{"title":"维吉尼亚东南部南部沼泽旅鼠的分布与现状","authors":"R. K. Rose","doi":"10.25778/BB6T-KM14","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Dismal Swamp subspecies of the southern bog lemming, Synaptomys cooperi helaletes, was named based on specimens collected during the 18951898 biological surveys conducted in the Dismal Swamp by the US Department of Agriculture. Unknown in the 20 th Century until re-discovered in 1980, this small boreal rodent was believed to be restricted to the Great Dismal Swamp ofV irginia and North Carolina where the cool damp conditions had permitted it to survive during the Holocene. However, field studies conducted since 1980 have revealed southern bog lemmings to be widespread throughout southeastern Virginia, with populations encompassing an area of more than 3300 km 2, including the cities of Virginia Beach, Chesapeake, and Suffolk, and Isle of Wight County. Lemmings were present on 38 of 165 (23%) pitfall-trapping sites; their frequency was much greater in prime habitats dominated by grasses and sedges on damp organic soils. Thus, southern bog lemmings are distributed widely in southeastern Virginia and, where present, they often are among the most numerous species of small mammal. INTRODUCTION The southern bog lemming, Synaptomys cooperi, distributed from Kansas and Nebraska northward through Minnesota and Manitoba, eastward through Canada, and southward into the Appalachian Mountains of North Carolina and Tennessee (Hall 1981 ), is one of the most enigmatic small mammals in North America. In some Midwestern states, highly trappable and high-density populations coexist with prairie voles in me sic or xeric grassland habitats (Kansas: Gaines et al. 1977; Illinois: Beasley and Getz 1986; Indiana: Krebs et al. 1969). In other permanently wet sites where herbivorous potential competitors often are absent, however, southern bog lemmings are difficult to trap. For example, isolated relic populations associated with permanently flowing springs (now incorporated into state-run fish hatcheries) are known from Meade County in southwestern Kansas and Dundy County in southwestern Nebraska. Other relic populations are believed to be restricted to the Pine Barrens of southern New Jersey and to the Dismal Swamp of southeastern Virginia and adjacent North Carolina. Thus, populations of this small stocky rodent with short tail and. tiny ears are highly patchy in both space and time. For example, in Douglas County in eastern Kansas, where generations of mammalogists have been trained at the University of Kansas since the 1920s, grassland populations existed for about four years starting in the middle 1920s (Lindale 1927, Burt 1928), then disappeared, reappeared in the middle 1940s, disappeared, and then reappeared in the mid-l 960s, since when they have persisted (Rose et al. 1977, Norman A. Slade, University of Kansas, pers. comm., October 2005). Understanding its ·spatial distribution is made difficult because 154 VIRGINIA JOURNAL OF SCIENCE Synaptomys cooperi often is reluctant to enter live traps. For example, Connor (1 959) caught only 38 bog lemmings during four years of study in the swampy habitats of the New Jersey Pine Barrens. By contrast, other populations are readily trapp able . Hundreds of S. cooperi were routinely trapped in two different kinds oflive traps (Rose et al. 1977) in damp and dry oldfields in eastern Kansas, where they reached densities of 42-65 per hectare (Gaines et al. 1977, Gaines et al. 1979). Clearly the name \"bog lemming\" is misleading because Synaptomys is not restricted to bogs or even to damp places. Synaptomys has been reported from areas of woody vegetation (Hamilton 1941, Coventry 1942, Connor 1959), moist grassy areas (Howell 1927, Stewart 1943, Smyth 1946, Burt 1928, Getz 1961), and from dry, southfacing grassy fields, such as in eastern Kansas (Gaines et al. 1977, Rose et al. 1977, Gaines et al. 1979). First described in 18 5 8 from specimens taken near Jackson, New Hampshire (Hall 1981), the generic name was given because Baird believed it to be a link(= synapse) between the lemmings (Lemmus) and the true mice(= mys). In 1895, investigators from the US Biological Surveys, led by A. K. Fisher, collected southern bog