Rob and Ann Simpson, eNature: America's Wildlife Resource
AUTHORSHIP AND CITATION:
Luensmann, Peggy S. 2005. Peromyscus boylii. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/ .
Peromyscus boylei Baird 
The scientific name of brush mouse is Peromyscus boylii Baird [7,115]. It is a member of the mouse, rat, and vole family, Muridae . Subspecies in the United States include:
P. b. ssp. rowleyi (Allen) 
P. b. ssp. utahensis Durrant 
In the Timing Of Major Life History Events section
of this review, some reproductive information specific to the brush mouse was
not available. In these cases, information on the entire genus is presented.
Additionally, in the Fire Effects And Use section,
observations of mice from the genus Peromyscus are presented, although the
mice were not identified to species in those publications.
FEDERAL LEGAL STATUS:
Information on state- and province-level protection status of animals in the United States and Canada is available at NatureServe, although recent changes in status may not be included.
AZ: Overstories where brush mice are found are characterized by desert willow (Chilopsis linearis), Arizona sycamore (Platanus wrightii), and shrub live oak (Quercus turbinella) [16,32]. Shrub associates include evergreen sumac (Rhus virens), skunkbush sumac (R. trilobata), roundleaf snowberry (Symphoricarpos rotundifolius), New Mexico locust (Robinia neomexicana), common hoptree (Ptelea trifoliata), fendlerbush (Fendlera rupicola), Carruth's sagewort (Artemisia carruthii), catclaw acacia (Acacia greggii), broom snakeweed (Gutierrezia sarothrae), red barberry (Mahonia haematocarpa), netleaf hackberry (Celtis reticulata), and wait-a-minute (Mimosa aculeaticarpa var. biuncifera) [21,32,68]. Herbaceous and succulent species in brush mouse habitats include Wheeler sotol (Dasylirion wheeleri), sacahuista (Nolina microcarpa), Palmer agave (Agave palmeri), goldenrod (Solidago spp.), lupine (Lupinus spp.), prickly-pear (Opuntia spp.), and ocotillo (Fouquieria splendens) [21,32,68]. Grasses found in brush mouse habitat include Lehmann lovegrass (Eragrostis lehmanniana), bottlebrush squirreltail (Elymus elymoides), and other annual and perennial grasses [16,32,68].
NM: Habitats are characterized by rabbitbrush (Chrysothamnus spp.), Apache plume (Fallugia paradoxa), fourwing saltbrush, common hoptree and crispleaf buckwheat (Eriogonum corymbosum) in addition to a pinyon-juniper-mountain-mahogany (Pinus-Juniperus-Cercocarpus spp.) overstory .
UT: Rocky areas are dominated by cliffrose (Purshia spp.) and buffaloberry (Shepherdia spp.) on the slopes, and barberry (Mahonia spp.) and oak (Quercus spp.) at cliff bottoms .
TX: Plant associates include Pinchot juniper (J. pinchotii), algerita (M. trifoliolata), clapweed (Ephedra antisyphilitica), featherplume (Dalea formosa), and prickly-pear .
OK: Rocky, brush-covered cliffs and slopes are characterized by netleaf hackberry, western soapberry (Sapindus saponaria var. drummondii), common hoptree, skunkbush sumac, American plum (Prunus americana), and oak . Grassy areas include grama (Bouteloua spp.) and threeawn (Aristida spp.).
Brown  reported that brush mice reach sexual maturity at 12-19 weeks. However, Clark  reported that female brush mice may reach sexual maturity in approximately 5-9 weeks. In Arizona, females born in late May or June were found pregnant during August of the same year . In western Texas, Arizona, southern Utah, and Mexico, breeding appears to occur nearly year-round [25,38,48,66,92]. However, in northern California, Jameson  found that breeding in brush mice peaked twice each year, once in late spring and again in late summer. This result may be related to food availability [55,56].
Female brush mice carry 1-6 embryos each [11,17,48,55,66,100] with an average of 3-4 embryos [11,17,48,55]. Lactating females may become pregnant , although lactation may slow the development of embryos in Peromyscus species . Bradley and Schmidly  reported that the gestation period of the brush mouse is around 23 days. Females may have multiple litters per year [17,25]. The amount of time between litters is likely similar to other Peromyscus species and may be 25-31 days . Young are weaned at 3-4 weeks of age .
Brush mice have a promiscuous mating system [57,85]. Four out of 7 litters in a California study were fathered by several males . Males and females did not share nests and mating pairs did not remain together for long periods of time .
Few Peromyscus spp. mice live longer than 6 months in the wild, but individuals
may live up to 4-5 years in captivity .
Vegetation in brush mouse habitats may vary from location to location, but brush mice are consistently captured in areas with medium to high densities of shrubs and tree cover under 16 feet (5 m) in height [2,25,31,36,48,49,73,75,82,103,111,114]. In California, mature chaparral (cover ≥50%) appears to provide more suitable habitat for brush mice than young, open chaparral (cover <50%) . Similarly, in Arizona, Duran  captured brush mice most frequently in shrub live oak and birchleaf mountain-mahogany (Cercocarpus betuloides) understory habitats with 45% to 50% plant cover. Fewer brush mice were captured in habitats with less plant cover . Holbrook  observed that after vegetation crowns were removed in a manzanita (Arctostaphylos spp.)-oak shrubland, brush mice avoided the newly-opened space. In another study, brush mice were strongly restricted to habitats in which gaps between rocks or ceanothus (Ceanothus spp.) on the site were less than 4 feet (1.2 m) .
In addition to shrub density, the height of cover appears to influence brush mouse distribution within a site. An average understory height of 5-6.5 feet (1.5-2.0 m) was preferred by brush mice over lower understory cover . In another study, brush mouse presence was positively correlated with microhabitats of shrub cover up to 10 feet (3 m) tall, logs over 3 inches (7.5 cm) in diameter, and understory trees 10-33 feet (3-10 m) in height, but negatively correlated with grass-forb microhabitats .
