Chapter 19

Field Methods and Techniques for Monitoring

Mammals
by

Anke Hoffmann
Museum für Naturkunde Berlin
Invalidenstr. 43, 10115 Berlin, Germany
Email: anke.hoffmann@mfn-berlin.de

Jan Decher
University of Vermont
Burlington, Vermont 05405, USA
Email: jan.decher@uvm.edu

Francesco Rovero
Museo Tridentino di Scienze Naturali
Via Calepina 14, 38122, Trento, Italy
Email: francesco_rovero@yahoo.it

Juliane Schaer
Museum für Naturkunde Berlin
Invalidenstr. 43, 10115 Berlin, Germany
Email: jule.schaer@gmx.de

Christian Voigt
Leibniz-Institute for Zoo and Wildlife Research
Alfred-Kowalke-Str. 17, D-10315 Berlin, Germany
Email: voigt@izw-berlin.de

Gudrun Wibbelt
Leibniz-Institute for Zoo and Wildlife Research
Alfred-Kowalke-Str. 17, D-10315 Berlin, Germany
Email: wibbelt@izw-berlin.de

482
Abstract
This chapter is a brief introduction to inventory methods for mammals in
terrestrial habitats, with a focus on trapping methods for terrestrial small
mammals, bats and medium-sized (meso-) mammals. For large mammals we
refer the reader to more detailed sources. We suggest guidelines for designing
a study, introduce selected trapping and handling procedures, and make
recommendations for field equipment and data recording. Practical notes and
hints based on authors’ field experience are integrated in all sections of the
chapter. Additionally, the authors review safety precautions and cover practical
aspects for what to do “before launching” an expedition.

Key words: animal handling, bats, preservation, small mammals, trapping

483
1. Introduction

Aim of this chapter is to describe inventory methods for mammals in terrestrial

habitats, with an emphasis on small- and medium-sized (meso-) mammal and
bat surveys through a variety of trapping methods. We provide guidelines for
designing a study, specify trapping and handling procedures, and make
recommendations for field equipment and primary data records. Practical notes
and hints based on our own field experience are integrated in all sections of the
chapter.
For practical aspects the outline of the chapter is based on three non-taxonomic
groupings. Due to the difference in mammal body size and their mode of life,
such as volant and non-volant, specific methods, techniques and approaches
are required and are therefore treated separately. We give a brief introduction
on mammalian diversity and define operational terms for “Small-, Medium-sized
and Large Mammals”.

1.1. Mammalian diversity

The Class Mammalia can be coarsely divided as follows (Simpson, 1931):

 Subclass Prototheria (Monotremes, one Order)
 Subclass Theria
 Infraclass Metatheria (Marsupial Mammals, seven Orders)
 Infraclass Eutheria (Higher Mammals - Placentalia; 21 Orders)
According to the most recent (3rd) edition of the standard taxonomic reference
work, Mammal Species of the World (Wilson & Reeder, 2005; hereafter:
MSW3), the class Mammalia comprises 5416 species (Tab. 1). Of these 2277
(42 %) are rodents (Rodentia), 1116 (20.6 %) are bats (Chiroptera) and 428
(7.9 %) are shrews and allies (Soricomorpha). However, these numbers are a
taxonomic “snapshot” in time. Taxonomy is extremely dynamic, especially since
the advent of molecular genetics has accelerated the revision of taxonomic
groups and species delineations, but also with increased efforts to survey the
last undisturbed places in a race against accelerating extinctions (Wilson,
1992).
MSW3 includes 787 more species than the 2nd (1993) edition, 260 species of
which are newly described species. Ten of these were large mammals (8
artiodactyls, 1 carnivoran, and 1 whale). The vast majority were small
mammals: 49 bats, 18 soricomorphs (17 shrews, 1 solenodont), and 128
rodents. This rapid increase in known mammal species highlights the
importance of continued, standardized survey work throughout the world,
particularly in habitats that are little known and/or in danger of being destroyed
due to logging, mining, or other forms of “development“. Since much of All Taxa
Biodiversity Inventory and Monitoring (ATBI+M) focuses on biodiversity surveys,
conservation assessments and baseline data collections, we recommend using
MSW3 (or its subsequent editions) as a taxonomic standard and referring to
more recent taxonomic changes in the primary literature only in specific cases.
For more information on mammalian diversity and natural history consult Cole &
Wilson (1996).

484
 No. of % of No. of % of
Order Species Total Order Species Total
Rodentia 2277 42.04 Scandentia 20 0.37
Chiroptera 1116 20.61 Perissodactyla 17 0.31
Soricomorpha 428 7.90 Macroscelidea 15 0.28
Primates 376 6.94 Pilosa 10 0.18
Carnivora 286 5.28 Pholidota 8 0.15
Artiodactyla 240 4.43 Paucituberculata 6 0.11
Diprotodontia 143 2.64 Monotremata 5 0.09
Lagomorpha 92 1.70 Sirenia* 5 0.09
Didelphimorphia 87 1.61 Hyracoidea 4 0.07
Cetacea* 84 1.55 Proboscidea 3 0.06
Dasyuromorphia 71 1.31 Notoryctemorphia 2 0.04
Afrosoricida 51 0.94 Dermoptera 2 0.04
Erinaceomorpha 24 0.44 Microbiotheria 1 0.02
Paramelemorphi
a 21 0.39 Tubulidentata 1 0.02
Cingulata 21 0.39
Total Number of
5416
Mammal Species
Table 1. Mammalian Orders based on Mammal Species of the World 3rd Edition listed in
descending order of species diversity with percentage of total mammal species. *Two
orders are comprised entirely of species that are highly adapted for life in aquatic
(primarily marine) environments.

1.2. Definition of “Small, medium-sized and large mammals”

We will frequently refer to small and medium-sized mammals not as taxonomic

groupings, but as practical subdivisions that require different methods and
approaches.
“Small mammals” are usually divided into small terrestrial and volant mammals
(bats). Terrestrial small mammals commonly refer to everything smaller than the
largest rodents (capybara, nutria, grasscutter) or lagomorphs (hares, rabbits
and pikas). Although some authors (e.g. Bourlière, 1975; Stoddart, 1979;
Gaines & McClenaghan Jr., 1980) include in “small mammals” all mammal
species, whose weight or size is less than a hare (3-5 kg), we include in “small
mammals” only species weighing less than 500 g, the upper size limit that can
easily be caught in commercially produced live traps (see Section 2.2) used in a
standard small mammal survey. There is a considerable range of species within