lemmings from cane brakes near Lake Drummond in Virginia's Dismal Swamp which Merriam (1896) described as a new species, Synaptomys helaletes. However, in his revision of the genus, Howell (192 7) demoted the tax on to a subspecies, S. cooperi he la Zetes, a decision accepted by Wetzel (1955) in his taxonomic study of S. cooperi. More recently, Wilson and Ruff (1999) recognize seven subspecies, including the isolated forms in Kansas, Nebraska, and the Dismal Swamp region of Virginia and North Carolina. Fisher collected other southern bog lemmings from the Dismal Swamp as late as 1898, but none was taken thereafter, despite the efforts of several investigators , including Charles 0. Handley, Jr., Smithsonian Curator of Mammals, who trapped some of Fisher's sites in 1953, and in other years and places, all without success. Handley (1979) and others (Meanley 1973, Taylor 1974) speculated that since no specimens had been collected since 1898, the Dismal Swamp subspecies might be extinct. However, Rose (1981 ), using pitfall traps placed under power lines in the northwest corner of the Great Dismal Swamp National Wildlife Refuge (GDSNWR), caught 13 specimens from three locations in 1980, laying to rest doubts about its existence. During the 1980s and early 1990s, my students and I conducted survey trapping at over 100 sites throughout southeastern Virginia for the Dismal Swamp southeastern shrew, Sorex longirostris fisheri, then a federally listed mammal; the southern bog lemmings reported here were taken in those same collections. These studies have revealed the Dismal Swamp subspecies, Synaptomys cooperi helaletes, to be widespread in appropriate habitats throughout southeastern Virginia, with populations extending west of the Dismal Swamp at least through Isle of Wight County. METHODS Both live and pitfall traps were used in our studies, with the latter being used more extensively. Systematic live trapping was conducted in the open habitats under a 40-m wide power line in the northwestern corner of the GDSNWR (Stankavich 1984 ). Fitch live traps (Rose 1973), set at 7.6-m intervals in two rectangular grids (0.38 and 0.40 ha), were tended for two days every two weeks from October 1980 to February 1982 . BOG LEMMINGS IN EASTERN VIRGINIA 155 Other live trapping in the following two decades, conducted throughout the region in a range of habitats, has yielded only one other Synaptomys with live traps, except for an (unpublished) study conducted by L. J. Ford in Suffolk during 1987-1988. Most information on distribution and relative abundance comes from pitfall traps set on 0.25-ha grids in a range of habitats in southeastern Virginia (Rose et al. 1990). Placed at 12.5-m intervals on a 5 X 5 grid, each pitfall trap was a #10 tin can placed in the ground flush with the surface and partly filled with water. Earlier studies (e.g., French 1980) had shown that southeastern shrews (and to a lesser extent, southern bog lemmings) are rarely taken in live or snap traps, necessitating the use of pitfall traps to collect distribution and status information on these species. In the initial study, funded by the Office of Endangered Species (Rose 1983, Everton 1985), 37 pitfall grids were set in a range of habitats centering on the GDSNWR. A later study (Padgett 1991 ), funded by the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries, added 29 grids, mostly placed at greater distances from the GDSNWR in an effort to learn the geographic extent of distribution of the Dismal Swamp southeastern shrew. Another 85 pitfall grids were set at a variety of sites in the region in surveys conducted between 1986 and 1995. Finally, current information on the western limit of distribution comes from a study conducted in 1992 on 14 grids set in the open habitats under powerlines in Isle of Wight County (Rose 2005). Specimens collected in pitfall traps were returned to the lab, measured, weighed and evaluated for reproductive condition, and then saved (mostly as skull and skeleton) . Most of these specimens now are in the collections of the Smithsonian Institution, with a few remaining in the teaching collection at Old Dominion University. Collectively, these surveys provide information on the habitats and