Brush mice are also commonly captured at locations with a high proportion of rock cover and/or slash piles in habitats characterized by chaparral-mountain shrub, oak/shrub, oak-juniper-pinyon pine, juniper-pinyon pine, and oak-pine communities, as well as riparian habitats [1,2,25,27,30,36,38,40,41,48,49,50,51,66,73,103,110,111,114]. The brush mouse in Texas has been found in all major habitats present (desert, grassland, riparian, and montane) although it is typically associated with rock outcrops within these habitats . Riparian sites with abundant brush mouse populations had high shrub cover, high frequency of debris piles with low grass, litter, and tree cover . In a Mexico study, a canyon was dominated by exposed rock, grasses, pines, hardwoods, and brush . In western Texas, brush mice favored fallen logs and brush piles . Modi  discovered that brush mice were common in riparian zones dominated by pecan (Carya illinoensis), American sycamore (Platanus occidentalis) and live oak (Quercus virginiana), in an oak community with a partially open canopy and dense understory, and in a pine forest with little understory and scattered boulders. In New Mexico, brush mouse populations were significantly higher (P<0.05) on sites that were bulldozed or thinned (98 and 115 captures, respectively) than untreated or bulldozed and burned sites . Populations were lowest on sites that had not been treated (45 captures). Sites that had increased slash from bulldozing and burning had more brush mice (57 captures) than the untreated sites, but the difference was not significant (P>0.05). No influence of canopy cover on brush mice was observed in the study .
Besides high tree, shrub, and rock densities, brush mice appear to prefer locations with low grass cover [32,81]. At the same time, grasses are often present in the understory indicating that grasses do not exclude brush mice [25,40]. Brush mice utilized grazed and ungrazed pastures and ceanothus plots , but they were concentrated around rocky outcrops and vegetation continuous with the rock outcrops. No brush mice were captured in the grasslands more than 20 feet (6 m) from rocks, shrubs, or trees . Litter depth also appears negatively correlated to brush mouse presence [97,111]. For instance, brush mice in Arizona were captured in litter depths of only 0.9 inches (2.4 cm) .
Brush mice also utilize fire-affected habitats. In one study, brush mice were captured in burned and unburned chaparral as well as burned and unburned pine-oak forest. The highest number of captures were recorded in unburned forest while the lowest captures occurred in the unburned chaparral . These results are somewhat inconsistent with other observations which show the brush mouse favoring dense chaparral habitat. Small mammal capture data in the study were collected from 14 months to 3 years after fire . The time frame of sampling after fire may influence the perceived response of the brush mouse to postfire habitats.
Elevation, in addition to habitat characteristics, may play a role in habitat suitability in some areas. For instance, in the northern Sierra Nevada of California, brush mice were captured in brush habitats at 3,500-5,000 feet (1,000-1,500 m), but not at 6,500 feet (2,000 m) . Aspect may influence the distribution of brush mice on a site as well. For example, in New Mexico, 51% of all brush mice captured were taken on south-facing slopes, 24% on west-facing slopes, with 13% and 12% of mice captured on east- and north-facing slopes, respectively . The south-facing canyon slopes may provide more cover for brush mice due to higher numbers of shrubs .
Site characteristics of brush mouse habitat:
|Arizona||1,000-1,500 feet (300-450 m), 2,300-8,300 feet (700-2,500 m)||canyon and valley bottoms, canyon and talus slopes, rolling hills, level uplands, east and south aspects||15.5-28 inches (393-710 mm)||[16,18,21,31,34,41,42,43,50,73,74,85,86]|
|California||1,500-6,600 feet (450-2,000 m), rare up to 9,800 feet (3,000 m)||canyon bottoms, north slopes favored, but found on all aspects, brushy hillsides||10-44 inches (260-1110 mm)||[18,53,54,56,57,97,110]|
|Colorado||up to 8,300 feet (2,500 m)||hill slopes and valleys||no data||[1,103]|
|New Mexico||5,200-8,000 feet (1,585-2,400 m), rare at 8,600 ft (2,600 m)||south aspects often preferred, but all aspects utilized, low ridges and slopes, north aspects on hot arid sites, gradual slopes||12.5-18 inches (317-460 mm)||[18,35,36,114]|
|Utah||3,750-7,005 feet (1,150-2,135 m)||canyons and mesas||7.5 inches (191 mm)||[2,66]|
|Texas||4,250-7,970 feet (1,295-2,430 m)||south aspects, level plain||no data||[25,26,27,38,71,91]|
Although brush mice are found on a variety of slopes, including flat mesas and gradual slopes, they seem to prefer locations with very steep slopes, such as hillsides, mountain sides, and canyons (including some slopes with >45% gradient) over more gradual slopes in the same areas [1,30,40,41,73,97,101,111]. Findley  reported that brush mice were captured on hillsides in an oak/sacahuista (Nolina spp.) community. In another study, brush mice were common in canyon bottoms, on hillsides, and in arroyos (water channels in arid regions) characterized by oak woodlands . Brush mice have also been captured along the sides of brush covered canyons and burned slopes of an oak/brush association .
Density and Home Range
Kalcounis-Ruppell  discovered brush mouse population densities were 40-72 mice per hectare in coastal California. Similarly, Kalcounis-Ruppell and Millar  determined that densities of brush mice in coastal California were 42-89 mice per hectare. Brush mouse densities appear greatly influenced by weather. Densities were 17-20 per acre one year, but were reduced to 6 mice per acre following a severe winter . At another study site, brush mice increased from 4 individuals per acre to 12 per acre after a mild winter . Populations in a canyon in Mexico were estimated at a mean of 10.8 brush mice per acre or 6.0 males and 4.8 females per acre . The range was 9.0-14.0 brush mice per acre .
A study utilizing radiotelemetry and trapping data in Arizona estimated mean home range size for male
brush mice at 0.72-1.6 acres (0.29-0.64 hectare), and 0.32-0.79 acre (0.13-0.32 hectare) for females
. In a another study at the same location, home ranges for male brush mice ranged from means of
1.2-1.5 acres (0.47-0.62 hectare) and for females, means of 0.64-1.2 acres (0.26-0.49 hectare) .
Mean home range for male and female brush mice in Arizona, based on radiotelemetry, was 0.30 acre
(0.12 hectare) .
No significant differences in habitat use between genders were observed in Arizona . Typical brush mouse habitat in southern Arizona was characterized by 74% tree cover, 60% leaf cover, 21% shrub cover, and 16% rock cover. Additionally, 67% of all brush mice relocated by radiotelemetry in the study were located in a riparian zone with the other observations occurring in uplands and an intermittent stream channel. Brush mice used sites with significantly (P<0.05) more rock cover (19% to 22%) during winter and spring than at other times of the year. Also in spring, plots with the most brush mice also had significantly (P<0.05) more shrub cover (21% vs.14%) and succulents (9% vs. 2%) than random plots .
In a New Mexico study, 27% of brush mice captured were taken around rocky areas, 10% under Gambel oak (Q. gambelii), 9% under juniper, and 7% each around woodpiles and sacahuista . Less frequently, brush mice were taken under or around pinyon pine, gray oak (Q. grisea), apache plume, rabbitbrush, mountain-mahogany, white fir (Abies concolor), Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), locust (Robinia spp.), prickly-pear, cholla (Opuntia spp.), chokecherry (Prunus spp.), bricklebush (Brickellia spp.), and grape (Vitis spp.) .
