Introductory
WILDLIFE SPECIES: Sigmodon hispidus | Hispid Cotton Rat 



ABBREVIATION : 
SIHI

COMMON NAMES : 
   hispid cotton rat
   cotton rat


TAXONOMY : 
The currently accepted scientific name for the hispid cotton rat is
Sigmodon hispidus Say and Ord.  It is a member of the family Muridae
subfamily Cricetinae.  There are currently 25 accepted subspecies
including the type subspecies [20].



ORDER : 
Rodentia

CLASS : 
Mammal

FEDERAL LEGAL STATUS : 
See OTHER STATUS

OTHER STATUS : 
NO-ENTRY


COMPILED BY AND DATE : 
Janet Sullivan, December 1995


LAST REVISED BY AND DATE : 
NO-ENTRY


AUTHORSHIP AND CITATION : 
Sullivan, Janet. 1995. Sigmodon hispidus. In: Remainder of Citation

WILDLIFE DISTRIBUTION AND OCCURRENCE
WILDLIFE SPECIES: Sigmodon hispidus | Hispid Cotton Rat 



GENERAL DISTRIBUTION : 
The hispid cotton rat ranges from southern Virginia and North Carolina
west through Tennessee, northern Missouri, Kansas, and extreme southern
Nebraska to southeastern Colorado, New Mexico, and southeastern Arizona;
south to the Gulf Coast; and south to northern South America [20].  It
does not occur on the coastal plain of North Carolina nor in the
mountains of Virginia.  Disjunct populations occur in southeastern
Arizona and extreme southeastern California into Baja California Norte
[63].  It is fairly recent in Kansas, having appeared within the last 50
years [53].



ECOSYSTEMS : 
FRES12 Longleaf-slash pine
FRES13 Loblolly-shortleaf pine
FRES14 Oak-pine
FRES15 Oak-hickory
FRES16 Oak-gum-cypress
FRES38 Plains grasslands
FRES39 Prairie
FRES41 Wet grasslands


STATES : 


    
AL
    
AZ
    
AR
    
CA
    
CO
    
FL
    
GA
    
KS
    
LA
    
MS


    
MO
    
NE
    
NM
    
NC
    
OK
    
SC
    
TN
    
TX
    
VA
    







    
MEXICO
    




BLM PHYSIOGRAPHIC REGIONS : 
    7  Lower Basin and Range
   13  Rocky Mountain Piedmont
   14  Great Plains


KUCHLER PLANT ASSOCIATIONS : 
   K069  Bluestem-grama prairie
   K076  Blackland prairie
   K079  Palmetto prairie
   K081  Oak savanna
   K082  Mosaic of K074 and K100
   K083  Cedar glades
   K084  Cross Timbers
   K088  Fayette prairie
   K089  Black Belt
   K091  Cypress savanna
   K110  Northeastern oak-pine forest
   K111  Oak-hickory-pine forest
   K112  Southern mixed forest
   K113  Southern floodplain forest
   K114  Pocosin
   K115  Sand pine scrub
   K116  Subtropical pine forest


SAF COVER TYPES : 
    45  Pitch pine
    46  Eastern redcedar
    68  Mesquite
    69  Sand pine
    70  Longleaf pine
    71  Longleaf pine-scrub oak
    73  Southern redcedar
    74  Cabbage palmetto
    75  Shortleaf pine
    76  Shortleaf pine-oak
    78  Virginia pine-oak
    79  Virginia pine
    80  Loblolly pine-shortleaf pine
    81  Loblolly pine
    82  Loblolly pine-hardwood
    83  Longleaf pine-slash pine
    84  Slash pine
    85  Slash pine-hardwood
    97  Atlantic white-cedar
    98  Pond pine
   105  Tropical hardwoods
   110  Black oak
   111  South Florida slash pine
   242  Mesquite


SRM (RANGELAND) COVER TYPES : 
   217  Wetlands
   422  Riparian
   701  Alkali sacaton-tobosagrass
   717  Little bluestem-Indiangrass-Texas wintergrass
   718  Mesquite-grama
   727  Mesquite-buffalograss
   731  Cross timbers-Oklahoma
   732  Cross timbers-Texas (little bluestem-post oak)
   801  Savanna
   802  Missouri prairie
   804  Tall fescue
   808  Sand pine scrub
   809  Mixed hardwood and pine
   810  Longleaf pine-turkey oak hills
   811  South Florida flatwoods
   812  North Florida flatwoods
   813  Cutthroat seeps
   814  Cabbage palm flatwoods
   815  Upland hardwood hammocks
   816  Cabbage palm hammocks
   817  Oak hammocks
   820  Everglades flatwoods


PLANT COMMUNITIES : 
Hispid cotton rats occur in mesquite (Prosopis spp.) bosques in Arizona
and New Mexico [41].  On the Coastal Plain hispid cotton rats occupy the
periphery of central ponds and more distant ecotonal areas of
baldcypress (Taxodium distichum) swamps [21].  Hispid cotton rats are
abundant in fallow rice fields in Texas, primarily near heavily
overgrown canalbanks and levees [2].

In Florida hispid cotton rats are common in sabal palm (Sabal
palmetto)-coconut palm (Cocos nucifera) savanna [28].  In the Southeast
hispid cotton rats prefer grassy understories of fire-maintained
loblolly pine (Pinus taeda)-shortleaf pine (P. echinata) and longleaf
pine (P. palustris)-slash pine (P. elliottii) stands [34].

