Next Article in Journal
Use of Wild Ungulates as Sentinels of TBEV Circulation in a Naïve Area of the Northwestern Alps, Italy
Previous Article in Journal
Inhibitory Effects of Protopanaxadiol-Producing Transgenic Rice Seed Extracts on RANKL-Induced Osteoclast Differentiation
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Life
Volume 12
Issue 11
10.3390/life12111887
life-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Small Mammal Diversity Changes in a Baltic Country, 1975–2021: A Review

by
Linas Balčiauskas
* and
Laima Balčiauskienė
Nature Research Centre, Akademijos 2, 08412 Vilnius, Lithuania
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Life 2022, 12(11), 1887; https://doi.org/10.3390/life12111887
Submission received: 10 October 2022 / Revised: 30 October 2022 / Accepted: 11 November 2022 / Published: 14 November 2022
(This article belongs to the Section Diversity and Ecology)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:

Simple Summary

Mediated through functional and numerical responses, the community structure and diversity of small mammal communities over the long term may show the influences of climate change, landscape changes and local disturbances. We present an overview of small mammal trapping and owl pellet analysis results in pre- and post-soviet Lithuania (the most southerly of the three Baltic States, Northern Europe), covering the period 1975–2021. All available sources, including grey literature, were included where the raw data were available. Based on the decades-long period, we analysed diversity changes and proportions within the main trophic groups. Diversity increase and dominance decrease occurred in the aftermath of changes within the country in 1990 and have not subsequently changed. Thus, there are two periods—before and after large-scale agricultural changes in the country. The proportions of the trophic groups changed gradually: a large increase in granivores coincided with a decrease in omnivores and insectivores, while the proportion of small herbivorous mammals increased less notably.

Abstract

The structure and diversity of small mammal (SM) communities over the long term may show the influences of climate change, landscape changes and local disturbances. We review published data regarding SM trapping and owl pellet analysis from Lithuania (the most southerly of the three Baltic States, Northern Europe), covering the period 1975–2021. Over decades, we analysed trends in the diversity of SM communities and the proportions of species and proportions of trophic groups. The large increase in granivores, from 6.9% in 1975–1980 to 45.4% in 2011–2020 and 54.7% in 2021, coincided with a decrease in omnivores and insectivores. The proportion of herbivores increased less notably. At the species level, significant decreases in the proportions of M. arvalis, C. glareolus and S. araneus were accompanied by notable increases in the proportions of A. flavicollis and A. agrarius, the latter from 1.0% in 1975–1980 to 25.3% in 2021. Concluding, two periods were identified, specifically before the 1990s and subsequently. In the second period, in the aftermath of land-use changes within the country in 1990, diversity increased, and dominance decreased, a situation that has not subsequently changed. Not excluding the concomitant effects of climate change, we relate these patterns to the alterations in habitat and anthropogenic impact.

1. Introduction

It is known that small mammal community structure and diversity over the longterm are affected by climate change [1], local disturbances [2,3] and landscape changes [4]. Small mammals are important for their capacity to respond to environmental and climatic changes through functional and numerical responses [5]. These changes are visible in small mammal trapping [6] and in changes in the diet of raptors and owls [7,8].
Knowledge of the response of small mammal communities and species is required to understand the future requirements and methods of biodiversity conservation and to meet upcoming challenges [9]. As shown by long-term small mammal monitoring [10], some species or groups are better suited to varying ecological, economical and epidemiological situations, therefore, are more resilient. Some small mammal species have shown long-term synchronised fluctuations, suggesting shared food resources, shared predators or both [6]. Small mammal monitoring is able to predict the sustainability and stability of populations, e.g., during a 46-year-long study in the Southern Yukon (60° N), the proportion of two of the main four small mammal species, Myodes rutilus and Peromyscus maniculatus, increased and decreased by 22% respectively [11]. Understanding the reasons for such changes requires more data to see perspectives that might otherwise be missed [12]. Short-term data might produce incorrect conclusions regarding the impact of vegetation succession on the small mammal community structure, species interactions and resilience [2].
Landscape, mainly the structure and composition of its mosaic, is reported as one of the main drivers of change in small mammal communities [12]. Similarly, changes in agricultural activities, namely the fallowing of land previously intensively used, can create new habitat sources for small mammals. As suggested by [13], this might lead to the extinction of some small mammal species and an increase in the number of yellow-necked mice (Apodemus flavicollis). At the same time, a decline in diversity in small mammal communities can occur [13].
In Central Europe, the findings of Zárybnická and co-authors revealed the significance of local biotic and abiotic factors affecting the structure and dynamics of small mammal communities. They noted that while the abundance of M. glareolus and A. flavicollis increased over time in the young forest, those of S. araneus decreased. By contrast, the community structure in the mature forest did not change significantly over time [14]. Based on this, the initial effect of restoring woodland in agricultural landscapes may be beneficial for SM, increasing their diversity [15]. Results of studying meadow-forest succession, however, have revealed that the diversity of the small mammal community decreases with increasing forest age, the small mammal communities being the most diverse in the re-growing meadows [16].
Recognising small mammals as a model group to evaluate the effects of climate change and shifts in land use [1], many investigations have been conducted in dry or desert environments [17,18,19,20]. These studies have highlighted the importance of habitat disturbances and cover layers [17], the delayed effects of forest fires [18] and the precipitation regime [18,19,20]. Mediation of the climate factor could be different [21], including snow cover depth and duration [22]. Information regarding the influencing factors and prediction of possible responses of small mammals could be found in [23,24].
The diets of mycophagous birds and other animals are closely related to the status of small mammal species and communities [7,8,25]. Therefore diet studies of the mentioned animals are used as a method to assess species composition and abundance of small mammals [8,9,26,27,28]. For example, a long-term study of the diet of the asp viper (Vipera aspis) confirmed an increase in M. glareolus and a decrease in S. araneus in the forest zone of Italy [25]. Likewise, based on the owl diet, a reduction in shrews was noted in Italy; these were replaced by rats (Rattus norvegicus) and house mice (Mus domesticus) [29]. In this case, only a slight variation in the richness and diversity of the small mammal community was observed. Therefore, we used data on the diet of the tawny owl (Strix aluco) and long-eared owl (Asio otus) from Lithuania to see for trends in the small mammal composition, but not to compare with the data of trappings.
The aims of this review were (i) to collect all available data on small mammal trapping and owl pellet analysis in Lithuania, the most southerly of the three Baltic states, and (ii) to analyse long-term changes in small mammal diversity and composition of their communities based on trophic groups. Based on the responses of small mammals to changes in land use [2,3,7,9,12,13,14,15,16], we tested the hypothesis that small mammal diversity increased after the 1990s when large-scale intensive agriculture was abandoned along with the other land use changes after the regaining of the country’s independence. This model may be representative of the other post-soviet Baltic countries.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Collection of the Published Material

Published results for the period of 1975–2021 were used for this study. We do not conform to PRISMA requirements for information retrieval, as (1) many of our published sources are not indexed in search systems, and (2) we used all available sources where the raw results concerning small mammal trapping or pellet analyses were available. If the same data were replicated in the later publications, earlier data were not included.
This publication is the first to use the full set of small mammal trapping and S. aluco pellet data in Lithuania. All published data are available in the mentioned sources [3,16,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78]. Further analyses will follow, and therefore the dataset is not deposited as a public source. Geo-referencing of data collection sites is not used in this paper, as we analyse only the general trend on small mammal diversity and species composition across the country using data pooled in decades.