485
this limit, including shrews, moles, most rats, mice, lemmings, gerbils, jerboas,
dormice and many squirrels (Delany, 1974).
“Medium-sized mammals” is often used for small carnivores, small primates,
large rodents, hyraxes, and pangolins that are not adequately covered by small
mammal trapping arrays and require larger (wire mesh) traps. Some of these
mammals can also be detected through non-trapping “observational” methods,
such as track censuses or automatic camera traps. This group includes some of
the most secretive, hard to survey, and hence still poorly known species.
“Large mammals” include most diurnal primates, most carnivores larger than a
fox or house cat, all perissodactyls (horses, rhinos, tapirs) and artiodactyls
(including the relatively small duikers). There will be some overlap between
these broad categories. For example, in North America the smaller weasels
(Mustela sp.) are caught in traplines set for rodents and shrews (about 1 weasel
per 200 rodent captures, J. Decher, unpubl. data), but these traps exclude the
larger mustelids like mink Neovison (Mustela) vison or Marten and Fisher
(Martes sp.). In Africa the largest rodents (Atherurus, Cricetomys, Thryonomys,
etc.) are best caught in large wire traps (Tomahawk, Havahart) and often show
up on automatic camera trap pictures.
In section 2.1 we provide a brief summary of field techniques for medium-sized
mammals in species inventories. Medium-sized mammals are generally much
less known than larger mammals. We do not address the vast methodology on
large mammals, because it is adequately presented elsewhere (e.g. Caughley,
1977; Davis, 1982; Wilson et al., 1996; Martin et al., 2000). A specific chapter in
this volume is dedicated to camera-trapping (see Chapter 6), which in recent
years has been developed into an efficient method for surveying both medium-
sized and large mammals.

2. Field techniques

2.1. Medium-sized mammals

2.1.1. Trapping methods

Trapping of medium-sized mammals is generally more challenging and costly

than trapping of small mammals, and therefore it is more often used for focal
studies (e.g. radio-tracking or collection of DNA samples) than for species
inventories. Moreover, some species or groups of species will require ad-hoc
trapping methods: for example, small nocturnal primates can be trapped using
Chardonneret traps (15 x 15 x 23 cm) baited with bananas and placed in trees
(Doggart et al., 2006); the larger elephant-shrews of the genus Rhynchocyon
have been successfully trapped using fishing nets strung along the forest floor
(Rathbun, 1979). For general trapping methodology and procedures we refer to
the detailed account on small mammals presented in Section 2.2. Suitable traps
for medium-sized mammals are commercially available, e.g. Tomahawks and
Havaharts (details in Section 2.2). They consist of foldable cages made of
galvanized wire mesh and can be single or double-door; the size varies
depending on target species, with 18 x 18 x 61 or 23 x 23 x 66 cm being a

486
standard size for trapping small carnivores and large rodents. Because of
limited survey budgets, it is rarely possible to purchase large numbers of these
traps and therefore trapping will be more successful when animal’s trails, nests
or burrows can be found, which in tropical countries is usually facilitated by local
hunters. Medium-sized mammal traps need to be checked very frequently as
captured animals may become stressed quickly and hurt themselves trying to
bite or dig through the mesh.

2.1.2. Observational methods

“Observational methods”, including camera-trapping, can be used to survey

some groups of medium-sized mammals. There are three types of observational
methods: (1) direct observations, (2) identification of dung, tracks and other
signs, and (3) camera-trapping, i.e. the use of remotely set, automatic cameras.
Because of the more challenging technological implications and recent
advances and applications in camera-trapping, this method is described in full
detail in Chapter 6. There are firm indications that camera-trapping is a very
cost-efficient method of surveying both medium-sized and large mammals,
especially in forest habitats, where visibility and track/dung detection may be
difficult (see Chapter 6 and Bowkett et al., 2006). Nevertheless, both direct
sightings and signs should be considered either as an alternative method or to
complement camera-trapping surveys.
In general, direct observation is not an efficient method to detect medium-sized
mammals. There are a few exceptions, for example the nocturnal primates,
whose eye shine is easily sighted at night using head torches (Doggart et al.,
2006). Some of the locally common small African carnivores, such as palm
civets and genets, can also be sighted with torches during night walks. Tracks,
scats and other signs can, instead, be more easily recorded in the course of any
survey. Photographs, possibly including a scale reference, can assist with later
identification confirmations, and localities should be recorded with a handheld
GPS unit. Sometimes indigenous knowledge (especially from hunters) can be
useful for a preliminary list of species and/or help with identification of signs.
Chances to detect tracks can be increased with tracking stations, by clearing
portions of an animal trail and covering the ground with fine sand or with special
track plates with surface blackened using smoke or printer toner (Zielinski,
1995; Wemmer et al., 1996; Foresman & Pearson, 1998). Synthetic attractant or
natural lures can be placed at tracking stations, especially to attract carnivores.
An introduction to mammalian signs including tracks, nest and burrows, scats
and food caches is provided by Wemmer et al. (1996). A more detailed
treatment on tracking in the North American temperate environment is found in
Rezendes (1999). Field guides to the identification of signs and tracks for
different parts of the world can be found in corresponding specialised field
guides for mammals (Stuart & Stuart, 1994; Rezendes, 1999; Bang &
Dahlstrom, 2001; MacDonald & Barrett, 2002; Ohnesorge & Scheiba, 2007).

487
2.1.3. Indirect methods

Indirect surveys of small carnivores may involve hunting or fur harvest records
such as the classic study of Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis) cycles and more
recent work on mink (Neovison vison) in Canada (Elton & Nicholson, 1942;
Shier & Boyce, 2009), surveys of meat markets in Africa (Anadu et al., 1988;
Angelici et al., 1999; Crookes et al., 2005), or setting up scent marking stations
with hair traps to monitor small carnivores (Schmidt & Kowalcyk, 2006).

2.2. Small mammals

Even though terrestrial small mammals are often quite abundant, they are rarely
observed and (except in snow or sand) their tracks are rarely seen and hard to
identify to species. However, they can be easily sampled with sufficient
numbers of traps or pitfalls, and the most abundant species in a small mammal
assemblage allow for population estimates using capture-mark-recapture
protocols (Smith et al., 1975; Caughley, 1977; Krebs, 1989). Most small
mammals are easily handled requiring relatively little specialized equipment.

2.2.1. Traps and bait

For most terrestrial small mammals the Sherman live trap

(http://www.shermantraps.com) has become the standard foldable, very
portable and efficient trap of choice (Fig. 1). H. B. Sherman makes several sizes
and has recently started to offer most models with perforated walls, which
should help prevent overheating in hot grassland or semi-desert environments.
The standard model (LFA-TDG, 7.5 x 9 x 23 cm) is the most widely used trap,
especially in the United States. In tropical environments we have found the
extra long model (XLK, 7.7 x 9.5 x 30.5 cm) to be preferable given the larger
average size of tropical mammals and the long tails of many genera (e.g.
Malacomys, Dephomys). If only the standard model is available, but capture of
long-tailed species is expected, traps could be modified to avoiding injury of the
animals by attaching a small spacer piece at the top rim of the trap which
creates a narrow gap (ca. 3 mm) for the animals to safely pull their tails into the
trap. The largest model (XLF15, 10 x 11.5 x 38 cm) has been tested
successfully by one of us (J. Decher) with small mammals. It should
theoretically be useful in a study focusing on small mustelids or herpestids, but
many medium-sized mammals can be extremely shy to enter a trap with solid
walls and a wire or cage trap like the Tomahawk models
(http://www.livetrap.com) is preferable.
In colder climates the small mammal trap of choice may be one that has a nest
box attached, such as the British Longworth trap (Penlon Ltd., Oxford, U.K.,
http://www.alanaecology.com). However, the Longworth design is not
collapsible, and the traps are considerably more expensive than the standard
Sherman trap. The usability of Sherman traps in colder climates can be
extended by placing the traps into “waxed cardboard” containers (Fig. 2) saved

488
Fig. 1. Popular trap types.
Back: Collapsible
Tomahawk trap for
squirrels, small carnivores,
and large rats. Centre:
Standard-sized collapsible
Sherman trap. Front left:
Victor Rat trap. Front right:
Museum Special snap
trap. (Photo by Jan
Decher).

