Acta Theriologica

, Volume 53, Issue 3, pp 241–250 | Cite as

Habitat preferences of the bank voleMyodes glareolus in a Mediterranean mountain range



The bank voleMyodes glareolus Schreber, 1780 is a widely distributed rodent in Europe, being numerically dominant in small mammal communities living in temperate woodlands. However, it becomes scarce in southern Europe (Mediterranean area) where it reaches the southernmost limit of its distribution range. We studied the habitat preferences of bank voles in 9 plots in a transitional area between Mediterranean and Eurosiberian regions within a Mediterranean mountain. During the study period we captured 1919 small mammals of 9 species, including 287 bank voles (14.95%). Mean density ranged from zero individuals per plot (1.1 ha) at the boreo-subalpine scrubland to 10.27 ± 2.84 (SE) at a Mediterranean river woodland. Statistical path analysis was used to investigate relationships between mean bank vole density and climate and vegetation structure measured within plots. The variables selected by the structural equation model were those related to forest structure, like tree cover and height, dead vegetation, moss, and rock cover. Habitat moisture was also important (microclimatic conditions). Mean climate conditions (and elevation) did not have any significant effect on mean bank vole density, and no significant association with understorey vegetation (eg shrub and herbaceous cover) was observed. Our results pointed out that bank voles were habitat specialists in our study area, being more abundant and frequent in moist woodlands, and rare or absent in shrublands and grasslands.

