Next Article in Journal
Alzheimer’s Disease and Impaired Bone Microarchitecture, Regeneration and Potential Genetic Links
Previous Article in Journal
Is Hypovitaminosis D a Risk Factor for Heart Failure?
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Life
Volume 13
Issue 2
10.3390/life13020375
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:
Article

Abundance and Population Structure of Small Rodents in Fruit and Berry Farms

by
Linas Balčiauskas
*,
Vitalijus Stirkė
and
Laima Balčiauskienė
Nature Research Centre, Akademijos 2, LT-08412 Vilnius, Lithuania
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Life 2023, 13(2), 375; https://doi.org/10.3390/life13020375
Submission received: 11 January 2023 / Accepted: 28 January 2023 / Published: 29 January 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Diversity and Ecology)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Fruit and berry farms are anthropogenic habitats still inhabited by small mammals, though their presence is constantly affected by agricultural activities. Based on trapping data from 2018–2022, we analyzed the abundance and population structure of the dominant rodent species to assess changes in gender and age ratios by year and habitat, the annual and seasonal dynamics of relative abundance, and the relationship between breeding parameters and abundance. The relative abundance of the dominant species, common vole, yellow-necked mouse, striped field mouse, and bank vole, and their proportion in the investigated community varied according to year, season, and habitat. No outbreaks were recorded during the study period. The abundance of the striped field mouse exhibited a downward trend independently of habitat, while the abundance and proportions of the other three species were habitat-dependent. There was no consistent pattern between litter size and relative abundance in the same or following years. Given the ongoing conflict between biodiversity conservation in Europe and agriculture, the results contribute to a better understanding of the functioning and viability of rodent populations in fruit farms and may be used in agroecology and sustainable farming.

1. Introduction

The global decline in biodiversity with an increasing rate is widely recognized [1,2]. Of the many factors contributing to biodiversity loss, increasing anthropogenic pressures are considered to be the most important [3], and there is still a need to identify management measures for the conflicts between human activities and wildlife [4,5]. One of the most important questions related to small mammals is how to avoid conflicts between humans and these animals in agricultural [6] and residential areas [7].
Despite various eradication measures, small mammals remain an integral part of agricultural ecosystems [8]. Rodent damage to crops and forest plantations [9,10,11] is at its highest following outbreaks [12], which have been observed simultaneously across Europe [12]. Outbreaks are mainly linked to food supply [13], altering survival, and reproduction. The population dynamics of cyclic rodents are partly dependent on changes in reproductive parameters, which are related to climate variables [14]. However, the results on the abundance dynamics of the non-cyclic common vole show a strong effect of mortality and disease, as population growth rates were not related to climatic variables and female reproductive parameters. Therefore, the mechanism of the rodent outbreaks is not fully clear [15].
Rodent management issues are very important because of the damage they cause [14,16] and the sustainability of agriculture, which require coordinated eradication. Therefore, integrated pest management aims to minimize the use of rodenticides by recommending environmentally safer methods [17]. Data on rodent species composition and biology are essential for ecologically sound rodent management [18]. Understanding the dynamics of rodent numbers [17], their spatial structure [19,20], and reproductive patterns [21] helps to minimize the damage to agriculture by selecting the optimal timing, location, and scale of rodent management measures.
According to the FAO, there are more than 2.2 million orchards in the world, covering 53 million hectares, and giving an average orchard size of about 24 hectares [22]. In the EU, Poland had the largest area of apple orchards in 2017, expanding by 17,700 ha (23,900 ha for the EU as a whole) in 2012–2017. Traditionally, orchards are not only a source of food, but also a source of well-being for people and wildlife [23]. As a habitat with different conditions for animals than crop fields, orchards can support a wide diversity of small mammals [20,24,25]. The edge effect, which leads to a reduction in rodents in agricultural habitats in the middle of larger areas [19], has not been investigated in orchards. Our previous work demonstrating the positive role of orchards in maintaining small mammal diversity as a function of farm age and agricultural intensity [26,27] did not consider the age and sex composition of the species, which adds to the information on their adaptive capacity and viability. It has been argued that population increases are driven by survival, and not reproduction [28]. However, in the middle latitudes, reproduction intensity is certainly related to population dynamics [12,14,15]; therefore, the monitoring of pest rodent species requires knowledge of seasonal variations in abundance and the population structure and their reproduction parameters [21].
The aim of the study was to analyze the dynamics of the dominant small rodent species in fruit farms by (i) assessing the age and gender proportions by year and habitat, (ii) analyzing the annual and seasonal dynamics of the relative abundance and the proportions of the most abundant species in the community in different crops, and (iii) checking whether the proportion of breeding females and the mean litter size correlate with the abundance of the species.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Sites

Eighteen areas with fruit and berry farms (63.7 ha on average) in Lithuania were surveyed between 2018 and 2022 (Figure 1). A few sites were only surveyed in 2018–2019 and were subsequently abandoned for logistical reasons (sites in the west of the country) or poor results, such as a blueberry plantation or young apple orchards, where small mammals were absent due to very intensive agricultural practices. In each area, crops were combined with control habitats, either hay meadows/non-hay meadows or forests. Additional details about the study sites are presented in [27].

