Introductory
WILDLIFE SPECIES: Microtus pennsylvanicus | Meadow Vole 



ABBREVIATION : 
MIPE

COMMON NAMES : 
   meadow vole
   meadow mouse
   field mouse


TAXONOMY : 
The currently accepted scientific name for meadow vole is Microtus
pennsylvanicus (Ord).  Hall [27] listed 26 subspecies including the type
subspecies but subsequent to that publication three subspecies were
placed in synonymy with other existing subspecies [48].


ORDER : 
Rodentia

CLASS : 
Mammal

FEDERAL LEGAL STATUS : 
No special status

OTHER STATUS : 
NO-ENTRY


COMPILED BY AND DATE : 
Janet Sullivan, January 1996


LAST REVISED BY AND DATE : 
NO-ENTRY


AUTHORSHIP AND CITATION : 
Sullivan, Janet. 1996. Microtus pennsylvanicus. In: Remainder of Citation

WILDLIFE DISTRIBUTION AND OCCURRENCE
WILDLIFE SPECIES: Microtus pennsylvanicus | Meadow Vole 



GENERAL DISTRIBUTION : 
The meadow vole has the widest distribution of any North American
species of Microtus.  It ranges from Labrador west to Alaska and south
from Labrador and New Brunswick to South Carolina and extreme
northeastern Georgia; east through Tennessee, Missouri, north-central
Nebraska, the northern half of Wyoming, and central Washington to
Alaska; south through Idaho into north-central Utah.  It is excluded
only from the extreme polar regions.  A disjunct subset of its range
occurs from central Colorado to northwestern New Mexico [2,48].


ECOSYSTEMS : 
FRES10 White-red-jack pine
FRES11 Spruce-fir
FRES14 Oak-pine
FRES15 Oak-hickory
FRES17 Elm-ash-cottonwood
FRES18 Maple-beech-birch
FRES19 Aspen-birch
FRES20 Douglas-fir
FRES21 Ponderosa pine
FRES22 Western white pine
FRES23 Fir-spruce
FRES24 Hemlock-Sitka spruce
FRES25 Larch
FRES26 Lodgepole pine
FRES36 Mountain grasslands
FRES37 Mountain meadows
FRES38 Plains grasslands
FRES39 Prairie
FRES41 Wet grasslands


STATES : 


    
AK
    
CO
    
CT
    
DE
    
GA
    
ID
    
IL
    
IN
    
IA
    
KY


    
ME
    
MD
    
MA
    
MI
    
MN
    
MS
    
MO
    
MT
    
NE
    
NH


    
NJ
    
NM
    
NY
    
NC
    
ND
    
OH
    
OK
    
OR
    
PA
    
RI


    
SC
    
SD
    
TN
    
UT
    
VT
    
VA
    
WA
    
WV
    
WI
    
WY






    
AB
    
BC
    
MB
    
NB
    
NF
    
NT
    
NS
    
ON
    
PE
    
PQ


    
SK
    
YK
    

    

    

    

    

    

    

    





BLM PHYSIOGRAPHIC REGIONS : 
    1  Northern Pacific Border
    2  Cascade Mountains
    5  Columbia Plateau
    6  Upper Basin and Range
    8  Northern Rocky Mountains
    9  Middle Rocky Mountains
   10  Wyoming Basin
   11  Southern Rocky Mountains
   14  Great Plains
   15  Black Hills Uplift
   16  Upper Missouri Basin and Broken Lands


KUCHLER PLANT ASSOCIATIONS : 
   K047  Fescue-oatgrass
   K050  Fescue-wheatgrass
   K051  Wheatgrass-bluegrass
   K063  Foothills prairie
   K069  Bluestem-grama prairie
   K070  Sandsage-bluestem prairie
   K073  Northern cordgrass prairie
   K074  Bluestem prairie
   K075  Nebraska Sandhills prairie
   K083  Cedar glades
   K088  Fayette prairie


SAF COVER TYPES : 
NO-ENTRY


SRM (RANGELAND) COVER TYPES : 
   101  Bluebunch wheatgrass
   102  Idaho fescue
   103  Green fescue
   301  Bluebunch wheatgrass-blue grama
   302  Bluebunch wheatgrass-Sandberg bluegrass
   303  Bluebunch wheatgrass-western wheatgrass
   304  Idaho fescue-bluebunch wheatgrass
   305  Idaho fescue-Richardson needlegrass
   306  Idaho fescue-slender wheatgrass
   307  Idaho fescue-threadleaf sedge
   309  Idaho fescue-western wheatgrass
   311  Rough fescue-bluebunch wheatgrass
   312  Rough fescue-Idaho fescue
   601  Bluestem prairie
   602  Bluestem-prairie sandreed
   603  Prairie sandreed-needlegrass
   604  Bluestem-grama prairie
   606  Wheatgrass-bluestem-needlegrass
   608  Wheatgrass-grama-needlegrass
   609  Wheatgrass-grama
   610  Wheatgrass
   611  Blue grama-buffalograss
   709  Bluestem-grama
   710  Bluestem prairie
   802  Missouri prairie


PLANT COMMUNITIES : 
Meadow voles are most commonly found in grasslands, preferring moister
areas, but are also found in wooded areas [48].

