National Park Service 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Natural Resource Program Center 

Inventory of Mammals (Excluding Bats) of Thomas Stone 

National Historic Site 

Natural Resource Technical Report NPS/NCBN/NRTR—2010/315 
ON THE COVER 

Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana) in Thomas Stone National Historic Site 

Photograph by Tressa Dolbeare 
Inventory of Mammals (Excluding Bats) of Thomas 

Stone National Historic Site 

Natural Resource Technical Report NPS/NCBN/NRTR—2010/315 

Ronald E. Barry 

Bates College 

Biology Department 

409 Carnegie Science Hall 

44 Campus Avenue 

Lewiston, Maine 04240 

Tressa L. Dolbeare 

Department of Biology 

201 Compton Science Center 

Frostburg State University 

101 Braddock Road 

Frostburg, Maryland 21532-2303 

April 2010 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

National Park Service 

Natural Resource Program Center 

Fort Collins, Colorado 
ii 

The National Park Service, Natural Resource Program Center publishes a range of reports that 

address natural resource topics of interest and applicability to a broad audience in the National 

Park Service and others in natural resource management, including scientists, conservation and 

environmental constituencies, and the public. 

The Natural Resource Technical Report Series is used to disseminate results of scientific studies 

in the physical, biological, and social sciences for both the advancement of science and the 

achievement of the National Park Service mission. The series provides contributors with a forum 

for displaying comprehensive data that are often deleted from journals because of page 

limitations. 

All manuscripts in the series receive the appropriate level of peer review to ensure that the 

information is scientifically credible, technically accurate, appropriately written for the intended 

audience, and designed and published in a professional manner. 

This report received informal peer review by subject-matter experts who were not directly 

involved in the collection, analysis, or reporting of the data. Data in this report were collected 

and analyzed using methods based on established, peer-reviewed protocols and were analyzed 

and interpreted within the guidelines of the protocols. 

Views, statements, findings, conclusions, recommendations, and data in this report are those of 

the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect views and policies of the National Park Service, U.S. 

Department of the Interior. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute 

endorsement or recommendation for use by the National Park Service. 

This report is available from (http://www.nps.gov/nero/science/) and the Natural Resource 

Publications Management website (http://www.nature.nps.gov/publications/NRPM). 

Please cite this publication as: 

Barry, R. E., T. L. Dolbeare. 2010. Inventory of mammals (excluding bats) of Thomas Stone 

National Historic Site. Natural Resource Technical Report NPS/NCBN/NRTR—2010/315. 

National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado. 

NPS 477/102002, April 2010 
iii 

Contents 

Page 

Figures............................................................................................................................................. v

Tables ............................................................................................................................................ vii

Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................... ix

Acknowledgments.......................................................................................................................... xi

Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1

Study Area and Habitats ................................................................................................................. 3

Delineation of habitats ............................................................................................................. 3

Methods........................................................................................................................................... 5

Sampling Protocol ................................................................................................................... 5

Yearly Sampling Protocol ................................................................................................... 8

Compilation and analysis of data ............................................................................................. 9

Results ........................................................................................................................................... 11

Historical Records and Predicted Species ............................................................................. 11

Field Survey ........................................................................................................................... 11

Voucher specimens ................................................................................................................ 14

Discussion ..................................................................................................................................... 15

Species records ...................................................................................................................... 15

Habitat generalists ................................................................................................................. 15

Habitat specialists .................................................................................................................. 16

Exotic species ........................................................................................................................ 16

Habitat-specific species diversity .......................................................................................... 16

Sampling efficiency ............................................................................................................... 16

Conclusions and Management Recommendations ....................................................................... 19
iv 

Additional inventories ........................................................................................................... 19

Habitat Management .............................................................................................................. 19

Species Management ............................................................................................................. 20

Literature Cited ............................................................................................................................. 21

Appendix A. Trapping schedule, habitats, locations, and efforts for 2002 in Thomas Stone 

National Historic Site. ................................................................................................................... 25

Appendix B. Capture record for mammals caught in Thomas Stone National Historic Site 

from May through August 2002. .................................................................................................. 27

Appendix C. Trapping schedule, habitats, locations, trap configurations, and efforts for 

Sherman traps for 2003 at Thomas Stone National Historic Site. ................................................ 29

Appendix D. Trapping schedule, habitats, locations, and efforts for Tomahawk, pitfall, and 

Museum Special traps for 2003 at Thomas Stone National Historic Site. .................................... 31

Appendix E. Capture record for mammals caught in Thomas Stone National Historic Site 

from April through October 2003. ................................................................................................ 33
v

Figures 

Page 

Figure 1. Location of Thomas Stone National Historic Site (THST) in Maryland. ..................... 2

Figure 2. USGS topographic map of Thomas Stone National Historic Site outlined in red. ........ 4

Figure 3. USGS aerial photograph of Thomas Stone National Historic Site showing points 

sampled in 2002 and 2003 .............................................................................................................. 6

vii

Tables 

Page 

Table 1. Sherman trap configuration for sampling sites at Thomas Stone National Historic 

Site for 2002 and 2003. ................................................................................................................... 7

Table 2. Comparison of predicted species for Thomas Stone National Historic Site (based 

on Paradiso 1969 and Webster et al. 1985) and species observed during this study (2002-

2003). ............................................................................................................................................ 12

Table 3. Summary of numbers and relative abundances1 of small mammals captured with 

Sherman traps among three principal habitat types2

 and disturbed forest at Thomas Stone 

National Historic Site, 2002-2003. ............................................................................................... 13

Table 4. Mammal sightings or sign in Thomas Stone National Historic Site, 2002-2003 ........... 13

ix

Executive Summary 

A survey of mammals (excluding bats) at Thomas Stone National Historic Site (THST) was 

conducted from 2002 to 2003 to document the presence of > 90% of the mammals in the park, 

describe species distributions, relative abundances, and habitat-specific richness, and provide 

recommendations for management and conservation. Surveys relied on live trapping with 

Sherman and Tomahawk traps for small to medium-size mammals, the use of pitfall traps to 

capture small shrews, direct observation of individuals and their sign (tracks, scats), and remote 

photography. We identified two principal habitats – grassland (fields) and deciduous forest – 

and less expansive tracts of mixed deciduous-coniferous forest, wind-disturbed deciduous forest, 

and additional targeted locations for sampling. 

Twelve species of mammals were either captured or observed within THST, all new records 

(species) for the park. Altogether, six orders and nine families of mammals are represented by 

these species. These species constitute 60% (12 of 20) of those predicted to occur in the park. 

New species we recorded include the Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana), northern shorttailed shrew (Blarina brevicauda), southeastern shrew (Sorex longirostris), eastern mole 

(Scalopus aquaticus), eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus), meadow vole (Microtus 

pennsylvanicus), white-footed deermouse (Peromyscus leucopus), woodchuck (Marmota 

monax), eastern gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), red fox (Vulpes vulpes), raccoon (Procyon 

lotor), and white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus). 

THST supports low diversity and abundances of small mammals, in part due to the lack of 

diversity in habitat types. The white-footed deermouse is the most abundant and widespread 

species, accounting for 76% of all individuals captured by Sherman and pitfall traps. The 

generally common and widespread northern short-tailed shrew, a habitat generalist, was neither 

widespread nor abundant in the park. Grassland (managed fields) supported more species than 

other principal habitat types, although many of the grassland species occupy grassland-deciduous 

forest edge habitat. The eastern cottontail, eastern gray squirrel, woodchuck, and white-tailed 

deer are widely distributed within the park. 

