Acta Theriologica 54 (2): 183–192, 2009.

PL ISSN 0001–7051

Microhabitat use by the house mouse Mus musculus

in an urban area

Daniela GOMEZ, Cecilia PROVENSAL and Jaime POLOP

Gomez D., Provensal C. and Polop J. 2009. Microhabitat use by the house
mouse Mus musculus in an urban area. Acta Theriologica 54: 183–192.
Understanding some aspects of the ecology of the house mouse Mus mus-
culus Linnaeus, 1758 in an urban area may be crucial to decide materials or
strategies for pest control. The aim of this study was to examine microhabitat
use by M. musculus in vacant lots in the urban area of Río Cuarto, Córdoba,
Argentina. We livetrapped M. musculus in five vacant lots in summer and
autumn of 2006, and in four vacant lots in summer and autumn of 2007.
Variables influencing the use and not-use of trapping stations by the house
mouse by season were identified with a logistic regression. M. musculus pres-
ence was closely associated with vegetation variables. In three of four analyzed
seasons, the house mouse presence was positively associated with high values
of vegetation volume and negatively associated with traps located close to
walls. To control mouse presence in vacant lots, it would be important to
minimize habitat complexity through the maintenance of a short vegetation
cover and the avoidance of the important plant species growth for M. musculus.
Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (CONICET), Argentina (DG); De-
partamento de Ciencias Naturales, Facultad de Ciencias Exactas, Físico-Químicas y Naturales,
Universidad Nacional de Río Cuarto, Agencia Postal No 3, 5800 Río Cuarto, Córdoba, Argentina,
e-mail: dgomez@exa.unrc.edu.ar, mdanig@yahoo.com.ar (DG, CP, JP)

Key words: house mouse, microhabitat use, vacant lots, vegetation, control,
logistic regression

Introduction tation of the natural environment into a set of

Urbanization, defined as growth in the area
and number of people inhabiting cities, is an
important aspect of the anthropogenic impact
on ecosystems, causing alterations to natural
landscape composition and ecosystem processes
(Chernousova 2002, Bradley and Altizer 2006,
Garden et al. 2007). Perhaps the most obvious
consequence of urbanization is the fragmen-
patches of varying size and quality (Dickman
and Doncaster 1987). These patches comprise
industrial and commercial buildings, residential
dwellings and their associated gardens, and
natural, semi-natural or open habitats as sport-
-fields, parks, railway banks, vacant areas and
vacant lots (Advani 1995, Castillo et al. 2003,
Baker and Harris 2007, Gomez et al. 2008). This
landscape configuration alters the composition of
animal communities, leading to native biodiver-