In eastern Washington and northern Idaho meadow voles are found in
relative abundance in sedge (Carex spp.) fens but not in adjacent cedar
(Thuja spp.)-hemlock (Tsuga spp.), Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii),
or ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) forests.  Meadow voles are also
absent from fescue (Festuca spp.)-snowberry (Symphoricarpos spp.)
associations.  It was speculated that moisture is a major factor in
habitat use; possibly the presence of free water is a deciding factor.
In southeastern Montana meadow voles were the second most abundant small
mammal (after deer mice [Peromyscus maniculatus]) in riparian areas
within big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata)-buffalo grass (Buchloe
dactyloides) habitats [40].  Meadow voles are listed as
riparian-dependent vertebrates in the Snake River drainage of Wyoming
[52].  Raphael [47] compiled 11 studies on small mammals; meadow voles
were reported in only 3 of 29 sites in subalpine forests of the central
Rocky Mountains.  Davis [12] suggested in 1939 that meadow vole range
extensions were likely to be related to irrigation practices.  Meadow
voles are now common in hayfields, pastures, and along ditches in the
Rocky Mountain states [30].

In Pipestone National Monument, Minnesota, meadow voles were present in
riparian shrublands, tallgrass prairie, and other habitats [57].  In
east-central Ohio meadow voles were captured in reconstructed common
cattail (Typha latifolia) wetlands [37].  In Virginia meadow voles were
least abundant in eastern redcedar (Juniperus virginiana) glades and
most abundant in fields with dense grass cover [38].


REFERENCES : 
NO-ENTRY

BIOLOGICAL DATA AND HABITAT REQUIREMENTS
WILDLIFE SPECIES: Microtus pennsylvanicus | Meadow Vole 



TIMING OF MAJOR LIFE HISTORY EVENTS : 
Meadow voles are active year-round [4,31].

Diurnal Activity:  Meadow voles are active day or night, with no clear
24-hour rhythm in many areas [66].  Most changes in activity are imposed
by season, habitat, cover, temperature, and other factors.  Meadow voles
have to eat frequently, and their active periods (every 2 to 3 hours)
are associated with food digestion [4,31].  In Canada meadow voles are
active the first 3 hours after dawn and during the 2- to 4-hour period
before sunset.  Most of the nonactive period is spent in the nest [31].

Gestation and Development of Young:  Gestation lasts 20 to 23 days [31].
Neonates are pink and hairless, with closed eyes and ears.  Fur begins
to appear by 4 days, and young are completely furred except for the
belly by 7 days.  Eyes and ears open by 8 days.  Weaning occurs from 12
to 14 days.  Young born in spring and early summer attain adult weight
in 12 weeks, but undergo a fall weight loss.  Young born in late summer
continue growing through the fall and maintain their weight through the
winter.  Maximum size is reached between 2 and 10 months [31,48].

Litter Size and Productivity:  Typical meadow vole litters consist of 4
to 6 young, with extremes of 1 and 11 young.  On average 2.6 young are
successfully weaned per litter.  Litter size is not significantly
correlated with latitude, elevation, or population density.  Fall,
winter, and spring litters tend to be smaller than summer litters.
Reich [48] found that litter size was positively correlated with body
size, and is not significantly different in primaparous and multiparous
females.  Another report stated that primaparous females had fewer young
per litter than multiparous females [31].  Litter size was constant in
summer breeding periods at different population densities [48].  Female
meadow voles reach reproductive maturity earlier than males; some
ovulate and become pregnant as early as 3 weeks.  Males are usually 6 to
8 weeks old before mature sperm are produced [31].  One captive female
meadow vole produced 17 litters in 1 year for a total of 83 young.  One
of her young produced 13 litters (totalling 78 young) before she was 1
year old [3].  If breeding began in April, it was estimated that 100
pairs of montane voles (Microtus montanus) in 40 acres could create a
density of 8,900 voles by September [43].

Mortality and Longevity:  Patterns of mortality apparently vary among
meadow vole populations.  According to Banfield [4] the average meadow
vole lifespan is less than 1 month because of high nestling and juvenile
mortality.  The average time that adults are recapturable in a given
habitat is about 2 months, suggesting that the average extended lifespan
(i.e. how much time adult meadow voles have left) is about 2 months, not
figuring in emigration [4].  Getz [23] reported mortality of 88 percent
for the first 30 days after birth.  Golley [25] reported that
postnestling juveniles had the highest mortality rate (61%), followed by
young adults (58%) and older age groups (53%).  He estimated that
nestlings had the lowest mortality rate (50%).  Estimated mean longevity
ranges from 2 to 3 months to 10 to 16 months [48].  Banfield [4]
reported that the maximum lifespan in the wild is 16 months, and Johnson
and Johnson [31] stated that few voles live more than 2 years.

Population Density and Population Cycles:  Meadow vole populations
fluctuate annually and also tend to reach peak densities at 2- to 5-year
intervals, with population declines in intervening years [4,31,35].
Breeding often ceases in January and starts again in March [31].  Over
the course of a year, meadow vole populations tend to be lowest in early
spring; the population increases rapidly through summer and fall [31].

In years of average population sizes, typical meadow vole population
density is about 15 to 45 meadow voles per acre in old-field habitat.
In peak years meadow vole population densities may reach 150 meadow
voles per acre in marsh habitat (more favorable for meadow voles than
old fields) [4].  Fritzell [20] stated that peak meadow vole abundance
can exceed 1,482 meadow voles per acre (600/ha) in northern prairie
wetlands.  Meadow voles in optimal habitats in Virginia (old fields with
dense vegetation) reached densities of 983 per acre (398/ha);
populations declined to 67 per acre (27/ha) at the lowest point in the
cycle [38].  Different factors influencing population density have been
assigned primary importance by different authors.  Reich [48] listed the
following factors as having been suggested by different authors:  food
quality, predation, climatic events, density-related physiological
stress, and the presence of genetically determined behavioral variants
among dispersing individuals.