Fig. 2. Standard Sherman Live

Trap (LFA-TDG, 7.5 x 9 x 23
cm) protected in a 2 litre milk
carton. (Photo by Anke
Hoffmann).

489
from milk or juice products. Some bedding like cotton or shredded paper can be
stuffed into the very back of Sherman traps as well as additional food, as long
as it does not block the treadle mechanism. In general, live trap survival can be
improved if covers are used to protect traps from the elements (sun, snow, rain).
In one comparison of small non-folding (5.4 x 6.5 x 17 cm), and large
(7.7 x 9.1 x 23 cm) folding Shermans with two-piece Longworth traps
(13.8 x 6.4 x 8.4 cm), small Shermans captured the most animals and appeared
to be the most effective traps for smaller-sized mammals. Longworth and
Sherman traps exhibited species-specific differences in capture rates
suggesting that they should be used in combination to reduce overall bias
(Hoffmann, 1995; Anthony et al., 2005). Similarly Nicolas & Colyn (2006)
compared the efficiency of Sherman traps, metal snap and pitfall traps and
concluded that an assortment of traps should always be employed in studies of
small mammal communities in African rainforest in order to obtain a wider range
of taxa, and thus a better representation of the community.
Larger wire traps are offered in numerous sizes, and in single or double door
and rigid or collapsible versions by the Tomahawk (http://www.livetrap.com, see
Fig. 1) and Havahart (http://www.havahart.com) trap companies. Some rapid
biodiversity assessments when maximum trap success is important may justify
the use of snap traps of various types. Because a standard mouse trap from the
hardware store is often too weak for wild rodents and shrews and the larger rat
trap is too large for smaller species, a medium sized trap was developed known
as the “Museum Special” trap (Fig. 1). It also has a better probability for leaving
small mammal skulls (the most important museum-diagnostic structure in
mammals) intact (Smith et al., 1971, but also see Perry et al., 1996). When
trapping in protected areas check with authorities if the use of removal traps is
permitted.
Recent studies have emphasized the need to avoid bias towards certain
species by trapping only on the forest floor in tropical environments. For this
reason a number of workers have taken to placing traps on platforms that can
be lowered with a pulley system high in the canopy to sample for scansorial or
arboreal species. However, initial placement of the trap platforms (or pulley
attachment) requires special climbing gear and considerable athletic skills
(Malcolm, 1991, 1995; also see Jay Malcolm checking his arboreal traps in the
video Rain Forest, National Geographic Society, 1998).
The use of bait versus no bait and the advantages of pre-baiting (baiting for
several days prior to placing or setting the traps), when survey time allows for it,
have been discussed elsewhere (Smith et al., 1975; Jones et al., 1996).
Numerous favourite recipes exist on the subject of bait preparation. Standard
bait among many mammalogists is oatmeal flavoured with peanut butter. We
have also known a mammalogist who routinely chewed (!) the oatmeal to
prepare it for use on snap traps. One of us (A. Hoffmann) prepares a “sticky
cake” from oatmeal, peanut butter (or locally sold “groundnut paste” in Africa)
and bananas, if available, which can be formed into adhesive balls that can
easily be attached to the back of Sherman traps or on the treadle of a snap trap.
Another effective recipe, if no peanut butter is available, is a sticky dough made
from maize flour, ripe bananas and (roasted) peanuts (Hoffmann, 1999). We

490
have also successfully used shavings of the outer fibrous and oily (pericarp)
layer of oil palm nuts (Elaeis guineensis) in Africa. Their scent seems to equally
attract insectivorous shrews and rodents.
Pitfall traps may be the most effective trap for mammals under 10 g. Pitfalls can
be made from 5-10 litre buckets, large yogurt containers or specially made
cones (Pankakoski, 1979). Cones are very useful in marshy habitat where they
can just be pushed into the ground. In rocky or laterite soil, pitfalls can mean a
large investment of labour, but their placement is often rewarded by the capture
of small shrews not sampled with any other method (Handley & Kalko, 1993;
Kalko & Handley, 1993; Nicolas & Colyn, 2006). Pitfalls work most efficiently if
they are connected by a plastic or mesh drift fence running across each pitfall.
For an example of a very thorough application of pitfalls and drift fences to
shrew diversity and abundance in different habitats in Guinea, see the recent
work by Nicolas et al. (2009).
Pitfalls work well unbaited but we have also baited them in certain situations.
They should be checked often to avoid multiple animals captured from attacking
each other or being taken by predators. Buckets should be punctured to reduce
the chance of drowning during heavy rains. Buckets can also be covered with
small boards spaced with a gap above the buckets using three or four rocks to
reduce flooding and predator impact. Some plant material and little stones in the
bucket can also provide hiding places and protection against sun and rain for
the animals. For pitfall traplines shorter spacing distances (< 5 m) have been
recommended, because of the smaller size of the target species (Handley &
Kalko, 1993). The array of a pitfall trapline depends much on habitat, substrate
and man power. The length per line can vary between 10-50 m, whereas the
set-up of the drift fence must still be practicable. Some workers have
recommended more elaborate drift fence and pitfall arrays such as a Y-shaped
design with a pitfall at each end of the fence arms and one in the centre
(Kirkland & Sheppard, 1994). Pitfall set-up and results can sometimes be
shared with entomologists and herpetologists who might be working on the
same inventory (see Chapters 9, 14 & 20).

2.2.2. Trapping procedure

The way traps are arrayed in the habitat depends on the question being asked
and the estimation methods used. For inventories, accurate estimates of
abundance (total number of animals) or density (numbers per unit area) are not
necessary: the primary concerns are assessing the true mammal diversity of an
area by sampling a sufficiently large area with a diverse array of methods. In
any case, a standardised design should be used and carefully documented to
allow for future repetition and facilitate a meaningful long-term monitoring effort.