Additional inventory and monitoring work should be conducted to determine the status of a 

number of species either detected in low numbers – the northern short-tailed shrew, southeastern 

shrew, and meadow vole – or not confirmed but that may exist within the park, at least 

seasonally – North American least shrew (Cryptotis parva), woodland vole (Microtus 

pinetorum), house mouse (Mus musculus), brown rat (Rattus norvegicus), southern flying 

squirrel (Glaucomys volans), gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus), striped skunk (Mephitis 

mephitis), and long-tailed weasel (Mustela frenata). A concerted effort should be directed 

toward documenting the distribution of the southeastern shrew in the park with greater use of 

pitfall traps (only after proper archeological compliance or oversight has been completed). In 

addition, the following resource management strategies might be considered, continued, or 

enhanced: 1) maintaining diverse herbaceous communities by careful attention to mowing and 

burning schedules; 2) periodically monitoring buildings and adjacent areas for presence of the 

exotic house mouse and brown rat; and 3) monitoring groundhog populations and, if necessary, 

using appropriate management practices (e.g., live trapping and relocation) to remove 

problematic individuals; and 4) monitoring and, if necessary, using management practices to 

regulate the white-tailed deer population to ensure the preservation of vegetation communities 
x

and understory cover important to mammals and birds. White-tailed deer are of potential public 

health significance because they serve as hosts for the adult breeding black-legged (deer) tick 

that is the vector for the etiologic agent (the spirochetes, Borrelia burgdorferi) of Lyme disease. 
xi

Acknowledgments 

Tressa Dolbeare, M.S. student at FSU and co-author of this report, under the supervision of the 

senior author conducted the bulk of the field work and prepared voucher specimens for the FSU 

mammal museum. Rijk Morawe, Chief of Natural and Cultural Resources Management, assisted 

in the field and provided information on the park, collection permits, maps, and other materials. 

We thank him also for the time he spent introducing us to the park and discussing the project 

with us. We are indebted to John Karish, Beth Johnson, Sara Stevens, and the National Park 

Service for funding the project. Frostburg State University provided much-appreciated matching 

funds and logistical support. 

1 

Introduction 

Surveys of mammals in coastal and mid-Atlantic national parks in the Northeast Region are in 

compliance with the Natural Resource Inventory and Monitoring Program of the National Park 

Service (NPS 1998). One of the five long-term goals established by this program is to complete 

baseline inventories of basic biological and geophysical natural resources for the national parks. 

During Phase 1 of the natural resource inventory the National Park Service (NPS) has set an 

objective of documenting the presence of 90% of all vascular plant and vertebrate animal species

occurring within a park's boundaries. Surveys will attempt to confirm the existence of currently 

listed species and document the presence of additional expected species. Of particular 

importance is the detection of any threatened and endangered species that merit special attention. 

Data collected can be used by park natural resource specialists for management and planning in 

the proper stewardship of the park. 

We conducted a survey of mammals (except bats, order Chiroptera) in Thomas Stone National 

Historic Site (THST) in 2002. The park lies in the Coastal Plain physiographic province in 

Charles County, Maryland, approximately 7 km (4 miles) west of La Plata and 40 km (25 miles) 

south of Washington, D.C. (Figure 1). The site was authorized by Congress as a unit of the NPS 

in the Act of November 10, 1978 and opened in 1992. The park’s strategic plan (NPS 2004) 

indicates the need for preserving and protecting the resources of the park and acknowledges the 

requirement for inventory and monitoring of natural resources. 
2 

 40 0 40 km 

 25 25 miles 

 

Figure 1. Location of Thomas Stone National Historic Site (THST) in Maryland. 

THST

Maryland 

Washington, DC 

Virginia 

Pennsylvania 

N Chesapeake 

 Bay 
3 

Study Area and Habitats 

The Thomas Stone National Historic Site is located in Charles County, Maryland, approximately 

7 km (4 miles) west of La Plata and 40 km (25 miles) south of Washington, D.C. It consists of 

130 ha (322 acres) of primarily open grasslands (fields) and upland forests. Dominant woody 

vegetation includes sweet gum (Liquidambar styraciflua), American holly (Ilex opaca), red oak 

(Quercus rubra) and beech (Fagus spp). Elevation ranges from 15 m (50 feet) to 52 m (170 feet 

– R. Morawe, pers. comm., Thomas Stone National Historic Site) (Figure 2). 

Delineation of habitats 

The recognition of major habitat types allowed stratification of the sampling effort in THST. 

This permitted a representative and comprehensive survey of the small mammal fauna by 

increasing the efficiency with which individual species were detected. 

Two principal habitat types, managed fields (grasslands) and deciduous forest, constituted the 

bulk of the park and were identified for inventorying small mammals in THST (Figure 2). In 

addition, small tracts of mixed deciduous-coniferous forest and severely wind-disturbed 

deciduous forest (the result of Hurricane Isabel in September 2001) were sampled. 

The secure NPSpecies website, https://science1.nature.nps.gov/npspecies, lists vascular plants 

certified for the park. Common grasses in fields include little bluestem (Schizachyrium 

scoparium), nodding fescue (Festuca subverticillata), and “panic grass” (Panicum spp.). 

Dominant woody vegetation in deciduous forest includes sweetgum, tulip tree (Liriodendron 

tulipifera), oaks (Quercus spp.), American beech (Fagus grandifolia), American holly, and 

flowering dogwood (Cornus florida). The tract of mixed deciduous-coniferous forest is 

characterized by many of the same taxa and Virginia pine (Pinus virginiana). 
4 

 

Figure 2. USGS topographic map of Thomas Stone National Historic Site outlined in red. 

 0.5 mile 0 0.5 mile 

 0.8 km 0.8 km

 N 
5 

Methods 

Sampling Protocol 

Sampling sites were located within the two principal habitat types, mixed deciduous-coniferous 

tract, and disturbed area of the deciduous forest to permit stratified sampling. Habitats initially 

were identified by aerial photo (Figure 3) and ground-truthed before final selection of sampling 

sites. The number of sampling locations (sample units) was dependent on number, size, and 

distribution of habitat types and constraints imposed by equipment and personnel. 

To identify sampling points a systematic grid (composed of 30 x 30-m cells) of UTM 

coordinates was overlaid on an aerial photograph that depicted habitat types (NPS 2000; Figure 

3). Points on the grid, within a habitat type, were selected without replacement by the generation 

of random numbers representing grid cells (Rudran and Foster 1996). Once selected on a map, a 

sampling point was identified in real space using a Garmin 12 or comparable GPS unit. Portions 

of the park frequented by the public generally were removed from consideration as sampling 

locations after the initial visit. 

Sampling of small mammals relied primarily on capture with rat-sized (7.6 x 8.9 x 22.9 cm) 

Sherman live traps. Sherman live traps are generally highly effective for capture of rodents and 

large shrews such as Blarina spp. (Mitchell et al. 1993). Pitfall traps were used to capture 

shrews and small mammals < 10 g (Kirkland and Sheppard 1994). Pitfalls for shrews were used 

as kill-type traps containing 3-5 cm of water because careful measurements and examination of 

skull morphology, dentition, and internal anatomy were required for identification of species, 

sex, and reproductive condition (Caldwell and Bryan 1982). 

Sherman traps were configured at sampling points in randomly positioned linear transects and 

grids (Table 1; Appendices A and C), with a trap interval of 10 or 15 m. Trap configuration and 

number of traps (i.e., grid size or transect length) was dependent on habitat type, patch size, and 

availability of traps. Transects were used where practical because they traverse more home 

ranges per effort than grids and are especially appropriate for inventory work where accurate 

estimates of abundance or density are not necessary (Jones et al. 1996). Effective sampling area 

of a grid was computed by adding a boundary strip equal to one-half the trap interval to all four 

sides of the grid (Krebs 1999). Effective sampling length of a transect was computed by adding 

one-half trap interval to each end of the transect. Sampling periods of consecutive days of 

trapping ranged from 1 to 4 days. This sampling regime permitted estimates of species richness 

and relative abundance (unique individuals per 100 trap nights) for the principal habitat types. 