2.2. Dataset

Data on small mammals trapped between 1975–2021 include 475 samples from 165 unique sampling sites with 376,788 trap-days. Data on small mammals retrieved from the owl pellets cover the period 1986–2009 and include 52 batches. Due to the differences between trapping results and S. aluco diet [58], both sets were not pooled. The species composition of small mammals is presented in Table 1. Species richness, however, might be dependent on methodological problems–N. anomalus, A. sylvaticus and M. rossiaemeridionalis in the pellets were not identified.
To assess temporal trend, we arbitrarily grouped the data into six periods: 1975–1980, 1981–1990, 1991–2000, 2001–2010, 2011–2020 and 2021. We consider the first five periods to be long enough to avoid possible bias in the trend estimation [79], while for 2021, we just assessed if the sampling effort is sufficient.
In this paper, we do not intend to analyse habitat-based or site-based patterns of small mammal diversity. Therefore, the sampling effort is presented at the level of the main groups of habitats and shows the regions of the country where the small mammals were trapped (Table 2). The main investigated habitats were forests (all types and ages), wetlands (marshes, bogs, swamps, raised bogs and peatbogs), meadows (all types of meadows and pastures), habitat complexes (including forest, wetland and meadow habitats in about equal proportions), and other habitats (including agricultural fields, orchards, farmsteads, river banks, lakeshores and islands).
Investigations were not equal across all of the main habitats (Table 2), except in the 1981–2000 period when the main habitats (forests, wetlands and meadows) were investigated with similar effort (22,610, 15,920 and 16,300 trap-days, respectively). In the 1975–1980 period, the highest trapping effort was in meadows (13,450 trap-days), while wetlands were under-trapped from 2001 (6349 trap-days), and more attention was paid to the habitats other than three main ones from 2011, these including orchards (21,228 trap-days), cormorant colonies (15,475 trap-days), farmsteads and other buildings (4960 trap-days), city parks, etc. For each decade, we also mention the aims of the main small mammal investigation works and provide references for the published data sources. The best periods of trapping coverage in the country were related to research for a mammal atlas [34,36,37,42,46] and to an inventory of protected and other potentially biodiversity-rich territories [34,35,38,39,40,43,44,53,54,64], as well as during small mammal monitoring [48] and investigations of commercial orchards [72,74,75,76,77].
Studies of owl diet [49,50,51,56,57,58,61,62] were limited to the three periods within the years 1987 to 2009 and were not related to habitats (in most cases, forest meadows and their ecotones with agricultural land, these being within the owl hunting distances).

2.3. Data Analysis

To avoid the influence of non-equal sampling effort, we analysed species accumulation curves as well as diversity patterns using rarefaction based on the individuals [80,81], estimating how many species could be expected in a sample with a smaller total number of individuals. Combinatorial terms are computed as recommended in [82], using a log Gamma function and calculated in PAST version 4.01 (Paleontological Museum, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway). Standard errors are given by the program and converted to 95% CI in the graphical plot. Rarefaction eliminates the influence of unequal trapping effort across the analysed periods. As in the previous analysis [34], we found a direct relation between trapping effort and the number of trapped small mammal individuals and, to a lesser extent, the number of registered species. As we refer to previous studies, this shortcoming is unavoidable.
The analysed indices of the small mammal communities were an unbiased number of species, dominance (D) and diversity (Shannon’s H) [82]. According to Ref. [82], dominance ranges from 0 (all species are equally present in the community) to 1 (one taxon dominates completely). Differences between the above-mentioned indices across the compared periods and the upper and lower limits of D and H were calculated using bootstrap with n = 9999, while for the number of species, Chao-1 was used. In PAST, the given number of random samples was produced, each with the same total number of individuals as in the original sample. For each individual in the random sample, the taxon was chosen with probabilities proportional to the original abundances. Then, 95% CI was calculated. The proportions and the 95% CI for the four trophic groups among all trapped small mammals were calculated with the Wilson method of the score interval [83] using OpenEpi epidemiological software [84]. Differences in the proportions of the most abundant species between periods were evaluated using the G test with an online calculator [85].

3. Results

From 1975 to 2021, the dominant species of small mammals in Lithuania was C. glareolus, with a proportion of 38.0% (95% CI = 37.6–38.5%) among all trapped individuals, followed by A. flavicollis with 17.5% (17.2–17.9%), A. agrarius, 10.5% (10.2–10.8%), and S. araneus with 10.0% (9.8–10.3%). Species with proportions 1 to 10% were M. arvalis, 9.2%, M. oeconomus, 5.2%, M. agrestis, 2.9%, S. minutus, 3.3%, M. minutus, 1.1% and M. musculus, 1.1%. The proportions of the remaining small mammal species were less than 1% each. Differences in the proportions of all listed species are significant (G-test, p < 0.001). Species richness, the dominance index D and diversity, as Shannon’s index, are presented in Table 1. These parameters had expressed trends in the study period.
The dominant species of the owl that hunted small mammals from 1986 to 2009 was also C. glareolus, with a proportion of 29.5% (95% CI = 28.36–30.7%). It was followed by A. flavicollis with 19.8% (18.8–20.9%), M. arvalis, 12.6% (11.7–13.4%), M. agrestis, 11.8% (11.0–12.7%) and S. araneus with 11.7% (10.9–12.6%). Species with proportions 1 to 10% were M. oeconomus, 2.7%, S. minutus, 2.6%, A. agrarius, 2.5%, M. avellanarius, 2.1% and A. amphibius, 1.1%. Differences in the proportions of all listed species are significant (G-test, p < 0.001).
Due to differences in small mammal diversity (t = 10.4, p < 0.001) and dominance (t = 13.1, p < 0.001), these two data sets will be analysed separately. As mentioned in the Section 2.2, three small mammal species in the pellets were not identified.

3.1. Changes in Trapped Small Mammal Diversity and Species Richness in Lithuania, 1975–2021

Small mammal diversity rose in the 1990s and thereafter remained at this higher level until the current decade, with the dominance index showing the opposite trend, decreasing in the 1990s (Table 3). Therefore, there are two distinct periods: the period prior to the 1990s, characterised by lower diversity and the period after the 1990s, with diversity increase. These differences are statistically significant.
Diversity indices in 2021 were different from the other decades. However, this period was characterised by very limited trapping effort and biased habitat proportions (Table 2). The above-mentioned trend was not related to different sampling efforts. Species accumulation curves show that a sample of over 1000 individuals is required to reach 14–18 species (Figure 1a). Thus, the results of the latest decade (Table 3), presented so far by trappings of 2021, should improve on further sampling. To get a full representation of the diversity index, however, the sample size does not need to be over 1000 trapped individuals (Figure 1b), as Shannon’s H remains at the same level with the increased sample. Therefore, differences in small mammal diversity are unbiased by a different number of trapped individuals in the compared periods.
Dominance in the first period, 1975–1980, depended on the high proportions of M. arvalis and C. glareolus among the trapped SM, these being 44.0% (CI = 42.4–45.6%) and 35.0% (CI = 33.4–36.5%), respectively, despite trapping effort was mainly targeted to meadows (Figure 2a). From this period onward, the proportion of M. arvalis decreased to 4.7%, 6.6%, 6.3%, 7.5% and 10.0%, respectively, the trend being highly significant (G = 10,321, p < 0.0001). In the subsequent decades, the proportion of C. glareolus was 63.4%. 42.6%, 36.1%, 26.3% and 25.2%, respectively. Thus, the decreasing trend is highly significant (G = 37,600, p < 0.0001) and not related to the trapping effort in forest habitats (Table 2). A decrease in the proportion of S. araneus was less visible, this falling from 12.4% in 1981–1990 to 8.6% of all trapped small mammals in 2011–2020 (G = 55.3, p < 0.0001).
These decreases were accompanied by notable increases in the proportions of A. agrarius and A. flavicollis, both trends being significant (G = 2227 and G = 1302, respectively, p > 0.0001). The proportion of A. agrarius rose continuously over time, from 1.0% (CI = 0.7–1.4%) in 1975–1980 to 25.3% (22.2–28.8%) in 2021, with the respective proportions for A. flavicollis being 5.5% (4.8–6.3%) and 29.1% (25.8–32.5%). Changes in proportions of the other species were not so distinct (Figure 2b) as the proportions of this group accounted for only 0.3–1.7% of all trapped SM (Figure 2a).