Trapline designs

For inventories of small terrestrial mammals the easiest approach is to place

traps at equal intervals along a line, which ideally should cover all habitat types,
ideally with one or two replicate lines. Spacing distances are a function of
habitat complexity. Traps in more complex habitats should be more closely

491
placed. Size of the target species is also a consideration, because smaller
mammals tend to travel shorter distances than larger mammals (Jones et al.,
1996). We recommend that a trapline ideally be about 150 m long, with traps
placed every 10 to 15 m (Mühlenberg, 1993; Jones et al., 1996), but this design
has to be adapted to the respective habitat conditions and target species.
Whatever the spacing, to increase the trap success, traps should be placed at
habitat features (e.g. log, rocks, tree, runways, burrows, bush clusters) as long
as they lie within 2 m of the point. Where possible, a subset of traps should also
be placed on branches of trees in order to catch scansorial species. If
freshwater habitat (stream, pond, lake) is present, we recommend placing
several traps near these bodies of water. Traplines near water and in trees
should be tethered to reduce loss due to sudden water level changes or traps
falling out of trees. For replicate traplines, we recommend a minimum distance
of at least 100 m between the traplines to avoid an impact on the trap success.
Trapping effort is commonly expressed in “trap-nights”, that is the number of
traps multiplied by the number of daily trap periods (e.g. sunset to sunrise). A
minimum of 400-500 “trap-nights” has been recommended for a preliminary
inventory of a habitat (Jones et al., 1996; Fraser et al., 2003). Thus, at least
100-150 traps are needed for an efficient inventory survey so that the trapping
period can be limited to three or four consecutive nights in each habitat and
season. More traps reduce the number of daily trap periods, but are difficult to
check efficiently in one trap inspection especially if many measurements and
habitat data are recorded at each trap station. The required trapping effort can
be determined with a species accumulation curve (Colwell et al., 2004; Decher
et al., in press).
We recommend placing two traps at every station to reduce the saturation of
traps by “trap-happy” individuals or very abundant species. This practice
increases the chance trapping animals that are less active, less attracted to
traps (Drickamer, 1987), or “trap-prone” (Andrzejewski et al., 1971). Each trap
station should have at least one Sherman trap, which can be combined with any
other trap type available. If 80% of the traps are occupied it is recommended to
increase their number (Corbet & Harris, 1990).
Whether traps follow a rigid grid arrangement or a linear trapline, individual
traps can often be set opening towards, or in line with a rodent runway, along a
log that can act like a drift fence, or near a hole/hiding place. Trap stations
should be marked with a flagged pole (in grassland habitat) or flagged tree (in
forest) which should be visible from one trap station to another to facilitate
orientation. This prevents loss of traps and makes the trapline easy to follow
and re-bait. We recommend marking each trap with a unique identifier for each
trapline and station (e.g. A1, A2F… A15; B1, B2F… B15; etc). If two traps are
placed at one station they can be distinguished by a small letter (e.g. A1a, A1b,
A2a, A2b, etc). This is especially important if animals are brought to a central
processing place to be released later at the same trap site. Marking tape and
marking pen should be water resistant. Reflective station markers (e.g. 3M-
ScotchliteTM; http://solutions.3m.com or http://www.amazon.com) can be useful,
if traps need to be checked at night. Marking devices should be removed after
the study, unless biodegradable, non-polluting tape is used. If large herbivores

492
(esp. cattle) are present in the survey area, aluminium tags could be used to
prevent ingestion of marking tape. In open habitats (grassland, desert) it might
be necessary to tie traps to poles in order to avoid displacement by wind.

Trap inspection

Depending on trap success and habitat conditions 100-200 traps can be

checked within one trap inspection. Ideally, traplines are run for a period of 3-5
days (Mühlenberg, 1993; Jones et al., 1996) to reduce stress on the animals.
Traps are set before sunset and checked as early as possible the following
morning. All traps are then closed for the day, unless day trapping is planned. At
sites where many shrews (esp. Soricinae) are expected, trap inspection at
shorter intervals can prevent the animals from dying in live traps or being eaten
by ants or predators in snap traps. If personnel allow it, we recommend daytime
trapping at least for two days to check for diurnal species. Depending on
weather conditions (e.g. heat) during the day, trap inspection at short intervals
should be considered. Traps are baited the first day and as necessary re-baited
the following days.

2.2.3. Animal handling

Most animals trapped in box (live-) traps will be alive, and a decision has to be
made if a particular animal will be released after treatment or if it will be kept as
a voucher specimen. Before starting a capture programme the risks of disease
transmission from wildlife species (see Section 4) should be assessed. As a
general precaution we recommend that the investigator wear sturdy protective
gloves for handling live animals and disposable laboratory gloves during
processing of dead animals. In regions with specific risks (e.g. hantavirus,
Lassa fever) a mask or full protective gear is recommended (Mills et al., 1995).

Voucher specimens

If and how many voucher specimens are to be taken from each inventory site
depends on the study objectives, and also on the particular regulations and
permit specifications of each site and country. Many small mammal species can
not confidently be identified in the field. This can be particularly problematic for
shrews. Sometimes researchers should even consider taking a larger series of
hard to identify sympatric taxa. There may be a diversity of colour morphs or
other phenotypically unique forms present in an area. The most interesting
aspects of small mammal biology and diversity are often easily overlooked in
the field. In general, we recommend keeping at least one adult male and one
adult female per species from each inventory site. After the euthanasia
processes (see Section 3), the animal should be accurately measured (see
Section 2.2.4), prepared for preservation (see Section 3), and have tissue
samples taken (Chapter 7). Finally, even when live traps are used, there is
almost always some mortality. Ethically speaking, animals which die in the
course of a study belong in a collection.

493
Animal release

The aim, when handling the animals, is to obtain the necessary information
rapidly, without undue stress or injury to either the animal or the researcher.
First the trapped animal is transferred from the trap into a clear, strong plastic
(size 3 litres) or cloth bag. For this the door end of the trap is inserted into the
opening of the bag, the door pushed open through the bag fabric, and the
animal is shaken into the bag. Take care to prevent a gap between the bag and
the trap through which the animal can escape. Animal and bag are weighed
together with an accuracy of 0.5-1.0 g and the bag weight is substracted. Bags
used need to be re-weighed frequently because of moisture and debris (bait,
faeces) from the traps altering their weights. Spring balances (Pesola, etc.) of
different weight classes (30 g, 100 g, 300 g) should be available depending on
the size range of species captured.
Preliminary species identification can be done while the animal is held in the
plastic bag until processed. In order to establish the best field identification,
some body measurements besides the weight (tail, hind foot, and ear length)
are taken. If more time for identification is needed the animal can temporarily be
kept in a cage for observation. Photos as references can be useful. If
identification remains uncertain then a representative individual should be taken
as a voucher specimen.
There are two ways to handle live animals, and in our view the second option is
less stressful for the animal and the researcher, and especially recommended
for use by inexperienced persons.
 Grasping the animals by the nape of the neck is described by Jones et al.
(1996). Therefore the animal is initially grasped through the bag and then
bag is peeled back. After placing the animal on a flat surface, the
investigator positions his/her thumb and forefinger on each side of the neck,
against the back of the skull, squeezes, and pulls back, so that the fingers
close only on the skin. Firmly grasping all the loose skin across the upper
back, especially the skin behind the neck restricts the movement of the
animal’s head and allows the researcher to lift the animal and turn it to view
the ventral surface for determination of sex and reproductive conditions.
Several species have loose skin and cannot be grasped in this way.
Likewise, holding the animal by the tail should be avoided.
 A tube of acrylic glass of an adequate calibre, both sides open, one side
closed with cotton batting, is placed into the bag. The animal is then gently
guided into the tube held upright and in this way calmed for further
treatment. Hind feet and tail should be positioned outside the tube, and the
cotton wool prevents animal’s movement too far into the tube, but allows it
to breathe. One finger of the investigator is always placed to prevent the
animal from escaping backwards. Tubes (5-6 pieces) in different sizes (15-
50 mm diameter, length 15-25 cm, Fig. 3) should be available. Avoid holding
tubes with animals for extended periods to prevent overheating inside.