In southern California, brush mice were captured on leaf mold in an oak hardwood association of coast live oak, white alder (Alnus rhombifolia), whiteflower currant, and sumac (Rhus spp.) . They were also trapped under logs and dense vegetation and on wet seepage slopes next to a creek . In coastal California, brush mice were captured primarily under coast live oak, false-willow (Baccharis douglasii), California buckeye, and California bay .
Fallen logs and rock outcrops provide nest sites for the brush mouse . They may also construct nests in
tree hollows and underground burrows . Brush mice living in mine shafts or caves build nests similar to
those of goldfinches . Davis  noted that the brush mouse nest is a "globular structure" and
is constructed primarily of dried grasses within natural cavities. Brush mouse nest sites in California were
found on sites with a high density coast live oak (Q. agrifolia) overstory and an open understory with
low vegetation and ground cover .
Brush mice are semiarboreal and can be found foraging in shrubs and trees for leaves and fruits [35,49,51,56]. Females were captured more often than males foraging in canyon live oaks (Q. chrysolepis) (P<0.05) . The individuals with the longest tails appear to spend more time climbing than those with shorter tails .
Acorns are commonly eaten by brush mice wherever they are available [10,17,26,54,57]. Arthropods and cutworms (Protorthodes rufula) are also eaten throughout the year [31,41,54,56,98]. A variety of fruits and seeds from Douglas-fir, ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa), pinyon, California buckeye, manzanita (A. patula and A. viscida), silktassel (Garrya spp.), oneseed juniper (Juniperus monosperma), hackberries (Celtis spp.), New Mexico groundsel (Senecio neomexicanus var. neomexicanus), trailing fleabane (Erigeron flagellaris), annual sunflower (Helianthus annuus), broom snakeweed, common dandelion (Taraxacum officinale), western yarrow (Achillea millefolium), white sweetclover (Melilotus albus), threenerve goldenrod (Solidago velutina), prickly-pear, desert wheatgrass (Agropyron desertorum), Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis), and blue grama (Bouteloua gracilis) are eaten throughout the year when available [17,26,31,41,54,56,57,98]. Other plant parts, such as leaves, stems, flowers, pollen cones and new sprouts are typically eaten in lower quantities than other foods [31,41,54,56,98]. Fungi are typically consumed when other foods are scarce [54,56]. Infrequently, stomach contents of brush mice contained pieces of mammals, birds, and fence lizards (Sceloporus spp.) .
Brush mice have been observed caching pinyon pine seeds [78,79]. This observation suggests that the brush mouse
may play a role in seed dispersal for some plant species.
Predators of the brush mouse include birds of prey such as the northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) and spotted owl (Strix occidentalis) [60,63,84,100,108]. Potential mammalian predators of the brush mouse may include the coyote (Canis latrans), common gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus), red fox (Vulpes vulpes), swift fox (Vulpes velox), ringtail (Bassariscus astutus), American marten (Martes americana), fisher (Martes pennanti), ermine (Mustela erminea), long-tailed weasel (Mustela frenata), striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), hooded skunk (Mephitis macroura), white-backed hog-nosed skunk (Conepatus leuconotus), northern raccoon (Procyon lotor), bobcat (Lynx rufus), and ocelot (Leopardus pardalis) [38,63,100,112]. Snakes also prey on brush mice [100,119].
The activities of humans since the arrival of Europeans have created more brushlands than previously existed, thus creating favorable habitat for the brush mouse . Brush mouse populations appear positively correlated to the amount of downed woody debris present on a site . In New Mexico, bulldozed and thinned sites had 2.5-3 times more slash (10% to 13% slash cover) than untreated sites (3% slash cover). These same sites had at least twice as many brush mice captured as the untreated site. A site that was bulldozed, piled, and burned (6% slash cover) also had a higher brush mouse population than the untreated site, but lower than the bulldozed or thinned only sites . Similarly, a habitat assessment in California suggests that the removal of downed woody debris and the reduction of tree and shrub canopy cover to 40% during fuels treatments would have a negative impact on the brush mouse .
Brush mice are primary carriers of Sin Nombre virus, which causes hantavirus pulmonary syndrome in humans . Because their presence in and around buildings has been documented , reducing habitat suitability by the removal of vegetation and wood piles around man-made structures may reduce the transmission of the disease to humans.
Observations of small mammals before, during, and after fire suggest that most small mammals are able to escape fire by burrowing into the soil . However, rodents may be susceptible to the heat effects of fire when soil temperatures are high. For instance, soil temperatures reaching or exceeding 145 °F (63 °C) appear to almost always be lethal to small mammals . Rodents buried up to 6 inches (15 cm) died from lethal temperatures resulting from fire. Temperatures were especially high under fallen logs and near burning stumps. Rodents also died in rock crevices and under ceanothus when the temperature reached at least 140 °F (60 °C). Similarly, rats buried 1.5-5 inches (4-13 cm) below the soil surface in an open sunny site outside the burned area died when temperatures from solar radiation alone reached at least 145 °F (60 °C). However, a rat that was buried 7 inches (18 cm) under the surface survived where temperatures only reached 138 °F (59 °C) . No data were found on brush mouse survival in burrows during fire.
In addition to lethal temperatures, small mammals may perish from exposure to flames. Deer mice (P. maniculatus), pinyon mice (P. truei), Townsend's chipmunks (Tamias townsendii), Trowbridge's shrews (Sorex trowbridgii), and dusky-footed woodrats (Neotoma fuscipes) were seen fleeing from burning slash piles in a prescribed fire in California . Woodrats in the fire waited until their cover was fully engulfed in flames before escaping. Some woodrats caught on fire from burning pitch that dropped onto them while they were hiding. Such individuals appeared to run in a panicked manner, starting small fires along the way. Woodrats not on fire tended to run from one patch of cover to the next in a less erratic fashion. Several woodrats perished either from catching on fire or by refusing to leave their homes . Although observations of mouse (Peromyscus spp.) behavior during the fire was limited, it is possible that they may behave in a similar manner to the woodrats.
Immediately after the fire, approximately one third of the original number of mice captured on
the site were recaptured . Nearly all were collected from the edge of the burn. Individuals
captured within the burn were collected from islands which did not catch fire. Thus, all the mice
that were not able to find cover outside the fire appear to have either perished or fled the area
entirely . Fire effects on the brush mouse may be comparable because of the biological
similarities between brush mice and other Peromyscus species.