extent of distribution of southern bog lemmings in southeastern Virginia. RESULTS Live trapping Biweekly trapping for 17 months on the two live trap grids in the GDSNWR yielded 13 bog lemmings, two on Grid 1 and 11 on Grid 2 (Stankavich 1984). On Grid 2, none was caught until the 10 month, and then all were captured within a period of a few weeks. However, bog lemmings were known to be present from the start because they produce distinctive bright green bullet-shaped fecal pellets, plus they strip and eat the green outer covering from the softrush, Juncus ejfusus, leaving behind the spaghetti-like bits of pith. Ford's year-long mark-and-release study was conducted on a large study grid in a regenerating clearcut near the intersection of Desert and Clay Hill Roads in Suffolk, on a site close to the GDSNWR. She caught several dozen each of bog lemmings and woodland voles (Microtus pinetorum) using modified Fitch live traps (Rose, 1994 ). For unknown reasons, the southern bog lemmings on this site were much more pron~ to entering live traps than the same species had been in Stankavich's (1984) study. The only other Synaptomys taken in live traps was an adult female collected early in 1999 in early successional habitat in a wetland bank now reverting to Dismal Swamp vegetation in southern Chesapeake. I I 156 VIRGINIA JOURNAL OF SCIENCE","PeriodicalId":23516,"journal":{"name":"Virginia journal of science","volume":"1 1","pages":"3"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2006-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Distribution and Status of the Southern Bog Lemming, Synaptomys cooperi, in Southeastern Virginia\",\"authors\":\"R. K. Rose\",\"doi\":\"10.25778/BB6T-KM14\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The Dismal Swamp subspecies of the southern bog lemming, Synaptomys cooperi helaletes, was named based on specimens collected during the 18951898 biological surveys conducted in the Dismal Swamp by the US Department of Agriculture. Unknown in the 20 th Century until re-discovered in 1980, this small boreal rodent was believed to be restricted to the Great Dismal Swamp ofV irginia and North Carolina where the cool damp conditions had permitted it to survive during the Holocene. However, field studies conducted since 1980 have revealed southern bog lemmings to be widespread throughout southeastern Virginia, with populations encompassing an area of more than 3300 km 2, including the cities of Virginia Beach, Chesapeake, and Suffolk, and Isle of Wight County. Lemmings were present on 38 of 165 (23%) pitfall-trapping sites; their frequency was much greater in prime habitats dominated by grasses and sedges on damp organic soils. Thus, southern bog lemmings are distributed widely in southeastern Virginia and, where present, they often are among the most numerous species of small mammal. INTRODUCTION The southern bog lemming, Synaptomys cooperi, distributed from Kansas and Nebraska northward through Minnesota and Manitoba, eastward through Canada, and southward into the Appalachian Mountains of North Carolina and Tennessee (Hall 1981 ), is one of the most enigmatic small mammals in North America. In some Midwestern states, highly trappable and high-density populations coexist with prairie voles in me sic or xeric grassland habitats (Kansas: Gaines et al. 1977; Illinois: Beasley and Getz 1986; Indiana: Krebs et al. 1969). In other permanently wet sites where herbivorous potential competitors often are absent, however, southern bog lemmings are difficult to trap. For example, isolated relic populations associated with permanently flowing springs (now incorporated into state-run fish hatcheries) are known from Meade County in southwestern Kansas and Dundy County in southwestern Nebraska. Other relic populations are believed to be restricted to the Pine Barrens of southern New Jersey and to the Dismal Swamp of southeastern Virginia and adjacent North Carolina. Thus, populations of this small stocky rodent with short tail and. tiny ears are highly patchy in both space and time. For example, in Douglas County in eastern Kansas, where generations of mammalogists have been trained at the University of Kansas since the 1920s, grassland populations existed for