3.2. Changes in the Proportions of Trapped Small Mammal Trophic Groups

Based on the changes in species, trends in the representation of the functional groups after 1980 in the small mammal community are even more visible (Figure 3). Growth in the proportion of granivores was from 6.9% in 1975–1980 to 45.4% in 2011–2020 and 54.7% in 2021 (G = 8837, p < 0.0001), occurring in concert with a shrinking proportion of omnivores, from 63.6% in 1981–1990 to 26.8% in 2011–2020 and 28.6% in 2021 (G = 2249, p < 0.0001). An increase in the proportion of herbivores from 8.8% in 1981–1990 to 18.0% in 2001–2010, 15.9% in 2011–2020 and 13.6% in 2021 was also significant (G = 265.0, p < 0.0001). The decrease in the proportion of insectivores in 1981–2020 was less expressed (G = 181.0, p < 0.001).

3.3. Diversity of Small Mammals Recovered from Owl Pellets

Despite highly unequal sample sizes, the diversity and dominance of the small mammals in the owl pellets were stable across the three periods from 1986 to 2009. Species richness, however, significantly increased along with the sample size (Table 4).
With both datasets originating from the same region and mostly from the same locations, the composition of the prey in 1991–2000 and in 2001–2010 was stable, both in terms of species (Figure 4a) and trophic group (Figure 4b). Differences in the proportions of S. araneus (G = 2.7). A. flavicollis (G = 2.07), M. arvalis (G = 0.28), C. glareolus (G = 0.12), insectivores (G = 3.7), herbivores (G = 2.7), omnivores (G = 0.57) and granivores (G = 0.50) were not significant (p > 0.07).
The earliest sample was characterised by a higher proportion of M. avellanarius and the synanthropic small mammal species R. norvegicus and M. musculus (Figure 4a), thus yielding an over-representation of omnivores and an under-representation of insectivores (Figure 4b).

4. Discussion

The hypothesis we tested was confirmed; namely, small mammal diversity increased after the 1990s. This was in line with a large decrease in the proportion of small omnivorous mammals, a decrease in insectivores, a large increase in granivores and an increase in herbivores.
In Lithuania, two distinct periods of recent land use can be identified: (i) 1960–1990, characterised by massive land reclamation and unvaried Soviet agriculture; (ii) after 1990, characterised by rapid changes in land ownership, increased fragmentation, fallowing of former agricultural areas, increase in the intensity of forest use and development of the small-scale forestry [86,87]. Abandonment of unproductive land was followed by increased forest cover, urban development and a decrease in crop area [88]. In Lithuania, the abandonment rate of agricultural land between 1990 and 2000 was 28% [89]. Changes in the usage of herbicides were followed by an increase in segetal flora, i.e., weeds in the crops [90].
In 1971, three main habitats, namely forest, agricultural land and meadows/pasture, covered equal proportions of land in Lithuania, around 28–30% each, with other land used accounting for less than 12% [91]. This proportion was retained in trapping efforts up to 1990 (see Table 2). From 1990 to 2018, the main land cover changes were: a decrease in heterogeneous agricultural areas by 2315 sq. km and pastures by 361 sq. km, an increase in scrub and herbaceous vegetation areas by 1485 sq. km, in arable land by 816 sq. km and in forest areas by 244 sq. km [92]. While trapping effort in the 1991–2010 period was comparable to habitat structure (see Table 2), habitat changes were not reflected. Low wetland representation in trapping effort after 2011 do not fully coincide with the moderate decrease of inland wetlands after 1990 [92].
Owls were able to bypass land use changes, as the preyed-upon habitat proportions around the breeding areas of S. aluco between 1995–2004 and 2005–2014 were similar [93]. Still, however, there was a sharp decrease in herbivores, mainly voles of the g. Microtus, along with relative stability of murids (granivores) as well as C. glareolus (omnivore) proportions in the prey in the periods of 1978–1989, 1990–2001 and 2002–2014 [94]. However, the absence of raw data from these time periods did not allow us to incorporate the dataset into our analysis.
It is commonly accepted that land use changes have aftereffects on small mammal communities; see references in [95,96]. In some cases, species richness and composition might not be affected by the intensity of agriculture, though the species assemblages in low, medium and highly intensified landscapes might be different [7]. Agriculture should favour habitat generalists, such as C. glareolus, but an increase of this species in boreal landscapes [97] contradicts our finding in the middle latitudes. Further south, in Italy, under agricultural development, insectivores were replaced by commensal generalist species [29]. These authors exclude the influence of climate change and broad-scale land use from the list of factors that drove small mammal community composition.
A decline in insectivores in agricultural lands can be related to increased grain crops and the spread of herbicides and insecticides, both reducing the diversity and abundance of invertebrate prey [29]. As the intensification of agriculture negatively affects ecosystem services, all natural and semi-natural patches become very important for small mammals in the agricultural matrix. An increase in permanent crops was shown to be advantageous for A. agrarius [98]. Likewise, supplemented with variables of temperature, the proportions of the cover of crop type could be used to forecast A. agrarius outbreaks in China agroecosystems [99].
Therefore, we need to recognise that small mammal species differ in their responses to changes in landscape or landuse and that habitat quality or composition is no less important than patch size, fragmentation and isolation [100]. Mosaics of disturbed land, including both agricultural and pastoral ones, provide important habitats for diverse species of small mammals [101]. When land patches undergo succession, small mammals may be affected by both patch size variations and successional changes [102]. For example, during meadow-forest succession in Lithuania, small mammal diversity declined as typical meadow species were replaced by a few forest small mammal species [16].
Growth in the afforested area of Lithuania has been characteristic to recent decades, with the increase since the 1990s being 3.4% [103], and the current forest cover 33.7% of the entire country area [104]. Forest habitat decreases the diversity of SM, especially when forest age advances [16]. At the species level, changes in dominant species occur, from Microtus voles to Clethrionomys [105]. From [106,107], we might expect further decreases in the diversity of small mammals in forests as minimum diversities are achieved when the forest stands are about 25–40 years of age, prior to clearcutting. Richer small mammal communities in younger stands are also characteristic of Central Europe [14]. In line with land fallowing [13], considerable declines in small mammal species diversity should be expected.
The impact of global climate change on small mammal populations is widely recognised in various latitudes, from the northern taiga [11,108] and the temperate zone and middle latitudes, see [25] and references herein, to the tropical zone [109,110]. Factors related to climate change, such as reduction of precipitation, droughts and other extreme events, cause additional damage to the anthropogenic pressures [111]. In this review, however, we do not focus on the effect of climate change. Following [25], local factors, such as the composition of habitats and land use changes, were given priority.
The impact of land-use change on small mammal communities can vary geographically. In Hungary, for example, grassland restoration had little local impact on small mammal communities, while habitat management was important [112]. In contrast, in the mid-west region of North America, restored native grasslands have shown the importance of restored areas, acting as survival stations for voles at a time of population decline in agricultural landscapes [113]. Therefore, the synthesis of analyses of long-term changes in small mammal communities will be of great predictive value. Following Ref. [114], further evolution of small mammal investigations in Lithuania should proceed in two directions: (i) monitoring in selected areas of the main habitats to see the direction of long-term changes, and (ii) investigations of previously non-existent or not covered habitats, such as biofuel plantations, restored peatlands, afforested quarries, etc.