In Florida sand pine (P. clausa) scrub has been invaded by hispid cotton
rats for short periods.  Reasons for the invasion were not clear but
were probably related to increased population densities in nearby
optimum habitat (pine flatwoods with a dense ground cover of grasses and
herbs).  Sand pine scrub has little ground cover and is marginal habitat
for hispid cotton rats [66].


REFERENCES : 
NO-ENTRY

BIOLOGICAL DATA AND HABITAT REQUIREMENTS
WILDLIFE SPECIES: Sigmodon hispidus | Hispid Cotton Rat 



TIMING OF MAJOR LIFE HISTORY EVENTS : 
Diurnal and Annual Activity:  Some studies have suggested that hispid
cotton rats are mainly nocturnal, but activity has been observed at all
hours.  Activity patterns appear to be influenced by both biotic and
abiotic factors.  Hispid cotton rats are active year-round [6].

Breeding Season:  Hispid cotton rat populations usually exhibit a
bimodal breeding season, with peak litter production occurring in late
spring and in late summer-early fall [6].  Rose [67] reported
reproductive peaks in March and June for hispid cotton rats; 100 percent
of trapped females were pregnant from March through July, but none were
breeding in November and December.  They do not breed in the coldest
winter months.  In Kansas breeding is restricted to the frost-free
months [6].

Nest Building:  A nest is constructed by the female either on the ground
surface or in a burrow.  Nests are cup- to ball-shaped and woven of
grasses [6].  Hispid cotton rats in the northern parts of their range
make nests that are thicker and denser, but not larger, than those of
southern hispid cotton rats [58].

Gestation and Development of Young:  Gestation in hispid cotton rats
lasts approximately 27 days.  Litter sizes range from 1 to 15 young,
with larger litters more typical of northern populations and also of
late-season litters.  Neonates are well developed; they are mobile and
lightly furred but the eyes are not open.  The eyes open approximately
18 to 36 hours after birth.  Hispid cotton rats are weaned in 10 to 15
days and reach minimum adult size by about 41 days [7,68].

Productivity:  Some male hispid cotton rats are sexually mature by 60
days, some females are receptive by 30 to 40 days.  The earliest
recorded pregnancy was at 38 days [7,68].  Hispid cotton rats have been
noted as one of the most prolific mammals in the Southeast.  Females
bear two to several litters per year depending on latitude and local
weather [63].  Females mate within 24 hours of giving birth [6].

Longevity:  In Kansas remnant prairie very few hispid cotton rats were
recaptured after 8 months [15].

Population Fluctuation:  Hispid cotton rat populations are largely
sedentary; population density depends mainly on current reproductive
effort and not as strongly on immigration [29].  In Kansas remnant
prairie hispid cotton rat population density was highest in fall and
early winter and lowest in spring and early summer [15].  In the
northernmost parts of hispid cotton rat range, severe weather is
associated with rapid hispid cotton rat population declines and local
extinctions [43].  In Kansas most hispid cotton rat mortality was
associated with severe weather in March and April.  Populations in the
northern part of hispid cotton rat range experience dramatic declines in
the nonbreeding season.  In many areas local extinction is frequent
[52].  In Georgia hispid cotton rat spring abundance in old fields was
lowest following drought and extreme winter cold.  The reductions in
hispid cotton rat populations were associated with sharp declines in
vegetative biomass and cover [37].

Effects of Predation:  In Georgia a density of 15 hispid cotton rats per
acre was considered the predator-limited carrying capacity.  Mammalian
predators did not have a substantial effect on hispid cotton rat
population density.  At densities higher than 15 per acre mortality was
high; below 15 hispid cotton rats per acre predator-caused mortality was
low [55].  Schnell [55] concluded that when diverse and mobile predators
are present they are more important than food, social interaction, or
weather in limiting hispid cotton rat density.  

Also in Georgia, 1-acre field enclosures protected from avian predators
(covered with a net) were monitored for the effect of avian predators on
breeding hispid cotton rat populations.  The presence of the cover had
no effect on seasonal recruitment or spring-summer mortality; however,
autumn-winter mortality was greatly reduced with the cover in place.  It
was therefore suggested that avian predators are more important than
mammalian predators.  In addition, it was concluded that nonbreeding
(winter) populations suffer substantial losses from predation whereas
breeding populations are either able to compensate by replacing lost
individuals, are less vulnerable to predation, or both [64].


PREFERRED HABITAT : 
Hispid cotton rats occupy a wide variety of habitats within their range
but are not randomly distributed among microhabitats.  They are strongly
associated with grassy patches that have some shrub overstory and they
have little or no affinity for dicot-dominated patches [26,27].  Habitat
use and preference by hispid cotton rats usually appears to depend on
the density of monocots.  However, some studies are equivocal on the
importance of other vegetation [16].  For example, hispid cotton rats
may respond favorably to a high percentage of dicots in a stand if cover
remains optimal.  In Kansas hispid cotton rats increased on root-plowed
prairie that experienced an increase in the diversity and biomass of
early-successional forbs [19].  Also see discussion of Oklahoma savanna
in HABITAT-RELATED FIRE EFFECTS.