While sampling for small mammals at designated locations, we also observed and noted sign of 

larger mammals; species, location, and date for each such observation were recorded. 

Muskrat- (small – 15.2 x 15.2 x 48.3 cm), raccoon- (medium - 25.4 x 30.5 x 81.3 cm), and 

bobcat-size (large – 38.1 X 50.8 X 106.7 cm) Tomahawk live traps were used to capture 

mammals of squirrel size and larger, but particularly to target mesocarnivores such as raccoons 

(Procyon lotor) and red (Vulpes vulpes) and gray (Urocyon cinereoargenteus) foxes. One to 

several of these traps were placed in small mammal (Sherman) trapping grids and transects 

(Appendix D) and opportunistically in habitats where mammal sign was detected or where 

habitat features suggested the presence of larger species. Pitfall traps were arranged in arrays. 

Each array was 10 m long and consisted of a silt fence and pitfall trap (#10 vegetable can) at 
6 

each end and in the middle. Each array was associated spatially with a Sherman trap transect. 

Remote cameras were used sporadically to document the presence of larger, secretive and elusive 

species where sign was evident. 

Dominant vegetation, percent canopy cover, percent ground cover, degree of disturbance (e.g., 

primary or secondary forest or plantation, agricultural use of grassland), soil type, presence of 

rock piles, topography and elevation were noted for each sampling site at 5-15 (proportional to 

the number of Sherman traps) random locations within Sherman live-trap transects and grids 

(McDiarmid and Wilson 1996; Barry et al. 1999; Boyce 2001). These detailed observations 

were recorded in the MS Access electronic database as baseline habitat information. 

 

Figure 3. USGS aerial photograph of Thomas Stone National Historic Site showing points sampled in 

2002 and 2003. DF = deciduous forest, DIS = wind-disturbed area of deciduous forest, FLD = field, MF = 

mixed deciduous-coniferous forest. MG = main gate. 

● DF 7 

 

 DF 2 ●

 DIS ●

 FLD 4 ●

 FLD 5 ●

 FLD 1 ● ● MF 1 

 Grave FLD ● FLD 3 ●

 

 ●

 Rosehill DF 

 FLD 6 ● DF 4 ●

● DF 1

● DF 3 ● FLD 2 

● DF MG 
7 

Table 1. Sherman trap configuration for sampling sites at Thomas Stone National Historic Site for 2002 

and 2003. 

 Trap Nights 

Year Habitat/Site1 Trap Configuration2 Sherman Tomahawk3 Pitfall Museum Special 

2002 

 FLD 1 Grid (0.30) 60 

 DIS Tran (0.40) 80 

 DF 1 Tran (0.30) 60 

 DF 2 Tran (0.30) 120 8m 

 DF 3 Grid (1.00) 400 16m 

 FLD 2 Grid (1.00) 400 12m 

 FLD 3 Grid (0.49) 147 12m 

 MF 1 Grid (0.49) 147 12m 

 DF 3 Grid (1.00) 400 12m 

2003 

 

 FLD 4 Tran (0.30) 40 20 

 DF 7 Grid (1.10) 98 

 Rosehill DF Tran (0.45) 120 12s 36 

 Grave FLD Tran (0.45) 120 

 DF MG Tran (0.14) 54 18s,7l 48 9 

 FLD 5 Tran (0.15) 60 2l 

 FLD 1 Tran (0.20) 60 

 DF 2 Tran (0.45) 90 3s 

 FLD 3 Tran (0.45) 60 

 FLD 6 Tran (0.36) 72 

 DF 4 Tran (0.36) 72 

1

 DF = deciduous forest, DIS = wind-damaged deciduous forest, FLD = field, MF = mixed 

deciduous-coniferous forest. MG = near Main Gate of the park. 

2

 Numbers in parentheses for Sherman trap configuration represent effective sampling areas in ha 

for grids (Grid) and effective sampling lengths in km for transects (Tran). 

3

 Tomahawk live traps s = small, m = medium, l = large 
8 

Sherman traps were baited with a combination of peanut butter and rolled oats. Tomahawk traps 

usually were baited with canned cat food. Pitfall traps and remote camera locations were not 

baited. Captured individuals of small species (those in Sherman and pitfall traps) were removed 

from traps, identified to species, weighed using a Pesola scale, and examined for age, sex, and 

reproductive condition (Jones et al. 1996). Individuals captured in Tomahawk traps were 

identified to species and examined for age, sex, and reproductive condition. Since recognition of 

individuals was used for determining relative abundances and measures of species diversity, 

captured individuals of small mammal species were marked by toe-clipping (Rudran 1996; ASM 

1998). To obtain meaningful scientific data about shrews, they were collected by kill trapping 

(pitfall traps). Release of captured individuals (other than shrews or accidental deaths) was 

immediate at the capture location after measurements were obtained. Live-trapping, handling 

procedures, pitfall trapping, and specimen collection were conducted humanely (Rudran and 

Kunz 1996), consistent with the animal handling guidelines of the American Society of 

Mammalogists (ASM 1998), and were approved by the Institutional Review Board/Animal Care 

and Use Committee (IACUC # A2002-001) at Frostburg State University (FSU). Proper 

precautions were taken by investigators to prevent human injury and exposure to disease, 

especially rabies, Lyme disease, hantaviral pulmonary syndrome (HPS), and human ehrlichiosis 

(Gage et al. 1995; Mills et al. 1995; Kunz et al. 1996). Animals found dead in traps (most 

frequently in pitfalls), if salvageable, were collected, prepared, deposited, and maintained in the 

Frostburg State University mammal museum. 

Yearly Sampling Protocol 

Sampling using Sherman and medium Tomahawk live traps was conducted in two principal 

habitats, managed fields (grassland) and deciduous forest, and small tracts of mixed deciduousconiferous forest and the disturbed deciduous forest in seven sampling periods from May 

through August 2002 (Table 1; see Appendix A). At eight sampling points Sherman traps 

comprised five grids (3 x 10, 5 x 20, 7 x 7, or 10 x 10 traps each) covering a total of 3.3 ha (8.1 

acres) and three transects of variable length along 1.0 km (0.6 miles). Sherman trap interval was 

10 m for all transects and grids. Trap nights totaled 1,814 trap nights with Sherman traps and 88 

with Tomahawk traps. In addition to these sampling periods, direct observations of mammals (or 

their sign) and remote photography yielded records of mammals in May-July. 

Sherman, small and large Tomahawk live traps, pitfall traps, and Museum Special snap traps 

were opened during six sampling periods (two to four nights each) from April through October 

2003. We sampled managed field (grassland) and deciduous forest habitats (Table 1; 

Appendixes C and D). At 11 sampling locations where Sherman traps were used, one grid (7 x 

7 traps) covered 1.1 ha (2.7 acres), and 10 transects of variable length spanned a total of 3.3 km 

(2.0 miles). Sherman traps were placed randomly at the barn location in an attempt to capture 

house mice and rats. Traps were spaced at 15-m intervals in grids and transects except for FLD 

1 (10-m intervals), which was sampled at a different point in 2002 (Appendixes A and C). 

Twenty-one pitfalls (7 arrays) total were used at two locations (Appendix D). Three locations 

were sampled with small Tomahawk traps, and two were sampled with large Tomahawk traps 

(Appendix D). Pitfall arrays and Tomahawk traps were spatially associated with Sherman traps. 