[183]
184 D. Gomez et al.
sity loss and to an increase in the abundances of
introduced and generalist species that thrive in
urban areas (Bradley and Altizer 2006). This is
the case of the commensal rodent Mus musculus
Linnaeus, 1758, which may settle at high den-
sities in urban environments where unhygienic
situations or other anthropogenic circumstances
may provide the necessary resources to its
presence. This species is considered the principal
pest in urban environments infesting human
dwellings, food stores, waste areas and other
anthropogenic habitats (Rowe 1975).
The house mouse M. musculus could be
viewed as an “indicator species” of environmen-
tal degradation due to the negative effects that
it produces in modified ecosystems as urban ar-
eas. Due to the fact that the house mouse in
these habitats thrive in close proximity to hu-
man activities, it represents a potential threat
because it has been associated with a variety of
diseases, contamination and destruction of
stored foods, structural damage and other as-
pects of environmental deterioration (Gratz
1996, Lund 1996). As a potential disease agent,
M. musculus is the reservoir of Lymphocytic
Choriomeningitis virus (LCMv) (Childs et al.
1991). LCMv usually produces fever and myalgia
syndrome, which is rarely serious, but infections
during pregnancy have been associated with se-
rious, even fatal complications to neonates (Pe-
ters et al. 1996). Therefore, understanding some
aspects of the population ecology of house mice
in urban areas is essential to decide materials or
strategies of control and to take measures to pre-
vent disease transmission. The deterioration of
urban infrastructure and the expansion of urban
habitats accentuate the growing need for effec-
tive ecologically-based rodent control programs,
for public health, economic and aesthetic rea-
sons (Colvin and Jackson 1999). Management
strategies based on ecological characteristics re-
quire knowledge on habitat use, breeding pat-
tern and population dynamics of the pest species
(Leirs et al. 1999).
Understanding the implications of habitat
use of pest species becomes very important for
effective management because of its significance
in both explaining the distribution of organisms
and differentiating between habitats of different
quality (Chalfoun and Martin 2007). Small
mammals use some microhabitats more fre-
quently than others, suggesting that they per-
ceive the difference in quality (Simonetti 1989).
Food supply, predation risk, competition, vege-
tation structure, and human disturbance could
affect microhabitat quality and consequently the
microhabitat use by small mammals (Simonetti
1989, Ellis et al. 1997, Baker et al. 2003,
Bertolino 2007). Seasonal changes in habitat
structure also promote variation in resource use
(Barnum et al. 1992, Bilenca and Kravetz 1999,
Johannesen and Mauritzen 1999, Cramer and
Willig 2002). Microhabitat studies developed in
open and enclosure populations of M. musculus
in rural areas showed that seed bank and ade-
quate vegetation cover were the mayor determi-
nants of mouse abundance (Twigg and Kay 1994,
Drickamer et al. 1999). Arthur et al. (2004) also
suggested that mice showed a strong selection of
habitats with a complex structure and with high
refuge availability when they confronted with
increased risk of predation. In laboratory sur-
veys, mice made wider use of structurally com-
plex habitats (Gray et al. 2000, Jensen et al.
2003). There are few data on which environmen-
tal factors would well explain the presence of M.
musculus in an urban area.
Previous studies in the city of Río Cuarto
showed that M. musculus was the most abundant
and widely distributed rodent species; and the
average prevalence of infection with LCMv in the
house mice was 15% (Castillo et al. 2003, Riera et
al. 2005). The house mouse was detected in all
sampled habitats (vacant lots, rubbish dumps,
stream banks, railway banks and vacant areas)
but it was found in high numbers particularly in
vacant lots (Castillo et al. 2003, Gomez et al.
2008). From the point of view of pest manage-
ment, the proximity of vacant lots to human resi-
dences represents probably a high risk for public
health and, if necessary, sanitation activities
may be performed easily in public spaces such as
vacant lots than in dwellings (Fernandez et al.
2007). For these reasons we considered to study
microhabitat use of M. musculus in vacant lots.
In the present study, we hypothesized that if
microhabitat use of M. musculus in vacant lots
are directly related to habitat structure, the
 Microhabitat use by Mus musculus
presence of the house mouse would be positively
associated with high levels of vegetation struc-
ture (measured as vegetation volume) and high
ground-level complexity (measured as volumes
of building debris, rubbish and scrap iron). We
analyzed this by comparing habitat characteris-
tics recorded in trapping stations where house
mice were either trapped or not in order to select
those habitat variables that were useful to sepa-