Male hispid cotton rats exhibit a lower degree of habitat selectivity
than females.  In Texas males were found on different habitat types
(grassy, shrubby, and mixed) approximately in proportion to
availability; female hispid cotton rats tended to choose mixed habitats
more often than expected based on availability [7].

Habitat use varies with season and breeding status.  In Texas grassy
areas with some shrubs were preferred in spring and areas with more
shrubby cover were preferred in fall [27].

Grassland Habitats:  In Kansas remnant prairie the preferred habitat of
hispid cotton rats has dense undergrowth and an upper layer of
protective vegetation such as big bluestem (Andropogon gerardii)/kochia
(Kochia scoparia)/annual sunflower (Helianthus annuus) [15].  Hispid
cotton rats prefer grassy clearings, croplands, overgrown fields, and
overgrown roadsides and right-of-ways [42].  In Kansas prairies hispid
cotton rats occur at relatively high abundance in ungrazed uplands and
sandy mixed-grass native prairie, but also prefer disturbed areas.
Kaufman and others [24] suggested that the use of disturbed areas was
probably important in the recent invasion of hispid cotton rats into
north-central Kansas from the northern presettlement limit of their
range in Oklahoma.  On Texas rangelands hispid cotton rats appeared to
respond to increased biomass of standing crop and increases in the
proportion of the standing crop in potential food plants such as
bristlegrasses (Setaria spp.).  Hispid cotton rat density was four times
greater on areas planted to exotic grasses including King Range bluestem
(Bothriochloa ischaemum) and buffel grass (Enchrus ciliaris) than on
native range dominated by windmill grass (Chloris spp.) and Texas
wintergrass (Stipa leucotricha) [19].

Succession in Grasslands:  In northeastern Kansas hispid cotton rats
occurred at high population densities in tallgrass prairie (dominated by
perennial grasses); population density declined to levels too low to
accurately estimate over 28 years of succession to brush and trees [14].
They are occasionally found in habitats dominated by early successional
grassland species (i.e., annual grasses and forbs) [9].

Woodland Habitats:  Hispid cotton rats occur in grassy areas or
early-successional habitats within open woods.  In the Southeast hispid
cotton rat population density increases with the density of broomsedge
(Andropogon virginicus) and other low growing plants, but declines with
succession to brush and trees [29].  In Texas pine-hardwood forests,
hispid cotton rats were captured most often in narrow streamside
management zones which have more light and thus more ground cover, and
slightly less often in wider zones [1].  In central Louisiana longleaf
pine-slash pine stands hispid cotton rats were captured in sawtimber,
sapling, and regeneration stands but not in pole-sized timber; stands
with surface cover were more likely to support hispid cotton rats.
Pole-sized timber is dense, little light reaches the ground, and surface
cover is minimal [46].  In Louisiana and Mississippi hispid cotton rats
were more numerous in cut than in uncut bottomland hardwoods.  They were
also more numerous in cottonwood (Populus spp.) plantations than in
uncut cottonwood stands [65].  In northern Georgia intensive site
preparation following clearcutting of pine-hardwood mixtures increases
forage production and increased numbers of small mammals (presumably
including hispid cotton rats) [11].

Importance of Climate:  In Colorado hispid cotton rats occupy semimoist
areas with abundant grasses and weeds and appear to be restricted to
relatively warm areas [39].  In New Mexico hispid cotton rats do not
occur regularly in areas with a mean annual temperature lower than 55
degrees Fahrenheit (13 deg C) and a growing season shorter than 180 days
[45].  In Trans-Pecos Texas hispid cotton rats occur at the warmer, low
elevations in areas of moderate to dense grassy cover [54].

When water and wastewater are added to baldcypress (Taxodium distichum
var. distichum) domes, small mammals including hispid cotton rat move to
peripheral areas that are drier.  The rising water tables favor marsh
rice rats (Oryzomys palustris) over hispid cotton rats [21].

Population Density:  Cameron and McClure [68] compiled reports of hispid
cotton rat population densities.  The mean hispid cotton rat population
density range for all studies was 5.3 to 31.1 rats per hectare.
Population density ranges in Texas include 1 to 14 rats per hectare in
coastal prairie, 17 to 84 rats per hectare in unmowed right-of-ways, 9
to 29 rats per hectare in old fields, 6 to 54 rats per hectare in
abandoned fields, and 0.7 to 5 rats per hectare in grass-pricklypear
(Opuntia spp.).  In Florida population density ranges include 0 to 24
rats per hectare in sand pine scrub, 2 to 47 rats per hectare in pine
flatwoods, and 27 to 94 rats per hectare in tropical hammock.  In Kansas
hispid cotton rat density ranges were 0.2 to 21 rats per hectare in
grassland [68]; the highest estimated density was 65.4 hispid cotton
rats per hectare in favored habitat [15].

Habitat Patch Size:  In a study of the effects of habitat patchiness on
movement, hispid cotton rats preferred only the largest patches which
were 165 feet by 330 feet (50 x 100 m).  Patches were established by
mowing strips between blocks of grasses.  Hispid cotton rats were
present in intermediate numbers on medium sized patches which were 39.6
feet by 79.2 feet (12 x 24 m), but were so scarce on the smallest patches
that their movement pattern could not be analyzed [10].