2.2. Small Mammal Trapping: Trapping Effort and Sample Size

In 2018–2022, we snap-trapped small mammals using a standard method: trap lines of 25 traps at 5 m intervals, exposed for three days, baited with brown bread and raw sunflower oil, and checked once a day in the morning [29]. The same 7 × 14 cm standard kill traps were used in all years. The sampling unit was a three-day trapping session in a single habitat, in a given year, and at a given season. Two trapping sessions were used per year, the first in summer (June) and the second in autumn (September–October), with the exception of 2022, when small mammals were trapped only in autumn. The total trapping effort was 36,978 trapping days, 23,843 in fruit and berry farms, and 12,835 in control habitats (Table 1).
Trapped small mammals were identified by their external features, with grey voles of the genus Microtus by their teeth at dissection and after cleaning skulls [30].
The age and sex of the animal were determined at dissection. Juveniles (juv), sub-adults (sub), and adults (ad) were determined by thymic atrophy, which decreases with age [31,32], and the condition of the genitalia [33,34]. The juvenile category included individuals with a fully developed thymus, but still developing reproductive organs, such as a closed vagina, a thread-like uterus, and testicles retracted into the abdomen [35]. Individuals with no signs of breeding, inactive albeit developed genitalia, and partially involuted thymuses were recognized as subadults. Breeding individuals with atrophied thymuses were classified as adults. These included overwintered individuals, males with scrotal testes and developed accessory glands, as well as pregnant or lactating females, including those with perforated vaginas [32]. Body mass was used as an additional trait for age determination.

2.3. Data Analyses

We analyzed the number of species in the small mammal communities, the relative abundance (number of individuals trapped per 100 trap/days), and the proportion of dominant ones of the common vole (Microtus arvalis), the yellow-necked mouse (Apodemus flavicollis), the striped field mouse (Apodemus agrarius), and the bank vole (Clethrionomys glareolus). The average values of all these indices for each trapping session (n = 215) were calculated and used as baseline data. The sex ratio and proportions of the age groups of these species were analyzed by year and habitat. Data were not transposed.
Proportions with Fisher’s 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated online, using Quantitative Parasitology software, Qpweb version 1.0.15 (https://www2.univet.hu/qpweb/qp10/index.php, accessed on 10 November 2022) [36]. The significance of differences in the proportions was assessed using the online G-test calculator (https://elem.com/~btilly/effective-ab-testing/g-test-calculator.html accessed on 10 November 2022) [37].
The influence of the year, season, and habitat (categorical factors) on the relative abundance and proportions of species (dependent parameters) was assessed using GLM (generalized linear model) where the trapping effort was used as a continuous predictor to control for data variability. Model significance was determined using Hotelling’s T2, and the influence of categorical factors was estimated using eta-squared. A post-hoc analysis was performed applying Tukey HSD with unequal N. Before running the GLM, the normality of the distribution of the dependent parameters was checked using Kolmogorov–Smirnov’s D. The confidence level was set as p < 0.05. Calculations were performed with Statistica for Windows, version 6.0 (StatSoft, Inc., Tulsa, OK, USA) and PAST version 4.01 (Paleontological Museum, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway).
We also tested whether the non-equal trapping efforts in between years and habitats affected the results. A positive correlation between the number of trap days and the number of trapped individuals and the number of registered species was found. To eliminate the influence of the unequal trapping effort, we constructed species accumulation curves using individual-based rarefaction and assessed the existence of a sample size threshold, i.e., a minimum number of individuals trapped [38,39,40]. The analysis was performed with the PAST software.

3. Results

3.1. Species Composition and Dominants

During the five years of the survey, 1936 individuals representing 13 small mammal species were trapped (Table 2). Four species accounted for 90.8% of the trapped individuals: M. arvalis—28.7% (95% CI = 26.7–30.8%), A. flavicollis—27.9% (CI = 25.9–30.0%), A. agrarius—22.2% (CI = 20.4–24.1%), and C. glareolus—12.0% (CI = 10.6–13.5%). Insectivores accounted for 3%, and all other rodent species for 6.2% of all trapped individuals; therefore, their population structure was not analyzed further.
The trapping effort varied between sites (Table 1), years, and habitats (Table 2). The number of species (r = 0.69, p < 0.005) and the number of individuals trapped (r = 0.72, p < 0.005) were positively correlated with the trapping effort. Individual-based rarefaction showed that the trapping effort was sufficient in every year (Figure 2a) and in all habitats (Figure 2b), to record the presence of no less than seven species. The number of species trapped in 2021 and 2022 was as high as in 2019, although the trapping effort decreased. Furthermore, we analyzed the abundance and population structure of the four most abundant species only.

3.2. Relative Abundance and Proportions of Dominant Small Rodent Species

Overall, the relative abundance and proportion of M. arvalis, A. flavicollis, A. agrarius, and C. glareolus were most strongly influenced by season (Hotelling’s T2 = 0.29, p < 0.0001) and habitat (T2 = 0.75, p < 0.0001), and less strongly influenced by year (T2 = 0.25, p < 0.05), explaining 22.3%, 8.5%, and 6.0% of variance. The trapping effort also had a cumulative effect (T2 = 0.25, p < 0.0001; eta-squared = 0.20). The univariate results varied depending on the species (Table 3).
The influence of year was significant for the relative abundance of A. agrarius, which showed a downward trend (Figure 3). The other two species, A. flavicollis and C. glareolus, showed an increasing trend in abundance, while M. arvalis showed a pattern similar with four-year cyclical changes. For these three species, the influence of the year was not pronounced, including when comparing the summer and autumn seasons separately. The differences between summer and autumn relative abundance were best expressed in A. agrarius (not captured in summer 2018, 2020, and 2021) and M arvalis (not captured in summer 2021). The other two species showed a less-pronounced increase in relative abundance in autumn, being trapped in both summer and autumn.
The average relative abundance of all four species was significantly higher in autumn than in summer. The relative abundance of M. arvalis increased from 0.67 to 2.44 (post hoc, p < 0.001), of A. flavicollis from 0.86 to 2.18 (p < 0.001), and of C. glareolus from 0.54 to 1.19 individuals per 100 trap days (p < 0.05). The same significant differences persisted from year to year (Figure 3).
The proportions of dominant species varied between sites (Figure 4a). Farms with old apple orchards and low agricultural activity (sites 7, 9, 12, 16, 17, and 18) had none or low proportions of M. arvalis, but A. flavicollis and C. glareolus were abundant in the same areas. The highest proportions of M. arvalis in the small mammal community were found in currant and raspberry plantations (sites 3, 4, 8, and 14). The highest percentages of A. agrarius were found in apple orchards and raspberry plantations under intensive farming (sites 2, 10, 11, and 15).
The effect of the year was significant for a proportion of all abundant rodent species (Figure 4b): A. agrarius (G = 44.3, p < 0.001), A. flavicollis (G = 44.5, p < 0.001), M. arvalis (G = 28.7, p < 0.001), and C. glareolus (G = 11.0, p < 0.025). The proportion of A. agrarius was highest in 2018 (31.1%, CI = 27.1–35.3%), and that of M. arvalis in 2019 (36.7%, CI = 32.8–40.9%). The highest proportion of A. flavicollis was recorded in 2020–2021 (35.5%, CI = 37.8–37.5% and 35.6, CI = 29.8–41.8%), compared to the lowest in 2018 (17.2%, CI = 14.0–20.7%). The highest proportion of C. glareolus (17.4%, CI = 12.9–22.6%) was recorded in 2021.
Seasonally, the proportions of C. glareolus and A. flavicollis decreased in autumn, the proportions of M. arvalis remained stable, and the proportions of A. agrarius increased (Figure 4b).