HABITAT-RELATED FIRE EFFECTS:
During the 2.5 weeks after a prescribed fire in California, 13 mice (P. maniculatus or P. truei) were captured , or approximately one third the original number of captures before the fire. The deep ash covering the burned area prevented the movement of the mice. Several days after the fire, heavy rain hardened the surface of the ash. Within 5 days, 51 mice were captured within the burned area . Thus, fire-altered habitat appears to restrict the movement of mice until postfire conditions change.
Brush mice in New Mexico preferred sites with significantly lower tree cover (P<0.01), lower conifer density and basal area (P<0.001) and less litter (P<0.001) than random sites . This suggests that fire may benefit brush mice by keeping tree cover and litter depth low. However, they also preferred sites with significantly higher shrub and oak sapling and seedling densities (P<0.001) . This result suggests that fires removing low shrub and tree cover would be detrimental to the brush mouse. In an Arizona study, small mammals were sampled in burned and unburned chaparral and pine-oak forest from 14 months to 3 years after fire . The wildfire burned more than 90% of the vegetation that was present before the fire. More than twice as many brush mice were captured in the unburned forest habitat than any other habitat sampled. The lowest number of captures came from the unburned chaparral. The burned habitats may have recovered sufficiently 3 years after fire, allowing brush mice to reinvade the area .
Fire may alter the habitat structure and/or the community composition, which may influence brush mouse populations . Brush mice are able to recolonize areas that were burned previously. For instance, in a chaparral habitat of southern California, brush mice recolonized sites 3 years and 4 months after wildfire or prescribed fire . Presumably, the fires severely altered the chaparral habitat so that it was unsuitable to brush mice for more than 3 years. Furthermore, brush mice occupied fire-caused secondary forest growth in dry forest habitats of southern Mexico . Additionally, brush mice were captured in a former mixed conifer woodland dominated by white fir, Douglas-fir, incense-cedar (Calocedrus decurrens), sugar pine (Pinus lambertiana), and ponderosa pine that had succeeded to a California black oak (Q. kelloggii)-manzanita-ceanothus-Fremont silktassel (Garrya fremontii) association 19-38 years after fire .
The following table provides fire return intervals for plant communities and ecosystems where the brush mouse is important. For further information, see the FEIS review of the dominant species listed below.
|Community or Ecosystem||Dominant Species||Fire Return Interval Range (years)|
|silver fir-Douglas-fir||Abies amabilis-Pseudotsuga menziesii var. menziesii||>200 |
|California chaparral||Adenostoma and/or Arctostaphylos spp.||<35 to <100 |
|silver sagebrush steppe||Artemisia cana||5-45 [47,83,118]|
|sagebrush steppe||Artemisia tridentata/Pseudoroegneria spicata||20-70 |
|basin big sagebrush||Artemisia tridentata var. tridentata||12-43 |
|coastal sagebrush||Artemisia californica||<35 to <100|
|saltbush-greasewood||Atriplex confertifolia-Sarcobatus vermiculatus||<35 to <100|
|desert grasslands||Bouteloua eriopoda and/or Pleuraphis mutica||5-100 |
|plains grasslands||Bouteloua spp.||<35|
|blue grama-buffalo grass||Bouteloua gracilis-Buchloe dactyloides||<35 [77,118]|
|grama-galleta steppe||Bouteloua gracilis-Pleuraphis jamesii||<35 to <100|
|blue grama-tobosa prairie||Bouteloua gracilis-Pleuraphis mutica||<35 to <100|
|California montane chaparral||Ceanothus and/or Arctostaphylos spp.||50-100 |
|curlleaf mountain-mahogany*||Cercocarpus ledifolius||13-1,000 [6,93]|
|mountain-mahogany-Gambel oak scrub||Cercocarpus ledifolius-Quercus gambelii||<35 to <100|
|blackbrush||Coleogyne ramosissima||<35 to <100|
|Arizona cypress||Cupressus arizonica||<35 to 200|
|western juniper||Juniperus occidentalis||20-70|
|Rocky Mountain juniper||Juniperus scopulorum||<35|
|creosotebush||Larrea tridentata||<35 to <100 |
|Engelmann spruce-subalpine fir||Picea engelmannii-Abies lasiocarpa||35 to >200|
|blue spruce*||Picea pungens||35-200 |
|pinyon-juniper||Pinus-Juniperus spp.||<35 |
|Rocky Mountain bristlecone pine||P. aristata||9-55 [28,29]|
|Mexican pinyon||Pinus cembroides||20-70 [72,104]|
|Rocky Mountain lodgepole pine*||Pinus contorta var. latifolia||25-340 [3,12,13,105]|
|Sierra lodgepole pine*||Pinus contorta var. murrayana||35-200 |
|Colorado pinyon||Pinus edulis||10-400+ [37,44,59,77]|
|Jeffrey pine||Pinus jeffreyi||5-30|
|Pacific ponderosa pine*||Pinus ponderosa var. ponderosa||1-47 |
|interior ponderosa pine*||Pinus ponderosa var. scopulorum||2-30 [3,8,64]|
|Arizona pine||Pinus ponderosa var. arizonica||2-15 [8,24,94]|
|galleta-threeawn shrubsteppe||Pleuraphis jamesii-Aristida purpurea||<35 to <100 |
|Rocky Mountain Douglas-fir*||Pseudotsuga menziesii var. glauca||25-100 [3,4,5]|
|coastal Douglas-fir*||Pseudotsuga menziesii var. menziesii||40-240 [3,76,87]|
|California mixed evergreen||Pseudotsuga menziesii var. menziesii-Lithocarpus densiflorus-Arbutus menziesii||<35|
|California oakwoods||Quercus spp.||<35 |
|oak-juniper woodland (Southwest)||Quercus-Juniperus spp.||<35 to <200 |
|coast live oak||Quercus agrifolia||2-75 |
|canyon live oak||Quercus chrysolepis||<35 to 200|
|blue oak-foothills pine||Quercus douglasii-P. sabiniana||<35|
|Oregon white oak||Quercus garryana||<35 |
|California black oak||Quercus kelloggii||5-30|
|interior live oak||Quercus wislizenii||<35 |
Frequent fires would likely be necessary to keep brush mouse populations low. This goal would be valuable when the spread of hantavirus to humans was a concern. On the other hand, if increasing brush mouse populations as a food source for predators such as the spotted owl were necessary, then less frequent fires may be desirable.
1. Armstrong, David M. 1972. Peromyscus boylii: brush mouse. In: Distribution of mammals in Colorado. Monograph No. 3. Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas, Museum of Natural History: 208-209. 
2. Armstrong, David M. 1979. Ecological distribution of rodents in Canyonlands National Park, Utah. Great Basin Naturalist. 39(2): 199-205. 