Home Range:  In Kansas remnant prairie the average annual home range of
adult male hispid cotton rat was estimated as 0.969 acre (0.39 ha) and
that of adult females as 0.543 acre (0.21 ha).  The greatest distance
traveled by an adult male was 330 feet (100 m) and by an adult female
was 250.9 feet (76.4 m) [15].  In Texas male hispid cotton rats also had
larger home ranges than females.  Home ranges were larger in summer and
winter than in spring and fall.  Home range size was positively
correlated with body mass and negatively correlated with population
density.  There was a relatively high degree of exclusivity (41%),
indicating intolerance of conspecifics, particularly of the same sex
[7].  In Texas hispid cotton rats found their original home ranges
(homed) from displacements of up to 5,000 feet (1,500 m).  Returns were
relatively high from displacements of up to 990 feet (300 m), suggesting
that hispid cotton rats are familiar with the area within that distance.
Hispid cotton rats released in areas with no cover homed better than
hispid cotton rats released in typical hispid cotton rat habitat [8].
Spencer and others [69] used site fidelity as a measure of an
individual's actual home range and concluded that hispid cotton rats
have both single-day and multiday site fidelity and therefore establish
true home ranges.


COVER REQUIREMENTS : 
On the southern Coastal Plain hispid cotton rats use gopher tortoise
(Gopherus polyphemus) burrows for shelter in sandhill scrub dominated by
longleaf pine, bluejack oak (Quercus incana) and sand post oak (Q.
stellata ssp. margaretta) [35].


FOOD HABITS : 
Hispid cotton rats are omnivorous, but the major portion of their diet
consists of green vegetation.  They occasionally consume insects and
other small animals [63].  Field observations of hispid cotton rat diet
indicate that preferred foods are the stems, foliage, and seeds of crop
and wild plants [42].  Golley [18] reported that in the Southeast,
perennial legumes and broomsedge comprised a large portion of the diet
of hispid cotton rats.  They also consumed roots and tubers.  In Texas
hispid cotton rat diets always included the lower green stems of grasses
(which are relatively low in nutritive value); raspberries (Rubus spp.),
privet (Ligustrum spp.) fruits, and leaves of fogfruits (Phyla spp.)
were consumed as available [50].


PREDATORS : 
Hispid cotton rats are preyed on by many birds and reptiles, and by
other mammals [63].  In Oklahoma hispid cotton rats were a major prey
item in the diet of Swainson's hawks (Buteo swainsonii) [3].  In central
Missouri hispid cotton rats comprised 19 percent of prey items in
red-tailed hawk (B. jamaicensis) nests [62].  Hispid cotton rat remains
comprised a substantial portion of short-eared owl (Asio flammeus)
pellets in Arkansas [59].  Hispid cotton rats were the third most
important prey item of red wolves (Canus rufus) in eastern Texas and
Louisiana [56].  In North Carolina bobcats (Lynx rufus) consumed
substantial numbers of hispid cotton rats [72].  Hispid cotton rats were
a minor item in the diet of Florida panthers (Felis concolor coryi)
[40].  In north-central Florida the only direct evidence of predation on
hispid cotton rats was the presence of hispid cotton rat remains in a
barred owl (Strix varia) pellet.  The authors also observed a corn snake
(Elaphe guttata guttata) killing a hispid cotton rat just after the rat
was released from a trap.  The snake apparently had been waiting on the
runway where the trap had been set [38].


MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS : 
The hispid cotton rat is an economic pest in the Southeast where it
causes damage to sweet potato, corn, peanut, tomato, sugar cane, squash,
carrot, and cotton crops.  Hispid cotton rats also take northern
bobwhite (Colinus virginianus) eggs and chicks and sometimes reduce
northern bobwhite productivity [42,47,63].

In old fields abandoned for 3 years in Georgia, hispid cotton rats
consumed up to 2 percent per month of the standing crop of vegetation
when at peak population densities.  Since hispid cotton rats clip more
vegetation than they consume, they also accounted for 10 percent of the
monthly litter input. At lower densities hispid cotton rats are
relatively unimportant in consumption and litter production [36].

Hispid cotton rats are a reservoir for some human diseases including
rabies, Chagas' disease, and Venezuelan equine encephalitis [6].


REFERENCES : 
NO-ENTRY

FIRE EFFECTS AND USE
WILDLIFE SPECIES: Sigmodon hispidus | Hispid Cotton Rat 



DIRECT FIRE EFFECTS ON ANIMALS : 
Mortality from fire is directly caused by burns, heat stress,
asphyxiation, physiological stress, trampling by other animals, or
predation while fleeing fire.  Indirect causes include changes in
quality and quantity of food, nest site availability, predation,
parasitism, disease, increased competition, and social interactions
[24].  Eastman [70] suggested that the dark, grizzled coloration of
hispid cotton rats helps protect them from predation after fire (it is
also adaptive coloration for a grassland rodent) [22].

Komarek [30] reported that fire occasionally kills hispid cotton rats
though they largely avoid fire by going into burrows or moving away from
flames.  Over the course of 225 prescribed fall and spring fires in
grasslands, he never found a dead or injured juvenile hispid cotton rat
even though he examined hundreds of recently burned or burning hispid
cotton rat nests.  He reported that the squeaking of hispid cotton rats
could be heard as the rats moved ahead of a fire.  He often observed
hispid cotton rats leading or carrying their young away from a fire.
They have also been observed running across firelines and returning to
smoking burns without injury [30].  Odum and others [48] reported that
the immediate reaction of hispid cotton rats to fire is to move to
unburned areas with protective cover.  They return to burned areas as
soon as foliage cover develops.