494
 Fig. 3. A.Tubes of acrylic glass in different size; B. example of usage. (Photos by Anke
Hoffmann).

After restraining the animal in this way, sex and reproductive status can be
recorded and selected body measurements can be taken (see Section 2.2.4)
with a calliper or ruler. If needed a tissue sample for DNA analysis can be taken
from live animals (see Section 3; Chapter 7). After all data has been collected
the animal should be released at the site of capture. The handling procedure
usually lasts 5-10 min per animal, depending on the researcher’s experience
and on whether marking or parasite sampling is carried out.

Marking of animals

Released animals should be marked to avoid re-counting and re-measuring the

same individuals. Marking can be done by different methods: permanent
markers (tattooing, toe clipping, ear punching), or temporary markers (paints,
powders) (Rudran & Kunz, 1996). When selecting an appropriate marking
technique for the survey one should consider the need for individual
identification, the period for which the mark should be visible, and number of
animals which should be marked. For an inventory temporary markers should
be sufficient and should be easy to apply. Therefore we recommend easy
techniques such as hair-cutting or nail-clipping. For nail-clipping the same
clipping pattern as for toe-clipping can be used (cf. Twigg, 1975, 1978). As toes
are needed for pawing and personal hygiene not more than two nails per foot
should be cut. Hair trimming can be applied on the back, for which the back is
divided into sectors (cf. Twigg, 1978; Gurnell & Flowerdew, 2006). Both
markings can be applied while the animal is in the tube (Second option above).

Sampling of parasites

Captured animals can be sampled for ectoparasites. Ticks, lice and parasitic
flies can be removed from the fur and preserved in ethanol. Fleas can be
collected after they jump off or have been brushed off a voucher specimen that
has been euthanized inside a clean plastic bag or other closed container. It is
important to keep detailed notes and cross-reference host numbers on parasite
vials, field data sheets and/or field catalogue. For more details on parasite
collecting see Gardner (1996).

495
2.2.4. Primary recording data

For each individual, sex and reproductive status should be recorded. Moreover
body mass and selected body measurements (tail, hind foot, ear) should be
taken (Fig. 4). Body measurements should have an accuracy of 0.5-1.0 mm.
Reliable body measurements can only be taken from dead animals. Body length
in particular is impossible to measure in living animals. But also the
determination of sex and age is often difficult with animals to be released. Field
teams should agree on whether they are using the American or European
convention of standards measurements.

Sex determination

Different sexually dimorphic characters can be used to distinguish males from

females, including differences in genitalia, body size, pelage, scent glands, and
behaviour. Accurate sexing requires some knowledge of the natural history and
morphology of individual species (Kunz et al., 1996c). Primarily males are
distinguished by possessing testes and a penis, females by the presence of a
vaginal opening and nipples, but the visibility and spacing of the genitalia
depends on age, reproductive condition and taxon. For example in many
rodents the clitoris superficially resembles the male urinary papilla, but the anal-
genital distance is diagnostic, typically being shorter in females than in males.
Males with scrotal testes (sometimes only during the breeding season) are easy
to identify, but males with non-scrotal (inguinal) testes are common, especially
in Soricomorpha (shrews, moles, solenodons). The penis in some species may
be retracted into a cloaca (Soricidae) and there may be other anatomical
challenges like the pseudo-cloaca in Ochotona. Female reproductive activity is
represented by gestation and lactation (enlarged nipples). The external
condition of the vagina can indicate the reproductively activity in females as
well, e.g. due to a perforated vagina or the presence of a vaginal plug (Kunz
et al., 1996c).

Age categories

Age categories for mammals generally are listed in Kunz et al. (1996c). A
combination of body measurements and reproductive criteria offers the best
means to determine the age of small mammals in the field. Cranial and dental
characteristics are valuable for an accurate age estimation done in the lab
(Morris, 1972; Pucek & Lowe, 1975). For fieldwork we generally distinguish just
between three age classes:
 Juvenile: A small young animal in grey and soft juvenile pelage, smaller
than a subadult and not sexually mature.
 Subadult: A young animal that is not fully grown and often not in fully adult
pelage. May or may not be sexually mature.
 Adult: A fully grown animal in adult pelage that is sexually mature.

496
Body measurements

Please be aware when taking body measurements that the European

convention is different from the American one, this concerns in particular the
hind foot length and the total length.
 Body Mass (BM) is measured to the closest gram by using a spring
balance (see subchapter handling) for living animals, for dead animals a
digital scale can also be used.
 Total Length (ToL) is the distance from the tip of the nose to the end of the
fleshy part of the tail not including the tuft of hair at tail’s end. Lay the
voucher specimen on its back on a ruler, grasp head and tail to straighten
the body and take the measurement (American convention).
 Tail Length (TL) is the distance from the base of the tail (after the anus) to
the tip of the tail. Do not include the tuft of hair at the very end.
 Head-Body Length (HBL) is obtained by subtracting TL from ToL.

Fig. 4. Measurements of
a small mammal
(example: shrew). From
Boye (1994), modified.

497
 Hind Foot Length (HFL) is the distance from the back of the heel to the
end of the fleshy part of the longest toe (s.u. = sine unguis) or to the end of
the largest claw (c.u. = cum unguis; American convention). Provide both
measurements, when in doubt.
 Ear Length (EL) is the distance from the bottom of the notch to the furthest
edge of the pinna. Before measuring grasp the ear and briefly stretch it out
and release it. Hairs or tufts at the tip of the ear should not be included in
the measurement.
A template data sheet for recording capture and habitat data can be designed
and photocopied prior to the survey. Relevant recording data elements are
listed in Appendix 1, but the selection may vary by study.

2.2.5. Workflow and personnel

We recommend a trapping period of at least 3 trap-nights with an array of about

100-150 traps and a team size of 2-3 persons (researcher, assistants) or 3-4
persons (2 researchers, 1-2 assistants) if more than 200 traps are used or bat
work is planned during the night. Considering the time for set-up and removal of
traplines two additional days should be scheduled. Traps can be carried to the
trapline in a back-pack or strong cloth bags. One person can transport the traps
and mark trap stations while the second person sets, baits and places the traps.
Depending on the habitat and the distance to other traplines several hours
should be scheduled for these procedures. In the morning after the last trap-
night the traps can be collected just after or during the trap inspection.
We recommend at least a 2-day break between back-to-back trapping periods
that require several days of camping at remote locations from the base camp.
This time is needed for re-organisation, such as data entry, maintenance of field
equipment like trap cleaning and mending of bat nets, preparation of vouchers
and processing the by-catch (non mammals).