3.3. Population Structure of Dominant Small Rodent Species

At the species level (regardless of year and habitat), the male-to-female ratio was 1:1 in A. flavicollis and C. glareolus. Females were prevailing in M. arvalis (56.3%, CI = 52.52–60.4%; G = 17.2, p < 0.001), males were prevailing in A. agrarius (56.4%, CI = 51.6–61.0%; G = 13.3, p < 0.005).
By year, females prevailed in M. arvalis between 2018 and 2021 (Figure 5a), with the highest proportion in 2021 (p < 0.10) and 2019 (59.5%, CI = 52.6–66.2%; G = 14.6, p < 0.001). A. flavicollis was significantly male-dominated in 2018; A. agrarius was significantly male-dominated in 2018, 2021 (69.4%, CI = 55.5-81.0%; G = 13.5, p < 0.001), and 2022; and C. glareolus had a sex ratio of 1:1 in all years.
At the species level (irrespective of year and habitat), juveniles prevailed in A. agrarius (57.2%, CI = 52.3–61.9%), M. arvalis (53.3%, CI = 49.0–57.5%), and C. glareolus (47.6%, CI = 41.0–54.3%), and adults prevailed in A. flavicollis (42.4%, CI = 38.2–46.7%). By year, there was a clear trend in M. arvalis towards a decreasing proportion of adults and an increasing proportion of juveniles (Figure 5b). Other small rodent species showed irregular changes in the proportions of age groups.
Only a few significant differences in the male-to-female ratio were confirmed between the different crops (Figure 6a). M. arvalis females were predominant in apple orchards (65.8%, CI = 58.1–71.1%; G = 38.0, p < 0.001), while A. agrarius males prevailed in apple orchards (58.4%, CI = 48.8–67.6%; G = 2.8, p < 0.05) and in the surrounding habitats (54.7%, CI = 48.1–62.3%; G = 3.8, p < 0.05). All other differences in the male-to-female ratio were not significant.
The highest proportions of adult individuals of M. arvalis, A. flavicollis, and C. glareolus were characteristic to apple orchards, and in A. agrarius to raspberry plantations (Figure 6b).

3.4. Relation of the Reproduction Parameters and Relative Abundance

We found that the proportion of females in mice was more strongly correlated with the relative abundance of the species in the same year (Figure 7a), while the proportion of females in voles was more strongly correlated with the relative abundance of the species in the subsequent year (Figure 7b). In terms of correlation, the coefficients were as follows: for M. arvalis, r = –0.31 in the same year and r = 0.51 in the following year; for A. flavicollis, r = 0.45 and r = 0.16; for A. agrarius, r = 0.65 and r = 0.32; and for C. glareolus, r = 0.35 and r = 0.90, respectively.
The relationship between litter size and relative abundance in the same year (Figure 7c) was positive and most pronounced for A. flavicollis (r = 0.63), less so for M. arvalis (r = 0.30), and negative for C. glareolus (r = –0.50); there was no relationship for A. agrarius (r = –0.01). The relative abundance of the first two species declined in the following year, after litter sizes were bigger (Figure 7d): M. arvalis had a correlation of r = –0.85, and A. flavicollis r = –0.92. For A. agrarius, larger litters correlated with higher relative abundance in the following year (r = 0.89), whereas for C. glareolus the relationship was weak (r = 0.22).