about four years starting in the middle 1920s (Lindale 1927, Burt 1928), then disappeared, reappeared in the middle 1940s, disappeared, and then reappeared in the mid-l 960s, since when they have persisted (Rose et al. 1977, Norman A. Slade, University of Kansas, pers. comm., October 2005). Understanding its ·spatial distribution is made difficult because 154 VIRGINIA JOURNAL OF SCIENCE Synaptomys cooperi often is reluctant to enter live traps. For example, Connor (1 959) caught only 38 bog lemmings during four years of study in the swampy habitats of the New Jersey Pine Barrens. By contrast, other populations are readily trapp able . Hundreds of S. cooperi were routinely trapped in two different kinds oflive traps (Rose et al. 1977) in damp and dry oldfields in eastern Kansas, where they reached densities of 42-65 per hectare (Gaines et al. 1977, Gaines et al. 1979). Clearly the name \\\"bog lemming\\\" is misleading because Synaptomys is not restricted to bogs or even to damp places. Synaptomys has been reported from areas of woody vegetation (Hamilton 1941, Coventry 1942, Connor 1959), moist grassy areas (Howell 1927, Stewart 1943, Smyth 1946, Burt 1928, Getz 1961), and from dry, southfacing grassy fields, such as in eastern Kansas (Gaines et al. 1977, Rose et al. 1977, Gaines et al. 1979). First described in 18 5 8 from specimens taken near Jackson, New Hampshire (Hall 1981), the generic name was given because Baird believed it to be a link(= synapse) between the lemmings (Lemmus) and the true mice(= mys). In 1895, investigators from the US Biological Surveys, led by A. K. Fisher, collected southern bog lemmings from cane brakes near Lake Drummond in Virginia's Dismal Swamp which Merriam (1896) described as a new species, Synaptomys helaletes. However, in his revision of the genus, Howell (192 7) demoted the tax on to a subspecies, S. cooperi he la Zetes, a decision accepted by Wetzel (1955) in his taxonomic study of S. cooperi. More recently, Wilson and Ruff (1999) recognize seven subspecies, including the isolated forms in Kansas, Nebraska, and the Dismal Swamp region of Virginia and North Carolina. Fisher collected other southern bog lemmings from the Dismal Swamp as late as 1898, but none was taken thereafter, despite the efforts of several investigators , including Charles 0. Handley, Jr., Smithsonian Curator of Mammals, who trapped some of Fisher's sites in 1953, and in other years and places, all without success. Handley (1979) and others (Meanley 1973, Taylor 1974) speculated that since no specimens had been collected since 1898, the Dismal Swamp subspecies might be extinct. However, Rose (1981 ), using pitfall traps placed under power lines in the northwest corner of the Great Dismal Swamp National Wildlife Refuge (GDSNWR), caught 13 specimens from three locations in 1980, laying to rest doubts about its existence. During the 1980s and early 1990s, my students and I conducted survey trapping at over 100 sites throughout southeastern Virginia for the Dismal Swamp southeastern shrew, Sorex longirostris fisheri, then a federally listed mammal; the southern bog lemmings reported here were taken in those same collections. These studies have revealed the Dismal Swamp subspecies, Synaptomys cooperi helaletes, to be widespread in appropriate habitats throughout southeastern Virginia, with populations extending west of the Dismal Swamp at least through Isle of Wight County. METHODS Both live and pitfall traps were used in our studies, with the latter being used more extensively. Systematic live trapping was conducted in the open habitats under a 40-m wide power line in the northwestern corner of the GDSNWR (Stankavich 1984 ). Fitch live traps (Rose 1973), set at 7.6-m intervals in two rectangular grids (0.38 and 0.40 ha), were tended for two days every two weeks from October 1980 to February 1982 . BOG LEMMINGS IN EASTERN VIRGINIA 155 Other live trapping in the following two decades, conducted throughout the region in a range of habitats, has yielded only one other Synaptomys with live traps, except for an (unpublished) study conducted by L. J. Ford in Suffolk during 1987-1988. Most information on distribution and relative abundance comes from pitfall traps set on 0.25-ha grids in a range of habitats in southeastern Virginia (Rose et al. 1990). Placed at 12.5-m intervals on a 5 X 5 grid, each pitfall trap was a #10 tin can placed in the ground flush with the surface and partly filled with water. Earlier studies (e.g., French 1980) had shown that southeastern shrews (and to a lesser extent, southern bog lemmings) are rarely taken in live or snap traps, necessitating the use of pitfall traps to collect distribution and status information on these species. In the initial study, funded by the Office of Endangered Species (Rose 1983, Everton 1985), 37 pitfall grids were set in a range of habitats centering on the GDSNWR. A later study (Padgett 1991 ), funded by the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries, added 29 grids, mostly placed at greater distances from the GDSNWR in an effort to learn the geographic extent of distribution of the Dismal Swamp southeastern shrew. Another 85 pitfall grids were set at a variety of sites in the region in surveys conducted between 1986 and 1995. Finally, current information on the western limit of distribution comes from a study conducted in 1992 on 14 grids set in the open habitats under powerlines in Isle of Wight County (Rose 2005). Specimens collected in pitfall traps were returned to the lab, measured, weighed and evaluated for reproductive condition, and then saved (mostly as skull and skeleton) . Most of these specimens now are in the collections of the Smithsonian Institution, with a few remaining in the teaching collection at Old Dominion University. Collectively, these surveys provide information on the habitats and extent of distribution of southern bog lemmings in southeastern Virginia. RESULTS Live trapping Biweekly trapping for 17 months on the two live trap grids in the GDSNWR yielded 13 bog lemmings, two on Grid 1 and 11 on Grid 2 (Stankavich 1984). On Grid 2, none was caught until the 10 month, and then all were captured within a period of a few weeks. However, bog lemmings were known to be present from the start because they produce distinctive bright green bullet-shaped fecal pellets, plus they strip and eat the green outer covering from the softrush, Juncus ejfusus, leaving behind the spaghetti-like bits of pith. Ford's year-long mark-and-release study was conducted on a large study grid in a regenerating clearcut near the intersection of Desert and Clay Hill Roads in Suffolk, on a site close to the GDSNWR. She caught several dozen each of bog lemmings and woodland voles (Microtus pinetorum) using modified Fitch live traps (Rose, 1994 ). For unknown reasons, the southern bog lemmings on this site were much more pron~ to entering live traps than the same species had been in Stankavich's (1984) study. The only other Synaptomys taken in live traps was an adult female collected early in 1999 in early successional habitat in a wetland bank now reverting to Dismal Swamp vegetation in southern Chesapeake. I I 156 VIRGINIA JOURNAL OF SCIENCE\",\"PeriodicalId\":23516,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Virginia journal of science\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"3\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2006-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Virginia journal of science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.25778/BB6T-KM14\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Virginia journal of science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.25778/BB6T-KM14","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4
摘要
美国农业部根据1895 - 1898年在Dismal Swamp进行的生物调查中收集的标本命名了南部沼泽鼠的亚种Synaptomys cooperi helaletes。在20世纪不为人知,直到1980年才被重新发现,这种小型北方啮齿动物被认为仅限于弗吉尼亚州和北卡罗来纳州的大沼泽,那里凉爽潮湿的环境使它能够在全新世生存。然而,自1980年以来进行的实地研究表明,南部沼泽旅鼠广泛分布在弗吉尼亚州东南部,其种群覆盖面积超过3300平方公里,包括弗吉尼亚海滩、切萨皮克、萨福克和怀特郡等城市。165个陷阱点中有38个(23%)有旅鼠;在潮湿的有机土壤中,以禾草和莎草为主的原始生境中,它们的发生频率要高得多。因此,南部沼泽旅鼠广泛分布在弗吉尼亚州东南部,在那里,它们通常是数量最多的小型哺乳动物之一。南部的小狐猴(Synaptomys cooperi)分布于堪萨斯州和内布拉斯加州,向北穿过明尼苏达州和马尼托巴,向东穿过加拿大,向南进入北卡罗来纳州和田纳西州的阿巴拉契亚山脉(Hall 1981),是北美最神秘的小型哺乳动物之一。在中西部的一些州,高度可捕获和高密度的种群与草原田鼠共存于湿润或干旱的草原栖息地(堪萨斯州:Gaines et al. 1977;伊利诺伊州:Beasley and Getz 1986;印第安纳州:克雷布斯等人1969)。然而,在其他永久潮湿的地方,食草动物的潜在竞争对手往往没有,南方沼泽旅鼠很难捕捉。例如,在堪萨斯州西南部的米德县和内布拉斯加州西南部的邓迪县,已知与永久流动的泉水(现在并入国营的鱼类孵化场)有关的孤立的遗迹种群。