In southern Florida hispid cotton rat mortality from fire may be related
to the rate of fire spread.  In a muhlenbergia (Muhlenbergia spp.)
prairie Taylor [60] found one carcass of a hispid cotton rat (along with
carcasses of other small mammals) after a fast-spreading, severe fire,
but none after a slow-spreading fire.


HABITAT RELATED FIRE EFFECTS : 
The response of hispid cotton rats to fire is usually negative in the
very short term, but populations usually recover rapidly with the
recovery of vegetative cover.  Hispid cotton rats have been rated as
fire-negative, since they are associated with plant debris and are
foliage eaters [24], but they are often reported as increasing after
fire.  Bock and Bock [71] reported a decrease in hispid cotton rat
population after combined wildfires and prescribed fire in big sacaton
(Sporobolus wrightii) grasslands reduced big sacaton cover but
stimulated growth of forbs and other grasses.  Hispid cotton rats could
be classified as fire-positive since the lush vegetation produced during
the first few growing seasons following fire often supports relatively
large populations; hispid cotton rat populations are often highest in the
first few growing seasons after fire [22].  In Kansas tallgrass prairie
hispid cotton rats were captured most often in burned lowlands in the
fall following a late winter prescribed fire.  There were also large
numbers of hispid cotton rat in transition areas that had been burned 1
to 3 years before rats were censused.  In lowland areas vegetation on
burned patches was taller and denser than on unburned patches.  On
upland sites there was no significant difference between the number of
captures on unburned and burned sites, but there were slightly more
captures on the unburned site [49].  Ash from prairie fires had no
effect on the palatability of seed in captive feeding trials [51].

In Oklahoma blackjack oak (Quercus marilandica)-post oak (Q. stellata)
savanna, relative densities of hispid cotton rats were greatest on study
plots that were treated with herbicide to reduce shrubs, then burned
annually to maintain grassy cover.  Plots that were untreated succeeded
to dense brush and young trees and had reduced numbers of hispid cotton
rats.  Peak production of hispid cotton rats occurred in the second year
after herbicide treatment, the year of peak herbaceous dicot
productivity.  Hispid cotton rat numbers declined with repeated annual
burning; dicot density also decreased.  This decrease may have been an
important factor in the hispid cotton rat decline since dicots provide
higher quality forage than grass.  However, overall vegetative
productivity declined on the plots over the same time period and may
have been a more important factor than the amount of dicots present
[44].

In the Southeast open pine woodlands with surface cover of broomsedge
and herbs usually have mid-size populations of hispid cotton rats.  The
open condition of these woods is maintained by frequent fire.  Hispid
cotton rat populations peak 3 to 4 years after fire but decline with
longer intervals between fires [29,30].  Komarek [29] concluded that
frequent (annual or biennial) fire keeps hispid cotton rats from
becoming too abundant but also provides better habitat than no fire.  In
southeastern loblolly pine-shortleaf pine stands hispid cotton rats are
the dominant herbivorous rodent the first and second years after fire.
The early brush stage (postfire years 3 and 4) also supports abundant
hispid cotton rats, but hispid cotton rats decline thereafter.  No
hispid cotton rats were reported for plots that had not experienced fire
for 19 years [34].  In Georgia longleaf-slash pine forests that were
burned annually in spring typically supported hispid cotton rat
populations [5].  In north-central Florida pine flatwoods, hispid cotton
rats were not present on burned areas in the first 2 months following
December prescribed fire that burned all surface litter and vegetation.
Hispid cotton rats returned to the burned areas in spring; hispid cotton
rat abundance was greatest in the fall following the prescribed fire.
The first hispid cotton rats to be captured on the burn were subadult
males, but they were followed shortly thereafter by other hispid cotton
rats.  Females on the burn area apparently produced two litters each
during the first postfire growing season [38].

In Georgia fallow fields that had been cultivated for millet were
censused for small mammals before and after prescribed fire.  In March
approximately one-half acre of one of the plots was litter-burned.  Six
pairs of hispid cotton rats were introduced into two 1-acre enclosures
in April; by September there were 70 hispid cotton rats in each
enclosure.  In the first few weeks after the hispid cotton rats were
introduced to the enclosures they concentrated their activity on the
unburned portion of the plot where cover was greatest, but as the season
progressed they moved onto the burned area.  Hispid cotton rats on the
burned area gained slightly more weight than those on the unburned
areas, which suggested that there was more and/or better forage on the
burned areas [48].


FIRE USE : 
Komarek [29] stated that northern bobwhite management areas could be
kept from becoming overrun with hispid cotton rats through the use of
frequent (annual to biennial) prescribed fire in fall or spring.  This
management technique maintains northern bobwhite habitat and reduces
hispid cotton rat habitat to some extent.  Longer fire-free intervals
are more detrimental to northern bobwhite populations than is predation
by hispid cotton rats [29,30].


