Mammal Research

, Volume 64, Issue 3, pp 435–443 | Cite as

A comparison of trapping efficacy of 11 rodent traps in agriculture

  • Yoav MotroEmail author
  • Yotam Ghendler
  • Yoav Muller
  • Yair Goldin
  • Olga Chagina
  • Ayla Rimon
  • Yehonathan Harel
  • Uzi Motro
Original Paper


A trapping study was conducted to compare the efficacy of 11 different small mammal traps—seven live-traps and four lethal-traps—in capturing pest rodents in agricultural fields and orchards. The 9-year study was carried out in various regions in Israel, and comprised of 648 trap-sets, totalling over 32,000 trap-nights. Mice comprised the great majority (over 85%) of captures, with Tristram’s jirds in the second place (about 8%). Among the traps, the Victor Mouse snap-trap displayed the greatest capturing rate (10.05%), followed by the Sherman live-trap (8.88%) and the Ugglan live-trap (6.28%). Pairwise comparisons were performed only between the four most abundant traps—Victor Mouse, Box, Victor Rat, and Sherman. For mice, the most attractive trap was the Victor Mouse, second in attractiveness was the Sherman, third was the Box live-trap, and the least of the four was the Victor Rat snap-trap. For the larger jirds, the attractiveness hierarchy was reversed, with Victor Mouse being the least attractive. These results shed light on rodent traps and rodent trappability in various agricultural environments and with regard to target species. A careful choice of trap types should be exercised to best address mission goals.


Agricultural pests Snap-traps Live-traps Rodents Small mammals Trapping efficacy 



We thank Prof. Yossi Leshem for help in coordinating the surveys; Shauli Aviel, Kobi Meyrom, Yinnon Shaham, Ya’ankale Klein, Guy Rotem, and Itai Shimshon for field assistance; Prof. Yoram Yom-Tov, Prof. Ran Nathan, Prof. Iddo Kan, Dr. Shmuel Moran, and Eitan Aram for advice on trap types and setting methods. The research was supported by The Israel Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development and by the Society for the Protection of Nature in Israel.

Supplementary material

13364_2019_424_MOESM1_ESM.xlsx (170 kb)
Additional file: ESM 1 was received; however, no citation was provided in the manuscript. Please provide the location of where to insert the citation in the main body of the text. Otherwise, kindly advise us on how to proceed.Please note that additional files should be cited in ascending numerical order in the main body of the text. (XLSX 170 kb)


  1. Anthony NM, Ribic CA, Bautz R, Garland T Jr (2005) Comparative effectiveness of Longworth and Sherman live traps. Wildlife Soc B 33:1018–1026CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Drickamer LC, Mikesic DG (1993) Differences in trapping and killing efficiency of Sherman, Victor and Museum Special traps for house mice. Am Midl Nat 130:397–401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Eulinger KG, Burt MS (2011) Comparison of captures between Sherman live traps and Museum Special kill traps. Southwest Nat 56:241–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Innes DGL, Bendell JF (1988) Sampling of small mammals by different types of traps in northern Ontario, Canada. Acta Theriol 33:443–450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Jacob J, Ylönen H, Hodkinson CG (2002) Trapping efficiency of Ugglan traps and Longworth traps for house mice in south-eastern Australia. Wildlife Res 29:101–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Lambin X, MacKinnon J (1997) The relative efficiency of two commercial live-traps for small mammals. J Zool 242:400–404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Martell AM (1979) Relative efficiencies of Museum Special, Victor, and Holdfast traps for sampling small mammal populations. Can Field Nat 93:313–315Google Scholar
  8. Quast JC, Howard WE (1953) Comparison of catch of two sizes of small-mammal live traps. J Mammal 34:514–515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Sealander JA, James D (1958) Relative efficiency of different small mammal traps. J Mammal 39:215–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Smith GC, Kaufman DW, Jones RM, Gentry JB, Smith MH (1971) The relative effectiveness of two types of snap traps. Acta Theriol 16:284–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Weihong JI, Veitch CR, Craig JL (1999) An evaluation of the efficiency of rodent trapping methods: the effect of trap arrangement, cover type, and bait. New Zeal J Ecol 23:45–51Google Scholar
  12. Ylönen H, Jacob J, Kotler BP (2003) Trappability of rodents in single-capture and multiple capture traps in arid and open environment: why don’t Ugglan traps work? Ann Zool Fenn 40:537–541Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Mammal Research Institute, Polish Academy of Sciences, Białowieża, Poland 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Plant Protection and Inspection ServicesIsrael Ministry of Agriculture and Rural DevelopmentBet DaganIsrael
  2. 2.Shita – Wildlife Damage PreventionKatzrinIsrael
  3. 3.Muller Professional ExterminationShakedIsrael
  4. 4.Bnei-Shimon Regional CouncilBeit QamaIsrael
  5. 5.Kibbutz HolitIsrael
  6. 6.Kibbutz Kfar BlumIsrael
  7. 7.Kibbutz Sha’alvimIsrael
  8. 8.Department of Ecology, Evolution and Behavior and Department of StatisticsThe Hebrew University of JerusalemJerusalemIsrael

Personalised recommendations