其他遗迹种群被认为局限于新泽西州南部的松树荒地和弗吉尼亚州东南部的凄凉沼泽以及邻近的北卡罗来纳州。因此,这种矮胖短尾啮齿类动物的种群。小耳朵在空间和时间上都是高度斑驳的。例如,在堪萨斯州东部的道格拉斯县,自20世纪20年代以来,几代哺乳动物学家在堪萨斯大学接受了培训,从20世纪20年代中期开始,草原种群存在了大约四年(Lindale 1927, Burt 1928),然后消失,在20世纪40年代中期重新出现,消失,然后在60年代中期重新出现,从那时起它们一直存在(Rose et al. 1977, Norman A. Slade,堪萨斯大学,pers)。通讯,2005年10月)。了解它的空间分布是很困难的,因为Synaptomys cooperi通常不愿意进入活的陷阱。例如,康纳(1959)在新泽西松林的沼泽栖息地进行了四年的研究,只捕获了38只沼泽旅鼠。相比之下,其他种群很容易被捕获。在堪萨斯州东部潮湿和干燥的老田中,数百只库氏蝽被常规捕获在两种不同的活捕器中(Rose et al. 1977),密度达到每公顷42-65只(Gaines et al. 1977, Gaines et al. 1979)。很明显,“沼泽游”这个名字是有误导性的,因为Synaptomys并不局限于沼泽,甚至不局限于潮湿的地方。据报道,在木本植被地区(Hamilton 1941, Coventry 1942, Connor 1959),潮湿的草地地区(Howell 1927, Stewart 1943, Smyth 1946, Burt 1928, Getz 1961),以及干燥的、朝南的草地,如堪萨斯州东部(Gaines et al. 1977, Rose et al. 1977, Gaines et al. 1979),都发现了Synaptomys。第一次描述是在1888年,从新罕布什尔州杰克逊附近采集的标本中(Hall 1981),之所以给这个通用名称,是因为Baird认为它是旅鼠(Lemmus)和真正的老鼠(= mys)之间的连接(=突触)。1895年,由a . K. Fisher领导的美国生物调查局的调查人员在弗吉尼亚州凄凉沼泽的德拉蒙德湖附近的藤条上收集了南部沼泽旅鼠,Merriam(1896)将其描述为一个新物种,Synaptomys helaletes。然而,Howell(1937)在对该属的修正中,将其降为S. cooperi he la Zetes亚种,这一决定被Wetzel(1955)在其对S. cooperi的分类研究中所接受。最近,Wilson和Ruff(1999)发现了7个亚种,包括在堪萨斯州、内布拉斯加州以及弗吉尼亚州和北卡罗来纳州的Dismal Swamp地区的孤立形式。直到1898年,费雪还从“凄凉沼泽”收集了其他的南方沼泽旅鼠,但此后,尽管包括查理二世在内的几位调查人员做出了努力,但没有一只被捕获。小汉德利,史密森尼哺乳动物博物馆馆长,他在1953年和其他年份和地方捕获了费舍尔的一些地点,但都没有成功。 Handley(1979)和其他人(Meanley 1973, Taylor 1974)推测,由于自1898年以来没有收集到任何标本,因此凄凉沼泽亚种可能已经灭绝。然而,Rose(1981)在大沼泽国家野生动物保护区(GDSNWR)西北角的电线下设置陷阱,于1980年在三个地点捕获了13个标本,打消了人们对其存在的怀疑。在20世纪80年代和90年代初,我和我的学生们在弗吉尼亚州东南部的100多个地点进行了诱捕调查,目的是捕捉阴郁沼泽东南鼩鼱(Sorex longirostris fisheri),这是一种联邦政府列出的哺乳动物;这里报告的南方沼泽旅鼠也是在这些集合中捕获的。这些研究表明,Dismal Swamp亚种Synaptomys cooperi helaletes广泛分布于弗吉尼亚州东南部的适当栖息地,其种群至少延伸到Dismal Swamp以西的怀特郡。方法采用活诱捕法和陷阱诱捕法,其中陷阱诱捕法应用较多。在GDSNWR西北角40米宽输电线下的开放生境中进行了系统的活捕(Stankavich 1984)。Fitch活陷阱(Rose 1973),在两个矩形网格(0.38和0.40公顷)中每隔7.6米设置一次,1980年10月至1982年2月每两周进行两天的护理。在接下来的二十年里,在整个地区的一系列栖息地进行的其他活体诱捕实验中,除了1987-1988年由L. J. Ford在萨福克郡进行的一项(未发表的)研究外,只发现了另一项使用活体诱捕器的Synaptomys。大多数关于分布和相对丰度的信息来自于在弗吉尼亚州东南部的一系列生境中设置在0.25公顷网格上的陷阱(Rose et al. 1990)。每个陷阱以12.5米的间隔放置在一个5 X 5的网格上,每个陷阱是一个10号锡罐,放置在与地面齐平的地面上,部分装满水。早期的研究(如French, 1980年)表明,东南鼩鼱(在较小程度上,南部沼泽旅鼠)很少被捕获,因此需要使用陷阱来收集这些物种的分布和状态信息。在最初的研究中,由濒危物种办公室(Rose 1983, Everton 1985)资助,在以GDSNWR为中心的一系列栖息地设置了37个陷阱网格。后来的一项研究(Padgett 1991),由弗吉尼亚狩猎和内陆渔业局资助,增加了29个网格,大部分放置在离GDSNWR较远的地方,以努力了解凄凉沼泽东南鼩鼱的地理分布范围。在1986年至1995年期间进行的调查中,在该区域的不同地点又设置了85个陷阱网。最后,目前关于西部分布极限的信息来自于1992年对怀特郡电力线下开放栖息地的14个电网进行的一项研究(Rose 2005)。在陷阱中收集的标本被送回实验室,测量、称重和评估生殖状况,然后保存(主要是头骨和骨骼)。这些标本中的大部分现在都在史密森学会的收藏中,还有一些留在老道明大学的教学收藏中。总的来说,这些调查提供了弗吉尼亚州东南部南部沼泽旅鼠的栖息地和分布范围的信息。结果在GDSNWR的两个活网上每两周捕获17个月,共捕获沼泽旅鼠13只,其中栅格1 2只,栅格2 11只(Stankavich 1984)。在网格2中,直到第10个月才有一个被捕获,然后在几周内全部被捕获。然而,沼泽旅鼠从一开始就被认为是存在的,因为它们会产生独特的亮绿色子弹状粪便颗粒,而且它们会剥下并吃掉软草(junus ejfusus)的绿色外壳,留下意大利面状的髓。Ford为期一年的标记和释放研究是在萨福克郡沙漠路和克莱山路交叉口附近的一个大型研究网格上进行的,该研究网格位于GDSNWR附近。她使用改良的Fitch活捕器分别捕获了几十只沼泽旅鼠和林地田鼠(pinetorum) (Rose, 1994年)。由于未知的原因,这个地点的南部沼泽旅鼠比斯坦卡维奇(1984)研究中的同类更容易进入活陷阱。1999年初,在切萨皮克南部一片湿地河岸的早期演替栖息地,一只成年雌性被捕获,现在已恢复为阴郁沼泽植被。[156]弗吉尼亚科学杂志
Distribution and Status of the Southern Bog Lemming, Synaptomys cooperi, in Southeastern Virginia
The Dismal Swamp subspecies of the southern bog lemming, Synaptomys cooperi helaletes, was named based on specimens collected during the 18951898 biological surveys conducted in the Dismal Swamp by the US Department of Agriculture. Unknown in the 20 th Century until re-discovered in 1980, this small boreal rodent was believed to be restricted to the Great Dismal Swamp ofV irginia and North Carolina where the cool damp conditions had permitted it to survive during the Holocene. However, field studies conducted since 1980 have revealed southern bog lemmings to be widespread throughout southeastern Virginia, with populations encompassing an area of more than 3300 km 2, including the cities of Virginia Beach, Chesapeake, and Suffolk, and Isle of Wight County. Lemmings were present on 38 of 165 (23%) pitfall-trapping sites; their frequency was much greater in prime habitats dominated by grasses and sedges on damp organic soils. Thus, southern bog lemmings are distributed widely in southeastern Virginia and, where present, they often are among the most numerous species of small mammal. INTRODUCTION The southern bog lemming, Synaptomys cooperi, distributed from Kansas and Nebraska northward through Minnesota and Manitoba, eastward through Canada, and southward into the Appalachian Mountains of North Carolina and Tennessee (Hall 1981 ), is one of the most enigmatic small mammals in North America. In some Midwestern states, highly trappable and high-density populations coexist with prairie voles in me sic or xeric grassland habitats (Kansas: Gaines et al. 1977; Illinois: Beasley and Getz 1986; Indiana: Krebs et al. 1969). In other permanently wet sites where herbivorous potential competitors often are absent, however, southern bog lemmings are difficult to trap. For example, isolated relic populations associated with permanently flowing springs (now incorporated into state-run fish hatcheries) are known from Meade County in southwestern Kansas and Dundy County in southwestern Nebraska. Other relic populations are believed to be restricted to the Pine Barrens of southern New Jersey and to the Dismal Swamp of southeastern Virginia and adjacent North Carolina. Thus, populations of this small stocky rodent with short tail and. tiny ears are highly patchy in both space and time. For example, in Douglas County in eastern Kansas, where generations of mammalogists have been trained at the University of Kansas since the 1920s, grassland populations existed for about four years starting in the middle 1920s (Lindale 1927, Burt 1928), then disappeared, reappeared in the middle 1940s, disappeared, and then reappeared in the mid-l 960s, since when they have persisted (Rose et al. 1977, Norman A. Slade, University of Kansas, pers. comm., October 2005). Understanding its ·spatial distribution is made difficult because 154 VIRGINIA JOURNAL OF SCIENCE Synaptomys cooperi often is reluctant to enter live traps. For example, Connor (1 959) caught only 38 bog lemmings during four years of study in the swampy habitats of the New Jersey Pine Barrens. By contrast, other populations are readily trapp able . Hundreds of S. cooperi were routinely trapped in two different kinds oflive traps (Rose et al. 1977) in damp and dry oldfields in eastern Kansas, where they reached densities of 42-65 per hectare (Gaines et al. 1977, Gaines et al. 1979). Clearly the name "bog lemming" is misleading because Synaptomys is not restricted to bogs or even to damp places. Synaptomys has been reported from areas of woody vegetation (Hamilton 1941, Coventry 1942, Connor 1959), moist grassy areas (Howell 1927, Stewart 1943, Smyth 1946, Burt 1928, Getz 1961), and from dry, southfacing grassy fields, such as in eastern Kansas (Gaines et al. 1977, Rose et al. 1977, Gaines et al. 1979). First described in 18 5 8 from specimens taken near Jackson, New Hampshire (Hall 1981), the generic name was given because Baird believed it to be a link(= synapse) between the lemmings (Lemmus) and the true mice(= mys). In 1895, investigators from the US Biological Surveys, led by A. K. Fisher, collected southern bog lemmings from cane brakes near Lake Drummond in Virginia's Dismal Swamp which Merriam (1896) described as a new species, Synaptomys helaletes. However, in his revision of the genus, Howell (192 7) demoted the tax on to a subspecies, S. cooperi he la Zetes, a decision accepted by Wetzel (1955) in his taxonomic study of S. cooperi. More recently, Wilson and Ruff (1999) recognize seven subspecies, including the isolated forms in Kansas, Nebraska, and the Dismal Swamp region of Virginia and North Carolina. Fisher collected other southern bog lemmings from the Dismal Swamp as late as 1898, but none was taken thereafter, despite the efforts of several investigators , including Charles 0. Handley, Jr., Smithsonian Curator of Mammals, who trapped some of Fisher's sites in 1953, and in other years and places, all without success. Handley (1979) and others (Meanley 1973, Taylor 1974) speculated that since no specimens had been collected since 1898, the Dismal Swamp subspecies might be extinct. However, Rose (1981 ), using pitfall traps placed under power lines in the northwest corner of the Great Dismal Swamp National Wildlife Refuge (GDSNWR), caught 13 specimens from three locations in 1980, laying to rest doubts about its existence. During the 1980s and early 1990s, my students and I conducted survey trapping at over 100 sites throughout