REFERENCES : 
NO-ENTRY

References for species: Sigmodon hispidus

1. Atkeson, Thomas D.; Johnson, A. Sydney. 1979. Succession of small mammals on pine plantations in the Georgia Piedmont. The American Midland Naturalist. 101(2): 385-392. [25667]

2. Baker, R. H. 1940. Effects of burning and grazing on rodent populations. Journal of Mammalogy. 21: 223. [2849]

3. Bednarz, James C. 1988. Swainson's hawk. In: Glinski, Richard L.; Pendleton, Beth Giron; Moss, Mary Beth; [and others], eds. Proceedings of the southwest raptor management symposium and workshop; 1986 May 21-24; Tucson, AZ. NWF Scientific and Technical Series No. 11. Washington, DC: National Wildlife Federation: 87-96. [22650]

4. 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]

5. Buckner, James L.; Landers, J. Larry. 1979. Fire and disking effects on herbaceous food plants and seed supplies. Journal of Wildlife Management. 43(3): 807-811. [11966]

6. Cameron, Guy N.; Spencer, Stephen R. 1981. Sigmodon hispidus. Mammalian Species. 158: 1-9. [25683]

7. Cameron, Guy N.; Spencer, Stephen R. 1985. Assessment of space-use patterns in the hispid cotton rat (Sigmodon hispidus). Oecologia. 68: 133-139. [25671]

8. DeBusk, Joan; Kennerly, Thomas E., Jr. 1975. Homing in the cotton rat, Sigmodon hispidus Say and Ord. The American Midland Naturalist. 93(1): 149-157. [25669]

9. Dickson, James G.; Williamson, J. Howard. 1988. Small mammals in streamside management zones in pine plantations. 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: 375-378. [7125]

10. Diffendorfer, James E.; Gaines, Michael S.; Holt, Robert D. 1995. Habitat fragmentation and movements of three small mammals (Sigmodon, Microtus, and Peromyscus). Ecology. 76(3): 827-839. [25682]

11. Evans, Timothy L.; Waldrop, Thomas A.; Guynn, David C., Jr. 1991. Fell-and-burn regeneration in the North Georgia piedmont: effects on wildlife habitat and small mammals. Proceedings, Annual Conference of Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. 45: 104-114. [22279]

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

13. Florida Natural Areas Inventory. 1994. Florida Natural Areas Inventory--special plants & lichens, vertebrates, invertebrates, natural communities. Tallahassee, FL. [Pages unknown]. [23471]

14. Fitch, Henry S.; Kettle, W. Dean. 1983. Ecological succession in vegetation and small mammal populations on a natural area of northeastern Kansas. In: Kucera, Clair L., ed. Proceedings, 7th North American prairie conference; 1980 August 4-6; Springfield, MO. Columbia, MO: University of Missouri: 117-121. [3211]

15. Fleharty, Eugene D. 1972. Some aspects of small mammal ecology in a Kansas remnant prairie. In: Zimmerman, James H., ed. Proceedings, 2nd Midwest prairie conference; 1970 September 18-20; Madison, WI. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Arboretum: 97-103. [2802]

16. Fleharty, Eugene D.; Mares, Michael A. 1973. Habitat preference and spatial relations of Sigmodon hispidus on a remnant prairie in west-central Kansas. The Southwestern Naturalist. 18(1): 21-29. [25713]

17. 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]

18. Golley, Frank B. 1962. The mammals of Georgia: a study of their distribution and functional role in the ecosystem. Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press. 218 p. [26014]

19. Guthery, Fred S.; Anderson, Terry E.; Lehmann, Valgene W. 1979. Range rehabilitation enhances cotton rats in South Texas. Journal of Range Management. 32(5): 354-356. [25681]

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

21. Harris, Larry D.; Vickers, Charles R. 1984. Some faunal community characteristics of cypress ponds and the changes induced by perturbations. In: Ewel, Katherine Carter; Odum, Howard T., eds. Cypress swamps. Gainesville, FL: University of Florida Press: 171-185. [14849]

22. Hon, Tip. 1981. Effects of prescribed fire on furbearers in the South. In: Wood, Gene W., ed. Prescribed fire and wildlife in southern forests: Proceedings of a symposium; 1981 April 6-8; Myrtle Beach, SC. Georgetown, SC: Clemson University, Belle W. Baruch Forest Science Institute: 121-128. [14818]

23. Kaufman, Donald W.; Clark, Byron K.; Kaufman, Glennis A. 1990. Habitat breadth of nongame rodents in the mixed-grass prairie region of north central Kansas. The Prairie Natualist. 22(1): 19-26. [28265]

24. Kaufman, Donald W.; Finck, Elmer J.; Kaufman, Glennis A. 1990. Small mammals and grassland fires. In: Collins, Scott L.; Wallace, Linda L., eds. Fire in North American tallgrass prairies. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press: 46-80. [14195]

25. Kaufman, G. A.; Kaufman, Donald W. 1987. A field observation of leading-following behavior in the hispid cotton rat. The Prairie Naturalist. 19(2): 128. [28264]

26. Kincaid, W. Bradley; Cameron, Guy N. 1985. Interactions of cotton rats with a patchy environment: dietary responses and habitat selection. Ecology. 66(6): 1769-1783. [25670]

27. Kincaid, W. Bradley; Cameron, Guy N.; Carnes, Bruce A. 1983. Patterns of habitat utilization in sympatric rodents on the Texas coastal prairie. Ecology. 64(6): 1471-1480. [25680]