2.2.6. Habitat assessment

For understanding the interrelation between small mammal assemblages and

their habitats, different environmental features should be assessed at the time
of trapping. Habitats provide food supply, nesting sites and other hiding places.
Vegetation cover, habitat structure and food availability (vegetation, arthropods)
can be recorded along the traplines. More detailed vegetation surveys with
species lists should be done by botanists (see Chapter 14). Rainfall and
temperature data can be recorded in the microhabitat or requested from the
nearest meteorological stations.

Habitat description

General description of the habitat near each trapline:

 Habitat type: type of forest, savannah, grassland, etc.; possibly list of
dominant plant species.

498
 Altitude (m), exposition (geographic), georeference data.
 Distance to nearest water source (m).
 Existence of rocks, termite mounds, burrows, etc.
 Note: type of land use, availability of seeds and fruits, evidence of past fires,
presence of large mammals, etc.

Microhabitat recording

Notes on the microhabitat of each captured individual can be recorded on

standardized habitat data sheets. This may include estimations of percent
canopy cover using a spherical densiometer (Forestry Suppliers Inc.) and
estimations of ground cover types in a one-square meter area centred on each
trap station. If there is more than one capture at the same trap station the
recording of microhabitat data need not be repeated. Averages of these
recordings can be used for a general habitat description. Recordings at each
capture may include:
 Canopy cover (%).
 Distance and diameter breast height (dbh) of nearest tree.
 Percent ground cover types (in 1 m2 centred on trap): herbs, grass or
sedge, bare soil, leaf litter, rock, water.
 Vegetation height (cm) of ground cover.
 Vegetation density (using a density board).
The inventory of the microhabitat should be done without disturbance of the
trapping procedure. The best time would be immediately after releasing or
collecting the animal, during the non-activity phase or when the traps are
closed. More elaborate microhabitat sampling schemes using 10-meter radius
circular vegetation plots have been described by several authors (James &
Shugart, 1970; James, 1978; Dueser & Shugart, 1978, 1979; Kitchings & Levy,
1981).
If the study requires the identification of a possible correlation between the
diversity and abundance of small mammals and the quantity of epigaeic
arthropods as available diet source, arthropod sampling can be done during the
trapping period. Suitable pitfall methods are described in Chapters 9 & 15.

2.3. Bats

Bats are cryptic and nocturnal animals that are difficult to observe. Therefore,
monitoring bat diversity can be a challenging task. In this section we review the
most frequently used techniques to capture bats. For a more detailed
methodological review we especially recommend the chapter “Methods of
Capturing and Handling Bats” by Kunz et al. (2009). Here, we will provide a brief
hands-on description of how to capture, handle and process bats in the field.
Each technique may bear a certain bias in capture success and the combined

499
use of different methods should warrant the best success. Also, capturing
protocols, e.g. time and duration of capture, used capturing devices, mist netting
sites etc., should be consistent when comparing bat diversity among sites. Also,
given that bats may carry various zoonotic diseases, such as rabies, bat
workers should be familiar with health issues, e.g. all persons handling bats
should be vaccinated against rabies (no exceptions allowed). Mist netting in or
at the entry of caves may also expose people to inhalation of spores from
Histoplasma capsulatum, a zoonotic fungus (Di Salvo et al., 1969). As a general
rule, all people involved in capturing bats should be informed about potential
health risks.

2.3.1. Nets and traps

Ground-based mist nets

Mist nets set up horizontally and ground-based are the most common and most
efficient devices to capture flying bats. Mist nets are made out of a mesh of fine
synthetic fibres (monofilament nylon and braided nylon or Dacron polyester).
For capturing bats, the net material is usually black and the strength of the net
(mono- versus bifilament and thickness of the nylon) is chosen according to the
size of the expected bats. In general, most people use mist nets with the
following features: 50 denier, 2 ply nylon and 28 mm mesh size. If using thicker
mist net material (higher denier value), the net can withstand larger bats, but the
net is more easily detectable by the bats. Standard net sizes are 6 m (18´),
12 m (42´) or 18 m (60´) long and 2.1 m to 2.4 m high when set. Usually, the
height is divided by several horizontal shelf strings that form 4 or 5 horizontal
loose pockets, which hold the trapped bats once they bounce against the layer
of net material and drop into the pockets. Each end of the shelf string has a loop
of stronger string material that can be put around supporting poles. These
poles, e.g. aluminium tent poles or bamboo culms, should be set up at a
distance equal to the net length (Kunz et al., 1996b). For setting up a mist net,
the loops are placed around the first pole. The top loop, which is usually white
or coloured, and the following loops should be attached in the right order from
top to base. The first pole is tied with ropes to either vegetation (e.g. nearby
trees) or attached to stakes put into the ground. If no tree is close to the net, two
ropes or one twisted around the pole may be used to stabilize the net. With the
two ends of the rope/ropes attached to a near-by tree or a stake, an angle of
approximately 70° is established between the two ropes. To provide a better
support, the base of poles should be pressed slightly into the ground. The net
should be held with caution as it will unwrap itself when the carrier slowly walks
towards the second pole. It should be taken care not to let the net touch the
ground during that process as e.g. leaves might get entangled in the net. After
placing the second set of loops around the second pole, with the white (or
coloured) loop at the very top, once again ropes are used to tie the pole to
trees, branches or stakes. The ropes should be tied in a way that moderate
tension is inflicted on the net. In the last step, positioning the loops from top to
the base of the poles should unclose the net. Once the mist net is open, the net
material should form a pocket at each shelf string.

500
Mist nets should be closed during a break of a night capture session or when
using a mist net more than one night at the same location. All debris such as
leaves should be removed from the net before pushing the shelves together to
close the net. The net can be furled by draping the net repeatedly around the
gathered shelves and tucking the loose ends of the net pockets into the shelf
strings. Gently spinning can also be used to furl a net. Several short strips of
cloth or rope should be tied around the net to prevent unwinding.
For dismantling a mist net, the loops of the first pole are gathered at the top and
are then removed from the pole, still maintaining the correct top to bottom order
and keeping tension on the net to prevent it from touching the ground. The top
loop should be used to tie the other loops before folding the net. By doing this, it
is easier to maintain the top to base order when unravelling the net the next
time. The loops of the second pole are removed in the same way as before. The
net should be folded before storing it in a bag, preferably in a cotton bag as
plastic bags restrict air circulation and therefore support fungal growth on the
net material. Mist nets may become wet after rain or at high humidity. Then,
nets should be dried before storing them over a prolonged period of time in
bags.
To cover the sub-canopy of the forest, mist nets can also be stacked on top of
one another. Freestanding poles with a rigging system (Rautenbach, 1985)
optimize this system. The loops can be attached to carabiners on a hoist with
strong free-standing net poles, which allows raising the net(s) high above the
forest floor.