Normal population cycles do not occur when dispersal is prevented; under
normal conditions dispersers have been shown to be behaviorally,
genetically, and demographically different from residents [48].  Birney
and others [7] hypothesized that there is a threshold density of cover
needed for meadow vole populations to increase.  Above the threshold
amount the quantity of cover influences the amplitude and possibly the
duration of the population peak.  Local patches of dense cover could
serve as source populations or reservoirs to colonize less favorable
habitats with sparse cover [7].

Social Interaction:  Meadow voles form extensive colonies and develop
communal latrine areas.  They are socially aggressive and agonistic;
females dominate males and males fight amongst themselves [4].


PREFERRED HABITAT : 
Optimal meadow vole habitat consists of moist, dense grassland with
substantial amounts of plant litter.  Habitat selection is largely
influenced by relative ground cover of grasses and forbs; soil
temperature, moisture, sodium, potassium, and pH levels; humidity; and
interspecific competition [17,50].  Meadow voles are most commonly
associated with sites having high soil moisture [46].  They are often
restricted to the wetter microsites when they occur in sympatry with
prairie voles (Microtus ochrogaster) or montane voles [17].  In an Iowa
prairie restoration project, meadow voles experienced an initial
population increase during the initial stage of vegetation succession
(old field dominated by foxtail grass [Setaria spp.], red clover
[Trifolium pratense], annual ragweed [Ambrosia artemisiifolia], alfalfa
[Medicago sativa], and thistles [Cirsium spp.]).  However, meadow vole
populations reached their peak abundance during the perennial grass
stage of succession from old field to tallgrass prairie [53].  Geier and
Best [22] found meadow voles in habitat devoid of tree cover in which
grasses dominated the herb layer.  They listed the meadow vole as a
species with low tolerance for habitat variation (i. e., a species that
is intolerant of variations in habitat, is restricted to few habitats,
and/or uses habitats less evenly than tolerant species) [22].
 
In most areas meadow voles clearly prefer habitat with dense vegetation.
In tallgrass prairie at Pipestone National Monument, meadow voles were
positively associated with dense vegetation and litter [57].  Conley and
others [11] reported that variables important to meadow vole habitat in
Virginia include vegetative cover reaching a height of 8 to 16 inches
(20-41 cm) and presence of litter.  Meadow voles appeared to be randomly
distributed within a grassland habitat in southern Quebec [26].  Grant
and Morris [26] were not able to establish any association of meadow
vole abundance with particular plant species.  They were also unable to
distinguish between food and cover as the determining factor in meadow
vole association with dense vegetation.

In eastern Massachusetts meadow vole density on a mosaic of grassy
fields and mixed woods was positively correlated with decreasing
vertical woody stem density and decreasing shrub cover.  Meadow vole
density was highest on plots with more forbs and grasses and less woody
cover; meadow voles preferred woody cover over sparse vegetation where
grassy cover was not available [1].

In West Virginia the only forested habitats in which meadow voles were
captured were seedling stands [9].  In South Dakota meadow voles prefer
grasslands to Rocky Mountain juniper (Juniperus scopulorum) woodlands
[55].  In New Mexico meadow voles were captured in stands of grasses,
wild rose (Rosa spp.), prickly-pear (Opuntia spp.), and various forbs;
meadow voles were also captured in wet areas with tall marsh grasses
[18].

Open habitat with a thick mat of perennial grass favors voles [39].  In
west-central Illinois meadow voles were the most common small mammals on
Indian grass (Sorghastrum nutans)-dominated and switchgrass (Panicum
virginicus)-dominated study plots.  They were present in very low
numbers on orchard grass (Dactylis glomerata)-dominated plots.  The most
stable population of meadow voles occurred on unburned big bluestem
(Andropogon gerardii)-dominated plots [42].  In Ontario meadow voles and
white-footed mice (Peromyscus leucopus) occur together in ecotones.
Meadow voles were the most common small mammals in oak savanna/tallgrass
prairie dominated by northern pin oak (Quercus palustris) and grasses
including bluejoint reedgrass (Calamagrostis canadensis), prairie
cordgrass (Spartina pectinata), big bluestem, switchgrass, and Indian
grass.

Effect of Habitat Alteration:  In Michigan strip clearcuts in a conifer
swamp resulted in an increase in the relative abundance of meadow voles.
Meadow voles were most abundant in clearcut strip interiors and least
abundant in uncut strip interiors.  Slash burning did not appear to
affect meadow vole numbers about 1.5 years after treatment [64].

Dispersal Distance:  In Pennsylvania three subadult meadow voles were
captured at least 1.6 miles (2.6 km) from the nearest appreciable
suitable meadow vole habitat, suggesting that meadow voles are adapted
to long-distance dispersal [34].

Habitat Patch Shape:  In Ohio the effects of patch shape and proportion
of edge were investigated by mowing strips between study plots.  The
square plots were 132 feet per side (40 m x 40 m), and the rectangular
patches were 52.8 feet by 330 feet (16 m x 100 m).  Square habitat
patches were not significantly different than rectangular patches in
meadow vole density.  There were no apparent edge effects in patches of
this size, suggesting that meadow voles are edge-tolerant.  Habitat
patch shape did affect dispersal and space use behaviors.  In
rectangular patches home ranges were similar in size to those in square
patches, but were elongated [29].

Home Range:  Meadow voles tend to remain in home ranges and defend at
least a portion of the home range from conspecifics.  Home ranges
overlap and have irregular shapes [31].  Meadow vole home range size
depends on season, habitat, and population density:  ranges are larger
in summer than winter, ranges in marshes are larger than ranges in
meadows, and ranges are smaller at higher population densities [48].
Home ranges vary in size from 0.08 to 2.3 acres (0.32-0.9 ha).  Females
have smaller home ranges than males, but are more highly territorial
than males; there is often a period when juveniles from one litter are
still present in the adult female's home range when the next litter is
borne [4,31].  Female territoriality tends to determine density in
suboptimal habitats; the amount of available forage has been suggested
as the determining factor in female territory size and therefore also
determines reproductive success [32].