Museum Special traps (Forestry Suppliers, Inc., Jackson, Mississippi; were used at two locations 

for a total of 13 trap nights to obtain a voucher specimen of the white-footed mouse (Peromyscus 

leucopus). Trap nights totaled 846 with Sherman traps, 33 with small Tomahawk traps, 9 with 

large Tomahawk traps, 84 with pitfall arrays, and 29 with Museum Special traps in 2003. 
9 

Compilation and analysis of data 

Species distributions among habitats were summarized. Marking and recognition of individuals 

captured in Sherman traps permitted estimates of relative abundance for small species for 

principal habitat types. 

Data on habitat characteristics and all mammals captured or observed were stored in an 

electronic database (Microsoft Access). Voucher specimens were assigned NPS accession 

numbers for THST, prepared, and accessioned into the mammal museum at Frostburg State 

University. Color photographs taken with digital and remote cameras were stored and copies 

provided to the Chief of Natural and Cultural Resources Management of the park. 

11 

Results 

Historical Records and Predicted Species 

The National Park Service’s NPSpecies database (https://science1.nature.nps.gov/npspecies) 

contains historical records of plants and animals for each park. Publications and park records 

pertaining to the mammals of THST were sought, but no records were found. Similarly, the 

NPSpecies database contains no certified records of mammals for the park. We have listed 

species predicted to occur in THST (Table 2) based on known distributions and habitat 

preferences (Paradiso 1969; Linzey 1998). This list contains 20 species within six orders and 12 

families of mammals (excluding bats). 

Field Survey 

Our survey of 2002-2003 resulted in 12 species of mammals either captured or observed within 

THST. These results represented 12 new species records for the park (Table 2). These species 

belong to six orders and nine families of mammals. 

In 2002 five species of mammals were captured a total of 41 times at four of the eight sampling 

locations (Appendixes A and B). In 2003 15 individuals representing four species of mammals 

were captured a total of 21 times at five of the 11 sampling locations (Appendixes C, D, and E). 

Types of habitats, sampling dates, numbers of trap nights, individuals captured, capture 

frequencies, and relative abundances for mammal species are summarized for each sampling 

location, by year, are in Appendices A-E. 

The most abundant small mammal in THST was the white-footed deermouse, Peromyscus 

leucopus. This species was captured in Sherman traps in both principal habitats, mixed forest, 

and the disturbed forest (Table 3; Appendixes B and E) and was the most abundant species in all 

habitats but fields, as well as, the only species captured in the disturbed area. The meadow vole, 

Microtus pennsylvanicus, was the most abundant species in field habitat. Only the southeastern 

shrew, Sorex longirostris (relative abundance = 2.1), was captured in pitfall traps, and the sole 

capture was in deciduous forest. 

Capture frequencies of larger mammals captured in Tomahawk traps were recorded, but relative 

abundances were not obtained because individuals of these larger species were not marked for 

individual recognition. The Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana; 2 captures) and raccoon 

(Procyon lotor; 3 captures), were the only species captured in Tomahawk traps, and all captures 

occurred within deciduous forest habitat (Appendixes B and E). 

Eleven species of mammals were documented based on either observation or sign during the 

study. Three species, the white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), raccoon, and domestic dog 

(Canis lupus), were documented by remote camera (Table 4) in deciduous forest near the 

historical house. Deer were photographed on three occasions in October-December 2003, and a 

single photographic record of a raccoon was obtained in October 2003. Dogs were photographed 

on three occasions in October 2003 but were assumed to be from nearby residential areas and 

were not included in the inventory. 
12 

Table 2. Comparison of predicted species for Thomas Stone National Historic Site (based on Paradiso 

1969 and Webster et al. 1985) and species observed during this study (2002-2003). Taxonomy and 

common names follow Wilson and Reeder (2005). 

Order 

 Family Species Name Common Name Predicted 

THST 

Observed 

Didelphimorphia 

 Didelphidae Didelphis virginiana Virginia opossum X X 

Soricomorpha 

 Soricidae Blarina brevicauda Northern short-tailed shrew X X 

Cryptotis parva North American least shrew X 

Sorex longirostris Southeastern shrew X X 

 Talpidae Scalopus aquaticus Eastern mole X X 

Lagomorpha 

 Leporidae Sylvilagus floridanus Eastern cottontail X X 

Rodentia 

 Cricetidae Microtus pennsylvanicus Meadow vole X X 

Microtus pinetorum Woodland vole X 

Peromyscus leucopus White-footed deermouse X X 

 Muridae Mus musculus House mouse X 

Rattus norvegicus Brown rat X 

 Sciuridae Glaucomys volans Southern flying squirrel X 

Marmota monax Woodchuck X X 

Sciurus carolinensis Eastern gray squirrel X X 

Carnivora 

 Canidae Urocyon cinereoargenteus Gray fox X 

Vulpes vulpes Red fox X X 

 Mephitidae Mephitis mephitis Striped skunk X 

 Mustelidae Mustela frenata Long-tailed weasel X 

 Procyonidae Procyon lotor Raccoon X X 

Artiodactyla 

 Cervidae Odocoileus virginianus White-tailed deer X X 
13 

Table 3. Summary of numbers and relative abundances1 of small mammals captured with Sherman traps 

among three principal habitat types2 and disturbed forest at Thomas Stone National Historic Site, 2002-

2003. 

 Habitat 

Species Name Common name FLD DF MF DIS 

Blarina brevicauda Northern short-tailed shrew 3(0.21) 

Microtus pennsylvanicus Meadow vole 4(0.39) 

Peromyscus leucopus White-footed deermouse 1(0.07) 18(1.77) 4(2.72) 3(3.75)

Total number of trap nights 1,019 1,414 147 80 

1

 Relative abundance calculated as the number of individuals per 100 trap nights and shown in 

parentheses 

2

 FLD = fields, DF = deciduous forest, MF = mixed deciduous-coniferous forest, DIS = winddisturbed deciduous forest 

Table 4. Mammal sightings or sign in Thomas Stone National Historic Site, 2002-2003. 

 Means of Observation 

Species Name Common name

Direct 

Observation 

Sign or 

Remains 

Remote 

Camera 

Blarina brevicauda Northern short-tailed shrew X 

Scalopus aquaticus Eastern mole X 

Sylvilagus floridanus Eastern cottontail X 

Microtus pennsylvanicus Meadow vole X 

Peromyscus leucopus White-footed deermouse X 

Sciurus carolinensis Eastern gray squirrel X 

Marmota monax Woodchuck X 

Canis lupusa Domestic dog X X 

Vulpes vulpes Red fox X 

Procyon lotor Raccoon X X 

Odocoileus virginianus White-tailed deer X X X 

a Not included in the inventory.
14 

Eastern gray squirrels (Sciurus carolinensis) were observed frequently in open, grassy areas 

within the park or on roads adjacent to wooded habitat. Eastern cottontails were seen almost 

exclusively in grassy areas. Woodchucks (Marmota monax) were seen most often in grassy 

areas. Tracks of a red fox (Vulpes vulpes) were observed in June 2002 in a grassy area near the 

maintenance facility. A juvenile raccoon was observed in the disturbed area of the deciduous 

forest in May 2002. We observed individuals and scat of white-tailed deer most often in wooded 

habitat, but deer also were frequently spotted in fields. Eastern mole tunnels were observed near 

the historic house. 

Low species richness and relative abundances precluded any meaningful quantitative assessment 

of habitat-specific species diversity of small mammals. Including captures of opossums and 

raccoons in Tomahawk traps, deciduous woodland yielded the greatest number of species 

captured – 4. Two or fewer species were captured in other principal habitat types. Including all 

means of capture and observation, grassland supported more species (6) than other habitat types. 

Voucher specimens 

One specimen each of Sorex longirostris and Peromyscus leucopus was collected from THST. 

