (10160003)+
15 Little Colorado headwaters (15020001)+, Upper Little Colorado (15020002)+*, Silver (15020005)+*, San Francisco (15040004)+*, Black (15060101)+, White (15060102)+
19 Southeast Mainland (19010101)+, Ketchikan (19010102)+, Mainland (19010201)+, Kuiu-Kupreanof-Mitkof-Etolin-Zarembo-Wrangell Isla (19010202)+, Icy Strait-Chatham Strait (19010500)+
+ Natural heritage record(s) exist for this watershed
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
Ecology & Life History
Help
Reproduction Comments: Breeds mid-January to late November; peak activity February-October. Gestation lasts 17-19 days. Litters size is 1-9 (average 5.6 in Alberta, 6.5 in Colorado). Litters/year: 1-4 for young, 1-6 for older females in Alberta; 2/year in Colorado (young of year breed).
Ecology Comments: Disperses viable spores of mycorrhizal fungi and nitrogen-fixing bacteria (see Maser and Maser 1988).

Home range varies from 0.25 to 3.5 acres (Merritt and Merritt 1978). Experimentation by Gillis and Nams (1998) suggests that populations separated by an inter-patch distance of 60-70 m likely would be isolated from one another. Mature females are territorial. Populations noncyclic.

Non-Migrant: Y
Locally Migrant: N
Long Distance Migrant: N
Palustrine Habitat(s): Bog/fen, FORESTED WETLAND
Terrestrial Habitat(s): Forest - Conifer, Forest - Hardwood, Forest - Mixed, Shrubland/chaparral
Special Habitat Factors: Burrowing in or using soil, Fallen log/debris
Habitat Comments: Prefers cool, mesic deciduous, coniferous, or mixed forests, especially areas with large amount of ground cover. Regarded as an ecological indicator of old-growth conditions in the Rocky Mountains. Also uses second-growth areas. Mossy logs and tree roots in coniferous forests are optimal. In the northern part of its range also found in muskegs, sedge marshes, shrubby habitats, and treed peatlands (Merritt, in Wilson and Ruff 1999). Often on rock outcrops in some areas (e.g., Virginia). Often associated with abandoned stone walls (fences) in the northeastern U.S. In Pennsylvania, abundance increased with forest fragmentation (Yahner 1992). Nests under logs, stumps and roots. Unlike MICROTUS, doesn't dig tunnels, but uses the burrows of moles and other small mammals.
Adult Food Habits: Herbivore
Immature Food Habits: Herbivore
Food Comments: Feeds chiefly on vegetation, seeds, nuts, fungi, some insects; summer diet in Colorado (and much of western U.S.) consists almost entirely of fungi.
Adult Phenology: Crepuscular, Nocturnal
Immature Phenology: Crepuscular, Nocturnal
Phenology Comments: Mainly nocturnal, active year-long.
Length: 16 centimeters
Weight: 42 grams
Economic Attributes Not yet assessed
Help
Management Summary Not yet assessed
Help
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: 07Dec1993
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
  • Aquin, P. 1999. Évaluation de la situation des groupes taxonomiques des mammifères du Québec. Ministère de l'Environnement et de la Faune. 5 pages.

  • Armstrong, D.M. 1972. Distribution of Mammals in Colorado. Monograph of the Museum of Natural History, University of Kansas. University of Kansas Printing Service, Lawrence. 415 pp.

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

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

  • Blair, W.F. 1941. Same data on home ranges and general life history of the short-tailed shrew, redbacked mouse and wood-land jumping mouse in northern Michigan. Am. Midl. Nat. 25(3):681-685.

  • 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.

  • Burt, W. H., and R. P. Grossenheider. 1976. A field guide to the mammals. Third edition. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston. 289 pp.

  • Butsch, R.S. 1954. The life history and ecology of the red-backed vole Clethrionyms gapperi Vigors in Minnesota. Univ. Michigan, unpubl. Ph.D. dissertation, 161 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.

  • Christian, Donald P. 1992. Distribution and Abundance of Bog Lemmings (Synaptomys cooperi and S. borealis) and Associated Small Mammals in Lowland Habitats in Northern Minnesota. Funded by the MN DNR, Section of Wildlife, Natural Heritage and Nongame Research Program. Results in unpublished report.

  • Clark, Tim W. and Mark R. Stromberg. 1987. Mammals in Wyoming. University Press of Kansas. Lawrence, Kansas.

  • Connor, P.F. 1960. The small mammals of Otsego and Schoharie Counties, New York. N.Y.S. Museum and Science Service Bull. 382. 84 pp.

  • Connor, P.F. 1966. The mammals of the Tug Hill Plateau, New York. New York State Museum and Science Service Bulletin. 406. 82 pp.