Canopy mist nets

Several previous studies have highlighted that bat assemblage composition

differs between the ground and canopy level (e.g. Francis, 1994). Some species
may not even be captured at ground level, because of their exclusive canopy
lifestyle, e.g. molossid bats, large pteropodids or some phyllostomid bat
species. Thus, vertical stratification of a bat assemblage is an important aspect
when assessing local bat species diversity. In general, two methods are
available for capturing bats at canopy height: either suspended horizontal mist
nets as described in the previous paragraph or suspended vertical canopy mist
nets. Both techniques require some training and sufficient time for preparation.
To suspend a canopy mist net, it is necessary to first search for a good spot that
provides (1) sufficient open space so that the net does not get entangled with
twigs and branches, and (2) some large sturdy branches from which a rope can
suspend the net. Horizontal canopy mist nets require two of such branches at
distances larger than the length of the canopy mist net, whereas vertical canopy
mist nets require only a single branch. The chosen branches should be
sufficiently strong to support the weight of poles, ropes and mist nets. To hoist
canopy nets to canopy height, it is first necessary to shoot a line with a lead
fishing weight at its end over the branch. Use two lines to hoist a horizontal
canopy net and one line for a vertical canopy nets. This is best achieved by
using a slingshot (Kunz & Kurta, 1988; Nadkarni, 1988; Munn, 1991), a bow and
arrow (Greenlaw & Swinebroad, 1967), a crossbow or a line-shooting gun.
Since the thin line gets easily entangled during this process, it is best to use an

501
open-faced spinning reel that can be purchased from a fishing store. The line is
then used to hoist a heavier cord (at least 10 mm in diameter and longer than
twice the height of the branch) over the branch. Also, it should be noted that
protective devices should be worn when using sling shoots or similar devices to
prevent accidents. Alternatively, ropes can also be positioned by climbing.
Vertical and horizontal canopy nets differ in some main features and in the way
they are operated.
Vertical canopy nets require two branches from which the net is suspended and
consequently two ropes. Once the rope is put around the branch in the canopy,
one end should be attached to the top of the pole and the other end to the base
of the same pole. This is repeated with the second rope and the second pole.
Care should be taken that sufficiently strong knots are made to support the
weight of the poles, ropes and net. Alternatively, carabiners can be permanently
attached to the poles to warrant more support. Ideally, two persons are present
when hoisting the canopy net by pulling the rope that is attached to the top of
the pole. Caution should be taken not to stand right below the net in case the
net or branches fall to the ground. Also, people should wear gloves when
hoisting and manipulating the net. Once the net is positioned in the canopy, the
rope should be attached to a tree trunk or some sturdy branches. Persons
operating these nets should attach the rope very tightly to the vegetation
structure. Afterwards, the opposite end of the rope that is attached to the base
of the pole is manipulated in a way so that the vertical canopy net expands to its
full size. The opposite ends of the ropes are also attached to vegetation to
stabilize the canopy net. In order to put a canopy mist net down, it is necessary
to first unknot both ends attached to the base of the pole. Then, the ends of the
rope attached to the top of the pole are unknotted and held firmly with both
hands. We recommend laying out a plastic tarp on the ground where the canopy
mist net is supposed to stand on the ground to prevent leaves and debris from
getting entangled in the net.
Vertical mist nets are designed for the purpose of canopy mist netting and bear
the great advantage that they can be hoisted and handled by a single person
(see Kunz et al., 2009 for a detailed description). They are made out of the
same material, but have a vertical instead of a horizontal rectangular shape.
Usually, they are 6 to 9 m high and 3 to 4 m wide. Accordingly they do not have
4 to 5 horizontal shelf strings like a horizontal mist net, but 8 to 10 shelf strings.
Three ropes (10 mm diameter) are required to deploy a vertical canopy net. A
support rope with a length of at least twice the canopy height and a carabineer
attached to its end. This support rope is put around an exposed sturdy branch
as described before. A second rope of approximately the length of the pole is
then attached from end to the other end of the pole. A third rope is then
attached to the second rope at equal distance to the pole’s ends. This third rope
is guided through the carabineer of the first rope (the one suspending from the
branch). Then, the support rope is pulled so that the carabineer at its end is at
the desired height. Afterwards, the canopy net is hoisted by pulling the rope,
which is attached to the pole rope. A fourth rope can be attached to the base
pole to facility the operation of the net in case it gets entangled in branches.
Again, a plastic tarp should be placed at the spot where the canopy net is put
down (Fig. 5).

502
 Fig. 5. Schematic view of a vertical canopy mist net (modified after Kunz et al.,
1988). The net is hoisted via a pulley into the canopy. A tarp is put on the floor
on which the mist net can be lowered when bats are extracted from the net.

Harp traps

Harp traps have been a successful addition to the tool case of bat biologists,
since bats that are never trapped with mist nets are sometimes captured with
harp traps. The reason for this is that fishing lines are very difficult to detect for
bats based on acoustical (or visual) cues. An additional advantage of harp traps
is that bats can be more easily removed from them. Usually, harp traps consist
of 2 to 4 parallel rectangular metal frames (usually 2 m x 3 m) at distances of 4
to 6 cm that each carries a layer of vertically oriented monofilament fishing lines
at distances of 2-3 cm (Fig. 6).
Normally, lines of the outer layer are separated at somewhat larger distances
than the inner layer (in case of three layers). Flying bats usually fall through the
first layer by the momentum of their flight or manage to manoeuvre around the
lines of the first layer but they will hit the second layer. Then, bats fall to the
base of the harp trap into a large canvas or plastic bag. Captured bats can be
easily picked out of this bag. Harp traps with four layers of lines have been
successful for capturing palaeotropical insectivorous bats (Kingston et al.,
2003). The tension of lines, the number of line layers, and the placement of the
harp trap greatly affect its capturing success.

503
 Fig. 6. Harp trap set up in front of the exit hole of a daytime roost. Two bat
species, Noctilio albiventris and Molossus molossus emerged from the roost, hit
the layer of fishing lines and tumbled into the plastic bag from which they were
quickly recovered and transferred to linen bag. (Photo by D.K.N. Dechmann).

504
2.3.2. Trapping procedure

Optimal sites for mist nets

Finding the right spot for putting up mist nets is crucial for a successful mist
netting night. In general, capture success is enhanced when nets are put at
natural flyways, e.g. at a perpendicular angle to a forest edge or across forest
trails. Distinct objects such as cave entrances, buildings, rocks, water holes, etc.
also present good mist netting sites. If bats pass by a certain structure on a
daily basis or emerge from known roosts such as cave entrances, a mist net will
yield a large number of captured bats within a short time period. It may be worth
counting or estimating bats that emerge from a roost before putting up a mist
net. The capture success is enhanced when several mist nets are used at the
same time, preferably in a T-, Z-, Y or V pattern. Feeding sites are also suitable
for capturing specific species. A fruiting or flowering tree will probably attract
several bat species in the tropics or subtropics. Some bat species are attracted
by artificial volatiles e.g. Neotropical nectar-feeding bats by Dimethyldisulphide
(Helversen et al., 2000) and fruit-eating bats by essential oils (Mikich et al.,
2003) or the pulp of fruits (Rieger & Jakob, 1988). Some species are lured into
nets by playback of their prey, conspecific social or echolocation calls.