28. Klukas, Richard W. 1969. The Australian pine problem in Everglades National Park. Part 1. The problem and some solutions. Internal Report. South Florida Research Center, Everglades National Park. 16 p.On file with: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT. [17375]

29. Komarek, E. V. 1961. A progress report on southeastern mammal studies. In: The Cooperative Quail Study Association: May 1, 1931-May 1, 1943. Misc. Publ. No. 1. Tallahassee, FL: Tall Timbers Research Station: 465-472. [Reprinted from Journal of Mammalogy. 20(3): 292-299]. [15082]

30. Komarek, E. V., Sr. 1969. Fire and animal behavior. In: Proceedings, annual Tall Timbers fire ecology conference; 1969 April 10-11; Tallahassee, FL. No. 9. Tallahassee, FL: Tall Timbers Research Station: 161-207. [13531]

31. Komarek, E. V. 1981. History of prescribed fire and controlled burning in wildlife management in the South. In: Wood, Gene W., ed. Prescribed fire and wildlife in southern forests: Proceedings of a symposium; 1981 April 6-8; Myrtle Beach, SC. Georgetown, SC: Clemson University, Belle W. Baruch Forest Science Institute: 1-14. [14802]

32. 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]

33. Lancia, Richard A.; Miller, S. Douglas; Adams, David A.; Hazel, Dennis W. 1982. Validating habitat qualisty assessment: an example. In: Transactions, 47th North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference. 47: 96-110. [25685]

34. Landers, J. Larry. 1987. Prescribed burning for managing wildlife in southeastern pine forests. In: Dickson, James G.; Maughan, O. Eugene, eds. Managing southern forests for wildlife and fish: a proceedings; [Date of conference unknown]; [Location of conference unknown]. Gen. Tech. Rep. SO-65. New Orleans, LA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station: 19-27. [11562]

35. Landers, J. Larry; Speake, Dan W. 1980. Management needs of sandhill reptiles in southern Georgia. Proceedings, Annual Conference of Southeast Association Fish & Wildlife Agencies. 34: 515-529. [21092]

36. Langley, Albert K., Jr.; Shure, Donald J. 1979. The role of the cotton rat (Sigmodon hispidus) in old-field nutrient cycling. In: Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America. 60(2): 91. [Abstract]. [25684]

37. Langley, Albert K., Jr.; Shure, Donald J. 1988. The impact of climatic extremes on cotton rat (Sigmodon hispidus) populations. The American Midland Naturalist. 120(1): 136-143. [25673]

38. Layne, James N. 1974. Ecology of small mammals in a flatwoods habitat in north-central Florida, with emphasis on the cotton rat (Sigmodon hispidus). American Museum Novitates: No. 2544. New York: The American Museum of Natural History. 48 p. [25679]

39. Lechleitner, R. R. 1969. Wild mammals of Colorado. Boulder, CO: Pruett Publishing Company. 241 p. [25549]

40. Maehr, David S.; Belden, Robert C.; Land, E. Darrell; Wilkins, Laurie. 1990. Food habits of panthers in southwest Florida. Journal of Wildlife Management. 54(3): 420-423. [24565]

41. Mares, M. A.; Hulse, A. C. 1977. Patterns of some vertebrate communities in creosote bush deserts. In: Mabry, T. J.; Hunziker, J. H.; DiFeo, D. R., Jr., eds. Creosote bush: Biology and chemistry of Larrea in New World deserts. U.S./IBP Synthesis Series 6. Stroudsburg, PA: Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross, Inc: 209-226. [7171]

42. Martin, Alexander C.; Zim, Herbert S.; Nelson, Arnold L. 1951. American wildlife and plants. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc. 500 p. [4021]

43. McClenaghan, Leroy R., Jr.; Gaines, Michael S. 1978. Reproduction in marginal populations of the Hispid cotton rat (Sigmodon hispidus) in northeastern Kansas. Occas. Papers of the Kansas University Museum of Natural History. 74: 1-16. [25573]

44. McMurry, Scott T.; Lochmiller, Robert L.; Boggs, James F.; [and others]. 1994. Demographic profiles of populations of cotton rats in a continuum of habitat types. Journal of Mammalogy. 75(1): 50-59. [23420]

45. Mohlhenrich, John S. 1961. Distribution and ecology of of the hispid and least cotton rats in New Mexico. Journal of Mammalogy. 42(1): 13-24. [25672]

46. Mullin, Keith; Williams, Kenneth L. 1987. Mammals of longleaf-slash pine stands in central Louisiana. In: Pearson, Henry A.; Smeins, Fred E.; Thill, Ronald E., compilers. Proceedings of the southern evaluation project workshop; 1987 May 26-27; Long Beach, MS. Gen. Tech. Rep. SO-68. New Orleans, LA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station: 121-124. [12473]

47. Murray, Robert W.; Frye, O. E., Jr. 1964. The bobwhite quail and its management in Florida. 2d ed. Game Publ. No. 2. [Place of publication unknown]: Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission. 55 p. [15421]