4. Discussion

We investigated four dominant rodent species in fruit farms which belong to different trophic groups: mice A. flavicollis and A. agrarius to granivores, voles M. arvalis to herbivores, and C. glareolus to omnivores [41,42]. The relative abundance and proportion of these four species in the investigated community varied according to the year, season, and habitat with different patterns (see Table 3 and Figure 3). The downward trend in abundance of A. agrarius between 2018 and 2022 was independent of habitat. In contrast, the abundance and proportions of the other three species were habitat-dependent. Three species showed pronounced seasonal fluctuations in abundance, except C. glareolus, possibly due to its omnivory. No outbreaks were recorded during the study period, despite the fact that M. arvalis abundance was highest in 2019, as in other European countries [12].
Fluctuations in the abundance of M. arvalis can be associated with different landscape types [43], and landscape can also influence high-amplitude cycles [44]. In the same latitude as Lithuania, only half a century ago, cyclical changes in the abundance of C. glareolus, but not Apodemus mice, were confirmed with the proportion of females equal to that of males only after particularly favorable seasons [45]. Cyclic changes of vole abundances have been registered in Poland, and neighboring Lithuania, after 1986 [46]. According to data on rodent damage to forests in the 1970s, Lithuania has seen outbreaks of voles, possibly due to colder and snowier winters, and rodents were eradicated in forest nurseries [47,48].
In northern Eurasia, cyclical fluctuations of up to 500-fold over 3–5 years in voles led to changes in the proportion of pregnant females and the length of the reproductive period. These fluctuations were spatially synchronized over a distance of up to 500 km [28]. In addition to the earlier suggestion that population dynamics are driven by small mammal survival rather than reproductive rates [28], the influence of climatic variables such as temperature, precipitation, and snow cover has recently received more attention [49,50,51,52,53]. However, the climate effects coupled with environmental factors on the rodent fluctuations and their synchrony are not just limited to northern latitudes as shown in [50,53,54,55]. Winter and early spring weather parameters have been important determinants of M. arvalis outbreaks in east Germany [56]. Temperature and rainfall strongly influenced the reproductive patterns of the non-cyclic M. arvalis population in France, but not the population growth rate [15]. Recently, Spain has also reported an increase in range and outbreaks [57].
There was no consistent pattern in our data between litter size and relative abundance in the same or following years (see Figure 7c,d), and we suppose our study period is too short to analyze climatic variables. Since the beginning of the 20th century, the average annual air temperature has increased by 0.8 °C [58]. It is most pronounced during the winter and spring seasons, together with higher precipitation during the cold season and lower precipitation in April–October [59]. In 2018–2020, the average air temperature was 0.78–1.8 °C above the long-term average [60], while precipitation was below the average. However, in 2021–2022, precipitation in May to August several times exceeded average [61]. As three of the dominant species, C. glareolus, M. arvalis, and A. flavicollis, have been found to be capable of winter breeding in their natural habitats in Lithuania [62,63,64], winter conditions may also influence population dynamics on fruit tree farms.
Winter conditions directly limit small mammal survival through changes in subnivean space [65] and access to food resources [66,67,68]. In agricultural areas, food availability for small mammals is regulated not only by climate, but also by a variety of other factors, such as the presence of hedgerows and seed-rich strips [69], the size and fragmentation of fields [70], farming practices [26,71], the use of crop-protection products [72], and the farm’s proximity to the natural habitat [19]. Some of these factors also affect the social characteristics of small mammal populations, such as gender and age structure or reproductive status [73,74].
Despite recent studies on small rodents in agroecosystems [18,75,76,77], fruit farms are one of the least addressed topics [24,25,78]. Our previous publications [26,27,79] have not addressed aspects of small rodent population structure, annual and seasonal dynamics of their abundance, and the correlation of relative abundance with reproductive parameters. These results therefore contribute to a better understanding of the functioning and viability of rodent populations in less-studied habitats under anthropogenic pressure, such as fruit farms. Given the ongoing conflict between biodiversity conservation in Europe and agriculture [80], the results can be used in agroecology [81] and sustainable farming.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization and investigation, L.B. (Linas Balčiauskas), V.S., and L.B. (Laima Balčiauskienė); methodology and formal analysis, L.B. (Linas Balčiauskas) and V.S.; data curation, V.S. and L.B. (Laima Balčiauskienė); funding acquisition, L.B. (Linas Balčiauskas). All authors participated in the writing of manuscript. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

In 2018 and 2019, this research was funded by the MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA, grant number MT-18-3.

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. Snap trapping was justifiable as we studied reproduction parameters and collected tissues and internal organs for the analysis of pathogens, elemental content, and stable isotopes (not covered in this publication).