rate between areas used by animals and areas
avoided. Furthermore, we compared character-
istics of trapping stations used by males and fe-
males in order to examine if both sexes show
different patterns of microhabitat use.
Study area
The study was conducted in the city of Río Cuarto situ-
ated in the southwest of the Córdoba province, Argentina,
between 33°01’ and 33°10’S, and 64°15’ and 64°22’W. The
weather is temperate with average temperature of 23°C in
January and 6°C in July. Annual average rainfall is 800
mm. The city has a surface area of 4698 ha and approxi-
mately 160 000 inhabitants. Commercial activities are pre-
dominant with low industrial activity. Sample sites in the
study area comprised vacant lots. These areas were lands
without buildings and dwellings, but adjacent to them. The
presence of vacant lots and other kind of open habitats is a
common situation in the city of Río Cuarto, since this city
has not reached its maximum building development yet.
Considering the entire city, vacant lots could have an ap-
2
proximate surface area of 500 m , but the vacant lots used
2
in this study had a maximum area of 480 m (12 ´ 40 m,
Fig. 1). All vacant lots were adjacent to residential dwell-
ings with back gardens and were delimited by the walls of
these nearby dwellings (Fig. 1). These walls were made of
bricks and concrete (Fig. 2). Vacant lots were characterized
by the presence of native and introduced plant species, gar-
bage, and human-arranged material, such as brick debris,
wood and scrap iron (Fig. 2), and they have not had com-
mercial, industrial or residential former uses.
Material and methods
Trapping procedure
House mice were captured during sessions in summer
and autumn of 2006 and 2007. Initial surveys (2006) were
conducted at five vacant lots, yet repeat surveys (2007) oc-
curred at only four sites, as one site was abandoned owing
to substantial human interference (a building was built on
it in spring 2007).
185
There were four trapping sessions, summer 2006 (Feb-
ruary), autumn 2006 (April–May), summer 2007 (February)
and autumn 2007 (May). Each session consisted of eight
consecutive trapping nights. At each site, twenty trapping
stations each with one Sherman live-trap (23 ´ 9 ´ 8 cm)
were set in a grid at 5 m intervals (Fig. 1). All traps were
baited with a mixture of peanut butter and cow fat. Traps
were checked each morning, and for each animal captured
we recorded sex and body measurements (body weight and
lengths of body and tail). Female reproductive status was
also recorded. Females were classified as reproductively
active (open vagina, pregnant or lactating) or inactive
(closed vagina). Animals were individually marked using
self-piercing ear-tags (manufacturer by National Band &
Tag Company) and released at the point of capture. The
research on live animals was performed in a humane manner
following national and international norms (www.sarem.org).
Microhabitat variables
Microhabitat characteristics were measured at each
trap in each trapping session. All measurements were re-
corded within a 1 ´ 1 m quadrat centred at every trapping
station (Fig. 2b). The following microhabitat variables were
3
recorded: (1) volume of building debris (dm ); (2) volume of
3
rubbish (including bottles, tins, plastic bags; dm ); (3) vol-
3 3
ume of scrap iron (dm ); (4) volume of vegetation (m ); (5)
bare ground cover (%), and (6) litter cover (including dead
leaves, sawdust debris, wood chips) (%). Volumes were ob-
tained by multiplying the area covered by the mean height
of the variable; this height was obtained as the mean value
of ten measurements randomly registered in the 1 ´ 1 m
quadrat. Other variables registered at each trapping sta-
tion included: the presence of those plant species that cov-
ered more than 5% of the area (considered as binary variables
presence/absence); and trap location [close to vacant lot
walls (1) or not (0)] where individuals were captured. In
shorter vacant lots (up to 35 m of length), five of the seven
traps in the central row were considered not close to wall
(from trap nine to 13), the rest of traps (from trap one to
seven, traps eight and 14 and from trap 15 to 20) were con-
sidered close to wall (Fig. 1 and 2). In longer vacant lots (40
m of length), six of the seven traps in the central row (from
trap nine to 14) were considered not close to wall, the rest
of traps (from trap one to seven, trap eight and from trap 15
to 20) were considered close to wall.
Statistical analysis
Data from the five (for summer and autumn 2006) and
four (for summer and autumn 2007) vacant lots were com-
bined for the analyses and each trap was the unit of replica-
tion. Variables influencing the use and not-use of trapping
stations by the house mouse by season were identified with
a logistic regression. This analysis is widely used to analyse
multivariate data involving a binary response variable
(Bakker 2006, Bertolino 2007). The binary response vari-
able was the presence or absence of the house mouse in
186 D. Gomez et al.