These specimens were accessioned into the FSU mammal museum in 2004. Data on these 

specimens are as follows: 

1) Species = Sorex longirostris (southeastern shrew), sex = unknown, nature of specimen = skull, 

NPS accession/catalog number 13/1826, FSU accession number 2671; 

2) Species = Peromyscus leucopus (white-footed deermouse), sex = female, nature of specimen = 

skull, NPS accession/catalog number 13/1825, FSU accession number 2674. 
15 

Discussion 

Species records 

With the 12 new records we have documented the presence of 60% (12 of 20) of the nonchiropteran species predicted to occur in THST. We are confident, based on the presence of 

suitable habitat, that additional surveys and observations will show that the park contains the 

following: Glaucomys volans (southern flying squirrel), Mephitis mephitis (striped skunk), and 

Mustela frenata (long-tailed weasel) which we were unable to confirm. Mus musculus (house 

mouse) and Rattus norvegicus (brown rat) could be park residents, at least seasonally, in places 

that were not sampled within or closely associated with park buildings. In addition, Urocyon 

cinereoargenteus (gray fox) could be present, even if only as transient individuals that are 

resident in nearby wooded tracts. 

Habitat generalists 

The white-footed mouse is a woodland species that can be found in a variety of habitats, 

commonly brushy habitat or wooded areas dominated by deciduous species and ample, downed 

woody debris and is found in low densities in grassy habitats (Barry and Francq 1980; Lackey et 

al. 1985).It was captured in all principal habitat types, more frequently than any other species in 

Sherman traps in deciduous forest, and was the only species captured in mixed and disturbed 

deciduous forest habitats. Only one was captured in fields. This species commonly occupies 

brushy habitat or wooded areas dominated by deciduous species and ample, downed woody 

debris and is found in low densities in grassy habitats (Barry and Francq 1980; Lackey et al. 

1985). 

Although the northern short-tailed shrew occurs within a wide variety of habitats throughout its 

range (George et al. 1986), we captured this species in only one habitat - deciduous forest - and 

in low numbers. Its apparent rareness in THST forest may be due to a poorly developed leaf 

litter layer, contributing to a dry substrate. Merritt (1987) suggested that short-tailed shrews may 

avoid dry areas. Mammone (1997) found this species associated with herbaceous ground cover 

and leaf litter, but not logs in clearcuts and adjacent woodlands in western Maryland. Our failure 

to capture the short-tailed shrew in field habitat may be due, in part, to low densities of meadow 

voles, which can be important prey items for shrews (George et al. 1986).

The southeastern shrew is a diminutive species that is captured more commonly with pitfall 

traps. We captured only one, in a pitfall trap in deciduous forest. Nevertheless, it has been 

found in a variety of habitats within its range, although it seems to be more abundant in wet areas 

bordering marshes, swamps or rivers (French 1980). THST would seem to provide limited 

habitat for this species. 

Eastern cottontails, gray squirrels, and woodchucks were observed most often in open, grassy 

areas within THST. Eastern cottontails are widely distributed among habitats within their range 

(Chapman et al. 1980), although they prefer old fields, brushy areas, field-woodland edge 

(Linzey 1998), and early successional habitat (Chapman and Litvaitis 2003). Eastern gray 

squirrels are most common in mature, intact deciduous and mixed deciduous-coniferous 

woodlands but use a variety of habitats throughout their range (Koprowski 1994; Linzey 1998; 

Edwards et al. 2003). Woodchucks typically occupy field-forest ecotone (Kwiecinski 1998). 
16 

THST provides large tracts of grassland (fields) and upland forest capable of supporting healthy 

populations of these three species. 

The raccoon and Virginia opossum exhibit a wide breadth of habitat use, with predilection for 

wooded areas near water (McManus 1974; Lotze and Anderson 1979; Gardner and Sunquist 

2003; Gehrt 2003). The paucity of water within the park may explain why these species were 

not abundant, a few individuals being captured only in deciduous forest and a juvenile raccoon 

being observed in disturbed forest. 

Red foxes traverse a variety of habitats within fragmented landscapes (Cypher 2003). We 

detected the presence of this species in THST based on tracks of a single individual in a grassy 

area. Habitat requirements of the red fox would seem to be met in THST by the extensive field 

and forest tracts and the edge habitat their concurrence provides. 

White-tailed deer are cosmopolitan in their habitat affinities, occupying both open and forested 

habitats (Miller et al. 2003). Nevertheless, they are most often associated with woodlands 

(Linzey 1998). We observed them (or their sign) most often in woodland, but they also were 

seen frequently in fields. They appear to be reasonably abundant in THST where large tracts of 

forest provide concealment and thermal cover and forest and grassland satisfy their foraging 

needs. 

Habitat specialists 

The most abundant small mammal in THST grassland was the meadow vole. This mammal is 

found primarily in open grasslands (Reich 1981; Linzey 1998). Although grassy field covers 

much of THST, the relative abundance of the meadow vole is low. Numbers may be low 

because vegetative cover in fields is reduced by periodic management (e.g., mowing – Reich 

1981). 

Exotic species 

Dogs were observed on a few occasions in the park. We suspect that these animals were 

individuals from adjacent residential neighborhoods. House mice and brown rats were not 

captured in the park but may be present, at least seasonally, in and around buildings. 

Habitat-specific species diversity 

The greatest number of species (6) captured or observed, by any means, among habitat types was 

in grassland, although many of these species occupy grassland-deciduous forest edge habitat. 

More species (4) were captured in deciduous forest than any other principal habitat type. 

However, too few captures were made to derive quantitative estimates of measures of habitatspecific species diversity. It is apparent that diversity and relative abundances of small mammal 

species in THST are low, in part due to the lack of diversity in habitat types and major bodies of 

water. The white-footed deermouse comprised more than three-fourths of all individuals 

captured in Sherman and pitfall traps. 

Sampling efficiency 

Sherman traps are the industry standard for live capture of rodents and shrews of body mass 

> 10 g (Mitchell et al. 1993) and were used with success to capture white-footed mice, meadow 

voles, and short-tailed shrews in four habitat types. However, for smaller species pitfall traps are 
17 

more efficient (Szaro et al. 1988; Kirkland and Sheppard 1994). Unfortunately, these traps must 

be used as kill traps because small shrews are difficult to identify to species and sex without 

close examination of the dentition and internal reproductive anatomy. In addition, the placement 

of pitfall traps is labor-intensive, they must be located and placed under close supervision of park 

personnel so that archeological remains are not disturbed. Archeology is deemed especially 

important due to the historical importance of the site (Long Range Interpretive Plan 2005). 

Therefore, we used these traps on a very limited basis specifically to target small shrews that 

cannot be captured by any other means. We captured only one individual, a southeastern shrew, 

in 84 pitfall trap nights. 

Tomahawk traps baited with canned cat food can be used effectively to capture medium-size 

mammals (especially mesocarnivores) that are secretive or elusive. These traps were efficient at 

capturing opossums and raccoons in THST. Remote cameras were labor-intensive and not very 

productive but were useful in detecting and confirming the identification of individuals that left 

sign in frequently traveled terrain. Direct observation, especially while conducting trap 

sampling, is efficient for detecting sign and medium to large, nonsecretive species.

19 

Conclusions and Management Recommendations 

According to the Long Range Interpretive Plan (2005) for THST, one of the three objectives of 

the General Management Plan established in 1990 (and revised in 1996) for THST is to “manage 

and protect the natural resources of the site consistent with the need to interpret agrarian 

lifestyles and re-establish historic landscapes.” Our inventory of the mammals of THST 

addressed and provided for the future attainment of this objective. Most important, it 

documented the presence of particular species of mammals, noted their habitat associations, 

described sampling protocol and provides information that can be used to monitor mammal 

populations, and provides recommendations for their conservation and management. 

The park supports low diversity and abundances of small mammals, in part due to the lack of 

diversity of habitat types. Two of the most common mammals in eastern North America, the 

northern short-tailed shrew and white-footed deermouse, occur in the park. The ubiquitous 

white-footed deermouse is reasonably abundant in forested habitat, as expected. However, 

abundance of the normally common short-tailed shrew is low and its distribution restricted. 

Meadow voles, usually abundant grassland specialists, were not abundant in THST. Other 

common species of mammals, such as eastern cottontail rabbits, eastern gray squirrels, 

woodchucks, Virginia opossums, raccoons, and white-tailed deer, were trapped or observed 

frequently in their preferred habitats. 

The absence of the North American least shrew likely can be attributed to the lack of ample 

preferred habitat. The least shrew, although found in grassy fields (Whitaker 1974; Linzey 

1998), prefers fallow fields (Paradiso 1969). 

Additional inventories 

Additional inventory and monitoring work should be conducted to determine the status of a 

number of the species we either detected in low numbers (e.g., the northern short-tailed shrew, 

meadow vole, southeastern shrew) or could not confirm but that may be present seasonally or in 

small numbers (North American least shrew, woodland vole, house mouse, brown rat, southern 

flying squirrel, gray fox, striped skunk, and long-tailed weasel). Buildings should be sampled 

routinely, especially during winter months, to confirm the status of the house mouse and brown 

rat. Additional sampling with Sherman traps should confirm the presence of the long-tailed 

weasel because of the extent of forest-field edge habitat (Paradiso 1969). Additional observation 

and recording by park personnel will likely confirm the occurrence of the easily detectable 

striped skunk. The third dimension of forests could be sampled to document the 

presence/absence of the southern flying squirrel. Sherman traps can be mounted in trees (Barry 

et al. 1984) using aluminum nails so that safety in future logging operations is not jeopardized. 

Pitfall trap arrays should be used more extensively for sampling to establish the presence and 

status of shrew species (e.g., the southeastern shrew). Pitfall traps must be used responsibly and 

with adequate supervision only after archeological compliance or oversight has been completed 

so that archeological remains are not disturbed and large numbers of individuals of any single 

species are not sacrificed. 

Habitat Management 

Inventory and monitoring activities will continue to provide important information on how 

habitats should be managed for the conservation of the park’s natural resources. Fields should be 
20 

maintained and managed carefully to retain healthy populations of small mammals, which in turn 

sustain larger species. To increase the density of ground cover and presumably the abundance 

and diversity of small mammals (and their predators, including raptors), some fields might be 

mowed/burned less frequently if this would not affect the historical and cultural value of THST. 

Mowing should be scheduled for mid-summer (i.e., mid to late July) after young from the spring 

birth pulse have matured, dispersed, and established new home ranges and before the late 

summer breeding season ensues. This could lead to a modest increase in the recreational use of 

the park for such activities as bird-watching. 

Species Management 

It does not appear that any species of mammal in THST occurs at such an unusually high density 

as to pose a difficult management problem. The woodchuck population appears to be healthy. 

Problematic individuals can be captured with Tomahawk traps and removed. This is usually an 

effective means of control for individuals of other species (e.g., opossum, raccoon) that become 

problems around humans and buildings. 

Based on frequent sightings and sign, white-tailed deer appear to be abundant in THST. When 

overabundant, deer potentially pose several problems. These can include an alteration of the 

stable state of a northern temperate forest (Stromayer and Warren 1997), which can affect 

understory cover important to mammals and birds. Also, deer serve as hosts to an extraordinary 

diversity of ectoparasites, including adult, breeding Ixodes scapularis, the black-legged tick that 

is the vector of the etiologic agent for Lyme disease, the spirochete, Borrelia burgdorferi (Miller 

et al. 2003). In light of the low diversity of small mammals in the park, monitoring the deer 

population (e.g., with pellet-group counts) and understory browse in deciduous forest and edge 

habitat is recommended. If such monitoring suggests that deer may be altering the habitat to the 

detriment of other fauna, management practices to control the deer population may be worthy of 

consideration. 

Populations of THST mammals we documented should be monitored, and efforts to confirm the 

presence or absence of those species expected to be residents should be continued. In addition to 

the impacts of larger species on systems, such as those described earlier, the roles of small 

mammals as critical components of biological communities have been recognized for some time 

(e.g., Chew 1978). Small mammals consume, transport, and deposit spores and mycelia of 

mycorrhizal fungi (Fogel and Trappe 1978; Maser et al. 1988) and seeds of many plant species, 

mix soil and decompose organic matter and litter, regulate invertebrate (e.g., insect) populations, 

and serve as prey for numerous terrestrial and avian predators (Carey and Harrington 2001; 

Sekgororoane and Dilworth 1995). Management decisions that can affect proper stewardship of 

natural systems necessarily rely on periodic assessments of species diversity and abundances 

from inventory and monitoring activities. 
21

Literature Cited 

ASM. 1998. Guidelines for the capture, handling, and care of mammals as approved by the 

 American Society of Mammalogists. Journal of Mammalogy 79:1416-1431. 

Barry, R. E., K. A. Boyce, and A. C. Sucke. 1999. Local distribution, habitat, and home range 

 of the Appalachian cottontail (Sylvilagus obscurus) at Dolly Sods. Final report submitted 

 to the Nongame Wildlife and Natural Heritage Program, West Virginia Division of 

 Natural Resources. 

Barry, R. E., Jr., M. A. Botje, and L. B. Grantham. 1984. Vertical stratification of Peromyscus 

 leucopus and P. maniculatus in southwestern Virginia. Journal of Mammalogy 65:145- 

 148. 

Barry, R. E., Jr., and E. N. Francq. 1980. Orientation to landmarks within the preferred habitat 

 by Peromyscus leucopus. Journal of Mammalogy 61:292-303. 

Boyce, K. A. 2001. Distribution, seasonal home range, movements and habitat of the 

 Appalachian cottontail, Sylvilagus obscurus, at Dolly Sods, West Virginia. M. S. thesis, 

 Frostburg State University, Frostburg, Maryland. 

Caldwell, R. S., and H. Bryan. 1982. Notes on distribution and habitats of Sorex and 

Microsorex (Insectivora: Soricidae) in Kentucky. Brimleyana 8:91-100. 

Carey, A. B., and C. A. Harrington. 2001. Small mammals in young forests: implication for 

 management for sustainability. Forest Ecology and Management 154:289-309. 

Chapman, J. A., J. G. Hockman, and Ojeda C., M. M. 1980. Sylvilagus floridanus. Mammalian 

 Species 136:1-8. 

Chapman, J. A., and J. A. Litvaitis. 2003. Eastern cottontail: Sylvilagus floridanus and allies. 

 Pp. 101-125 in Wild mammals of North America: biology, management, and 

 Conservation. 2nd ed. (G. A. Feldhamer, B. C. Thompson, and J. A. Chapman, eds.). 

 John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore. 

Chew, R. M. 1978. The impact of small mammals on ecosystem structure and function. Pp. 

 167-180 in Populations of small mammals under natural conditions (R. T. Hartman, ed.). 

 Special Publication Series Vol. 5, Pymatuning Laboratory of Ecology, University of 

 Pittsburgh. 

Cypher, B. L. 2003. Foxes: Vulpes species, Urocyon species, and Alopex lagopus. Pp. 511-546 

 in Wild mammals of North America: biology, management, and conservation. 2nd ed. (G. 

 A. Feldhamer, B. C. Thompson, and J. A. Chapman, eds.). John Hopkins University 

 Press, Baltimore. 
22

Edwards, J., M. Ford, and D. Guynn. 2003. Fox and gray squirrels: Sciurus niger and S. 

 carolinensis. Pp. 248-267 in Wild mammals of North America: biology, management, 

 and conservation. 2nd ed. (G. A. Feldhamer, B. C. Thompson, and J. A. Chapman, eds.). 

 John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore. 

Fogel, R., and J. M. Trappe. 1978. Fungus consumption (mycophagy) by small animals. 

 Northwest Science 52:1:31. 

French, T. W. 1980. Sorex longirostris. Mammalian Species 143:1-3. 

Gage, K. L., R. S. Ostfeld, and J. G. Olson. 1995. Nonviral vector-borne zoonoses associated 

 with mammals in the United States. Journal of Mammalogy 76:695-715. 

Gardner, A. L., and M. E. Sunquist. 2003. Opossum: Didelphis virginiana. Pp. 3-29 in Wild 

 mammals of North America: biology, management, and conservation. 2nd ed. (G. A. 

 Feldhamer, B. C. Thompson, and J. A. Chapman, eds.). John Hopkins University Press, 

 Baltimore. 

Gehrt, S. D. 2003. Raccoon: Procyon lotor and allies. Pp. 611-634 in Wild mammals of North 

 America: biology, management, and conservation. 2nd ed. (G. A. Feldhamer, B. C. 

 Thompson, and J. A. Chapman, eds.). John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore. 

George, S. D., J. R. Choate, and H. H. Genoways. 1986. Blarina brevicauda. Mammalian 

 Species 261:1-9. 

Jones, C., W. J. McShea, M. J. Conroy, and T. H. Kunz. 1996. Capturing mammals. Pp. 115-

 122 in Measuring and monitoring biological diversity: standard methods for mammals 

 (D. E. Wilson, F. R. Cole, J. D. Nichols, R. Rudran, and M. S. Foster, eds.). Smithsonian 

 Institution Press, Washington, District of Columbia. 

Kirkland, G. L., Jr., and P. K. Sheppard. 1994. Proposed standard protocol for sampling of 

 small mammal communities. Pp. 277-283 in Advances in the biology of shrews (J. F. 

 Merritt, G. L. Kirkland, Jr., and R. K. Rose, eds.). Special Publication of the Carnegie 

 Museum of Natural History 18, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 

Krebs, C. J. 1999. Ecological methodology. 2nd ed. Addison Wesley Longman,Inc., 

 Menlo Park, California. 

Koprowski, J. L. 1994. Sciurus carolinensis. Mammalian Species 480:1-9. 

Kunz, T. H., R. Rudran, and G. Gurri-Glass. 1996. Appendix 2: Human health concerns. Pp. 

 255-264 in Measuring and monitoring biological diversity: standard methods for 

 mammals (D. E. Wilson, F. R. Cole, J. D. Nichols, R. Rudran, and M. S. Foster, eds.). 

 Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, District of Columbia. 

Kwiecinski, G. G. 1998. Marmota monax. Mammalian Species 591:1-8. 
23

Lackey, J. A., D. G. Huckaby, and B. G. Ormiston. 1985. Peromyscus leucopus. Mammalian 

 Species 247:1-10. 

Linzey, D. W. 1998. The mammals of Virginia. The McDonald & Woodward Publishing Co., 

 Blacksburg, Virginia. 

Long Range Interpretive Plan. 2005. Long range interpretive plan: Thomas Stone National 

 Historic Site. Accessed on 8 July 2006 at 

www.nps.gov/applications/parks/thst/ppdocuments/thstlrip.pdf. 

Lotze, J.-H., and S. Anderson. 1979. Procyon lotor. Mammalian Species 119:1-8. 

Mammone, K. A. 1997. Small mammal communities of structurally diverse clearcuts and 

 adjacent woodlands in western Maryland. M. S. thesis, Frostburg State University, 

 Frostburg, Maryland. 

Maser, C., Z. Maser, and R. Molina. 1988. Small-mammal mycophagy in rangelands of central 

 and southeastern Oregon. Journal of Range Management 41:309-312. 

McDiarmid, R. W., and D. E. Wilson. 1996. Data standards. Pp. 56-60 in Measuring and 

 monitoring biological diversity: standard methods for mammals (D. E. Wilson, F. R. 

 Cole, J. D. Nichols, R. Rudran, and M. S. Foster, eds.). Smithsonian Institution Press, 

 Washington, District of Columbia. 

McManus, J. J. 1974. Didelphis virgianiana. Mammalian Species 40:1-6. 

Merritt, J. F. 1987. Guide to the mammals of Pennsylvania. University of Pittsburgh Press for 

 The Carnegie Museum of Natural History, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 

Miller, K. V., L. I. Muller, and S. Demarais. 2003. White-tailed deer: Odocoileus virginianus. 

 Pp. 906-930 in Wild mammals of North America: biology, management, and 

 conservation. 2nd ed. (G. A. Feldhamer, B. C. Thompson, and J. A. Chapman, eds.). 

 John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore. 

Mills, J. N., T. L. Yates, J. E. Childs, R. R. Parmenter, T. G. Ksiazek, P. E. Rollin, and C. J. 

 Peters. 1995. Guidelines for working with rodents potentially infected with hantavirus. 

 Journal of Mammalogy 76:716-722. 

Mitchell, J.C., S.Y. Erdle and J.F. Pagels. 1993. Evaluation of capture techniques for 

 amphibian, reptile, and small mammal communities in saturated forested wetlands. 

 Wetlands 13:130-136. 

NPS. 1998. Natural resource inventory and monitoring in national parks. NPS Inventory 

 and Monitoring Informational Brochure. http://www.nature.nps.gov/im/imbroch.htm. 
24

NPS. 2004. Strategic plan for Thomas Stone National Historic Site: fiscal year 2005-2008. 

www.nps.gov/applications/parks/thst/ppdocuments/ACF9A65.pdf. 

Paradiso, J. L. 1969. Mammals of Maryland. North American Fauna, No. 66. U.S. 

Government Printing Office, Washington. 

Reich, L. M. 1981. Microtus pennsylvanicus. Mammalian Species 159:1-8. 

 

Rudran, R. 1996. General marking techniques. Pp. 299-304 in Measuring and monitoring 

 biological diversity: standard methods for mammals (D. E. Wilson, F. R. Cole, J. D. 

 Nichols, R. Rudran, and M. S. Foster, eds.). Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, 

 District of Columbia. 

Rudran, R., and M. S. Foster. 1996. Conducting a survey to assess mammalian diversity. Pp. 

 71-79 in Measuring and monitoring biological diversity: standard methods for mammals 

 (D. E. Wilson, F. R. Cole, J. D. Nichols, R. Rudran, and M. S. Foster, eds.). Smithsonian 

 Institution Press, Washington, District of Columbia. 

Rudran, R., and T. H. Kunz. 1996. Appendix 1: Ethics in research. Pp. 251-254 in Measuring 

 and monitoring biological diversity: standard methods for mammals (D. E. Wilson, F. R. 

 Cole, J. D. Nichols, R. Rudran, and M. S. Foster, eds.). Smithsonian Institution Press, 

 Washington, District of Columbia. 

Sekgororoane, G. B., and T. G. Dilworth. 1995. Relative abundance, richness, and diversity of 

 small mammals at induced forest edges. Canadian Journal of Zoology 73:1432-1437. 

Stromayer, K. A. K., and R. J. Warren. 1997. Are overabundant deer herds in the eastern United 

 States creating alternate stable states in forest plant communities? Wildlife Society 

 Bulletin 25:227-234. 

Szaro, R. D., L. H. Simons, and S. C. Belfit. 1988. Comparative effectiveness of pitfalls and 

 live-traps in measuring small mammal community structure. Pp. 224-230 in 

 Management of amphibians, reptiles, and small mammals in North America. U.S. 