COVER REQUIREMENTS : 
Nests are used as nurseries, resting areas, and as protection against
weather.  They are constructed of woven grass.  Nests are usually
subterranean or are constructed under boards, rocks, logs, brush piles,
hay bales, fenceposts, or in grassy tussocks.  Meadow voles dig shallow
burrows [31], and in burrows, nests are constructed in enlarged
chambers.  In winter nests are often constructed on the ground surface
under a covering of snow, usually against some natural formation such as
a rock or log [4,31].

Meadow voles form runways or paths in dense grasses [4,31].


FOOD HABITS : 
Meadow voles eat most available species of grasses, sedges, and forbs
including many agricultural plant species [31,48].  In summer and fall
grasses are cut into match-length sections to reach the succulent
portions of the leaves and to reach seedheads.  Leaves, flowers, and
fruits of forbs are also typical components of the summer diet.  Fungi,
primarily endogones (Endogone spp.), have been reported in meadow vole
diets.  Meadow voles occasionally consume insects and snails.  Meadow
voles occasionally scavenge on animal remains, and cannibalism is
frequent in periods of high population density.  Meadow voles may damage
woody vegetation by girdling when population density is high [48].

In winter meadow voles consume green basal portions of grass plants,
often hidden under snow.  Other winter diet components include seeds,
roots, and bulbs.  Meadow voles occasionally strip the bark from woody
plants.  Seeds and tubers are stored in nests and burrows [4,31].
Evidence of coprophagy is sparse but it is thought to occur [31].

In an old-field community in Quebec, plants preferred by meadow voles
included quackgrass (Elytrigia repens), sedges, fescues (Festuca spp.),
wild strawberry (Fragaria virginiana), timothy (Phleum pratense),
bluegrasses (Poa spp.), and bird vetch (Vicia cracca) [5].


PREDATORS : 
Meadow voles are an important prey for many hawks, owls, and mammalian
carnivores, and they are also taken by some snakes [48].  Almost all
species of raptors take microtine (Microtus spp.) rodents as prey.
Birds not usually considered predators of mice do take voles; examples
include gulls (Larus spp.), northern shrike (Larius borealis),
black-billed magpie (Pica pica), common raven (Corvus corvax), American
crow (C. brachyrhynchos), great blue heron (Ardea herodias), and
American bittern (Botaurus lentiginosus) [31].  In Ohio meadow voles
comprised 90 percent of the individual prey remains in long-eared owl
(Asio otus) pellets on a relict wet prairie [44], and in Wisconsin
meadow voles comprised 95 percent of short-eared owl (A. flammeus) prey
[14].  Most mammalian predators take microtine prey [31].  The
short-tailed shrew (Blarina brevicauda) is major predator; meadow voles
avoid areas frequented by short-tailed shrews [48].  Other major
mammalian predators include badger (Taxidea taxus), striped skunk
(Mephitis mephitis), weasels (Mustela spp.), marten (Martes americana),
and domestic cat (Felis cattus).  Other animals reported to have
ingested voles include trout (Salmo spp.), Pacific giant salamander
(Dicampton ensatus), garter snake (Thamnophis spp.), yellow-bellied
racer (Coluber constrictor), gopher snake (Pituophis melanoleucas),
rattlesnake (Crotalus viridis), and rubber boa (Charina bottae) [31].

In northern prairie wetlands meadow voles are a large portion of the
diets of red fox (Vulpes vulpes), mink (Mustela vison), short-eared owl,
and northern harrier (Circus cyaneus) [20].  Voles (Microtus spp.) are
frequently taken by racers (Coluber spp.); racers and voles often use
the same burrows [41].


MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS : 
Meadow voles are abundant in agricultural habitats.  The list of crops
that are damaged by meadow voles is long and includes root and stem
crops (asparagus, kohlrabi), tubers, leaf and leafstalks, immature
inflorescent vegetables (artichoke, broccoli), low-growing fruits
(beans, squash), the bark of fruit trees, pasture, grassland, hay, and
grains [31].  Meadow voles are listed as pests on forest plantations
[2].  In forest plantations in British Columbia an apparently abundant
(not censused) meadow vole population was associated with a high rate of
"not sufficient regeneration"; damage to tree seedlings was attributed
to meadow voles and lemmings (Synaptomys spp.) [60].  In central New
York colonization of old fields by trees and shrubs was reduced due to
seedling predation by meadow voles, particularly under the herb canopy
[24].

Management of meadow vole abundance in agricultural areas includes
reduction of habitat in waste places such as roadsides and fencerows by
mowing, plowing, and herbicide application.  Predators, particularly
raptors, should be protected to keep meadow vole populations in check.
Direct control methods include trapping, fencing, and poisoning;
trapping and fencing are of limited effectiveness.  Poisons are
efficient. Repellents are largely ineffective at present [31].  Pauls
[45] reported that plastic mesh cylinders were effective in preventing
seedling damage by meadow voles and other rodents.  Properly timed
cultivation and controlled fires are at least partially effective in
reducing meadow vole abundance.

The cycle of meadow vole abundance is an important proximate factor
affecting the life histories of its major predators.  Meadow voles are
usually the most abundant small mammals in northern prairie wetlands,
often exceeding 40 percent of all individual small mammals present [20].
Numbers of short-eared owls, northern harriers, rough-legged hawks
(Buteo lagopus), coyotes (Canis latrans), and red foxes were related to
large numbers of meadow voles in a field in Wisconsin [14].  Other
authors have also stated that predator numbers are positively associated
with meadow vole abundance [31,65].