5. Conclusions

Analysing long-term small mammal trapping from Lithuania (Northern Europe), we found two periods with different compositions of communities—before the 1990s and after. The second period is characterised by land- and forest-use changes related to regained independence from the Soviet Union. The former period was characterised by lower diversity and higher dominance. In the second period, the proportion of omnivorous and insectivorous species decreased; these groups were replaced by increasing granivorous and herbivorous species.
The stability of diversity indices after 1990 occurred despite uneven trapping efforts in the main habitats (forests, meadows and wetlands). Not excluding the concomitant effects of climate change, we relate these changing patterns of small mammal diversity to the alterations in land use and anthropogenic impact.

Author Contributions

Conceptualisation, methodology and formal analysis, L.B. (Linas Balčiauskas); data curation, L.B. (Laima Balčiauskienė); writing—original draft preparation, review and editing, L.B. (Linas Balčiauskas) and L.B. (Laima Balčiauskienė). All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was done under the long-term research program of Nature Research Centre with no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with Lithuanian (the Republic of Lithuania Law on the Welfare and Protection of Animals No. XI-2271, “Requirements for the Housing, Care and Use of Animals for Scientific and Educational Purposes”, approved by Order No B1-866, 31/10/2012 of the Director of the State Food and Veterinary Service (Paragraph 4 of Article 16) and European legislation (Directive 2010/63/EU) on the protection of animals and approved by the Animal Welfare Committee of the Nature Research Centre, protocols No GGT-7 and GGT-8. All trapping data earlier than 2020 are based on published sources.

Data Availability Statement

This is ongoing research; therefore, unpublished data are not available publicly. All other data are available in the cited publications.