 Department of Agriculture. Flagstaff, Arizona. 

Webster, W. D., J. F. Parnell, and W. C. Biggs, Jr. 1985. Mammals of the Carolinas, Virginia, 

and Maryland. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill. 

Whitaker, J. O., Jr. 1974. Cryptotis parva. Mammalian Species 43:1-8. 

Wilson, D. E., and D. M. Reeder (eds.). 2005. Mammal species of the world: a taxonomic and 

 geographic reference (Vols. 1 and 2). 3rd ed. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore. 
25

Appendix A. Trapping schedule, habitats, locations, and 

efforts for 2002 in Thomas Stone National Historic Site. 

 Trap Nights 

Dates Habitat/Site1 Location2

Sherman Trap 

Configuration3 Sherman 

Tomahawk 

(medium) 

5/22 - 5/23 FLD 1 0322488 4266832 Grid (0.30) 60 

5/22 - 5/23 DIS 0322174 4267105 Tran (0.40) 80 

5/22 - 5/23 DF 1 0322586 4266123 Tran (0.30) 60 8 

5/28 - 5/31 DF 2 0322221 4267228 Tran (0.30) 120 16 

6/11 - 6/14 DF 3 0322331 4266050 Grid (1.00) 400 12 

6/25 - 6/28 FLD 2 0322508 4266064 Grid (1.00) 400 16 

7/2 - 7/3, 7/5 FLD 3 0322642 4266577 Grid (0.49) 147 12 

7/2 - 7/3, 7/5 MF 1 0322612 4266763 Grid (0.49) 147 12 

8/7 - 8/10 DF 3 0322331 4266050 Grid (1.00) 400 12 

1

 DF = deciduous forest, DIS = wind-disturbed deciduous forest, FLD = field, MF = mixed 

forest. 

2

 UTM coordinates are for middle of grid or one end of transect; zone 18. 

3

 Numbers in parentheses for Sherman trap configuration are effective sampling area in ha for 

grids (Grid) and effective sampling length in km for transects (Tran). 

27

Appendix B. Capture record for mammals caught in Thomas Stone NatiSite from May through August 2002.  **Sherman live traps were used to capture small mammals and Tomahawk traps to capture Procyon l1 DF = deciduous forest, DIS = wind-disturbed deciduous forest, FLD = field, MF = mixed 

 forest. Sites from Appendix A not listed here yielded no captures. 

2 ? Indicates that individuals were not marked for recognition upon recapture.3 Relative abundance is individuals/100 TNs. Relative abundances are not determined for small 

 captures in Tomahawk traps. 

 Trap Nights Habitat/site1 Sherman 

Tomahawk (medium) Species Name Common Name 

No. individuals2

Total captures 

FLD 1 60 

Microtus pennsylvanicus Meadow vole 4 4 

DIS 80 

Peromyscus leucopus 

White-footed deermouse 3 3 

DF 3 400 12 

Blarina brevicauda 

Northern shorttailed shrew 3 3 

Peromyscus leucopus

White-footed deermouse 9 20 

Procyon lotor Racoon ? 2 

MF 1 147 12 

Peromyscus leucopus 

White-footed deermouse 4 9 

29

Appendix C. Trapping schedule, habitats, locations, trap 

configurations, and efforts for Sherman traps for 2003 at 

Thomas Stone National Historic Site. 

Dates Habitat/Site1 Location2 Trap Configuration3 Trap Nights 

4/5 – 4/6 FLD 4 0322435 4266913 Tran (0.30) 40 

4/5 – 4/6 DF 7 0321998 4267271 Grid (1.10) 98 

7/8 – 7/11 Rosehill DF 0322694 4266447 Tran (0.45) 120 

7/8 – 7/11 Grave FLD 0322334 4266612 Tran (0.45) 120 

9/5 – 9/7 DF MG 0322599 4266774 Tran (0.14) 54 

10/17 – 10/19 

9/5 – 9/7 FLD 5 0322068 4266852 Tran (0.15) 60 

10/17 – 10/18 

10/17 – 10/19 FLD 1 0322363 4266780 Tran (0.20) 60 

10/17 – 10/19 DF 2 0322273 4267159 Tran (0.45) 90 

10/24 – 10/26 FLD 3 0322724 4266539 Tran (0.45) 60 

10/24 – 10/26 FLD 6 0322169 4266209 Tran (0.36) 72 

10/24 – 10/26 DF 4 0322395 4266176 Tran (0.36) 72 

 

1

 DF = deciduous forest, FLD = field. Grave = Washington gravesite, MG = near Main Gate of 

the park 

2

 UTM coordinates (zone 18) are for middle of grid or one end of transect. See Figure 3 for map 

 of locations. 

3

 Numbers in parentheses for Sherman trap configuration are effective sampling area in ha for 

 grids (Grid) and effective sampling length in km for transects (Tran). Trap interval was 15 m 

 except for FLD 1 (10-m interval). 

31 

Appendix D. Trapping schedule, habitats, locations, and 

efforts for Tomahawk, pitfall, and Museum Special traps for 

2003 at Thomas Stone National Historic Site. 

 Trap Nights

Dates1 Habitat/Site2 Location3 Tomahawk4 Pitfall Museum Special 

4/5 – 4/6 FLD 4 0322435 4266913 20 

7/8 – 7/11 Rosehill DF 0322694 4266447 12s 36 

9/5 – 9/7 DF MG 0322599 4266774 18s,7l 48 9 

9/5 – 9/7 FLD 5 0322068 4266852 2l 

10/17 – 10/19 DF 2 0322273 4267159 3s 

1

 Unless otherwise indicated, dates are nights Tomahawk traps were open at the habitat/site. 

2

 DF = deciduous forest, FLD = field. MG = near Main Gate of the park. 

3

 UTM coordinates (zone 18) are for one end of Sherman trap transect (see Appendix C). 

4

 Tomahawk live traps s = small Tomahawk traps, m = medium Tomahawk traps. 

33 

Appendix E. Capture record for mammals caught in Thomas Stone NatiSite from April through October 2003. **Sherman live traps were used to capture small mammals and Tomahawk traps to capture Procyon lo

 Trap Nights 

Habitat/site1 Sherman Tomahawk2 Pitfall

Museum Special Species Common Name 

No 

Individuals3

c

DF 7 98 Peromyscus leucopus 

White-footed deermouse 3 

Rosehill DF 120 Didelphis virginiana 

Virginia opossum ? 

Peromyscus leucopus 

White-footed deermouse 3 

Procyon lotor Racoon 1 

Grave FLD 120 Peromyscus leucopus 

White-footed deermouse 1 

DF MG 54 18s,7l 48 9 Sorex longirostris* 

Southeastern shrew 1 

Peromyscus leucopus** 

White-footed deermouse 1 

DF 2 90 3s Peromyscus leucopus 

White-footed deermouse 3 

1 DF = deciduous forest, FLD = field, MG = near Main Gate of the park. Sites from Appendix A not listed here y2 Tomahawk live traps s = small, m = medium. 3 ? indicates that individuals were not marked for recognition upon recapture.4 Relative abundance is individuals/100 TNs. Relative abundances are not determined for captures in Tomahawk

Special traps. 

The Department of the Interior protects and manages the nation’s natural resources and cultural heritage; provides scientific and 

other information about those resources; and honors its special responsibilities to American Indians, Alaska Natives, and affiliated 

Island Communities. 

NPS 477/102002, April 2010 
National Park Service 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Natural Resource Program Center

1201 Oakridge Drive, Suite 150 

Fort Collins, CO 80525 

www.nature.nps.gov 

EXPERIENCE YOUR AMERICA TM