48. Odum, Eugene P.; Pomeroy, Steven E.; Dickinson, J. C., III; Hutcheson, Kermit. 1974. The effects of late winter litter burn on the composition, productivity and diversity of a 4-year old fallow-field in Georgia. In: Proceedings, annual Tall Timbers fire ecology conference; 1973 March 22-23; Tallahassee, FL. No. 13. Tallahassee, FL: Tall Timbers Research Station: 399-419. [17413]

49. Peterson, Sharon K.; Kaufman, Glennis A.; Kaufman, Donald W. 1985. Habitat selection by small mammals of the tall-grass prairie: experimental patch choice. Prairie Naturalist. 17(2): 65-70. [25532]

50. Randolph, J. C.; Cameron, Guy N.; Wrazen, John A. 1991. Dietary choice of a generalist grassland herbivore, Sigmodon hispidus. Journal of Mammalogy. 72(2): 300-313. [25678]

51. Rustiati, Elly L.; Kaufman, Donald W. 1993. Effect of prairie-fire ash on food choice by deer mice and hispid cotton rats. Prairie Naturalist. 25(4): 305-308. [25677]

52. Sauer, John R. 1985. Mortality associated with severe weather in a northern population of cotton rats. The American Midland Naturalist. 113(1): 188-189. [25668]

53. Sauer, John R.; Slade, Norman A. 1985. Mass-based demography of a hispid cotton rat (Sigmodon hispidus) population. Journal of Mammalogy. 66(2): 316-328. [25715]

54. Schmidly, David J. 1977. The mammals of Trans-Pecos Texas: including Big Bend National Park and Guadalupe Mountains National Park. College Station, TX: Texas A&M University. 225 p. [25546]

55. Schnell, Jay H. 1968. The limiting effects of natural predation on experimental cotton rat populations. Journal of Wildlife Management. 32(4): 698-711. [25714]

56. Shaw, James Harlan. 1975. Ecology, behavior, and systematics of the red wolf (Canis rufus). New Haven, CT: Yale University. 104 p. Dissertation. [25719]

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

58. Shump, Karl A., Jr. 1978. Ecological importance of nest construction in the hispid cotton rat (Sigmodon hispidus). The American Midland Naturalist. 100(1): 103-115. [25676]

59. Smith, Ronald A.; Hanebrink, Earl L. 1982. Analysis of regurgitated short-eared owl (Asio flammeus) pellets from the Roth Prairie, Arkansas County, Arkansas. Arkansas Academy of Science Proceedings. 36: 106-108. [22376]

60. Taylor, Dale L. 1981. Effects of prescribed fire on small mammals in the southeastern United States. In: Wood, Gene W., ed. Prescribed fire and wildlife in southern forests: Proceedings of a symposium; 1981 April 6-8; Myrtle Beach, SC. Georgetown, SC: Clemson University, Belle W. Baruch Forest Science Institute: 109-120. [14817]

61. Taylor, Dale L. 1981. Wildlife considerations in prescribing fire in National Parks. In: Wood, Gene W., ed. Prescribed fire and wildlife in southern forests: Proceedings of a symposium; 1981 April 6-8; Myrtle Beach, SC. Georgetown, SC: Clemson University, Belle W. Baruch Forest Science Institute: 51-55. [14808]

62. Toland, Brian R. 1990. Nesting ecology of red-tailed hawks in central Missouri. Transactions, Missouri Academy of Science. 24: 1-16. [22703]

63. Whitaker, John O., Jr. 1980. National Audubon Society field guide to North American mammals. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc. 745 p. [25194]

64. Wiegert, Richard G. 1972. Population dynamics of cotton rats (Sigmodon hispidus) and meadow voles (Microtus pennsylvanicus) in field enclosures in South Carolina. Bulletin of the Georgia Academy of Science. 30: 103-110. [25711]

65. Wigley, T. Bently; Roberts, Thomas H. 1994. A review of wildlife changes in southern bottomland hardwoods due to forest management practices. Wetlands. 14(1): 41-48. [24173]

66. Stout, I. Jack; Demmer, Richard J. 1982. Cotton rat invasion of sand pine scrub habitat. Journal of Mammalogy. 63(2): 236-242. [25675]

67. Rose, Robert K. 1986. Reproductive strategies of meadow voles, hispid cotton rats, and eastern harvest mice in Virginia. Virginia Journal of Science. 37(4): 230-239. [25674]

68. Cameron, Guy N.; McClure, Polley A. 1988. Geographic variation in life history traits of the Hispid cotton rat (Sigmodon hispidus). In: Boyce, Mark S., ed. Evolution of life histories of mammals: theory and pattern. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press: 33-64. [25574]

69. Spencer, Stephen R.; Cameron, Guy N.; Swihart, Robert K. 1990. Operationally defining home range: temporal dependence exhibited by hispid cotton rats. Ecology. 71(5): 1817-1822. [25712]

70. Eastman, John. 1976. Lure of the burn. National Wildlife. 14(5): 10. [16776]

71. Bock, Carl E.; Bock, Jane H. 1978. Response of birds, small mammals, and vegetation to burning sacaton grasslands in southeastern Arizona. Journal of Range Management. 31(4): 296-300. [3075]

72. Miller, S. Douglas; Speake, Dan W. 1978. Prey utilization by bobcats on quail plantations in southern Alabama. Proceedings, Annual Conference of Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. 32: 100-111. [25137]

Related categories for Wildlife Species: Sigmodon hispidus | Hispid Cotton Rat