Data Availability Statement

This is ongoing research; therefore, data are available from the corresponding author upon request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; nor in the collection, analysis, or interpretation of data; or the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. Butchart, S.H.M.; Walpole, M.; Collen, B.; Van Strien, A.; Scharlemann, J.P.W.; Almond, R.E.A.; Baillie, J.E.M.; Bomhard, B.; Brown, C.; Bruno, J.; et al. Global biodiversity: Indicators of recent declines. Science 2010, 328, 1164–1168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Díaz, S.; Malhi, Y. Biodiversity: Concepts, patterns, trends, and perspectives. Annu. Rev. Env. Resour. 2022, 47, 31–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Delibes-Mateos, M.; Smith, A.T.; Slobodchikoff, N.; Swenson, J.E. The paradox of keystone species persecuted as pests: A call for the conservation of abundant small mammals in their native range. Biol. Conserv. 2011, 144, 1335–1346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Lauret, V.; Delibes-Mateos, M.; Mougeot, F.; Arroyo-Lopez, B. Understanding conservation conflicts associated with rodent outbreaks in farmland areas. Ambio 2020, 49, 1122–1133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. McShane, T.O.; Hirsch, P.D.; Trung, T.C.; Songorwa, A.N.; Kinzig, A.; Monteferri, B.; Mutekanga, D.; Van Thang, H.; Dammert, J.L.; Pulgar-Vidal, M.; et al. Hard choices: Making tradeoffs between biodiversity conservation and human well-being. Biol. Conserv. 2011, 144, 966–972. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Young, J.; Watt, A.; Nowicki, P.; Alard, D.; Clitherow, J.; Henle, K.; Johnson, R.; Laczko, E.; McCracken, D.; Matouch, S.; et al. Towards sustainable land use: Identifying and managing the conflicts between human activities and biodiversity conservation in Europe. Biodivers. Conserv. 2005, 14, 1461–1661. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Mazza, V.; Dammhahn, M.; Lösche, E.; Eccard, J.A. Small mammals in the big city: Behavioural adjustments of non-commensal rodents to urban environments. Glob. Change Biol. 2020, 26, 6326–6337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Fischer, C.; Gayer, C.; Kurucz, K.; Riesch, F.; Tscharntke, T.; Batáry, P. Ecosystem services and disservices provided by small rodents in arable fields: Effects of local and landscape management. J. Appl. Ecol. 2018, 55, 548–558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Stenseth, N.C.; Leirs, H.; Skonhoft, A.; Davis, S.A.; Pech, R.P.; Andreassen, H.P.; Singleton, G.R.; Lima, M.; Machang’u, R.S.; Makundi, R.H.; et al. Mice, rats, and people: The bio-economics of agricultural rodent pests. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2003, 1, 367–375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Imholt, C.; Reil, D.; Plašil, P.; Rödiger, K.; Jacob, J. Long-term population patterns of rodents and associated damage in German forestry. Pest Manag. Sci. 2016, 73, 332–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Pech, R.P.; Davis, S.A.; Singleton, G.R. Outbreaks of rodents in agricultural systems: Pest control problems or symptoms of dysfunctional ecosystems? ACIAR Monogr. Ser. 2003, 96, 311–315. [Google Scholar]
  12. Jacob, J.; Imholt, C.; Caminero-Saldaña, C.; Couval, G.; Giraudoux, P.; Herrero-Cófreces, S.; Horváth, G.; Luque-Larena, J.J.; Tkadlec, E.; Wymenga, E. Europe-wide outbreaks of common voles in 2019. J. Pest Sci. 2020, 93, 703–709. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. White, T.C. The universal “bottom-up” limitation of animal populations by their food is illustrated by outbreaking species. Ecol. Res. 2019, 34, 336–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Andreassen, H.P.; Sundell, J.; Ecke, F.; Halle, S.; Haapakoski, M.; Henttonen, H.; Huitu, O.; Jacob, J.; Johnsen, K.; Koskela, E.; et al. Population cycles and outbreaks of small rodents: Ten essential questions we still need to solve. Oecologia 2021, 195, 601–622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Giraudoux, P.; Villette, P.; Quéré, J.P.; Damange, J.P.; Delattre, P. Weather influences M. arvalis reproduction but not population dynamics in a 17-year time series. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 13942. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Bommarco, R.; Kleijn, D.; Potts, S.G. Ecological intensification: Harnessing ecosystem services for fool security. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2013, 28, 230–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Murano, C.; Kasahara, S.; Kudo, S.; Inada, A.; Sato, S.; Watanabe, K.; Azuma, N. Effectiveness of vole control by owls in apple orchards. J. Appl. Ecol. 2019, 56, 677–687. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Singleton, G.R.; Lorica, R.P.; Htwe, N.M.; Stuart, A.M. Rodent management and cereal production in Asia: Balancing food security and conservation. Pest Manag. Sci. 2021, 77, 4249–4261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Rodríguez-Pastor, R.; Luque-Larena, J.J.; Lambin, X.; Mougeot, F. “Living on the edge”: The role of field margins for common vole (Microtus arvalis) populations in recently colonised Mediterranean farmland. Agr. Ecosyst. Environ. 2016, 231, 206–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Langraf, V.; Petrovičová, K.; Schlarmannová, J.; Brygadyrenko, V. The spatial structure of small mammals (Eulipotyphla, Rodentia) in ecological and conventional farming conditions. Agrology 2022, 5, 49–54. [Google Scholar]
  21. Jacoblinnert, K.; Jacob, J.; Zhang, Z.; Hinds, L.A. The status of fertility control for rodents—Recent achievements and future directions. Integr. Zool. 2022, 17, 964–980. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. FAO. World Food and Agriculture—Statistical Yearbook 2021; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Budgen, P. 2020. Traditional Orchards Are Our Past and Future. Promoting Biodiversity and Conservation in the UK. Available online: https://www.lifegate.com/traditional-orchards-conservation-biodiversity (accessed on 12 November 2022).
  24. Martínez-Sastre, R.; Miñarro, M.; García, D. Animal biodiversity in cider apple orchards: Simultaneous environmental drivers and effects on insectivory and pollination. Agr. Ecosyst. Environ. 2020, 295, 106918. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Barão, I.; Queirós, J.; Vale-Gonçalves, H.; Paupério, J.; Pita, R. Landscape Characteristics Affecting Small Mammal Occurrence in Heterogeneous Olive Grove Agro-Ecosystems. Conservation 2022, 2, 51–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. 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] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  27. Stirkė, V.; Balčiauskas, L.; Balčiauskienė, L. Spatiotemporal Variation of Small Mammal Communities in Commercial Orchards across the Small Country. Agriculture 2022, 12, 632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Korpimäki, E.; Brown, P.R.; Jacob, J.; Pech, R.P. The puzzles of population cycles and outbreaks of small mammals solved? Bioscience 2004, 54, 1071–1079. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Balčiauskas, L. Methods of Investigation of Terrestrial Ecosystems. Part I. Animal Surveys; VU Leidykla: Vilnius, Lithuania, 2004; p. 183. [Google Scholar]
  30. Prūsaitė, J. (Comp.). Fauna of Lithuania. Mammals; Mokslas: Vilnius, Lithuania, 1988; p. 295. [Google Scholar]
  31. Terman, R.C. Weights of selected organs of deer mice (Peromyscus maniculatus bairdii) from asymptotic laboratory populations. J. Mammal. 1969, 50, 311–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Balčiauskas, L.; Balčiauskienė, L.; Janonytė, A. Reproduction of the root vole (Microtus oeconomus) at the edge of its distribution range. Turk. J. Zool. 2012, 36, 668–675. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Myllymaki, A. Demographic mechanisms in the fluctuating populations of the field vole Microtus Agrestis. Oikos 1977, 29, 468–493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Crespin, L.; Verhagen, R.; Stenseth, N.C.; Yoccoz, N.G.; Prevot-Julliard, A.C.; Lebreton, J.D. Survival in fluctuating bank vole populations: Seasonal and yearly variations. Oikos 2002, 98, 467–479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. O’Rourke, D. Sexing or Gender Determination in Small Mammals. 3 June 2010. LafeberVet Web Site. Available online: https://lafeber.com/vet/sexing-or-gender-determination-in-small-mammals/ (accessed on 1 November 2022).
  36. Reiczigel, J.; Marozzi, M.; Fabian, I.; Rozsa, L. Biostatistics for parasitologists—A primer quantitative parasitology. Trends Parasitol. 2019, 35, 277–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. G-Test Calculator. Available online: https://elem.com/~btilly/effective-ab-testing/g-test-calculator.html (accessed on 10 November 2022).
  38. Krebs, C.J. Ecological Methodology; Harper & Row: New York, NY, USA, 1989. [Google Scholar]
  39. 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]
  40. 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]
  41. Butet, A.; Delettre, Y.R. Diet differentiation between European arvicoline and murine rodents. Acta Theriol. 2011, 56, 297–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Balčiauskas, L.; Stirkė, V.; Garbaras, A.; Skipitytė, R.; Balčiauskienė, L. Stable Isotope Analysis Supports Omnivory in Bank Voles in Apple Orchards. Agriculture 2022, 12, 1308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Delattre, P.; Giraudoux, P.; Baudry, J.; Quéré, J.P. Effect of landscape structure on Common Vole (Microtus arvalis) distribution and abundance at several space scales. Landscape Ecol. 1996, 11, 279–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Delattre, P.; Giraudoux, P.; Baudry, J.; Musard, P.; Toussaint, M.; Truchetet, D.; Stahl, P.; Poule, M.L.; Artois, M.; Damange, J.-P.; et al. Land use patterns and types of common vole (Microtus arvalis) population kinetics. Agr. Ecosyst. Environ. 1992, 39, 153–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Ashby, K.R. Studies on the ecology of field mice and voles (Apodemus sylvaticus, Clethrionomys glareolus and Microtus agrestis) in Houghall Wood, Durham. J. Zool. 2009, 152, 389–513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Zub, K.; Jędrzejewska, B.; Jędrzejewski, W.; Bartoń, K.A. Cyclic voles and shrews and non-cyclic mice in a marginal grassland within European temperate forest. Acta Theriol. 2012, 57, 205–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  47. Lietuvos TSR Miškų 1968 Metų Sanitarinės Būklės Ataskaita [Report on the Sanitary Condition of the Forests of the Lithuanian SSR in 1968]. Available online: https://amvmt.lrv.lt/uploads/amvmt/documents/files/MSAS/MS_bukle/Ataskaita1968.pdf (accessed on 30 November 2022).
  48. Lietuvos TSR Miškų 1971 Metų Sanitarinės Būklės Ataskaita [Report on the Sanitary Condition of the Forests of the Lithuanian SSR in 1972]. Available online: https://amvmt.lrv.lt/uploads/amvmt/documents/files/MSAS/MS_bukle/Ataskaita1972.pdf (accessed on 13 November 2022).
  49. Royer, A.; Montuire, S.; Legendre, S.; Discamps, E.; Jeannet, M.; Lécuyer, C. Investigating the Influence of Climate Changes on Rodent Communities at a Regional-Scale (MIS 1–3, Southwestern France). PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0145600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  50. Selås, V.; Framstad, E.; Sonerud, G.A.; Wegge, P.; Wiig, Ø. Voles and climate in Norway: Is the abundance of herbivorous species inversely related to summer temperature? Acta Oecol. 2019, 95, 93–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Zhu, L.; Ives, A.R.; Zhang, C.; Guo, Y.; Radeloff, V.C. Climate change causes functionally colder winters for snow cover-dependent organisms. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2019, 9, 886–893. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Murano, C.; Iijima, H.; Azuma, N. Unique population dynamics of Japanese field vole: Winter breeding and summer population decline. Popul. Ecol. 2022, 64, 214–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Sørensen, O.J.; Moa, P.F.; Hagen, B.R.; Selås, V. Possible impact of winter conditions and summer temperature on bank vole (Myodes glareolus) population fluctuations in Central Norway. Ethol. Ecol. Evol. 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Herfindal, I.; Lee, A.; Marquez, J.; Le Moullec, M.; Peeters, B.; Hansen, B.; Henden, J.; Sæther, B. Environmental effects on spatial population dynamics and synchrony: Lessons from northern ecosystems. Clim. Res. 2022, 86, 113–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Nicolau, P.G.; Sørbye, S.H.; Yoccoz, N.G.; Ims, R.A. Seasonality, density dependence and spatial population synchrony. Arxiv Prepr. Arxiv 2022, arXiv:2203.16118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Imholt, C.; Esther, A.; Perner, J.; Jacob, J. Identification of weather parameters related to regional population outbreak risk of common voles (Microtus arvalis) in Eastern Germany. Wildl. Res. 2011, 38, 551–559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Luque-Larena, J.J.; Mougeot, F.; Viñuela, J.; Jareño, D.; Arroyo, L.; Lambin, X.; Arroyo, B. Recent large-scale range expansion and outbreaks of the common vole (Microtus arvalis) in NW Spain. Basic Appl. Ecol. 2013, 14, 432–441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  58. Bukantis, A.; Rimkus, E. Climate variability and change in Lithuania. Acta Zool. Litu. 2005, 15, 100–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Calciolari, F.; Novikova, A.; Rocchi, L. Climate Change and Lithuania’s Livestock Farms: Awareness and Reactions, an Explorative Study. Sustainability 2021, 13, 10567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Air Temperature. Available online: http://www.meteo.lt/en/weather-temperature (accessed on 14 December 2022).
  61. Precipitation. Available online: http://www.meteo.lt/en/precipitation (accessed on 14 December 2022).
  62. Balčiauskienė, L.; Balčiauskas, L.; Čepukienė, A. Growth of the bank vole Myodes glareolus in the non-vegetative period in NE Lithuania. Est. J. Ecol. 2009, 58, 86–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Balčiauskienė, L.; Balčiauskas, L.; Čepukienė, A. Winter growth depression of common vole (Microtus arvalis). Acta Zool. Litu. 2009, 19, 85–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Balčiauskienė, L.; Balčiauskas, L.; Čepukienė, A. Demographic and morphometric parameters of the yellow-necked mouse (Apodemus flavicollis) in late autumn-early spring in Lithuania. Acta Biol. Univ. Daugavp. 2009, 9, 25–34. [Google Scholar]
  65. Scott, A.M.; Gilbert, J.H.; Pauli, J.N. Small mammal dynamics in snow-covered forests. J. Mammal. 2022, 103, 680–692. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Korslund, L.; Steen, H. Small rodent winter survival: Snow conditions limit access to food resources. J. Anim. Ecol. 2006, 75, 156–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Johnsen, K.; Boonstra, R.; Boutin, S.; Devineau, O.; Krebs, C.J.; Andreassen, H.P. Surviving winter: Food, but not habitat structure, prevents crashes in cyclic vole populations. Ecol. Evol. 2016, 7, 115–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Ferrari, G.; Devineau, O.; Tagliapietra, V.; Johnsen, K.; Ossi, F.; Cagnacci, F. Food resources drive rodent population demography mediated by seasonality and inter-specific competition. bioRxiv 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Šálek, M.; Bažant, M.; Żmihorski, M.; Gamero, A. Evaluating conservation tools in intensively-used farmland: Higher bird and mammal diversity in seed-rich strips during winter. Agr. Ecosyst. Environ. 2022, 327, 107844. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Clough, Y.; Kirchweger, S.; Kantelhardt, J. Field sizes and the future of farmland biodiversity in European landscapes. Conserv. Lett. 2020, 13, e12752. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  71. Fischer, C.; Thies, C.; Tscharntke, T. Small mammals in agricultural landscapes: Opposing responses to farming practices and landscape complexity. Biol. Conserv. 2011, 144, 1130–1136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Jacob, J.; Manson, P.; Barfknecht, R.; Fredricks, T. Common vole (Microtus arvalis) ecology and management: Implications for risk assessment of plant protection products. Pest Manag. Sci. 2014, 70, 869–878. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. Coda, J.; Gomez, D.; Steinmann, A.R.; Priotto, J. The effects of agricultural management on the reproductive activity of female rodents in Argentina. Basic Appl. Ecol. 2014, 15, 407–415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Pinot, A.; Barraquand, F.; Tedesco, E.; Lecoustre, V.; Bretagnolle, V.; Gauffre, B. Density-dependent reproduction causes winter crashes in a common vole population. Popul. Ecol. 2016, 58, 395–405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Jurišić, A.; Ćupina, A.I.; Kavran, M.; Potkonjak, A.; Ivanović, I.; Bjelić-Čabrilo, O.; Meseldžij, M.; Dudić, M.; Poljaković-Pajnik, L.; Vasić, V. Surveillance Strategies of Rodents in Agroecosystems, Forestry and Urban Environments. Sustainability 2022, 14, 9233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Aulicky, R.; Tkadlec, E.; Suchomel, J.; Frankova, M.; Heroldová, M.; Stejskal, V. Management of the Common Vole in the Czech Lands: Historical and Current Perspectives. Agronomy 2022, 12, 1629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Witmer, G. Rodents in Agriculture: A Broad Perspective. Agronomy 2022, 12, 1458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Suchomel, J.; Šipoš, J.; Ouředníčková, J.; Skalský, M.; Heroldová, M. Bark Gnawing by Rodents in Orchards during the Growing Season—Can We Detect Relation with Forest Damages? Agronomy 2022, 12, 251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Balčiauskas, L.; Stirkė, V.; Balčiauskienė, L. Rodent fertility in commercial orchards in relation to body mass and body condition. Agr. Ecosyst. Environ. 2022, 329, 107886. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Lécuyer, L.; Alard, D.; Calla, S.; Coolsaet, B.; Fickel, T.; Heinsoo, K.; Henle, K.; Herzon, I.; Hodgson, I.; Quétier, F.; et al. Conflicts between agriculture and biodiversity conservation in Europe: Looking to the future by learning from the past. Adv. Ecol. Res. 2022, 65, 3–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Bohan, D.A.; Richter, A.; Bane, M.; Therond, O.; Pocock, M.J. Farmer-led agroecology for biodiversity with climate change. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2022, 37, 927–930. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Life 13 00375 g001 550
Figure 1. Survey sites in Lithuania, 2018–2022, represented by numbers, with indicated habitats and duration of the survey.
Figure 1. Survey sites in Lithuania, 2018–2022, represented by numbers, with indicated habitats and duration of the survey.
Life 13 00375 g001
Life 13 00375 g002 550
Figure 2. Small mammal species accumulation curves in relation to trapping effort for each year (a) and habitat (b): AO—apple orchard; PO—plum orchard; CP—currant plantation; RP—raspberry plantation.
Figure 2. Small mammal species accumulation curves in relation to trapping effort for each year (a) and habitat (b): AO—apple orchard; PO—plum orchard; CP—currant plantation; RP—raspberry plantation.
Life 13 00375 g002
Life 13 00375 g003 550
Figure 3. Dynamics of relative abundance of dominant rodents, 2018–2022 (data pooled).
Figure 3. Dynamics of relative abundance of dominant rodents, 2018–2022 (data pooled).
Life 13 00375 g003
Life 13 00375 g004 550
Figure 4. Proportions of the four dominant species in the community, irrespective of habitat: (a)—by site; (b)—by year and season.
Figure 4. Proportions of the four dominant species in the community, irrespective of habitat: (a)—by site; (b)—by year and season.
Life 13 00375 g004
Life 13 00375 g005 550
Figure 5. Changes in small rodent population structure by year: (a)—male-to-female ratio (asterisks denote significant differences based on the G-test results); (b)—proportions of age groups.
Figure 5. Changes in small rodent population structure by year: (a)—male-to-female ratio (asterisks denote significant differences based on the G-test results); (b)—proportions of age groups.
Life 13 00375 g005
Life 13 00375 g006 550
Figure 6. Changes in small rodent population structure by habitat: (a)—male-to-female ratio (asterisks denote significant differences based on the G-test results); (b)—proportions of age groups; AO—apple orchard; PO—plum orchard; CP—currant plantation; RP—raspberry plantation; CTRL—control habitats).
Figure 6. Changes in small rodent population structure by habitat: (a)—male-to-female ratio (asterisks denote significant differences based on the G-test results); (b)—proportions of age groups; AO—apple orchard; PO—plum orchard; CP—currant plantation; RP—raspberry plantation; CTRL—control habitats).
Life 13 00375 g006
Life 13 00375 g007 550
Figure 7. Relation of the proportion of females in the population and the average litter size to the relative abundance (RA) in the same year (a,c), and in the following year (b,d).
Figure 7. Relation of the proportion of females in the population and the average litter size to the relative abundance (RA) in the same year (a,c), and in the following year (b,d).
Life 13 00375 g007
Table
Table 1. Site-based trapping efforts and main results, 2018–2022 (AO—apple orchard; PO—plum orchard; CP—currant plantation; RP—raspberry plantation; BP—blueberry plantation; MM—mowed meadow; NM—non-moved meadow; F—forest; AG—agricultural areas; TS—number of trapping sessions; TD—number of trap days; S—species richness (number of species); N—number of individuals caught).
Table 1. Site-based trapping efforts and main results, 2018–2022 (AO—apple orchard; PO—plum orchard; CP—currant plantation; RP—raspberry plantation; BP—blueberry plantation; MM—mowed meadow; NM—non-moved meadow; F—forest; AG—agricultural areas; TS—number of trapping sessions; TD—number of trap days; S—species richness (number of species); N—number of individuals caught).
SiteCrop and Control HabitatTSTDSNSiteCrop and Control HabitatTSTDSN
1AO, MM, NM184050911310RP, MM101050628
2AO, MM1840501022311RP, PO, F, AG12900587
3CP, MM184050610612AO, MM2849088177
4CP, MM8900510913BP, MM667523
5PO, NM860032014CP, MM8795616
6AO, MM184050926815AO, MM8900614
7AO, NM8900817316AO, MM10750673
8RP, MM, NM181350610617AO, F1022506133
9AO, MM, NM184050819118NM. AG10750795
Table
Table 2. Breakdown of small mammal species composition in fruit and berry farms, 2018–2022, for each year and habitat (AO—apple orchard; PO—plum orchard; CP—currant plantation; RP—raspberry plantation; CTRL—control habitats).
Table 2. Breakdown of small mammal species composition in fruit and berry farms, 2018–2022, for each year and habitat (AO—apple orchard; PO—plum orchard; CP—currant plantation; RP—raspberry plantation; CTRL—control habitats).
Species20182019202020212022AOPOCPRPCTRL
Common shrew (Sorex araneus)1782510605229
Pygmy shrew (S. minutus)29112301011
Water shrew (Neomys fodiens)0001000001
Northern birch mouse (Sicista betulina)0000200002
House mouse (Mus musculus)3203330224
Striped field mouse (Apodemus agrarius)1599394493511754430234
Yellow-necked mouse (A. flavicollis)8816811890762765623230
Harvest mouse (Micromys minutus)42615500112
Bank vole (Clethrionomys glareolus)6864324424108010123
Water vole (Arvicola amphibius)0100000001
Common vole (Microtus arvalis)1332119252682201612955136
Root vole (M. oeconomus)20517311900126
Short-tailed vole (M. agrestis)18121472100021
Total number of individuals, N51257536325323377826188114830
Number of species, S1011911111037713
Trapping effort, trap days8880874878757650382517,5686003850167512,835
Table
Table 3. Influence of year, season, and habitat on the relative abundance (RA) and proportions (P%) of the dominant small rodent species: F and p breakdown of the univariate GLM results; NS – not significant.
Table 3. Influence of year, season, and habitat on the relative abundance (RA) and proportions (P%) of the dominant small rodent species: F and p breakdown of the univariate GLM results; NS – not significant.
SpeciesIndexYearSeasonHabitat
M. arvalisRAF = 0.77, NSF = 9.63, p < 0.005F = 2.26, p < 0.05
P%F = 0.89, NSF = 0.36, NSF = 2.33, p < 0.05
A. flavicollisRAF = 1.06, NSF = 10.14, p < 0.002F = 4.73, p < 0.001
P%F = 3.08, p < 0.02F = 0.04, NSF = 3.56, p < 0.001
A. agrariusRAF = 2.58, p < 0.05F = 35.29, p < 0.001F = 0.57, NS
P%F = 1.92, NSF = 29.62, p < 0.001F = 1.83, NS
C. glareolusRAF = 0.32, NSF = 0.95, NSF = 5.41, p < 0.001
P%F = 1.37, NSF = 0.21, NSF = 4.57, p < 0.001
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Balčiauskas, L.; Stirkė, V.; Balčiauskienė, L. Abundance and Population Structure of Small Rodents in Fruit and Berry Farms. Life 2023, 13, 375. https://doi.org/10.3390/life13020375

AMA Style

Balčiauskas L, Stirkė V, Balčiauskienė L. Abundance and Population Structure of Small Rodents in Fruit and Berry Farms. Life. 2023; 13(2):375. https://doi.org/10.3390/life13020375

Chicago/Turabian Style

Balčiauskas, Linas, Vitalijus Stirkė, and Laima Balčiauskienė. 2023. "Abundance and Population Structure of Small Rodents in Fruit and Berry Farms" Life 13, no. 2: 375. https://doi.org/10.3390/life13020375

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