Acknowledgments

Authors thank Jos Stratford for language editing.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Santoro, S.; Sanchez-Suarez, C.; Rouco, C.; Palomo, L.J.; Fernández, M.C.; Kufner, M.B.; Moreno, S. Long-term data from a small mammal community reveal loss of diversity and potential effects of local climate change. Curr. Zool. 2017, 63, 515–523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  2. Swihart, R.K.; Slade, N.A. Long-term dynamics of an early successional small mammal community. Am. Midl. Nat. 1990, 123, 372–382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Balčiauskas, L.; Balčiauskienė, L. Long-term changes in a small mammal community in a temperate zone meadow subject to seasonal floods and habitat transformation. Integr. Zool. 2022, 17, 443–455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Battisti, C.; Dodaro, G.; Di Bagno, E.; Amori, G. Small mammal assemblages in land-reclaimed areas: Do historical soil use changes and recent anthropisation affect their dominance structure? Ethol. Ecol. Evol. 2019, 32, 282–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Ferrari, G.; Delucchi, L.; Tagliapietra, V.; Urbano, F.; Devineau, O.; Cagnacci, F. EuroSmallMammals: A network for collaborative science in small mammal ecology. Hystrix 2022, 33 (Suppl.), 76. [Google Scholar]
  6. Fryxell, J.M.; Falls, J.B.; Falls, E.A.; Brooks, R.J. Long-term dynamics of small-mammal populations in Ontario. Ecology 1998, 79, 213–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. de la Peña, N.M.; Butet, A.; Delettre, Y.; Paillat, G.; Morant, P.; Le Du, L.; Burel, F. Response of the small mammal community to changes in western French agricultural landscapes. Landscape Ecol. 2003, 18, 265–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Milana, G.; Luiselli, L.; Amori, G. Forty years of dietary studies on barn owl (Tyto alba) reveal long term trends in diversity metrics of small mammal prey. Anim. Biol. 2018, 68, 129–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Rowe, R.J.; Terry, R.C. Small mammal responses to environmental change: Integrating past and present dynamics. J. Mammal. 2014, 95, 1157–1174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Bonecker, S.T.; Portugal, L.G.; Costa-Neto, S.F.; Gentile, R. A long term study of small mammal populations in a Brazilian agricultural landscape. Mamm. Biol. 2009, 74, 467–477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Krebs, C.J.; Boonstra, R.; Gilbert, B.S.; Kenney, A.J.; Boutin, S. Impact of climate change on the small mammal community of the Yukon boreal forest. Integr. Zool. 2019, 14, 528–541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Schweiger, E.W.; Diffendorfer, J.E.; Holt, R.D.; Pierotti, R.; Gaines, M.S. The interaction of habitat fragmentation, plant, and small mammal succession in an old field. Ecol. Monogr. 2000, 70, 383–400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Kozakiewicz, M.; Kozakiewicz, A. Long-term dynamics and biodiversity changes in small mammal communities in a mosaic of agricultural and forest habitats. Ann. Zool. Fenn. 2008, 45, 263–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Zárybnická, M.; Riegert, J.; Bejček, V.; Sedláček, F.; Šťastný, K.; Šindelář, J.; Heroldová, M.; Vilímová, J.; Zima, J. Long-term changes of small mammal communities in heterogenous landscapes of Central Europe. Eur. J. Wildl. Res. 2017, 63, 89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Fuentes-Montemayor, E.; Ferryman, M.; Watts, K.; Macgregor, N.A.; Hambly, N.; Brennan, S.; Coxon, R.; Langridge, H.; Park, K.J. Small mammal responses to long-term large-scale woodland creation: The influence of local and landscape-level attributes. Ecol. Appl. 2019, 30, e02028. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  16. Balčiauskas, L.; Čepukienė, A.; Balčiauskienė, L. Small mammal community response to early meadow–forest succession. For. Ecosyst. 2017, 4, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Iriarte, J.A.; Contreras, L.C.; Jaksi, F.M. A Long-Term Study of a Small-Mammal Assemblage in the Central Chilean Matorral. J. Mammal. 1989, 70, 79–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Recher, H.F.; Lunney, D.; Matthews, A. Small mammal populations in a eucalypt forest affected by fire and drought. I. Long-term patterns in an era of climate change. Wildl. Res. 2009, 36, 143–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Thibault, K.M.; Ernest, S.K.M.; White, E.P.; Brown, J.H.; Goheen, J.R. Long-term insights into the influence of precipitation on community dynamics in desert rodents. J. Mammal. 2010, 91, 787–797. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Shenbrot, G.; Krasnov, B.; Burdelov, S. Long-term study of population dynamics and habitat selection of rodents in the Negev Desert. J. Mammal. 2010, 91, 776–786. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Myers, P.; Lundrigan, B.L.; Hoffman, S.M.G.; Haraminac, A.P.; Seto, S.H. Climate-induced changes in the small mammal communities of the Northern Great Lakes Region. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2009, 15, 1434–1454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Kausrud, K.L.; Mysterud, A.; Steen, H.; Vik, J.O.; Østbye, E.; Cazelles, B.; Framstad, E.; Eikeset, A.M.; Mysterud, I.; Solhøy, T.; et al. Linking climate change to lemming cycles. Nature 2008, 456, 93–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Mitchell, D.; Snelling, E.P.; Hetem, R.S.; Maloney, S.K.; Strauss, W.M.; Fuller, A. Revisiting concepts of thermal physiology: Predicting responses of mammals to climate change. J. Anim. Ecol. 2018, 87, 956–973. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Pacifici, M.; Visconti, P.; Rondinini, C. A framework for the identification of hotspots of climate change risk for mammals. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2018, 24, 1626–1636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  25. Rugiero, L.; Milana, G.; Capula, M.; Amori, G.; Luiselli, L. Long term variations in small mammal composition of a snake diet do not mirror climate change trends. Acta Oecol. 2012, 43, 158–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Solonen, T. Are vole-eating owls affected by mild winters in southern Finland? Ornis Fenn. 2004, 81, 65–74. [Google Scholar]
  27. Gryz, J.; Chojnacka-Ożga, L.; Krauze-Gryz, D. Long-term stability of tawny owl (Strix aluco) population despite varying environmental conditions–a case study from Central Poland. Pol. J. Ecol. 2019, 67, 75–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. Kouba, M.; Bartoš, L.; Bartošová, J.; Hongisto, K.; Korpimäki, E. Interactive influences of fluctuations of main food resources and climate change on long-term population decline of Tengmalm’s owls in the boreal forest. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 20429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Balestrieri, A.; Gazzola, A.; Formenton, G.; Canova, L. Long-term impact of agricultural practices on the diversity of small mammal communities: A case study based on owl pellets. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2019, 191, 725. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Prūsaitė, J.; Maldžiūnaitė, S.; Likevičienė, N. Mammals (Mammalia) of the reservation of Žuvintas. In The Reservation of Žuvintas; Zajančkauskas, P., Šivickis, P., Eds.; Mintis: Vilnius, Lithuania, 1968; pp. 377–388. [Google Scholar]
  31. Arnastauskienė, T.; Kazlauskas, J.; Maldžiūnaitė, S. On the natural groupings of the intestinal parasites of mouse rodents of the preserve of Kamsa and their dependence on host biotope, species and its population structure. Acta Parasitol. Litu. 1978, 16, 15–32. [Google Scholar]
  32. Maldžiūnaitė, S. Small mammals in Žagarė reserve. In Žagarės Forest; Lekavičius, A., Jankevičienė, R., Tučienė, A., Eds.; Mokslas: Vilnius, Lithuania, 1980; pp. 48–50. [Google Scholar]
  33. Maldžiūnaitė, S.; Mažeikytė, R.; Gruodis, S. Small mammalia on cultivated pastures in the Middle Lithuania (1. Species composition of small mammalia in non-irrigated cultivated pastures). Liet. TSR Moksl. Akad. Darb. 1981, 4, 71–78. [Google Scholar]