Ecto- and endoparasites have been reported for meadow voles by a number
of authors and include trematodes, cestodes, nematodes,
acanthocephalans, anoplura, siphonaptera, diptera, and acarina [31,48].

Human diesases transmitted by microtine rodents include cystic hydatid
disease, tularemia, bubonic plague, babesiasis, and giardiasis [31].


REFERENCES : 
NO-ENTRY

FIRE EFFECTS AND USE
WILDLIFE SPECIES: Microtus pennsylvanicus | Meadow Vole 



DIRECT FIRE EFFECTS ON ANIMALS : 
Kelleyhouse [33] suggested that most small mammals were killed by
intense wildfire but offered no direct evidence.  It appears likely that
mortality rates are affected by season and timing of fire, fire
intensity, and rate of fire spread.  In Wisconsin Ver Steeg [63] found
57 dead meadow voles following an early spring prescribed fire.

No dead meadow voles were found following a prescribed fire in a
Minnesota prairie even though meadow voles were abundant [10].  In
Illinois tallgrass prairie no direct mortality was observed during
prescribed spring fire.  Most meadow voles survived heat and flames by
moving into or remaining in their burrows.  A few were observed escaping
ahead of the fire.  No dead meadow voles were found after the fire on
the surface or in burrows [49].  In Nebraska tallgrass prairie plots
burned in spring were searched for evidence of mortality.  Both prairie
voles and meadow voles occurred on the plots.  Of the 24 nests (both
species) found, only one dead meadow vole was found next to a nest; an
additional casualty, a charred adult prairie vole, was found in an area
devoid of nests [13].  There were no dead voles found on burned areas
after spring prescribed fire in Nebraska prairie [62].

Meadow voles that were tagged with radio transmitters were monitored
during a prescribed fire in mixed-grass prairie in south-central
Nebraska.  One individual went down an old badger hole that was near her
location when the fire was started.  The vole was apparently emigrating
from the burned area when she was captured in a firelane.  Another
meadow vole ran 50 feet and took refuge in an old burrow with a 1-inch
(2.54 cm) opening; the burrow was probably that of a vole, but not the
home burrow of the individual.  This meadow vole was later eaten by a
yellow-bellied racer.  It was speculated that the vole did not return to
its home burrow and was at a disadvantage in a "foreign" burrow which
led to its capture by the snake [59].

Emigration Following Fire:  Postfire emigration is probably due to lack
of cover (including litter) rather than lack of food.  Prescribed spring
fire in Nebraska prairie consumed all aboveground cover but left food
available on burned plots [49].  Even though few if any meadow voles
were killed by fire, there was a significant and immediate drop in the
numbers of resident meadow voles on prairie plots that were prescribed
burned in May 1979.  Meadow vole numbers remained low until May 1980.
By September 1980, meadow vole numbers were similar on burned and
control plots.  Meadow vole numbers did not recover until litter
accumulation was sufficient for cover.  Food was plentiful for 90 days
before meadow voles immigrated into the burned area [62].


HABITAT RELATED FIRE EFFECTS : 
Vegetative recovery increases the available biomass on burned areas.
Fire usually benefits small mammals or causes only temporary declines in
populations [33].

Grassland/Prairie/Agricultural Areas:  In western Illinois tallgrass
prairie, meadow voles were most abundant on prairie that had burned 2
years previously, and next most abundant on 3-postfire-year prairie.
They were least abundant on freshly burned prairie; prescribed fires
were conducted in April and burns were sampled from May through August
[51].  In a central Wisconsin marsh meadow vole populations were not
significantly different on postfire and unburned plots that were sampled
in August following prescribed fire in mid-March to late April [28].  In
south-central Nebraska mixed-grass prairie, meadow voles reached peak
abundance 2 years following prescribed fire, remained at about the same
abundance the third year, and began to decline the fourth year.  Annual
or biennial burning is too frequent to maintain peak densities of meadow
voles.  In Manitoba agricultural areas within a mosaic of wetlands,
aspen (Populus spp.) groves, and oak groves, prescribed fire is used
frequently in agricultural fields to control litter, plant diseases, and
pests.  No meadow voles were caught in burned areas immediately
following burning.  Only 50 were taken in unburned areas; their absence
from burned areas was attributed to lack of cover and residual
vegetation for runway construction [19].

In north-central Nebraska there were more meadow voles on unburned plots
than on burned plots by midsummer, 3 months after prescribed fire in
mixed-grass prairie [49].  Meadow voles were not present on big
bluestem-dominated plots immediately following prescribed spring fire;
adjacent unburned areas exhibited increased populations right after the
fire which suggested that the population of meadow voles on the burned
area had moved to the unburned area [42].

Forested Sites:  Meadow voles in woodlands need cover after fire.  In
Saskatchewan quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides) parklands, prescribed
fire is used to maintain grass cover and control quaking aspen.  Meadow
voles are often the most abundant small mammal in this habitat; their
abundance is affected by fire frequency and concomitant habitat
structure.  From 1975 to 1982, meadow voles were significantly reduced
(compared to unburned plots) on plots that had been burned three times
in the fall and on plots that had been burned four times in the spring.
The low number of meadow voles on the two plot types was attributed to a
sparse litter layer.  Meadow vole abundance was similar on burned and
control plots in areas of ecotone in 1983 [61].  In Minnesota 2 years
after a severe wildfire in jack pine (Pinus banksiana) woodlands, meadow
voles were trapped on burned areas.  Vegetation, dominated by ferns,
forbs, shrubs, and jack pine seedlings, was lush on the burned areas
[8].  Meadow voles were the third most abundant small mammal on jack
pine sites in Manitoba; they were slightly more predominant on unburned
areas for the 3 years following prescribed fire treatment.  Meadow vole
numbers were fairly constant on large burned areas over the 3 years
suggesting that there was sufficient cover and food to maintain the
population but not support any increase [56].  In north-central
Pennsylvania mixed-oak stands that were clearcut and burned in spring of
1973, meadow vole numbers were very low on the burned area immediately
after the fire, but were similar on burned and unburned areas by August
1974 [16].