Key words

Myodes glareolus density habitat live trapping Mediterranean mountain vegetation structure 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Adler G. H., Mangan S. A. and Suntsov V. 1999. Richness, abundance, and habitat relations of rodents in the Lang Bian mountains of southern Viet Nam. Journal of Mammalogy 80: 891–898.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson C. S. and Meikle D. B. 2006. Annual changes in structural complexity of understory vegetation and relative abundance ofPeromyscus leucopus in fragmented habitats. Acta Theriologica 51: 43–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arbuckle J. L. 1983–2003. AMOS 5.0, Student Edition. Small Waters Corporation, Chicago, USA.Google Scholar
  4. Bolós O. de 1983. La vegetació del Montseny. Diputació de Barcelona, Barcelona: 1–170.Google Scholar
  5. Canova L. 1993. Resource partitioning between the bank voleClethrionomys glareolus and the wood mouseApodemus sylvaticus in woodland habitats. Bollettino di Zoologia 60: 193–198.Google Scholar
  6. Canova L. and Fasola M. 1991. Communities of small mammals in 6 biotopes of northern Italy. Acta Theriologica 36: 73–86.Google Scholar
  7. Castién E. and Mendiola I. 1985. Atlas de los Mamíferos Continentales de Álava, Vizcaya y Guipúzcoa. [In: Atlas de los Vertebrados Continentales de Álava, Vizcaya y Guipúzcoa. J. Alvarez, A. Bea, J. M. Faus, E. Castién and I. Mendiola, eds]. Estudios Gráficos Zure, S.A., Bilbao: 271–325.Google Scholar
  8. Delibes de Castro J. 1985. Distribution and abundance of small mammals in a gradient of altitude. Acta Zoologica Fennica 173: 53–56.Google Scholar
  9. Everitt B. S. and Dunn G. 1991. Applied multivariate data analysis. Edward Arnold, London: 1–316.Google Scholar
  10. Fasola M. and Canova L. 2000. Asymmetrical competition between the bank vole and the wood mouse, a removal experiment. Acta Theriologica 45: 353–365.Google Scholar
  11. Fernandez F. A. S., Evans P. R. and Dunstone N. 1994. Local variation in rodent communities of Sitka spruce plantations — the interplay of successional stage and site-specific habitat parameters. Ecography 17: 305–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fitzgibbon C. D. 1997. Small mammals in farm woodlands: The effects of habitat, isolation and surrounding landuse patterns. Journal of Applied Ecology 34: 530–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. González J. and Román J. 1988. Atlas de los micromamíferos de Burgos. Talleres GrÁficos Diario de Burgos, Burgos: 1–153.Google Scholar
  14. Gosàlbez J. 1987. Insectívors i Rosegadors de Catalunya. Ketres Editora S.A., Barcelona: 1–241.Google Scholar
  15. Gosàlbez J. and López-Fuster M. J. 1985. The natural communities of small mammals (insectivores and rodents) of Catalonia (Spain). Miscelània Zoològica 9: 375–387.Google Scholar
  16. Gurnell J. 1985. Woodland rodent communities. [In: The ecology of woodland rodents, bank voles and wood mice. J. R. Flowerdew, J. Gurnell and J. H. W. Gipps, eds]. Symposia of the Zoological Society of London 55: 377–402.Google Scholar
  17. Gurnell J. and Flowerdew J. R. 1990. Live trapping small mammals. A practical guide. Occassional Publications of the Mammal Society of London 3: 1–39.Google Scholar
  18. Halama K. H. and Dueser R. D. 1994. Of mice and habitats: tests for density-dependent habitat selection. Oikos 69: 107–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hesterberg T., Moore D. S., Monaghan S., Clipson A. and Epstein. R. 2005. Bootstrap Methods and Permutation Tests. 2nd edition. W. H. Freeman, New York: 1–82.Google Scholar
  20. Kotzageorgis G. C. and Mason C. F. 1997. Small mammal populations in relation to hedgerow structure in arable landscape. Journal of Zoology, London 242: 425–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Krebs C. J. 1999. Ecological methodology. Addison Wesley, New York: 1–620.Google Scholar
  22. Kryŝtufek B. and Griffiths H. I. 1999. Mediterraneanv. Continental small mammal communities and the environmental degradation of the Dinaric Alps. Journal of Biogeography 26: 167–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mazurkiewicz M. 1994. Factors influencing the distribution of the bank vole in forest habitats. Acta Theriologica 39: 113–126.Google Scholar
  24. Montgomery W. I. 1989. Population regulation in the wood mouse,Apodemus sylvaticus. I. Density dependence in spatial distribution and reproduction. Journal of Animal Ecology 58: 477–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Moreno E. and Barbosa A. 1992. Distribution patterns of small mammal fauna along gradients of latitude and altitude in Northern Spain. Zeitschrift für Säugetierkunde 57: 169–175.Google Scholar
  26. Morris D. W. 1989. Habitat-dependent estimates of competitive interaction. Oikos 55: 111–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Morris D. W. 1996. Coexistence of specialist and generalist rodents via habitat selection. Ecology 77: 2352–2364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ninyerola M., Pons X. and Roure J. M. 2003. Atlas Climàtic Digital de Catalunya. Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona and Generalitat de Catalunya.Google Scholar
  29. Olsson G. E., White N., Hjalten J. and Ahlm C. 2005. Habitat factors associated with bank voles (Clethrionomys glareolus) and concomitant hantavirus in northern Sweden. Vector-borne and zoonotic diseases 5: 315–323.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Saint-Girons M. C. 1973. Les mammifères de France et du Benelux. (Faune marine exceptée). Doin, Paris: 1–484.Google Scholar
  31. Saint-Girons M. C. 1984. Le Campagnol roussâtre Clethrionomys glareolus. [In: Atlas des Mammifères sauvages de France]. Societé Française pour l’étude et la Protection des Mammifères, Paris: 160–161.Google Scholar
  32. Sans-Fuentes M. A. and Ventura J. 2000. Distribution patterns of the small mammals (Insectivora and Rodentia) in a transitional zone between the Eurosiberian and the Mediterranean regions. Journal of Biogeography 27: 755–764.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Seamon J. O. and Adler G. H. 1996. Population performance of generalist and specialist rodents along habitat gradients. Canadian Journal of Zoology 74: 1130–1139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Slade N. A. and Blair S. M. 2000. An empirical test of using counts of individuals captured as indices of population size. Journal of Mammalogy 81: 1035–1045.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Sptizenberger F. 1999.Clethrionomys glareolus (Schreber, 1780). [In: The atlas of European mammals. A. J. Mitchell--Jones, G. Amori, W. Bogdanowicz, B. Kryŝtufek, P. J. H. Reijnders, F. Spitzenberger, M. Stubbe, J. B. M. Thissen, V. Vohralík and J. Zima, eds]. T & AD Poyser, London: 212–213.Google Scholar
  36. Tattersall F. H., Macdonald D. W., Hart B. J., Johnson P., Manley W. and Feber R. 2002. Is habitat linearity important for small mammal communities on farmland? Journal of Applied Ecology 39: 643–652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Terradas J. and Miralles J. 1986. El patrimoni biològic del Montseny. Catàlegs de flora i fauna 1. Diputació de Barcelona, Barcelona: 1–155.Google Scholar
  38. Torre I. 2004. Distribution, population dynamics and habitat selection of small mammals in Mediterranean environments: the role of climate, vegetation structure, and predation risk. PhD thesis, University of Barcelona, Barcelona: 1–177.Google Scholar
  39. Torre I. and Bosch M. 1999. Effects of sex and breeding status on habitat selection by feral House mice (Mus musculus) in a small Mediterranean island. Zeitschrift für Säugetierkunde 64: 176–186.Google Scholar
  40. Torre I., Tella J. L and Arrizabalaga A. 1996. Environmental and geographic factors affecting the distribution of small mammals in an isolated Mediterranean mountain. Zeitschrieft für Säugetierkunde 61: 365–375.Google Scholar
  41. Van Apeldoorn R. C., Oostenbrink W. T., Vanwinden A. and Vanderzee F. F. 1992. Effects of habitat fragmentation on the bank vole,Clethrionomys glareolus, in an agricultural landscape. Oikos 65: 265–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Van Horne B. 1983. Density as a misleading indicator of habitat quality. The Journal of Wildlife Management 47: 893–901.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wheatley M., Larsen K. W. and Boutin S. 2002. Does density reflect habitat quality for North American Red squirrels during a spruce-cone failure? Journal of Mammalogy 83: 716–727.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Wijnhoven S., Van Der Velde G., Leuven R. S. E. W. and Smits A. J. M. 2005. Flooding Ecology of voles, mice and shrews: the importance of geomorphological and vegetational heterogeneity in river floodplains. Acta Theriologica 50: 453–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wolff J. O. 1999. Behavioral Model Systems. [In: Landscape ecology of small mammals, G. W. Barrett and J. D. Peles, eds]. Springer, New York: 11–40.Google Scholar
  46. Zar J. H. 1996. Biostatistical analysis. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: 1–662.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Mammal Research Institute, Bialowieza, Poland 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Museu de Granollers-Ciències NaturalsGranollersSpain

Personalised recommendations