  • Cook, J.A., A.M. Runck, and C.J. Conroy. 2004. Historical biogeography at the cross-roads of the northern continents: Molecular phylogenetics of red-backed voles (Rodentia: Arvicolinae). Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 30:767-777.

  • 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.

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

  • Fitzgerald, J. P., C. A. Meaney, and D. M. Armstrong. 1994. Mammals of Colorado. Denver Museum of Natural History and University Press of Colorado.

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

  • Gillis, E. A., and V. O. Nams. 1998. How red-backed voles find habitat patches. Canadian Journal of Zoology 76:791-794.

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

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

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

  • 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.

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

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

  • 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., R. S. Hoffman, D. W. Rice, C. Jones, R. J. Baker, and M. D. Engstrom. 1992a. Revised checklist of North American mammals north of Mexico, 1991. Occasional Papers, The Museum, Texas Tech University, 146:1-23.

  • Jung, T.S., A.M. Runck, D.W. Nagorsen, B.G. Slough, and T. Powell. 2006. First records of the Southern Red-backed Vole, Myodes gapperi, in the Yukon. Canadian Field-Naturalist 120(3): 331-334.

  • Keinath, D.A. 2005. Supplementary mammal inventory of Bighorn Canyon National Recreation Area. Unpublished report prepared by Wyoming Natural Diversity Data Base for USDI National Park Service Greater Yellowstone Inventory and Monitoring Program Bozeman, Montana.

  • 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.

  • Kurta, Allen. 1995. Mammals of the Great Lakes Region. The University of Michigan Press. 376 pp.

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

  • Long, C.A. 1965. The mammals of Wyoming. University of Kansas Publications, Museum of Natural History 14: 493-758.

  • 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.

  • Martell, A.M. 1983. Demography of southern red-backed voles (Clethrionomys gapperi) and deer mice (Peromyscus maniculatus) after logging in north-central Ontario. Can. J. Zool. 61: 958-969.

  • Maser, C., and Z. Maser. 1988. Mycophagy of red-backed voles, CLETHRIONOMYS CALIFORNICUS and C. GAPPERI. Great Basin Nat. 48:269-273.

  • Merritt, J.F. 1981. Clethrionomys gapperi. Am. Soc. Mamm.,Mammalian Species No. 146. 9 pp.

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

  • Merritt, J.F. and J.M. Merritt. 1978. Population ecology and energy relationships of Clethrionomys gapperi in a Colorado subalpine forest. J. Mamm. 59(3):576-598.

  • Musser, G.G., and M.D. Carleton. 2005. Superfamily Muroidea. Pp. 894-1531, in Mammal species of the world, a taxonomic and geographic reference, Third ed. (D.E. Wilson and D. M. Reeder, eds.). The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, 2142 pp. Available online at www.nmnh.si.edu/msw or www.bucknell.edu/msw3.

  • 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.

  • Nordyke, K. A., and S. W. Buskirk. 1991. Southern red-backed vole, CLETHRIONOMYS GAPPERI, populations in relation to stand succession and old-growth character in the central Rocky Mountains. Can. Field-Nat. 105:330-334.

  • 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.

  • Parks Canada. 2000. Vertebrate Species Database. Ecosystems Branch, 25 Eddy St., Hull, PQ, K1A 0M5.

  • Peterson, R.L. 1966. The Mammals of Eastern Canada. Oxford University Press, Toronto, Ontario. 465 pp.

  • Reese, C. L., J. M. Waters, J. F. Pagels, and B. L. Brown. 2001. Genetic structuring of relict populations of Gapper's red-backed vole (Clethrionomys gapperi). Journal of Mammalogy 82:289-301.

  • 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.

  • Smith, H., G.P. Beauvais, D.A. Keinath. 2005. Five year study of factors affecting jumping mice (Zapus sp.) on the Medicine Bow National Forest, Wyoming. Year two report. Prepared for Jena Hickey, Forest Wildlife Biologist, Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest and Thunder Basin National Grassland.

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

  • 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.

  • WHARTON, C.H. AND J.J. WHITE. 1967. THE RED-BACKED VOLE, CLETHRIONOMYS GAPPERI, IN N. GA. J. MAMMAL. 48:670-672.

  • Wildlife Management Information System (WMIS). 2006+. Geo-referenced wildlife datasets (1900 to present) from all projects conducted by Environment and Natural Resources, Government of the Northwest Territories, Canada.  Available at http://www.enr.gov.nt.ca/programs/wildlife-research/wildlife-management-information-services

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

  • 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.

  • Yahner, R. H. 1992. Dynamics of a small mammal community in a fragmented forest. Am. Midl. Nat. 127:381-391.

  • Youngman, P.M. 1975. Mammals of the Yukon Territory. Publications in Zoology, No. 10., National Museums of Canada, Ottawa. 192 pp.

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.