  34. Balčiauskas, L.; Juškaitis, R. Diversity of small mammal communities in Lithuania (1. A review). Acta Zool. Litu. 1997, 7, 29–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Juškaitis, R.; Baranauskas, K. Diversity of small mammals in the northwestern Lithuania (Mažeikiai district). Acta Zool. Litu. 2001, 11, 343–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Juškaitis, R. Metelių regioninio parko smulkieji žinduoliai. Theriol. Litu. 2002, 2, 47–57. [Google Scholar]
  37. Juškaitis, R.; Ulevičius, A. Kuršių Nerijos nacionalinio parko smulkieji žinduoliai. Theriol. Litu. 2002, 2, 34–46. [Google Scholar]
  38. Mačiulis, M. Kamanų rezervato ir apsauginės zonos žinduoliai. Theriol. Litu. 2002, 2, 21–33. [Google Scholar]
  39. Mažeikytė, R. Kanio raisto botaninio-zoologinio draustinio smulkieji žinduoliai. Theriol. Litu. 2002, 2, 58–69. [Google Scholar]
  40. Ulevičius, A.; Juškaitis, R.; Pauža, D.; Balčiauskas, L.; Ostasevičius, V. Žemaitijos nacionalinio parko žinduoliai. Theriol. Litu. 2002, 2, 1–20. [Google Scholar]
  41. Atkočaitis, O. Sodybos pastatuose sugauti smulkieji žinduoliai. Theriol. Litu. 2003, 3, 57–61. [Google Scholar]
  42. Juškaitis, R.; Ulevičius, A. Smulkiųjų žinduolių rūšinė sudėtis Vilkaviškio ir Šakių rajonuose. Theriol. Litu. 2003, 3, 39–44. [Google Scholar]
  43. Mažeikytė, R. Baranavos botaninio zoologinio draustinio smulkieji žinduoliai. Theriol. Litu. 2003, 3, 45–56. [Google Scholar]
  44. Ulevičius, A.; Juškaitis, R. Dzūkijos nacionalinio parko žinduoliai (išskyrus šikšnosparnius). Theriol. Litu. 2003, 3, 11–29. [Google Scholar]
  45. Juškaitis, R.; Ulevičius, A. Small mammals in the environs of Piktupėnai and Natkiškiai (Šilutė district). Theriol. Litu. 2004, 4, 67–68. [Google Scholar]
  46. Pakeltytė, G.; Andriuškevičius, A. Smulkiųjų žinduolių bendrijos rūšių įvairovė ir gausumas Nevėžio kraštovaizdžio draustinio monitoringo vietose. Theriol. Litu. 2004, 4, 43–52. [Google Scholar]
  47. Atkočaitis, O. Sodybos pastatuose sugauti smulkieji žinduoliai: Nauji duomenys. Theriol. Litu. 2005, 5, 76–77. [Google Scholar]
  48. Balčiauskas, L. Results of the long-term monitoring of small mammal communities in the Ignalina Nuclear Power Plant Region (Drūkšiai LTER site). Acta Zool. Litu. 2005, 15, 79–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Balčiauskienė, L. Analysis of Tawny Owl (Strix aluco) food remains as a tool for long-term monitoring of small mammals. Acta Zool. Litu. 2005, 15, 85–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Balčiauskienė, L.; Juškaitis, R.; Atkočaitis, O. The Diet of the Tawny Owl (Strix aluco) in South-Western Lithuania during the Breeding Period. Acta Zool. Litu. 2005, 15, 13–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Balčiauskienė, L.; Petraška, A. Prey of the Long-Eared Owl, Asio otus, in Central Lithuania. Young Res. Work. 2005, 2, 133–138. [Google Scholar]
  52. Juškaitis, R.; Dementavičius, D. Būdos miško pakraštyje (Kaišiadorių rajonas) sugauti smulkieji žinduoliai. Theriol. Litu. 2005, 5, 77–78. [Google Scholar]
  53. Juškaitis, R.; Uselis, V. Viešvilės rezervato smulkieji žinduoliai. Theriol. Litu. 2005, 5, 40–50. [Google Scholar]
  54. Zalunskaitė, S.; Lopeta, V. Smulkieji žinduoliai Kurtuvėnų regioninio parko šiaurinėje dalyje. Theriol. Litu. 2005, 5, 51–57. [Google Scholar]
  55. Balčiauskas, L.; Gudaitė, A. Diversity of Small Mammals in Winter Season in North East Lithuania. Acta Zool. Litu. 2006, 16, 137–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Balčiauskienė, L.; Dementavičius, D. Habitat determination of tawny owl (Strix aluco) prey composition during breeding period. Acta Biol. Univ. Daugavp. 2006, 6, 1–12. [Google Scholar]
  57. Balčiauskienė, L.; Jovaišas, A.; Naruševičius, V.; Petraška, A.; Skuja, S. Diet of Tawny Owl (Strix aluco) and Long-eared Owl (Asio otus) in Lithuania as found from pellets. Acta Zool. Litu. 2006, 16, 37–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Balčiauskienė, L.; Naruševičius, V. Coincidence of small mammal trapping data with their share in the Tawny Owl diet. Acta Zool. Litu. 2006, 16, 93–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Šinkūnas, R. Smulkiųjų Žinduolių Bendrijos Izoliuotose ir Fragmentuotose Buveinėse. Ph.D. Dissertation, Vilnius University, Vilnius, Lithuania, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  60. Šinkūnas, R.; Balčiauskas, L. Small mammal communities in the fragmented landscape in Lithuania. Acta Zool. Litu. 2006, 16, 130–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Balčiauskienė, L.; Balčiauskas, L. Common dormouse as a prey item of breeding tawny owls in five districts of Lithuania. Acta Zool. Litu. 2008, 18, 61–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Żmihorski, M.; Balčiauskienė, L.; Romanowski, J. Small mammals in the diet of the Tawny Owl (Strix aluco L.) in Central European Lowland. Pol. J. Ecol. 2008, 56, 693–700. [Google Scholar]
  63. Alejūnas, P.; Stirkė, V. Small mammals in northern Lithuania: Species diversity and abundance. Ekologija 2010, 56, 110–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Balčiauskas, L.; Alejūnas, P. Small mammal species diversity and abundance in Žagarė Regional Park. Acta Zool. Litu. 2011, 21, 163–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Jasiulionis, M.; Čepukienė, A.; Balčiauskas, L. Small mammal community changes during succession of the planted forest. Acta Zool. Litu. 2011, 21, 293–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Balčiauskas, L.; Balčiauskienė, L.; Janonytė, A. The influence of spring floods on small mammal communities in the Nemunas River Delta, Lithuania. Biologia 2012, 67, 1220–1229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  67. Čepukienė, A.; Jasiulionis, M. Small mammal community changes during forest succession (Pakruojis district, north Lithuania). Zool. Ecol. 2012, 22, 144–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Čepukienė, A. Smulkiųjų Žinduolių Bendrijos Pokyčiai Miško Sukcesijos Pradinėse Stadijose. Ph.D. Dissertation, Vilnius University, Vilnius, Lithuania, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  69. Balčiauskienė, L.; Jasiulionis, M.; Balčiauskas, L. Loss of diversity in a small mammal community in a habitat influenced by a colony of great cormorants. Acta Zool. Bulg. 2014, 66, 229–234. [Google Scholar]
  70. Balciauskas, L.; Balciauskiene, L.; Jasiulionis, M. Mammals under a colony of great cormorants: Population structure and body condition of yellow-necked mice. Turk. J. Zool. 2015, 39, 941–948. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Balčiauskas, L.; Skipitytė, R.; Balčiauskienė, L.; Jasiulionis, M. Resource partitioning confirmed by isotopic signatures allows small mammals to share seasonally flooded meadows. Ecol. Evol. 2019, 9, 5479–5489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Balčiauskas, L.; Balčiauskienė, L.; Stirkė, V. Mow the grass at the mouse’s peril: Diversity of small Mammals in commercial fruit farms. Animals 2019, 9, 334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  73. Jasiulionis, M. Impact of the Colonies of Great Cormorants (Phalacrocorax Carbo Sinensis) on Mammals. Ph.D. Dissertation, Vilnius University, Vilnius, Lithuania, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  74. Balčiauskas, L.; Balčiauskienė, L.; Garbaras, A.; Stirkė, V. Diversity and Diet Differences of Small Mammals in Commensal Habitats. Diversity 2021, 13, 346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Balčiauskas, L.; Skipitytė, R.; Garbaras, A.; Stirkė, V.; Balčiauskienė, L.; Remeikis, V. Isotopic niche of syntopic granivores in commercial orchards and meadows. Animals 2021, 11, 2375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Balčiauskas, L.; Skipitytė, R.; Garbaras, A.; Stirkė, V.; Balčiauskienė, L.; Remeikis, V. Stable isotopes reveal the dominant species to have the widest trophic niche of three syntopic Microtus voles. Animals 2021, 11, 1814. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  77. Stirkė, V.; Balčiauskas, L.; Balčiauskienė, L. Common Vole as a Focal Small Mammal Species in Orchards of the Northern Zone. Diversity 2021, 13, 134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Kitrytė, N. Diversity of Small Mammal Parasites and Factors Shaping Their Communities. Ph.D. Dissertation, Vilnius University, Vilnius, Lithuania, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  79. Fournier, A.M.; White, E.R.; Heard, S.B. Site-selection bias and apparent population declines in long-term studies. Conserv. Biol. 2019, 33, 1370–1379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  80. Gotelli, N.J.; Colwell, R.K. Quantifying biodiversity: Procedures and pitfalls in the measurement and comparison of species richness. Ecol. Lett. 2001, 4, 379–391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  81. Chao, A.; Gotelli, N.J.; Hsieh, T.C.; Sander, E.L.; Ma, K.H.; Colwell, R.K.; Ellison, A.M. Rarefaction and extrapolation with Hill numbers: A framework for sampling and estimation in species diversity studies. Ecol. Monogr. 2014, 84, 45–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  82. Krebs, C.J. Ecological Methodology; Harper & Row: New York, NY, USA, 1989. [Google Scholar]