street

residential
dwelling

back Sherman
garden trap

back wall

77 14
14

6 13
13 20
20
back back
garden garden
5 12
12 19
19

vacant lot
vacant lot
lateral wall
lateral wall

30-40 m 4 11
11 18
18

3 10
10 17
17
residential residential
55-6
- 6mm
dwelling dwelling
2 99 16
16
4. 3 / 55 m
m

1 8 15
15

front wall
0.5 m
street
10-12 m

Fig. 1. Scheme of a vacant lot showing vacant lot size, trap arrangement and surrounding dwelling display.

each trap station. The forward stepwise method was used

to select variables. Model fitting was evaluated with the
Results
Hosmer-Lemeshow test. The variables in the model were
evaluated with the Wald statistic. Besides, logistic regres- Mus musculus abundances
sion was also used to evaluate whether the trapping station
used by the house mouse differed between sexes. The trap- During the first year (2006), there were 195
ping stations where M. musculus were captured were cate-
captures of 81 house mouse individuals in 1600
gorized by sex. The analyses compared sites where only one
sex was captured with sites where only the other sex was trap nights. Forty-eight individuals, 20 females
captured. Data were analyzed by using SPSS version 11.5. and 28 males were captured in summer and 33
 Microhabitat use by Mus musculus 187

(a)

(b)

Fig. 2. (a) Photograph of a vacant lot showing the surrounding walls, a pill of building debris and a trap (circled) located not
close to wall; (b) Photograph of a trap located close to wall; the 1 ´ 1 m quadrat in which microhabitat variables were mea-
sured is also shown.

individuals, 16 females and 17 males in autumn.
In the second year (2007), 111 captures of 61 in-
dividuals were registered in 1280 trap nights.
Thirty individuals, 14 females and 16 males
were captured in summer and 31 individuals, 19
females and 12 males in autumn. Additional in-
formation about the number of individuals cap-
tured in each vacant lot is reported in Appendix
1. In relation to the reproductive condition of fe-
males, 55% and 50% of females were active in
summers of 2006 and 2007 respectively, whereas
25% and 37% were active in autumns of 2006
and 2007.
Microhabitat use
Sorghum halepense (Poaceae), Cynodon dac-
tylon (Poaceae), Ipomoea purpurea and I. cairica
(Convolvulaceae), Humulus scandens (Cannaba-
ceae), Chenopodium album (Chenopodiaceae), and
188 D. Gomez et al.

Oxalis martiana (Oxalidaceae) were plant spe-
cies that covered more than 5% of the quadrat
surface and were considered as binary variables
(presence/absence) in the analyses. Plant spe-
cies S. halepense, C. dactylon and I. purpurea
were recorded in both summer and autumn.
Whereas, H. scandens and C. album were present
only in summer and I. cairica and O. martiana
were present only in autumn.
In summer 2006, the selected model was sig-
nificant in differentiating trapping stations
used and not-used by the house mouse and cor-
rectly classified 69% of the cases (53.5% of used
traps and 80.7% for not-used traps). The logistic
regression identified three variables (volume of
vegetation, H. scandens and litter cover) as sig-
nificant in discriminating between used and
not-used trapping stations (Table 1). The odd ra-
tios indicated that mice were almost six times
more likely to use traps with high levels of vege-
tation volume. Similarly, the mice were four
times more likely to use locations with presence
of H. scandens than in its absence. Finally, a
10% increase in litter cover decreased odds of
use by 20% (Table 1).
In summer 2007, the logistic regression se-
lected three different predictors of M. musculus
presence. The model classified correctly 72.5% of
the cases (64.5% of used traps and 77.6% of
not-used traps). The house mouse was positively
associated with I. purpurea and negatively asso-
ciated with C. dactylon and trap location. The
presence of C. dactylon decreased odds of use by
nearly 70%. Traps located near vacant lot walls
decreased odds of use by also 70%. The house
mouse was three times more likely to use traps
where I. purpurea was present (Table 1).
In autumn 2006, three variables best pre-
dicted trap used by M. musculus. The logistic re-
gression model classified correctly 69% of the

Table 1. Results of logistic regression models comparing trapping stations used and not-used by the
house mouse Mus musculus according to season in vacant lots in the city of Río Cuarto. df = 1, SE –
standard error, Wald statistic and its significance (p).

Regression
Variable SE Wald p Odd ratio
coefficient

Summer 2006
Volume of vegetation 1.747 0.569 9.434 0.002 5.740
Litter cover –0.233 0.108 4.644 0.031 0.792
Humulus scandens 1.446 0.764 3.580 0.058 4.248
Constant –0.988 0.474 4.353 0.037 0.372
2
Hosmer and Lemeshow test: c = 11.359, p = 0.182 Classified correctly 69.0%

Autumn 2006
Trap location –0.951 0.478 3.957 0.047 0.386
Ipomoea cairica 1.305 0.587 4.934 0.026 3.686
Volume of vegetation 3.240 1.312 6.098 0.014 25.544
Constant –1.018 0.502 4.107 0.043 0.361
2
Hosmer and Lemeshow test: c = 7.641, p = 0.469 Classified correctly 69.0%

Summer 2007
Trap location –1.204 0.566 4.522 0.033 0.300
Cynodon dactylon –1.261 0.552 5.215 0.022 0.283
Ipomoea purpurea 1.238 0.521 5.652 0.017 3.449
Constant 0.272 0.536 0.258 0.612 1.313
2
Hosmer and Lemeshow test: c = 5.716, p = 0.335 Classified correctly 72.5%

Autumn 2007
Trap location –1.207 0.561 4.623 0.032 0.299
Volume of vegetation 3.130 1.002 9.764 0.002 22.881
Constant –1.223 0.549 4.973 0.026 0.294
2
Hosmer and Lemeshow test: c = 6.258, p = 0.618 Classified correctly 76.3%
 Microhabitat use by Mus musculus
cases considered (35.3% of used traps and 86.4%
for not-used traps). The presence of house mouse
was positively associated with volume of vegeta-
tion and I. cairica, and negatively associated
with trap location (Table 1). The odd ratios indi-
cated that the house mouse was 25 times more
likely to use traps with high levels of vegetation
volume and three times more likely to use loca-
tions where I. cairica was present. Finally, the
house mouse was only about 60% more likely to
use traps located close to vacant lot walls than
traps away from walls (Table 1).
In autumn 2007, the selected logistic regres-
sion model was similar to the selected in the pre-
vious one, except for I. cairica that was not
significant in the model. This model correctly
classified 76.3% of the cases (41.7% of used traps
and 91.1% for not-used traps) (Table 1).
Microhabitat use by sex
Trapping stations used only by males were
similar to those used only by females in all sea-
sons, except for the presence of I. cairica that
decreased the odds of use of males by 90% in au-
tumn 2006 (Wald statistic = 7.958, p = 0.026, odd
ratio = 0.071). The number of trap stations where
only males, only females or individuals of both
sexes were captured is reported in Appendix 1.
Discussion
Although the house mouse is well known for
the damage it causes in houses (Hansson 1992),
it can live away from buildings during the breed-
ing season and may recolonize houses at the end
of it (Jensen 1966, Rowe and Swinney 1977).
This is in agreement with a previous study de-
veloped in the city of Río Cuarto in which mouse
numbers in summer were higher in vacant lots
than in surrounding residential dwellings, they
reached similar values in autumn and were
higher in residential dwellings in winter (L.
Guerrieri, pers. comm.). Moreover, in another
study also performed in the city, it was found
that vacant lots are inhabited by large numbers
of mice conforming relatively stable populations
during most part of the year (Gomez et al. 2008).
189
These populations showed annual breeding with
a peak in reproductive activity in summer-au-
tumn, since some active females were captured
in winter and juvenile class was recruited in ev-
ery season (Gomez et al. 2008).
The results of this study have increased the
level of knowledge about the house mouse in ur-
ban areas of Argentina. Although, the house
mouse is a species with generalized habitat re-
quirements, microhabitat affinities of this spe-
cies were found, without conspicuous differences
between sexes. We studied microhabitat use of
M. musculus in vacant lots considering two as-
pects of habitat structure, vegetation structure
and ground-level complexity. In three of four an-
alyzed seasons, M. musculus presence in vacant
lots was well explained by vegetation volume.
However, we could not find any association be-
tween house mouse microhabitat use and those
variables related to the complexity of ground-
-level structure as Jensen et al. (2003) found in a
laboratory survey. This dissimilarity may be due
to the differences in the experimental conditions
between the two studies. The laboratory study
was developed using enclosures in which there
was no vegetation cover and the complexity of
ground level structure consisted of bricks that
were homogeneously distributed across the floor
at different angles to produce a complex spatial
arrangement. In our study, building debris, rub-
bish and scrap iron were not homogeneously dis-
tributed but they had a clumped distribution in
the vacant lots. Vegetation widely covers the va-
cant lot surface and it could be a sufficient factor
to explain house mouse presence in these habi-
tats. In addition to vegetation volume, some in-
dividual plant species were significant predictors
of M. musculus presence and these plant species
were different among seasons and years. It is
not clear whether these differences simply re-
flected a system with temporal variations in ro-
dent microhabitat use or reflected the influences
of any external factor. Human disturbances in
modified ecosystems as urban areas may ob-
scure the understanding of the relationship be-
tween M. musculus and its environment. In our
study, during the spring preceding 2007 sea-
sons, some vacant lots suffered disturbances
since they were mown. We speculate that these
190 D. Gomez et al.
human disturbances may have contributed to
the changes in house mouse microhabitat use
between 2006 and 2007. But in this study, we
could not adequately test this statement. On the
other hand, habitat use is likely to change across
seasons and years, so it would not be surprising
to find a system with changes in the strength of
associations of the studied species and the mea-
sured microhabitat variables. Depending on the
season and years some variables may assume
greater or less importance as explanatory vari-
ables for species presence or absence (Simonetti
1989, Lambert and Adler 2000).
The house mouse was positively associated
with the presence of some forbs as I. purpurea
and H. scandens and negatively associated with
the presence of the grass C. dactylon in summer
and was positively associated with I. cairica spe-
cies in autumn. A strong selection for forbs and
against grass has been established for other ro-
dent species (Barnum et al. 1992, Ellis et al.
1997, Bilenca and Kravetz 1999). The selection
for forbs may be due to the fact that they provide
excellent cover without causing movement of the
leaves above when mice move; and against grass
because it provides minimal cover if it is sparse
and if it is thick enough to provide good cover, it
rustles as the mouse moves (Simonetti 1989,
Barnum et al. 1992).
Microhabitat use patterns may be also ex-
plained through competition and predation
(Cramer and Willig 2002). As we previously
established, M. musculus is the more abundant
and widely commensal species in the city of Río
Cuarto (Castillo et al. 2003, Gomez et al. 2008),
and it was the only small mammal species re-
gistered in vacant lots during the study; con-
sequently this species would not compete for the
available microhabitats in these habitats. On
the other hand, small mammals are particularly
vulnerable to predation and the selection of
habitats with dense and high vegetation cover
may provide protection from both terrestrial and
aerial predators (Simonetti 1989, Dickman 1992).
The risk of predation is minimized by house
mice at low population densities through habitat
choice with little to no use of open habitats
(Singleton et al. 2005). In Australian agro-
ecosystems, the house mice show selection for
dense vegetation and great amount of refuges
when confronted with increased risk of preda-
tion (Dickman 1992, Ylönen et al. 2002, Arthur
et al. 2004). In urban areas, the main predators
of M. musculus are humans, dogs and domestic
cats. The selection of microhabitats with high
vegetation volume may provide house mice
physical protection against those predators in
vacant lots in the urban area of Río Cuarto.
In addition to the vegetation variables, in
three of four analyzed seasons M. musculus
presence in vacant lots was also explained by
trap location. Jensen et al. (2003) found in labo-
ratory studies that M. musculus in open habi-
tats appeared to prefer sites near the enclosure
walls. Staying close to vertical surfaces may re-
duce predation risk by reducing the number of
directions from which a predator can approach
and by increasing crevices in which to hide. On
the other hand, mice spent much more time
away from the enclosure walls in structurally
complex habitats. In our study, the house mouse
was negatively associated to traps located near
vacant lot walls. The presence of predators as
domestic cats (near or walking on the walls) to-
gether with the fact that vegetation covered
widely the vacant lot surface including those
traps located away from walls made the latter be
the most used sites by M. musculus.
Understanding M. musculus habitat use in
an urban area may be crucial to the development
of ecologically-based pest management avoiding
contact between rodents and men. This kind of
management programs emphasizes the need of a
shift from the use of rodenticides and traps to
sanitation management in urban environments
(Colvin and Jackson 1999). From this perspec-
tive and according to the results of this study, it
would be important to control mouse presence
in vacant lots to minimize habitat complexity
through the maintenance of short vegetation
and to avoid the growth of the important plant
species for M. musculus. These control measures
should be targeted not only along the vacant lot
walls near the surrounding dwellings but also in
the whole vacant lot surface in order to reduce
the suitability of the environment for mice and
consequently to decrease the carrying capacity
of the environment.
 Microhabitat use by Mus musculus
Acknowledgements: We thank S. Vilor for assistance in pro-
ducing the English version and M. Torres for his assistance in
fieldwork. G. Damilano assisted in the statistical analysis.
Two anonymous referees improved a previous version of the
paper. This study was supported by grants from Secretaría de
Ciencia y Técnica de la Universidad Nacional de Río Cuarto.
References
Advani R. 1995. Mouse populations and their control in New
York City. International Biodeterioration & Biodeg-
radation 36: 135–141.
Arthur A., Pech R. and Dickman C. 2004. Habitat structure
mediates the non-lethal effects of predation on enclosed
populations of house mice. Journal of Animal Ecology
73: 867–877.
Baker P., Ansell R., Dodds P., Webber C. and Harris S.
2003. Factors affecting the distribution of small mam-
mals in an urban area. Mammal Review 33: 95–100.
Baker P. and Harris S. 2007. Urban mammals: what does
the future hold? An analysis of the factors affecting pat-
terns of use of residential gardens in Great Britain.
Mammal Review 4: 297–315.
Bakker V. 2006. Microhabitat features influence the move-
ments of red squirrels (Tamiasciurus hudsonicus) on
unfamiliar ground. Journal of Mammalogy 87: 124–130.
Barnum S., Manville C., Tester J. and Carmen W. 1992.
Path selection by Peromyscus leucopus in the presence
and absence of vegetative cover. Journal of Mammalogy
73: 797–801.
Bertolino S. 2007. Microhabitat use by garden dormice dur-
ing nocturnal activity. Journal of Zoology, London 272:
176–182.
Bilenca D. and Kravetz F. 1999. Seasonal changes in micro-
habitat use and niche overlap between Akodon azarae
and Calomys laucha (Rodentia, Muridae) in agroeco-
systems of Central Argentina. Studies of Neotropical
Fauna & Environment 34: 129–136.
Bradley C. and Altizer S. 2006. Urbanization and the ecol-
ogy of wildlife diseases. Trends in Ecology and Evolu-
tion 22: 95–102.
Castillo E., Priotto J., Ambrosio A., Provensal C., Pini N.,
Morales M., Steinmann A. and Polop, J. 2003. Com-
mensal and wild rodents in an urban area of Argentina.
International Biodeterioration & Biodegradation 52:
135–141.
Chalfoun A. and Martin T. 2007. Assessments of habitat
preferences and quality depend on spatial scale and met-
rics of fitness. Journal of Applied Ecology 44: 983–992.
Chernousova N. 2002. Specific features of the dynamics of
murine rodent communities under the effects of urban-
ization: 2. Maintenance of population size. Russian
Journal of Ecology 33: 27–31.
Childs J., Glass G., Ksiazek T., Rossi C., Barrera J. and
Leduc J. 1991. Human-rodent contact and infection
with Lymphocytic Choriomeningitis and Seoul viruses
in an inner-city population. American Journal of Tropical
Medicine and Hygiene 44: 117–121.
191
Colvin B. and Jackson W. 1999. Urban rodent control pro-
grams for the 21st century. [In: Ecologically-based rodent
management. G. Singleton, L. Hinds, H. Leirs and Z.
Zhang, eds]. Aciar Monograps Series, Camberra: 243–257.
Cramer M. and Willig M. 2002. Habitat heterogeneity, habi-
tat associations, and rodent species diversity in a sand-
-shinnery-oak landscape. Journal of Mammalogy 83:
743–753.
Dickman C. 1992. Predation and habitat shift in the house
mouse, Mus domesticus. Ecology 73: 313–322.
Dickman C. and Doncaster C. 1987. The ecology of small
mammals in urban habitats. I. Populations in a patchy
environment. Journal of Animal Ecology 56: 629–640.
Drickamer L., Feldhamer G., Mikesic D. and Holmes C.
1999. Trap-response heterogeneity of house mice (Mus
musculus) in outdoor enclosures. Journal of Mammalogy
80: 410–420.
Ellis A., Mills J., Childs J., Muzzini M., McKee K., Enria D.
and Glass G. 1997. Structure and floristics of habitats
associated with five rodent species in an agroecosystems
in Central Argentina. Journal of Zoology, London 243:
437–460.
Fernandez M., Cavia R., Cueto G. and Suarez O. 2007. Im-
plementation and evaluation of an integrated program
for rodent control in a Shantytown of Buenos Aires City,
Argentina. EcoHealth 4: 271–277.
Garden J., Mcalpine C., Possingham H. and Jones D. 2007.
Habitat structure is more important than vegetation
composition for local-level management of native terres-
trial reptile and small mammal species living in urban
remnants: A case study from Brisbane, Australia. Aus-
tral Ecology 32: 669–685.
Gomez D., Priotto J., Provensal C., Steinmann A., Castillo
E. and Polop J. 2008. A population study of house mice
(Mus musculus) inhabiting different habitats in an Ar-
gentine urban area. International Biodegradation and
Biodeterioration 62: 270–273.
Gratz N. 1996. Rodents as Carriers of Diseases. [In: Rodent
pests and their control. A. Buckle and R. Smith, eds].
CAB International: 85–108.
Gray S., Jensen S. and Hurst J. 2000. Structural complexity
of territories: preference, use of space and defence in
commensal house mice, Mus domesticus. Animal Behav-
iour 60: 765–772.
Hansson L. 1992. Small mammal dispersal in pest manage-
ment and conservation. [In: Animal dispersal. N. Stenseth
and W. Lidicker, eds]. Chapman & Hall: 181–198.
Jensen B. 1966. Mice indoors. Flora og Fauna 73: 130–136.
Jensen S., Gray S. and Hurst J. 2003. How does habitat
structure affect activity and use of space among house
mice? Animal Behaviour 66: 239–250.
Johannesen E. and Mauritzen M. 1999. Habitat selection of
grey-sided voles and bank voles in two subalpine popu-
lations in southern Norway. Annales Zoologici Fennici
36: 215–222.
Lambert T. and Adler G. 2000. Microhabitat use by a tropi-
cal forest rodent, Proechimys semispinosus, in central
Panama. Journal of Mammalogy 81: 70–76.
192 D. Gomez et al.

Leirs H., Singleton G. and Hinds L. 1999. Ecologically-
-based rodent management in developing countries: where
to now? [In: Ecologically-based Rodent Management. G.
Singleton, L. Hinds, H. Leirs and Z. Zhang, eds]. Aciar
Monograps Series, Camberra: 477–484.
Lund M. 1996. Commensal Rodents. [In: Rodent pests and
their control. A. Buckle and R. Smith, eds]. CAB Inter-
national: 23–43.
Peters C. J., Buchmeier M., Rollin P. E. and Kziazek T. G.
1996. Arenaviruses. [In: Virology. B. Fields, D. Knipe
and P. Howley, eds]. Philadelphia, Lippincott-Raven:
1521–1551.
Riera L., Castillo E., Saavedra M., Priotto J., Sottosanti J.,
Polop J., Sabattini M. and Ambrosio A. 2005. Serological
study of the Linphochoriomeningitis virus (LCMv) in an
inner city of Argentina. Journal of Medical Virology 76:
285–289.
Rowe F. 1975. Control of rodents in stored products and
urban environments. [In: Small mammals: their produc-
tivity and population dynamics. F. B. Golley, K. Petru-
sewicz and L. Ryszkowski, eds]. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge: 339–348.
Rowe F. and Swinney T. 1977. Population dynamics of
small rodents in farm buildings and on arable land.
EPPO Bulletin 8: 431–437.
Simonetti J. 1989. Microhabitat use by small mammals in
central Chile. Oikos 56: 309–318.
Singleton G., Brown P., Pech R., Jacob J., Mutzle G. and
Krebs C. 2005. One hundred years of eruptions of house
mice in Australia – a natural biological curio. Biological
Journal of the Linnean Society 84: 617–627.
Twigg L. and Kay B. 1994. The effects of microhabitat and
weather on house mouse (Mus domesticus) numbers and
the implications of management. Journal of Applied
Ecology 31: 651–663.
Ylönen H., Jacob J., Davies M. and Singleton G. 2002.
Predation risk and habitat selection of Australian house
mice Mus domesticus during an incipient plague: desper-
ate behaviour due to food depletion. Oikos 99: 284–289.
Received 21 July 2008, accepted 12 December 2008.
Associate editor was Karol Zub.

Appendix 1. Number of individuals of the house mouse Mus musculus cap-

tured in each vacant lot in the city of Río Cuarto, number of trap stations
with only male captures, number of trap stations with only female cap-
tures and number of trap stations with captures of both sexes. The total
number of trap stations in each vacant lot was 20.

Number of trap stations with:

Vacant lot Number of
number individuals only male only female both sex
captures captures captures

Summer 2006
1 8 2 3 3
2 4 1 1 1
3 4 3 2 0
4 14 7 2 5
5 18 3 3 7
Autumn 2006
1 7 2 3 1
2 6 4 1 0
3 1 2 0 0
4 11 3 6 3
5 8 4 2 3
Summer 2007
1 16 4 4 4
2 8 3 4 2
3 4 1 4 0
4 2 4 0 0
Autumn 2007
1 10 2 1 3
2 3 1 0 1
3 5 3 1 4
4 13 1 4 3