Skip to Main Content
A comparison of bottles and snap traps for short-term small mammal samplingAuthor(s): James F. Taulman; Ronald E. Thill; T. Bently Wigley; M. Anthony Melchiors
Source: American Midland Naturalist. 127(1): 208-210
Publication Series: Scientific Journal (JRNL)
PDF: Download Publication (222.38 KB)
DescriptionBottles were tested as traps for small mammals. Used in conjunction with three types of snap traps over 30,240 trap nights, bottles captured eight (2%) of the total 421 mammals taken. Bottles were inefficient in capturing small mammals compared to snap traps.
- You may send email to firstname.lastname@example.org to request a hard copy of this publication.
- (Please specify exactly which publication you are requesting and your mailing address.)
- We recommend that you also print this page and attach it to the printout of the article, to retain the full citation information.
- This article was written and prepared by U.S. Government employees on official time, and is therefore in the public domain.
CitationTaulman, James F.; Thill, Ronald E.; Wigley, T. Bently; Melchiors, M. Anthony. 1992. A comparison of bottles and snap traps for short-term small mammal sampling. American Midland Naturalist. 127(1): 208-210.
Keywordssmall mammals, trapping, techniques, snap traps
- The Effects of Prescribed Burning and Thinning on Herpetofauna and Small Mammals in the Upper Piedmont of South Carolina: Preliminary Results of the National Fire and Fire Surrogate Study
- A Comparison of Snap Traps for Evaluating Small Mammal Populations
- Non-target captures during small mammal trapping with snap traps
XML: View XML