  83. Brown, L.D.; Cat, T.T.; DasGupta, A. Interval Estimation for a proportion. Stat. Sci. 2001, 16, 101–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Dean, A.G.; Sullivan, K.M.; Soe, M.M. OpenEpi: Open Source Epidemiologic Statistics for Public Health. Available online: http://OpenEpi.com (accessed on 19 January 2021).
  85. G-Test Calculator. Available online: https://elem.com/~btilly/effective-ab-testing/g-test-calculator.html (accessed on 16 March 2021).
  86. Veteikis, D.; Piškinaitė, E. Geografiniai žemėnaudos kaitos tyrimai Lietuvoje: Raida, kryptys, perspektyvos. Geol. Geogr. 2019, 5, 14–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Mizaras, S.; Doftartė, A.; Lukminė, D.; Šilingienė, R. Sustainability of Small-Scale Forestry and Its Influencing Factors in Lithuania. Forests 2020, 11, 619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Senetra, A.; Szczepańska, A.; Veteikis, D.; Wasilewicz-Pszczółkowska, M.; Šimanauskienė, R.; Volungevičius, J. Changes of the land use patterns in the Polish and Lithuanian trans-border rural area. Baltica 2013, 26, 157–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  89. Prishchepov, A.V.; Radeloff, V.C.; Baumann, M.; Kuemmerle, T.; Müller, D. Effects of institutional changes on land use: Agricultural land abandonment during the transition from state-command to market-driven economies in post-Soviet Eastern Europe. Environ. Res. Lett. 2012, 7, 024021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Auškalnienė, O.; Pšibišauskienė, G.; Auškalnis, A.; Lazauskas, S.; Povilaitis, V.; Sakalauskienė, S.; Sakalauskaitė, J.; Duchovskis, P.; Raudonius, S. Segetalinės floros pokyčiai Lietuvoje paskutiniaisiais dešimtmečiais. Kaimo Raidos Kryptys Žinių Visuomenėje 2011, 2, 217–222. [Google Scholar]
  91. Juknelienė, D.; Kazanavičiūtė, V.; Valčiukienė, J.; Atkocevičienė, V.; Mozgeris, G. Spatiotemporal Patterns of Land-Use Changes in Lithuania. Land 2021, 10, 619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Sujetovienė, G.; Dabašinskas, G. Interactions between changes in land cover and potential of ecosystem services in Lithuania at temporal and spatial scale. Ecol. Complex. 2022, 49, 100984. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Grašytė, G. Indicators of Fledging Initiation, Individual and Population Dynamics of the House Owl Strix Aluco, Their Long-Term Variation and Links to Habitat and Climate Change. PhD Thesis, Gamtos Tyrimų Centras, Vilnius, Lithuania, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  94. Grašytė, G.; Rumbutis, S.; Dagys, M.; Treinys, R. Breeding Performance, Apparent Survival, Nesting Location and Diet in a Local Population of the Tawny Owl Strix aluco in Central Lithuania Over the Long-Term. Acta Ornithol. 2016, 51, 163–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Hurst, Z.M.; McCleery, R.A.; Collier, B.A.; Silvy, N.J.; Taylor, P.J.; Monadjem, A. Linking changes in small mammal communities to ecosystem functions in an agricultural landscape. Mamm. Biol. 2014, 79, 17–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Torre, I.; Gracia-Quintas, L.; Arrizabalaga, A.; Baucells, J.; Díaz, M. Are recent changes in the terrestrial small mammal communities related to land use change? A test using pellet analyses. Ecol. Res. 2015, 30, 813–819. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  97. Ecke, F.; Angeler, D.G.; Magnusson, M.; Khalil, H.; Hörnfeldt, B. Dampening of population cycles in voles affects small mammal community structure, decreases diversity, and increases prevalence of a zoonotic disease. Ecol. Evol. 2017, 7, 5331–5342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Dorigo, L.; Boscutti, F.; Sigura, M. Landscape and microhabitat features determine small mammal abundance in forest patches in agricultural landscapes. PeerJ 2021, 9, e12306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Wang, D.; Anderson, D.P.; Li, K.; Guo, Y.; Yang, Z.; Pech, R.P. Predicted population dynamics of an indigenous rodent, Apodemus agrarius, in an agricultural system. Crop Prot. 2021, 147, 105683. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Holland, G.J.; Bennett, A.F. Differing responses to landscape change: Implications for small mammal assemblages in forest fragments. Biodivers. Conserv. 2009, 18, 2997–3016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Graham, S.I.; Kinnaird, M.F.; O’Brien, T.G.; Vågen, T.G.; Winowiecki, L.A.; Young, T.P.; Young, H.S. Effects of land-use change on community diversity and composition are highly variable among functional groups. Ecol. Appl. 2019, 29, e01973. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  102. Foster, J.; Gaines, M.S. The effects of a successional habitat mosaic on a small mammal community. Ecology 1991, 72, 1358–1373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. European Environment Agency. Corine Land Cover 1990, Version 2020_20u1. Available online: https://land.copernicus.eu/pan-european/corine-land-cover/clc-1990?tab=metadata (accessed on 1 June 2022).
  104. Lietuvos Respublikos Aplinkos Ministerija. Miškų Lietuvoje Daugėja. 2020. Available online: https://am.lrv.lt/lt/naujienos/misku-lietuvoje-daugeja (accessed on 1 June 2022).
  105. Panzacchi, M.; Linnell, J.D.; Melis, C.; Odden, M.; Odden, J.; Gorini, L.; Andersen, R. Effect of land-use on small mammal abundance and diversity in a forest–farmland mosaic landscape in south-eastern Norway. For. Ecol. Manag. 2010, 259, 1536–1545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Sullivan, T.P.; Sullivan, D.S.; Lindgren, P.M.F. Small mammals and stand structure in young pine, seed-tree, and old-growth forest, southwest Canada. Ecol. Appl. 2000, 10, 1367–1383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Ecke, F.; Löfgren, O.; Sörlin, D. Population dynamics of small mammals in relation to forest age and structural habitat factors in northern Sweden. J. Appl. Ecol. 2002, 39, 781–792. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Volpert, Y.L.; Shadrina, E.G. Latitude- and climate-associated patterns in small mammal fauna changes of the West Yakutia. Russ. J. Theriol. 2019, 18, 33–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Peters, M.K.; Hemp, A.; Appelhans, T.; Becker, J.N.; Behler, C.; Classen, A.; Detsch, F.; Ensslin, A.; Ferger, S.W.; Frederiksen, S.B.; et al. Climate–land-use interactions shape tropical mountain biodiversity and ecosystem functions. Nature 2019, 568, 88–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Meserve, P.L.; Kelt, D.A.; Previtali, M.A.; Milstead, W.B.; Gutiérrez, J.R. Global climate change and small mammal populations in north-central Chile. J. Mammal. 2011, 92, 1223–1235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  111. Mason-Romo, E.D.; Ceballos, G.; Lima, M.; Martínez-Yrízar, A.; Jaramillo, V.J.; Maass, M. Long-term population dynamics of small mammals in tropical dry forests, effects of unusual climate events, and implications for management and conservation. For. Ecol. Manag. 2018, 426, 123–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Mérő, T.O.; Bocz, R.; Polyák, L.; Horváth, G.; Lengyel, S. Local habitat management and landscape-scale restoration influence small-mammal communities in grasslands. Anim. Conserv. 2015, 18, 442–450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  113. Mulligan, M.P.; Schooley, R.L.; Ward, M.P. Effects of Connectivity and Regional Dynamics on Restoration of Small Mammal Communities in Midwestern Grasslands. Restor. Ecol. 2013, 21, 678–685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Meserve, P.L. Genesis, evolution, and future of a long-term study of small mammals in South America. Mastozoología Neotrop. 2016, 23, 11–16. [Google Scholar]