southeastern Virginia for the Dismal Swamp southeastern shrew, Sorex longirostris fisheri, then a federally listed mammal; the southern bog lemmings reported here were taken in those same collections. These studies have revealed the Dismal Swamp subspecies, Synaptomys cooperi helaletes, to be widespread in appropriate habitats throughout southeastern Virginia, with populations extending west of the Dismal Swamp at least through Isle of Wight County. METHODS Both live and pitfall traps were used in our studies, with the latter being used more extensively. Systematic live trapping was conducted in the open habitats under a 40-m wide power line in the northwestern corner of the GDSNWR (Stankavich 1984 ). Fitch live traps (Rose 1973), set at 7.6-m intervals in two rectangular grids (0.38 and 0.40 ha), were tended for two days every two weeks from October 1980 to February 1982 . BOG LEMMINGS IN EASTERN VIRGINIA 155 Other live trapping in the following two decades, conducted throughout the region in a range of habitats, has yielded only one other Synaptomys with live traps, except for an (unpublished) study conducted by L. J. Ford in Suffolk during 1987-1988. Most information on distribution and relative abundance comes from pitfall traps set on 0.25-ha grids in a range of habitats in southeastern Virginia (Rose et al. 1990). Placed at 12.5-m intervals on a 5 X 5 grid, each pitfall trap was a #10 tin can placed in the ground flush with the surface and partly filled with water. Earlier studies (e.g., French 1980) had shown that southeastern shrews (and to a lesser extent, southern bog lemmings) are rarely taken in live or snap traps, necessitating the use of pitfall traps to collect distribution and status information on these species. In the initial study, funded by the Office of Endangered Species (Rose 1983, Everton 1985), 37 pitfall grids were set in a range of habitats centering on the GDSNWR. A later study (Padgett 1991 ), funded by the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries, added 29 grids, mostly placed at greater distances from the GDSNWR in an effort to learn the geographic extent of distribution of the Dismal Swamp southeastern shrew. Another 85 pitfall grids were set at a variety of sites in the region in surveys conducted between 1986 and 1995. Finally, current information on the western limit of distribution comes from a study conducted in 1992 on 14 grids set in the open habitats under powerlines in Isle of Wight County (Rose 2005). Specimens collected in pitfall traps were returned to the lab, measured, weighed and evaluated for reproductive condition, and then saved (mostly as skull and skeleton) . Most of these specimens now are in the collections of the Smithsonian Institution, with a few remaining in the teaching collection at Old Dominion University. Collectively, these surveys provide information on the habitats and extent of distribution of southern bog lemmings in southeastern Virginia. RESULTS Live trapping Biweekly trapping for 17 months on the two live trap grids in the GDSNWR yielded 13 bog lemmings, two on Grid 1 and 11 on Grid 2 (Stankavich 1984). On Grid 2, none was caught until the 10 month, and then all were captured within a period of a few weeks. However, bog lemmings were known to be present from the start because they produce distinctive bright green bullet-shaped fecal pellets, plus they strip and eat the green outer covering from the softrush, Juncus ejfusus, leaving behind the spaghetti-like bits of pith. Ford's year-long mark-and-release study was conducted on a large study grid in a regenerating clearcut near the intersection of Desert and Clay Hill Roads in Suffolk, on a site close to the GDSNWR. She caught several dozen each of bog lemmings and woodland voles (Microtus pinetorum) using modified Fitch live traps (Rose, 1994 ). For unknown reasons, the southern bog lemmings on this site were much more pron~ to entering live traps than the same species had been in Stankavich's (1984) study. The only other Synaptomys taken in live traps was an adult female collected early in 1999 in early successional habitat in a wetland bank now reverting to Dismal Swamp vegetation in southern Chesapeake. I I 156 VIRGINIA JOURNAL OF SCIENCE