FIRE USE : 
NO-ENTRY


REFERENCES : 
NO-ENTRY

References for species: Microtus pennsylvanicus

1. Adler, Gregory H. 1988. The role of habitat structure in organizing small mammal populations and communities. In: Szaro, Robert C.; Severson, Kieth E.; Patton, David R., technical coordinators. Management of amphibians, reptiles, and small mammals in North America: Proceedings of the symposium; 1988 July 19-21; Flagstaff, AZ. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-166. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 289-299. [7118]

2. Askham, Leonard R. 1992. Voles. In: Black, Hugh C., ed. Silvicultural approaches to animal damage management in Pacific Northwest forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-287. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station: 187-204. [23386]

3. Bailey, Vernon. 1924. Breeding, feeding, and other life habits of meadow mice (Microtus). Journal of Agricultural Research. 27(8): 523-536. [25764]

4. Banfield, A. W. F. 1974. The mammals of Canada. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press. 438 p. [21084]

5. Bergeron, Jean-Marie; Jodoin, Louise. 1989. Patterns of resource use, food quality, and health status of voles (Microtus pennsylvanicus) trapped from fluctuating populations. Oecologia. 79: 306-314. [24928]

6. Bernard, Stephen R.; Brown, Kenneth F. 1977. Distribution of mammals, reptiles, and amphibians by BLM physiographic regions and A.W. Kuchler's associations for the eleven western states. Tech. Note 301. Denver, CO: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 169 p. [434]

7. Birney, Elmer C.; Grant, W. E.; Baird, Donna Day. 1976. Importance of vegetative cover to cycles of Microtus populations. Ecology. 57(5): 1043-1051. [25768]

8. Books, David J. 1972. Little Sioux Burn: year two. Naturalist. 23(3&4): 2-7. [11550]

9. Brooks, Robert T.; Healy, William M. 1988. Response of small mammal communities to silvicultural treatments in eastern hardwood forests of West Virginia and Massachusetts. In: Szaro, Robert C.; Severson, Kieth E.; Patton, David R., technical coordinators. Management of amphibians, reptiles, and small mammals in North America; 1988 July 19-21; Flagstaff, AZ. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-166. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 313-318. [25544]

10. Chance, Robert L. 1986. The effect of fall burning on small mammals in Blue Mound State Park, Luverne, Minnesota. In: Clambey, Gary K.; Pemble, Richard H., eds. The prairie: past, present and future: Proceedings, 9th North American prairie conference; 1984 July 29 - August 1; Moorhead, MN. Fargo, ND: Tri-College University Center for Environmental Studies: 157-159. [3562]

11. Conley, Walt; Tipton, Alan R.; Kukila, Susan. 1976. Habitat preference in Microtus pennsylvanicus: a preliminary multivariate analysis. Virginia Journal of Science. 27(2): 43. [Abstract]. [25765]

12. Davis, W. B. 1939. Recent mammals of Idaho. Caldwell, ID: Caxton Printers Ltd. [Pages unknown]. [25704]

13. Erwin, William J.; Stasiak, Richard H. 1979. Vertebrate mortality during the burning of a reestablished prairie in Nebraska. The American Midland Naturalist. 101(1): 247-249. [3818]

14. Evrard, James O.; Snobl, DeWayne A.; Doeneir, Paul B.; Dechant, Jill A. 1991. Nesting short-eared owls and voles in St. Croix County. Passenger Pigeon. 53(3): 223-226. [22178]

15. Eyre, F. H., ed. 1980. Forest cover types of the United States and Canada. Washington, DC: Society of American Foresters. 148 p. [905]

16. Fala, Robert A. 1975. Effects of prescribed burning on small mammal populations in a mixed-oak clearcut. Journal of Forestry. 73(9): 586-587. [10918]

17. Birney, Elmer C.; Grant, W. E.; Baird, Donna Day. 1976. Importance of vegetative cover to cycles of Microtus populations. Ecology. 57(5): 1043-1051. [25768]

18. Finley, Robert B., Jr. 1986. Distributions and habitats of voles in southeastern Colorado and northeastern New Mexico. The Southwestern Naturalist. 31(2): 263-266. [18452]

19. Fritzell, Erik K. 1975. Effects of agricultural burning on nesting waterfowl. Canadian Field-Naturalist. 89: 21-27. [14635]

20. Fritzell, Erik K. 1989. Mammals in prairie wetlands. In: Vander Valk, Arnold, ed. Northern prairie wetlands. Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press: 268-301. [15219]

21. Garrison, George A.; Bjugstad, Ardell J.; Duncan, Don A.; [and others]. 1977. Vegetation and environmental features of forest and range ecosystems. Agric. Handb. 475. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 68 p. [998]

22. Geier, Anthony R.; Best, Louis B. 1980. Habitat selection by small mammals of riparian communities: evaluating effects of habitat alterations. Journal of Wildlife Management. 44(1): 16-24. [25535]

23. Getz, Lowell L. 1960. A population study of the vole, Microtus pennsylvanicus. The American Midland Naturalist. 64: 392-405. [25825]

24. Gill, David S.; Marks, P. L. 1991. Tree and shrub seedling colonization of old fields in central New York. Ecological Monographs. 61(2): 183-205. [14486]

25. Golley, Frank B. 1961. Interaction of natality, mortality and movement during one annual cycle in a Microtus population. The American Midland Naturalist. 66(1): 152-159. [25823]

26. Grant, P. R.; Morris, Ralph D. 1971. The distribution of Microtus pennsylvanicus within grassland habitat. Canadian Journal of Zoology. 49(7): 1043-1052. [25826]

27. Hall, E. Raymond. 1981. The mammals of North America. 2nd ed. Vol. 2. New York: John Wiley and Sons. 1271 p. [14765]

28. Halvorsen, Harvey H.; Anderson, Raymond K. 1983. Evaluation of grassland management for wildlife in central Wisconsin. In: Kucera, Clair L., ed. Proceedings, 7th North American prairie conference; 1980 August 4-6; Springfield, MO. Columbia, MO: University of Missouri: 267-279. [3228]

29. Harper, Steven J.; Bollinger, Eric K.; Barrett, Gary W. 1993. Effects of habitat patch shape on population dynamics of meadow voles (Microtus pennsylvanicus). Journal of Mammalogy. 74(4): 1045-1055. [22627]

30. Hoffman, George R. 1960. The small mammal components of six climax plant associations in eastern Washington and northern Idaho. Ecology. 41(3): 571-572. [12472]

31. Johnson, Murray L.; Johnson, Sherry. 1982. Voles: Microtus species. In: Chapman, Joseph A.; Feldhamer, George A., eds. Wild mammals of North America: Biology, management, and economics. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press: 326-354. [25236]

32. Jones, Eric N. 1990. Effects of forage availability on home range and population density of Microtus pennsylvanicus. Journal of Mammalogy. 71(3): 382-389. [23790]

33. Kelleyhouse, David G. 1979. Fire/wildlife relationships in Alaska. In: Hoefs, M.; Russell, D., eds. Wildlife and wildfire: Proceedings of workshop; 1979 November 27-28; Whitehorse, YT. Whitehorse, YT: Yukon Wildlife Branch: 1-36. [14071]

34. Kirkland, Gordon L., Jr. 1988. Meadow voles (Microtus pennsylvanicus) on forest clearcuts: the role of long-distance dispersal. Journal of the Pennsylvania Academy of Science. 62(2): 83-85. [10099]

35. Krebs, Charles J.; Myers, Judith H. 1974. Population cycles in small mammals. In: MacFadyen, A, ed. Advances in ecological research: volume 8. Advances in ecological research. London: Academic Press: 267-399. [25757]

36. Kuchler, A. W. 1964. Manual to accompany the map of potential vegetation of the conterminous United States. Special Publication No. 36. New York: American Geographical Society. 77 p. [1384]

37. Lacki, Michael J.; Hummer, Joseph W.; Webster, Harold J. 1991. Effect of reclamation technique on mammal communities inhabiting wetlands on mined lands in east-central Ohio. Ohio Journal of Science. 91(4): 154-158. [22035]

38. Linzey, Alicia V.; Cranford, Jack A. 1984. Habitat selection in the southern bog lemming, Synaptomys cooperi, and the meadow vole, Microtus pennsylvanicus, in Virginia. Canadian Field-Naturalist. 98: 463-469. [25824]

39. M'Closkey, Robert T.; Hecnar, Stephen J. 1994. Small mammals of the Ojibway Prairie Provincial Nature Reserve, Windsor, Ontario. In: Wickett, Robert G.; Lewis, Patricia Dolan; Woodliffe, Allen; Pratt, Paul, eds. Spirit of the land, our prairie legacy: Proceedings, 13th North American prairie conference; 1992 August 6-9; Windsor, ON. Windsor, ON: Department of Parks and Recreation: 75-80. [24678]

40. MacCracken, James G.; Uresk, Daniel W.; Hansen, Richard M. 1985. Rodent-vegetation relationships in southeastern Montana. Northwest Science. 59(4): 272-278; 1985. [1499]

41. Madison, Dale M. 1978. Behavioral and sociochemical susceptibility of meadow voles (Microtus pennsylvanicus) to snake predators. The American Midland Naturalist. 100(1): 23-28. [25766]

42. Moreth, Louis H.; Schramm, Peter. 1973. A comparative survey of small mammal populations in various grassland habitats with emphasis on restored prairie. In: Hulbert, Lloyd C., ed. Third Midwest prairie conference pr; 1972 September 22-23; Manhattan, KS. Manhattan, KS: Kansas State University, Division of Biology: 79-84. [18804]

43. Negus, Norman C.; Pinter, Aelita J. 1965. Litter sizes of Microtus montanus in the laboratory. Journal of Mammalogy. 46(3): 434-445. [26098]

44. Osborn, Eric D.; Hoagstrom, Carl W. 1989. Small mammals of a relict wet prairie in Ohio. In: Bragg, Thomas B.; Stubbendieck, James, eds. Prairie pioneers: ecology, history and culture: Proceedings, 11th North American prairie conference; 1988 August 7-11; Lincoln, NE. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska: 247-250. [14056]

45. Pauls, Ronald W. 1986. Protection with vexar cylinders from damage by meadow voles of tree and shrub seedlings in northeastern Alberta. In: Salmon, Terrell P.; Marsh, Rex E.; Beadle, Dorothy E., eds. Proceedings--12th vertebrate pest conference; 1986 March 4-6; San Diego, CA. Davis, CA: University of California: 199-204. [4001]

46. Pendleton, G. W. 1984. Small mammals in prairie wetlands: habitat use and the effects of wetland modification. Brookings, SD: South Dakota State University. [Pages unknown]. Thesis. [26235]