Life 12 01887 g001 550
Figure 1. Analysis of the dependence of diversity trends on the sampling effort in small mammal trapping: (a)—species accumulation curves, (b)—the pattern of diversity index, H.
Figure 1. Analysis of the dependence of diversity trends on the sampling effort in small mammal trapping: (a)—species accumulation curves, (b)—the pattern of diversity index, H.
Life 12 01887 g001
Life 12 01887 g002 550
Figure 2. The trend in the proportion of trapped small mammal species in Lithuania by the decade 1975–2021: (a)—species with over 1% of all trapped individuals, (b)—other species (with under 1% of all trapped individuals).
Figure 2. The trend in the proportion of trapped small mammal species in Lithuania by the decade 1975–2021: (a)—species with over 1% of all trapped individuals, (b)—other species (with under 1% of all trapped individuals).
Life 12 01887 g002
Life 12 01887 g003 550
Figure 3. Trends in proportions of small mammal trophic groups in Lithuania by decade, 1975–2021.
Figure 3. Trends in proportions of small mammal trophic groups in Lithuania by decade, 1975–2021.
Life 12 01887 g003
Life 12 01887 g004 550
Figure 4. Proportions of small mammal species recovered from the owl pellets (a) and proportions of trophic groups (b) by decade.
Figure 4. Proportions of small mammal species recovered from the owl pellets (a) and proportions of trophic groups (b) by decade.
Life 12 01887 g004
Table
Table 1. Species composition of small mammals trapped in Lithuania between 1975–2021 and retrieved from owl pellets in the period 1986–2009. Trophic groups: I—insectivores, G—granivores, H—herbivores, O—omnivores, according to Ref. [71].
Table 1. Species composition of small mammals trapped in Lithuania between 1975–2021 and retrieved from owl pellets in the period 1986–2009. Trophic groups: I—insectivores, G—granivores, H—herbivores, O—omnivores, according to Ref. [71].
SpeciesTrophic GroupTrapping, Ind.Pellets, Ind.Total, Ind.
Common shrew (Sorex araneus)I51826765858
Pygmy shrew (S. minutus)I16951491844
Water shrew (Neomys fodiens)I21849267
Mediterranean water shrew (N. anomalus)I303
Hazel dormouse (Muscardinus avellanarius)O1119120
Northern birch mouse (Sicista betulina)G385391
House mouse (Mus musculus)O54442586
Striped field mouse (Apodemus agrarius)G54341425576
Yellow-necked mouse (A. flavicollis)G9079114510,224
Wood mouse (A. sylvaticus)G14014
Pygmy field mouse (A. uralensis)G2181219
Harvest mouse (Micromys minutus)G58236618
Brown rat (Rattus norvegicus)O212546
Black rat (R. rattus)O26026
Bank vole (Clethrionomys glareolus)O19,673170321,376
Water vole (Arvicola amphibius)H326395
Common vole (Microtus arvalis)H47827255507
Root vole (M. oeconomus)H26931542847
Short-tailed vole (M. agrestis)H15236832206
Sibling vole (M. rossiaemeridionalis)H37037
Total, N 51,795577557,570
Species, S 201620
Diversity, H 1.902.031.93
Dominance, D 0.210.170.20
Table
Table 2. Representativeness and genesis of small mammals trapping in Lithuania between 1975–2021.
Table 2. Representativeness and genesis of small mammals trapping in Lithuania between 1975–2021.
PeriodMapTrapping PurposeTrapping EffortReferences
TSTDBy Habitat
1975–1980Life 12 01887 i001IM, IPA, M, P616,330Life 12 01887 i002[31,32,33]
1981–1990Life 12 01887 i003INPP, IPA, ODI, P450,250Life 12 01887 i004[34,48,49]
1991–2000Life 12 01887 i005IPA, IBT, IFS, IS, SMM, M, MA, ODI6986,165Life 12 01887 i006[35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,49,50,51]
2001–2010Life 12 01887 i007IFS, IPA; SMM, M, ODI, IFM, IS35116,442Life 12 01887 i008[46,47,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63]
2011–2020Life 12 01887 i009ICC, ICH, IFM, IO, P, M4098,693Life 12 01887 i010[3,16,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,78]
2021Life 12 01887 i011ICC, ICH, IO, P118908Life 12 01887 i012[74,75,76,77]
Trapping purpose: IPA—inventory of protected areas; P—material for parasitological research; INPP—small mammal monitoring in the region of Ignalina Nuclear Power Plant; IBT—inventory of potentially biodiversity-rich territories; SMM—small mammal monitoring program, state level; IO—investigations in commercial orchards; ICH—investigation of commensal habitats; ICC—investigation of colonies of great cormorants (Phalacrocorax carbo); IFS—investigation of meadow-forest succession; IM—inventory of meadows; IS—inventory of islands; M—miscellaneous; MA—mammal atlas works; ODI—owl diet inventory, IFM—Investigation of flooded meadows. TS—number of unique trapping sites, TD—trap-days. Main trapping habitats: F—forests; M—meadows; W—wetlands; 3X—forests + wetlands + meadows combined; O—other, presented as proportions (0 to 1).
Table
Table 3. Trends of trapped small mammal diversity indices in Lithuania by decade, 1975–2021. For the number of species, the limits of Chao-1 estimates are given in parentheses. For diversity and dominance indices, bootstrap values are given. Different superscript letters denote significant differences at p < 0.001.
Table 3. Trends of trapped small mammal diversity indices in Lithuania by decade, 1975–2021. For the number of species, the limits of Chao-1 estimates are given in parentheses. For diversity and dominance indices, bootstrap values are given. Different superscript letters denote significant differences at p < 0.001.
Index1975–19801981–19901991–20002001–20102011–20202021
Individuals, N3637472916,14413,85412,764667
Number of species, S17
(17–23)		14
(14–15)		18
(18–18)		19
(19–25)		17
(17–20)		12
(12–15)
Diversity, H1.43 a
(1.39–1.46)		1.36 b
(1.33–1.40)		1.84 c
(1.82–1.86)		1.93 d
(1.91–1.94)		1.93 d
(1.91–1.94)		1.69 e
(1.63–1.75)
Dominance, D0.33 a
(0.32–0.34)		0.43 b
(0.41–0.44)		0.24 c
(0.23–0.24)		0.20 d
(0.20–0.20)		0.18 e
(0.18–0.18)		0.22 c
(0.21–0.24)
Table
Table 4. Diversity indices of small mammals recovered from owl pellets in Lithuania by decade, 1986–2009. For the number of species, the limits of Chao-1 estimates are given in parentheses. For diversity and dominance indices, bootstrap values are given. Different superscript letters denote significant differences at p < 0.001.
Table 4. Diversity indices of small mammals recovered from owl pellets in Lithuania by decade, 1986–2009. For the number of species, the limits of Chao-1 estimates are given in parentheses. For diversity and dominance indices, bootstrap values are given. Different superscript letters denote significant differences at p < 0.001.
Index1981–19901991–20002001–2009
Individuals, N4320293703
Number of species, S9 (8–12) a16 (16–16) b15 (15–15) b
Diversity, H2.02 a (1.81–2.09)2.02 a (1.97–2.05)2.03 a (2.00–2.06)
Dominance, D0.15 a (0.14–0.20)0.17 a (0.17–0.18)0.17 a (0.17–0.18)
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Balčiauskas, L.; Balčiauskienė, L. Small Mammal Diversity Changes in a Baltic Country, 1975–2021: A Review. Life 2022, 12, 1887. https://doi.org/10.3390/life12111887

AMA Style

Balčiauskas L, Balčiauskienė L. Small Mammal Diversity Changes in a Baltic Country, 1975–2021: A Review. Life. 2022; 12(11):1887. https://doi.org/10.3390/life12111887

Chicago/Turabian Style

Balčiauskas, Linas, and Laima Balčiauskienė. 2022. "Small Mammal Diversity Changes in a Baltic Country, 1975–2021: A Review" Life 12, no. 11: 1887. https://doi.org/10.3390/life12111887

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop