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.
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
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
Eulinger KG, Burt MS (2011) Comparison of captures between Sherman live traps and Museum Special kill traps. Southwest Nat 56:241–246
Innes DGL, Bendell JF (1988) Sampling of small mammals by different types of traps in northern Ontario, Canada. Acta Theriol 33:443–450
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
Lambin X, MacKinnon J (1997) The relative efficiency of two commercial live-traps for small mammals. J Zool 242:400–404
Martell AM (1979) Relative efficiencies of Museum Special, Victor, and Holdfast traps for sampling small mammal populations. Can Field Nat 93:313–315
Quast JC, Howard WE (1953) Comparison of catch of two sizes of small-mammal live traps. J Mammal 34:514–515
Sealander JA, James D (1958) Relative efficiency of different small mammal traps. J Mammal 39:215–223
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
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
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
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
Corresponding author
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
About this article
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
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13364-019-00424-7