Skip to main content
Log in

A comparison of trapping efficacy of 11 rodent traps in agriculture

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Mammal Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Anthony NM, Ribic CA, Bautz R, Garland T Jr (2005) Comparative effectiveness of Longworth and Sherman live traps. Wildlife Soc B 33:1018–1026

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drickamer LC, Mikesic DG (1993) Differences in trapping and killing efficiency of Sherman, Victor and Museum Special traps for house mice. Am Midl Nat 130:397–401

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eulinger KG, Burt MS (2011) Comparison of captures between Sherman live traps and Museum Special kill traps. Southwest Nat 56:241–246

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Innes DGL, Bendell JF (1988) Sampling of small mammals by different types of traps in northern Ontario, Canada. Acta Theriol 33:443–450

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacob J, Ylönen H, Hodkinson CG (2002) Trapping efficiency of Ugglan traps and Longworth traps for house mice in south-eastern Australia. Wildlife Res 29:101–103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lambin X, MacKinnon J (1997) The relative efficiency of two commercial live-traps for small mammals. J Zool 242:400–404

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martell AM (1979) Relative efficiencies of Museum Special, Victor, and Holdfast traps for sampling small mammal populations. Can Field Nat 93:313–315

    Google Scholar 

  • Quast JC, Howard WE (1953) Comparison of catch of two sizes of small-mammal live traps. J Mammal 34:514–515

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sealander JA, James D (1958) Relative efficiency of different small mammal traps. J Mammal 39:215–223

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith GC, Kaufman DW, Jones RM, Gentry JB, Smith MH (1971) The relative effectiveness of two types of snap traps. Acta Theriol 16:284–288

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 23:45–51

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 40:537–541

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

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.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yoav Motro.

Additional information

Communicated by: Magdalena Niedziałkowska

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Motro, Y., Ghendler, Y., Muller, Y. et al. A comparison of trapping efficacy of 11 rodent traps in agriculture. Mamm Res 64, 435–443 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13364-019-00424-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13364-019-00424-7

Keywords

Navigation