3. Arno, Stephen F. 2000. Fire in western forest ecosystems. In: Brown, James K.; Smith, Jane Kapler, eds. Wildland fire in ecosystems: Effects of fire on flora. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-42-vol. 2. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 97-120. 
4. Arno, Stephen F.; Gruell, George E. 1983. Fire history at the forest-grassland ecotone in southwestern Montana. Journal of Range Management. 36(3): 332-336. 
5. Arno, Stephen F.; Scott, Joe H.; Hartwell, Michael G. 1995. Age-class structure of old growth ponderosa pine/Douglas-fir stands and its relationship to fire history. Res. Pap. INT-RP-481. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 25 p. 
6. Arno, Stephen F.; Wilson, Andrew E. 1986. Dating past fires in curlleaf mountain-mahogany communities. Journal of Range Management. 39(3): 241-243. 
7. Baird. 1855. Hesperomys boylii. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia. 7: 335-336. 
8. Baisan, Christopher H.; Swetnam, Thomas W. 1990. Fire history on a desert mountain range: Rincon Mountain Wilderness, Arizona, U.S.A. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 20: 1559-1569. 
9. Baker, Robert J.; Bradley, Lisa C.; Bradley, Robert D.; Dragoo, Jerry W.; Engstrom, Mark D.; Hoffmann, Robert S.; Jones, Cheri A.; Reid, Fiona; Rice, Dale W.; Jones, Clyde. 2003. Revised checklist of North American mammals north of Mexico, 2003. Occasional Papers No. 229. Lubbock, TX: Museum of Texas Tech University. 23 p. 
10. Baker, Rollin H. 1968. Habitats and distribution. In: King, John Arthur, ed. Biology of Peromyscus (Rodentia). Special Publication No. 2. Stillwater, OK: The American Society of Mammalogists: 98-126. 
11. Baker, Rollin H.; Greer, J. Keever. 1962. Mammals of the Mexican state of Durango. In: Michigan State University Museum Publications: Biological Series 2. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University: 25-154. 
12. Barrett, Stephen W. 1993. Fire regimes on the Clearwater and Nez Perce National Forests north-central Idaho. Final Report: Order No. 43-0276-3-0112. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory. 21 p. Unpublished report on file with: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT. 
13. Barrett, Stephen W.; Arno, Stephen F.; Key, Carl H. 1991. Fire regimes of western larch - lodgepole pine forests in Glacier National Park, Montana. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 21: 1711-1720. 
14. Bernard, Stephen R.; Brown, Kenneth F. 1977. Distribution of mammals, reptiles, and amphibians by BLM physiographic regions and A.W. Kuchler's associations for the eleven western states. Tech. Note 301. Denver, CO: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 169 p. 
15. Bogener, Dave. 2003. SP-T11 -- Effects of fuel load management and fire prevention on wildlife and plant communities. Oroville, CA: State of California, Department of Water Resources. Draft final report. Oroville Facilities Relicensing: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Project No. 2100. 42 p. 
16. Boyett, William D. 2001. Habitat relations of rodents in the Hualapai Mountains of northwestern Arizona. Oshkosh, WI: University of Wisconsin Oshkosh. 75 p. Thesis. 
17. Bradley, R. D.; Schmidly, D. J. 1999. Brush mouse: Peromyscus boylii. In: Wilson, Don E.; Ruff, Sue, eds. The Smithsonian book of North American mammals. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press: 564-565. 
18. Brown, David E., ed. 1982. Biotic communities of the American Southwest--United States and Mexico. Desert Plants: Special Issue. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press. 4(1-4): 1-342. 
19. Brown, L. N. 1963. Maturational molts and seasonal molts in Peromyscus boylii. American Midland Naturalist. 70(2): 466-469. 
20. Cahalane, Victor H. 1939. Mammals of the Chiricahua Mountains, Cochise County, Arizona. Journal of Mammalogy. 20(4): 418-440. 
21. Cahalane, Victor H. 1941. A trap-removal census study of small mammals. Journal of Wildlife Management. 5(1): 42-67. 
22. Chew, Robert M.; Butterworth, Bernard B.; Grechman, Richard. 1959. The effects of fire on the small mammal populations of chaparral. Journal of Mammalogy. 40(2): 253. 
23. Clark, Frank H. 1938. Age of sexual maturity in mice of the genus Peromyscus. Journal of Mammalogy. 19(2): 230-234. 
24. Cooper, Charles F. 1961. Pattern in ponderosa pine forests. Ecology. 42(3): 493-499. 
25. Cornely, John E.; Schmidly, David J.; Genoways, Hugh H.; Baker, Robert J. 1981. Mice of the genus Peromyscus in Guadalupe Mountains National Park, Texas. Occasional Papers No. 74. Lubbock, TX: Museum Texas Tech University. 35 p. 
26. Davis, William B. 1974. Brush mouse: Peromyscus boylii (Baird). In: The mammals of Texas. Bull. No. 41. Austin, TX: Texas Parks and Wildlife Department: 205-206. 
27. Denyes, H. Arliss. 1956. Natural terrestrial communities of Brewster County, Texas. The American Midland Naturalist. 55(2): 289-320. 
28. Donnegan, Joseph A. 1999. Climatic and human influences on fire regimes in Pike National Forest. Boulder, CO: University of Colorado. 122 p. Dissertation. 
29. Donnegan, Joseph A.; Veblen, Thomas T.; Sibold, Jason S. 2001. Climatic and human influences on fire history in Pike National Forest, central Colorado. Canadian Journal of Forestry Research. 31: 1526-1539. 
30. Drake, James J. 1958. The brush mouse Peromyscus boylii in southern Durango. Michigan State University Museum Publications: Biological Series. 1(3): 97-132. 
31. Duran, John C. 1973. Field investigations and energy determinations of stomach contents of Peromyscus boylii in the Granite Basin area, Yavapai County, Arizona. Greeley, CO: University of Northern Colorado. 62 p. Dissertation. 
32. Ellison, Laura E.; van Riper, Charles, III. 1998. A comparison of small-mammals communities in a desert riparian floodplain. Journal of Mammalogy. 79(3): 972-985. 
33. Eyre, F. H., ed. 1980. Forest cover types of the United States and Canada. Washington, DC: Society of American Foresters. 148 p. 
34. Fargo, Roberta J.; Laudenslayer, William R., Jr. 1995. Morphological differences between two white-footed mice, Peromyscus boylii and Peromyscus californicus, in oak woodlands of Fresno County, California. Transactions of the Western Section of the Wildlife Society. 31: 58-62. 
35. Findley, James S. 1987. Deer mice: Peromyscus. In: The natural history of New Mexican mammals. Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico Press: 91-94. 
36. Findley, James S.; Harris, Arthur H.; Wilson, Don E.; Jones, Clyde. 1975. Peromyscus boylii (Baird): brush mouse. In: Mammals of New Mexico. Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico Press: 214-218. 
37. Floyd, M. Lisa; Romme, William H.; Hanna, David D. 2000. Fire history and vegetation pattern in Mesa Verde National Park, Colorado, USA. Ecological Applications. 10(6): 1666-1680. 
38. Garner, Herschel W. 1967. An ecological study of the brush mouse, Peromyscus boylii, in western Texas. The Texas Journal of Science. 19(3): 285-291. 
39. Garrison, George A.; Bjugstad, Ardell J.; Duncan, Don A.; Lewis, Mont E.; Smith, Dixie R. 1977. Vegetation and environmental features of forest and range ecosystems. Agric. Handb. 475. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 68 p. 
40. Geluso, Kenneth N. 1971. Habitat distribution of Peromyscus in the Black Mesa region of Oklahoma. Journal of Mammalogy. 52(3): 605-607. 
41. Goodwin, John Gravatt, Jr. 1975. Population densities and food selection of small rodents in Arizona ponderosa pine forests. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona. 72 p. Thesis. 
42. Gottesman, Amy B.; Krausman, Paul R.; Morrison, Michael L.; Petryszyn, Yar. 2004. Movements and home range of brush mice. The Southwestern Naturalist. 49(2): 289-294. 
43. Gottesman, Amy B.; Morrison, Michael L.; Krausman, Paul R. 2004. Habitat use by brush mice (Peromyscus boylii) in southeastern Arizona. Western North American Naturalist. 64(2): 259-264. 
44. Gottfried, Gerald J.; Swetnam, Thomas W.; Allen, Craig D.; Betancourt, Julio L.; Chung-MacCoubrey, Alice L. 1995. Pinyon-juniper woodlands. In: Finch, Deborah M.; Tainter, Joseph A., eds. Ecology, diversity, and sustainability of the Middle Rio Grande Basin. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-GTR-268. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 95-132. 
45. Greenlee, Jason M.; Langenheim, Jean H. 1990. Historic fire regimes and their relation to vegetation patterns in the Monterey Bay area of California. The American Midland Naturalist. 124(2): 239-253. 
46. Hall, E. Raymond. 1981. Peromyscus boylii: Brush mouse. In: The mammals of North America. 2nd ed. Vol. 2. New York: John Wiley & Sons: 694-697. 
47. Heyerdahl, Emily K.; Berry, Dawn; Agee, James K. 1994. Fire history database of the western United States. Final report. Interagency agreement: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency DW12934530; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service PNW-93-0300; University of Washington 61-2239. Seattle, WA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Pacific Northwest Research Station; University of Washington, College of Forest Resources. 28 p. [+ appendices]. Unpublished report on file with: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT. 
48. Hoffmeister, Donald F. 1986. Peromyscus boylii--brush mouse. In: Mammals of Arizona. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press; Arizona Game and Fish Department: 364-369. 
49. Holbrook, Sally J. 1978. Habitat relationships and coexistence of four sympatric species of Peromyscus in northwestern New Mexico. Journal of Mammalogy. 59(1): 18-26. 
50. Holbrook, Sally J. 1979. Habitat utilization, competitive interactions, and coexistence of three species of Cricetine rodents in east-central Arizona. Ecology. 60(4): 758-769. 
51. Holbrook, Sally J. 1979. Vegetational affinities, arboreal activity, and coexistence of three species of rodents. Journal of Mammalogy. 60(3): 528-542. 
52. Howard, W. E.; Fenner, R. L.; Childs, H. E., Jr. 1959. Wildlife survival in brush burns. Journal of Range Management. 12: 230-234. 
53. Jameson, E. W., Jr. 1951. Local distribution of white-footed mice, Peromyscus maniculatus and P. boylei, in the northern Sierra Nevada, California. Journal of Mammalogy. 32(2): 197-203. 
54. Jameson, E. W., Jr. 1952. Food of deer mice, Peromyscus maniculatus and P. boylei, in the northern Sierra Nevada, California. Journal of Mammalogy. 33(1): 50-60. 
55. Jameson, E. W., Jr. 1953. Reproduction of deer mice (Peromyscus maniculatus and P. boylii) in the Sierra Nevada, California. Journal of Mammalogy. 34(1): 44-58. 
56. Jameson, E. W., Jr.; Peeters, Hans J. 1988. Brush mouse (Peromyscus boylii). In: California mammals. California Natural History Guides: 52. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press: 301-302, 376. 
57. Kalcounis-Ruppell, Matina C. 2000. Breeding systems, habitat overlap, and activity patterns of monogamous and promiscuous mating in Peromyscus californicus and P. boylii. London, ON: University of Western Ontario. 177 p. Dissertation. 
58. Kalcounis-Ruppell, Matina C.; Millar, John S. 2002. Partitioning of space, food, and time by syntopic Peromyscus boylii and P. californicus. Journal of Mammalogy. 83(2): 614-625. 
59. Keeley, Jon E. 1981. Reproductive cycles and fire regimes. In: Mooney, H. A.; Bonnicksen, T. M.; Christensen, N. L.; Lotan, J. E.; Reiners, W. A., tech. coords. Fire regimes and ecosystem properties: Proceedings of the conference; 1978 December 11-15; Honolulu, HI. Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-26. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: 231-277. 
60. Kings River Team; Gill, Connie. 1997. Kings River Sustainable Forest Ecosystem Project. Forest Research West. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. September: 15-22. 
61. Kuchler, A. W. 1964. United States [Potential natural vegetation of the conterminous United States]. Special Publication No. 36. New York: American Geographical Society. 1:3,168,000; colored. 
62. Kuenzi, Amy J.; Morrison, Michael L.; Swann, Don E.; Hardy, Paul C.; Downard, Giselle T. 1999. A longitudinal study of Sin Nombre virus prevalence in rodents, southeastern Arizona. Emerging Infectious Diseases. 5(1): 113-117. 
63. Laudenslayer, William F., Jr.; Fargo, Roberta J. 2002. Small mammal populations and ecology in the Kings River Sustainable Forest Ecosystems Project area. In: Verner, Jared, tech. ed. Proceedings of a symposium on the Kings River Sustainable Forest Ecosystems Project: progress and current status; 1998 January 26; Clovis, CA. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-183. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station: 133-142. 
64. Laven, R. D.; Omi, P. N.; Wyant, J. G.; Pinkerton, A. S. 1980. Interpretation of fire scar data from a ponderosa pine ecosystem in the central Rocky Mountains, Colorado. In: Stokes, Marvin A.; Dieterich, John H., tech. coords. Proceedings of the fire history workshop; 1980 October 20-24; Tucson, AZ. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-81. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 46-49. 
65. Lawrence, George E. 1966. Ecology of vertebrate animals in relation to chaparral fire in the Sierra Nevada foothills. Ecology. 47(2): 278-291. 
66. Long, W. S. 1940. Notes on the life histories of some Utah mammals. Journal of Mammalogy. 21(2): 170-180. 
67. Lyon, L. Jack; Crawford, Hewlette S.; Czuhai, Eugene; Fredriksen, Richard L.; Harlow, Richard F.; Metz, Louis J.; Pearson, Henry A. 1978. Effects of fire on fauna: a state-of-knowledge review. Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-6. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington Office. 41 p. 
68. Martin, S. Clark. 1966. The Santa Rita Experimental Range: a center for research on improvement and management of semidesert rangelands. Res. Pap. RM-22. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 24 p. 
69. Matson, John O. 1974. Notes on the arboreal acitivities of Peromyscus boylii in Inyo County, California. Bulletin Southern California Academy of Sciences. 73(1): 51-52. 
70. Mazen, Walter S.; Rudd, Robert L. 1980. Comparative energetics in two sympatric species of Peromyscus. Journal of Mammalogy. 61(3): 573-574. 
71. Modi, Stephen William. 1978. Morphological discrimination, habitat preferences, and size relationships of Peromyscus pectoralis and Peromyscus boylii from areas of sympatry in northern Mexico and western Texas. College Station, TX: Texas A & M University. 44 p. Thesis. 
72. Moir, William H. 1982. A fire history of the High Chisos, Big Bend National Park, Texas. The Southwestern Naturalist. 27(1): 87-98. 
73. Monroe, Lindsey M.; Cunningham, Stanley C.; Kirkendall, Lari Beth. 2004. Small mammal community responses to a wildfire on a central Arizona sky island. Journal of the Arizona Nevada Academy of Science. 37(2): 56-61. 
74. Morrison, Michael L.; Kuenzi, Amy J.; Brown, Coleen F.; Swann, Don E. 2002. Habitat use and abundance trends of rodents in southeastern Arizona. The Southwestern Naturalist. 47(4): 519-526. 
75. Morrison, Michael L.; Scott, Thomas A.; Tennant, Tracy. 1994. Wildlife-habitat restoration in an urban park in southern California. Restoration Ecology. 2(1): 17-30. 
76. Morrison, Peter H.; Swanson, Frederick J. 1990. Fire history and pattern in a Cascade Range landscape. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-254. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 77 p. 
77. Paysen, Timothy E.; Ansley, R. James; Brown, James K.; Gottfried, Gerald J.; Haase, Sally M.; Harrington, Michael G.; Narog, Marcia G.; Sackett, Stephen S.; Wilson, Ruth C. 2000. Fire in western shrubland, woodland, and grassland ecosystems. In: Brown, James K.; Smith, Jane Kapler, eds. Wildland fire in ecosystems: Effects of fire on flora. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-42-volume 2. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 121-159. 
78. Pearson, Kristen M.; Covert, Kristin A.; Compton, Lee Ann. 2004. Effects of soil type on caching and pilfering of pinyon pine seeds by mice. In: van Riper, Charles, III; Cole, Kenneth L. The Colorado Plateau: Cultural, biological, and physical research. Tucson, AZ: The University of Arizona Press: 105-111. 
79. Pearson, Kristen M.; Theimer, Tad C. 2004. Seed-caching responses to substrate and rock cover by two Peromyscus species: implications for pinyon pine establishment. Oecologia. 141: 76-83. 
80. Peromyscus Genetic Stock Center. 2005. Frequently asked questions about Peromyscus, [Online]. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina, Peromyscus Genetic Stock Center (Producer). Available: http://stkctr.biol.sc.edu/FAQ.htm [2005, December 12]. 
81. Quast, Jay C. 1954. Rodent habitat preferences on foothill pastures in California. Journal of Mammalogy. 35(4): 515-521. 
82. Quinn, Ronald D. 1990. Habitat preferences and distribution of mammals in California chaparral. Res. Pap. PSW-202. Berkeley, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. 11 p. 
83. Quinnild, Clayton L.; Cosby, Hugh E. 1958. Relicts of climax vegetation on two mesas in western North Dakota. Ecology. 39(1): 29-32. 
84. Reynolds, Richard T.; Block, William M.; Boyce, Douglas A., Jr. 1996. Using ecological relationships of wildlife as templates for restoring southwestern forests. In: Covington, Wallace; Wagner, Pamela K., technical coordinators. Conference on adaptive ecosystem restoration and management: restoration of Cordilleran conifer landscapes of North America: Proceedings; 1996 June 6-8; Flagstaff, AZ. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-GTR-278. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 35-43. 
85. Ribble, David O.; Stanley, Sherri. 1998. Home ranges and social organization of syntopic Peromyscus boylii and P. truei. Journal of Mammalogy. 79(3): 932-941. 
86. Ribble, David O.; Wurtz, Amy E.; McConnell, Elizabeth K.; Buegge, Jeremy J.; Welch, Kenneth C., Jr. 2002. A comparison of home ranges of two species of Peromyscus using trapping and radiotelemetry data. Journal of Mammalogy. 83(1): 260-266. 
87. Ripple, William J. 1994. Historic spatial patterns of old forests in western Oregon. Journal of Forestry. 92(11): 45-49. 
88. Robertson, Paul B. 1975. Reproduction and community structure of rodents over a transect in southern Mexico. Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas. 113 p. Dissertation. 
89. Sapsis, David B. 1990. Ecological effects of spring and fall prescribed burning on basin big sagebrush/Idaho fescue--bluebunch wheatgrass communities. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University. 105 p. Thesis. 
90. Sauvajot, Raymond M.; Buechner, Marybeth; Kamradt, Danise A.; Schonewald, Christine M. 1998. Patterns of human disturbance and response by small mammals and birds in chaparral near urban devlopment. Urban Ecosystems. 2(4): 279-297. 
91. Schmidly, David J. 1977. The mammals of Trans-Pecos Texas: including Big Bend National Park and Guadalupe Mountains National Park. College Station, TX: Texas A&M University. 225 p. 