47. Raphael, Martin G. 1987. Nongame wildlife research in subalpine forests of the central Rocky Mountains. In: Management of subalpine forests: building on 50 years of research: Proceedings of a technical conference; 1987 July 6-9; Silver Creek, CO. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-149. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 113-122. [23229]

48. Reich, Lawrence M. 1981. Microtus pennsylvanicus. Mammalian Species. No. 159: 1-8. [23129]

49. Schramm, Peter. 1970. Effects of fire on small mammal populations in a restored tall-grass prairie. In: Schramm, Peter, ed. Proceedings of a symposium on prairie and prairie restoration; 1968 September 14-15; Galesburg, IL. Special Publication No. 3. Galesburg, IL: Knox College, Biological Field Station: 39-41. [2779]

50. Schramm, Peter; Clover, Catherine A. 1994. A dramatic increase of the meadow jumping mouse (Zapus hudsonius) in a post-drought, restored, tallgrass prairie. In: Wickett, Robert G.; Lewis, Patricia Dolan; Woodliffe, Allen; Pratt, Paul, eds. Spirit of the land, our prairie legacy: Proceedings, 13th North American prairie conference; 1992 August 6-9; Windsor, ON. Windsor, ON: Department of Parks and Recreation: 81-86. [24679]

51. Schramm, Peter; Willcutts, Brian J. 1983. Habitat selection of small mammals in burned and unburned tallgrass prairie. In: Brewer, Richard, ed. Proceedings, 8th North American prairie conference; 1982 August 1-4; Kalamazoo, MI. Kalamazoo, MI: Western Michigan University, Department of Biology: 49-55. [3122]

52. Schroeder, Richard L.; Allen, Arthur W. 1992. Assessment of habitat of wildlife communities on the Snake River, Jackson, Wyoming. Resource Publication 190. Washington, DC: United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 21 p. [21296]

53. Schwartz, Orlando A.; Whitson, Paul D. 1986. A 12-year study of vegetation and mammal succession on a reconstructed tallgrass prairie in Iowa. The American Midland Naturalist. 117(2): 240-249. [2096]

54. Shiflet, Thomas N., ed. 1994. Rangeland cover types of the United States. Denver, CO: Society for Range Management. 152 p. [23362]

55. Sieg, Carolyn Hull. 1988. The value of Rocky Mountain juniper (Juniperus scopulorum) woodlands in South Dakota as small mammal habitat. In: Szaro, Robert C.; Severson, Kieth E.; Patton, David R., technical coordinators. Management of amphibians, reptiles, and small mammals in North America: Proceedings of the symposium; 1988 July 19-21; Flagstaff, AZ. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-166. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 328-332. [7121]

56. Sims, H. Percy; Buckner, Charles H. 1973. The effect of clear cutting and burning of Pinus banksiana forests on the populations of small mammals in southeastern Manitoba. The American Midland Naturalist. 90(1): 228-231. [14449]

57. Snyder, Ellen J.; Best, Louis B. 1988. Dynamics of habitat use by small mammals in prairie communities. The American Midland Naturalist. 119(1): 128-136. [25769]

58. Springer, Joseph Tucker. 1988. Immediate effects of a spring fire on small mammal populations in a Nebraska mixed-grass prairie. In: David, Arnold; Stanford, Geoffrey, eds. The prairie: roots of culture; foundation of our economy: Proceedings, 10th North American prairie conference; 1986 June 22-26; Denton, TX. Dallas, TX: Native Prairie Association of Texas: 20.02: 1-5. [25572]

59. Springer, Joseph Tucker. 1988. Individual responses of some small mammals to a prairie fire. In: David, Arnold; Stanford, Geoffrey, eds. The prairie: roots of culture; foundation of our economy: Proceedings, 10th North American prairie conference; 1986 June 22-26; Denton, TX. Dallas, TX: Native Prairie Association of Texas: 20.03: 1-6. [25571]

60. Sullivan, Thomas P.; Martin, Wayne L. 1991. Influence of site factors on incidence of vole and lemming feeding damage to forest plantations. Western Journal of Applied Forestry. 6(3): 64-67. [15182]

61. Trottier, Garry C.; Carbyn, Ludwig N.; Scotter, George W. 1989. Effects of prescribed fire on small mammals in aspen parkland. In: Bragg, Thomas A.; Stubbendieck, James, eds. Prairie pioneers: ecology, history and culture: Proceedings, 11th North American prairie conference; 1988 August 7-11; Lincoln, NE. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska: 179-182. [14040]

62. Vacanti, P. Lynne; Geluso, Kenneth N. 1985. Recolonization of a burned prairie by meadow voles (Microtus pennsylvanicus). Prairie Naturalist. 17(1): 15-22; 1985. [2412]

63. Ver Steeg, Jeffrey M.; Harty, Francis M.; Harty, Lorree. 1983. Prescribed fire kills meadow voles. In: Restoration and Management Notes. 1(4): 21. [Abstract]. [25977]

64. Verme, Louis J.; Ozoga, John J. 1981. Changes in small mammal populations following clear-cutting in upper Michigan conifer swamps. Canadian Field-Naturalist. 95(3): 253-256. [25827]

65. Walley, W. J. 1972. Summer observations of the short-eared owl in the Red River Valley. Prairie Naturalist. 4(2): 39-41. [22261]

66. Webster, A. Bruce; Brooks, Ronald J. 1981. Daily movements and short activity periods of free-ranging meadow voles Microtus pennsylvanicus. Oikos. 37(1): 80-87. [25763]

Related categories for Wildlife Species: Microtus pennsylvanicus | Meadow Vole