92. Schmidly, David J.; Hendricks, Fred S. 1984. Mammals of the San Carlos Mountains of Tamaulipas, Mexico. In: Martin, Robert E.; Chapman, Brian R., eds. Special Publications: The Museum Texas Tech University. No. 22. Lubbock, TX: Texas Tech University: 15-69. 
93. Schultz, Brad W. 1987. Ecology of curlleaf mountain mahogany (Cercocarpus ledifolius) in western and central Nevada: population structure and dynamics. Reno, NV: University of Nevada. 111 p. Thesis. 
94. Seklecki, Mariette T.; Grissino-Mayer, Henri D.; Swetnam, Thomas W. 1996. Fire history and the possible role of Apache-set fires in the Chiricahua Mountains of southeastern Arizona. In: Ffolliott, Peter F.; DeBano, Leonard F.; Baker, Malchus B., Jr.; Gottfried, Gerald J.; Solis-Garza, Gilberto; Edminster, Carleton B.; Neary, Daniel G.; Allen, Larry S.; Hamre, R. H., tech. coords. Effects of fire on Madrean Province ecosystems: a symposium proceedings; 1996 March 11-15; Tucson, AZ. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-GTR-289. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 238-246. 
95. Severson, Kieth E. 1986. Small mammals in modified pinyon-juniper woodlands, New Mexico. Journal of Range Management. 39(1): 31-34. 
96. Shiflet, Thomas N., ed. 1994. Rangeland cover types of the United States. Denver, CO: Society for Range Management. 152 p. 
97. Slayden, O. V. Daniel. 1984. Spatial segregation in three sympatric species of Peromyscus from the north Coast Range of California. Sonoma, CA: Sonoma State University. 107 p. Thesis. 
98. Smartt, Richard A. 1978. A comparison of ecological and morphological overlap in a Peromyscus community. Ecology. 59(2): 216-220. 
99. Smith, Jane Kapler, ed. 2000. Wildland fire in ecosystems: Effects of fire on fauna. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-42-vol. 1. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 83 p. 
100. Storer, Tracy I.; Evans, Francis C.; Palmer, Fletcher G. 1944. Some rodent populations in the Sierra Nevada of California. Ecological Monographs. 14(2): 165-192. 
101. Sureda, Maite; Morrison, Michael L. 1999. Habitat characteristics of small mammals in southeastern Utah. Great Basin Naturalist. 59(4): 323-330. 
102. Svihla, Arthur. 1932. A comparative life history study of the mice of the genus Peromyscus. Miscellaneous Publications No. 24. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan, Museum of Zoology. 39 p. 
103. Svoboda, Peggy L.; Tolliver, Deanna K.; Choate, Jerry R. 1988. Peromyscus boylii in the San Luis Valley, Colorado. The Southwestern Naturalist. 33(2): 239-240. 
104. Swetnam, Thomas W.; Baisan, Christopher H.; Caprio, Anthony C.; Brown, Peter M. 1992. Fire history in a Mexican oak-pine woodland and adjacent montane conifer gallery forest in southeastern Arizona. In: Ffolliott, Peter F.; Gottfried, Gerald J.; Bennett, Duane A.; [and others], technical coordinators. Ecology and management of oak and associated woodlands: perspectives in the southwestern United States and northern Mexico: Proceedings; 1992 April 27-30; Sierra Vista, AZ. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-218. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 165-173. 
105. Tande, Gerald F. 1979. Fire history and vegetation pattern of coniferous forests in Jasper National Park, Alberta. Canadian Journal of Botany. 57: 1912-1931. 
106. Tevis, Lloyd, Jr. 1956. Effect of a slash burn on forest mice. Journal of Wildlife Management. 20(4): 405-409. 
107. Tietje, William D.; Vreeland, Justin K. 1997. Vertebrates diverse and abundant in well-structured oak woodland. California Agriculture. 51(6): 8-1. 
108. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995. Recovery plan for the Mexican spotted owl: Vols. 1-2. Albuquerque, NM. 370 p. 
109. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 2013. Endangered Species Program, [Online]. Available: http://www.fws.gov/endangered/. 
110. Vaughan, Terry A. 1954. Mammals of the San Gabriel Mountains of California. University of Kansas Publications, Museum of Natural History. Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas. 7(9): 513-582. 
111. Ward, James P., Jr.; Block, William M. 1995. Mexican spotted owl prey ecology. In: Block, William M.; Clemente, Fernando; Cully, Jack F.; Dick, James L., Jr.; Franklin, Alan B.; Ganey, Joseph L.; Howe, Frank P.; Moir, W. H.; Spangle, Steven L.; Rinkevich, Sarah E.; Urban, Dean L.; Vahle, Robert; Ward, James P., Jr.; White, Gary C. Recovery plan for the Mexican spotted owl (Strix occidentalis lucida). Vol. 2. Albuquerque, NM: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service: 1-48. 
112. Whitaker, John O., Jr. 1980. National Audubon Society field guide to North American mammals. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc. 745 p. 
113. Williams, Daniel F.; Verner, Jared; Sakal, Howard F.; Waters, Jeffrey R. 1992. General biology of major prey species of the California spotted owl. In: Verner, Jared; McKelvey, Kevin S.; Noon, Barry R.; Gutierrez, R. J.; Gould, Gordon I., Jr.; Beck, Thomas W., tech. coords. The California spotted owl: a technical assessment of its current status. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-133. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station: 207-221. 
114. Wilson, Don E. 1968. Ecological distribution of the genus Peromyscus. The Southwestern Naturalist. 13(3): 267-274. 
115. Wilson, Don E.; Reeder, DeeAnn M., eds. 2005. Mammal species of the world: a taxonomic and geographic reference. 3rd ed. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press. 2142 p. 
116. Wirtz, William O., II. 1984. Postfire rodent and bird communities in the chaparral of southern California. In: Dell, B., ed. Proceedings, 4th international conference on Mediterranean ecosystems; 1984 August 13-17; Perth, Western Australia. Nedlands, Western Australia: University of Western Australia: 167-168. 
117. Wolff, Jerry O. 1989. Social behavior. In: Kirkland, Gordon L., Jr.; Layne, James N., eds. Advances in the study of Peromyscus (Rodentia). Lubbock, TX: Texas Tech University Press: 271-291. 
118. Wright, Henry A.; Bailey, Arthur W. 1982. Fire ecology: United States and southern Canada. New York: John Wiley & Sons. 501 p. 
119. Zwartjes, Patrick W.; Cartron, Jean-Luc E.; Stoleson, Pamela L. L.; Haussamen, Walter C.; Crane, Tiffany E. 2005. Assessment of native species and ungulate grazing in the Southwest: terrestrial wildlife. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-142. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 74 p. [+ CD]. 
FEIS Home Page