Optimal sites for harp traps

Harp traps are most efficient when set up at natural flyways of bats (see above).
Since bats can be removed from harp traps at a faster rate than from mist nets,
harp traps should be chosen, when large numbers of bats are expected, e.g. in
front of daytime roosts, at cave entrances, etc. Like canopy nets, harp traps can
also be suspended from large trees or into a canyon.

Time of capture

The number of nets depends on the expected number of bats per mist net, the
number of field workers available and the duration of mist netting. Usually
capturing devices should be set up before sunset, because the 1 to 2 hours time
period following sunset is often the most rewarding time in terms of number of
bats. Mist nets and harp traps should be controlled on a regular schedule
depending on the frequency of captures. In general, a net or trap should be
checked at least every 15 minutes during the peak activity time after sunset.
Bats will readily bite large holes into mist nets while trying to find their way out of
the net. Also, bats may get severely entangled when their presence in the net is
overlooked. Thus, regular visual inspection of mist nets is important.
Capture success decreases as night processes. Mist netting success also drops
drastically, when mist nets or harp traps are set up at the same spot during
subsequent nights. Comparative studies need to ensure that capturing effort (=
total time of mist netting and total length of used mist nets) is about the same for
all study areas.

505
2.3.3. Animal handling

Removing bats from mist nets

With some experience, most bats can be removed from a mist net within a short
time period. In general, many field workers prefer to wear at least one glove to
be protected while holding the bat and then use the other hand to extract it from
the net. When a bat is found entangled in the net, first of all it is essential to
assess from which direction it has flown into the net. As a general rule, those
parts of the bat that entered the net last should be removed first. Therefore, it is
important to check whether the legs of the bat can be grabbed directly. During
the whole process, it is most important to take care that the bat is not injured. A
bat’s finger and forearm bones are particularly vulnerable to physical fraction.
Difficulties may arise when bats get entangled for a prolonged period of time
and when the size of finger bones and forearm matches closely with the mesh
size. In that case, one should start to work first at a single wing, extracting the
fingers and the forearm carefully from the net. Sometimes it helps to expand the
wing moderately. Occasionally, bats get irritated or distressed during the
removal process and may start to bite and emit distress calls. Bats should then
be held firmly and possibly a linen bag should be put close or around the bat’s
head to provide something for the bat to bite. In some rare instances it might be
helpful to have a pair of small scissors at hand to cut some net strands into
which the bat is hopelessly entangled. Sometimes bats may bite into the net,
the string or the glove. Never pull the object away from the bat, but instead blow
frontally against the bat’s head. Eventually the bat will let go. If this is not the
case, use forceps, Q-tips or a small stick to gently open the bat’s mandibles.
Once bats are removed from mist nets, they can be kept in a linen or cotton bag
over a short period of time. In case the bat is supposed to be released, a linen
bag that is wrapped around the bat’s body will also facilitate measurements and
species identification.

Keeping bats temporarily

Soft linen bags are best for keeping bats temporarily. Some materials are too
rough for the skin of bats, especially for the joint of the forearms, which causes
irritations and may consequently lead to inflammations. Therefore, bags should
have approximately thrice the size of the bat in length and width. Preferably a
single bat is put into one bag. Sometimes it may be necessary to put several
bats into a single bag. Then, only individuals of the same species should share
the same bag. However, we advise researchers to avoid this situation as even
individuals of the same species may bite each other when forced to share a
bag. Bats that foraged successfully before being trapped in a net can be kept
over several hours in a bag. Sometimes bats will enter torpor, i.e. they reduce
their body temperature, when kept over a prolonged period of time. Some fruit-
eating and nectar-feeding bats, in particular small ones, should be fed with
diluted honey water before keeping them in a capture bag. They may also
benefit from a few droplets of honey water shortly before they are released.

506
2.3.4. Primary recording data

Species identification

When bats are released at the site of capture it is important to identify the
species in the field. Identification keys are available for some regions of the
world, but not for all. Sometimes, the primary literature needs to be studied prior
to the field trip. In many cases it is essential to bring copies of the primary and
secondary literature to the field. If animals are collected as museum specimens,
identification may be postponed until it is routinely done at the museum.
However, to prevent collection of a superfluous large number of specimens of
the same species, we advise a rough identification of all captured individuals
beforehand.

Sex determination

For the determination of sex, it is important to examine primary and secondary

sexual characteristics, most importantly the genitalia. In some species, both
sexes have well-developed nipples, females may have penis-like clitoris or
males may have minute penis. Therefore, a combination of different traits is
most useful for assessing the sex of a bat.
The reproductive status of females is checked by gentle palpation of the
abdomen. If the reproductive status is important for the study, the reproductive
tract has to be examined after dissection and the size of the fetus (if present)
has to be measured. The examination of the nipples will provide information
about whether a female has lactated or not (Racey, 1988). If the nipples are
enlarged and keratinized, the female is lactating or has lactated very recently.
Lactating bats should never be kept over a prolonged period of time and be
released as soon as possible after processing. In lactating females the area
surrounding the nipples is usually lacking fur.
Males should be checked for inguinal (abdominal) or scrotal testes and
epididymis. Frequently, testes ascend into the abdominal cavity. To verify the
correct sex, testes can be forced to descend by gently pushing the abdomen.
We encourage to record scrotal males and whether a female is lactating or not.

Age categories

Age is categorized in bats as juvenile, subadult and adult.

 Juveniles are generally defined as non-volant young individuals that are

smaller and weigh less than adult individuals. They are often captured
together with their mother. The epiphyses of their bones are not fused, yet,
i.e. there is a light area of a few mm close to the joints of the finger bones
(best examined in the finger bones by shining with a torch light through the
wing from underneath the bat), the pelage is often grayer than the adult fur
and they have deciduous teeth.

507
 Subadults are volant and fully-grown, but still show the unfused epiphyses
(Anthony, 1988).
 Adults show mature size, fused epiphyses, pelage and are often
reproductively active, i.e. males may have large (scrotal or abdominal)
testes and females may be either pregnant or lactating.

Body measurements

The standard measurements for bats include head-body length, tail length, hind
foot length, ear length, forearm length, and body mass (Handley, 1988).
 Body Mass (BM) is recorded in grams with small spring-scales available in
a variety of sizes from 10 g up to 2000 g (e.g. Pesola) and used accordingly
to the animals’ size. Especially for small bats, it should be checked whether
the bat had ingested food before the capture (a bat caught very early in the
night might not have had the chance to ingest a measureable amount of
food). Keeping the bat for a period of time and recording the weight after
excretion might provide a relatively exact weight of small bats (important for
bats with body weights of less than 7 g).
 Head-Body Length (HBL) of a bat is the distance between the back of the
bat’s pelvis and the tip of the snout (European convention) or the distance
between the last caudal vertebra (for bats with tails) and the tip of the snout
(American convention). It should be measured to the nearest 1 mm.
 Tail Length (TL) is the distance from the base of the pelvis to the tip of the
tail. The zero end of the ruler is placed at the base of the tail and the tail is
straightened on the ruler and measured to the nearest 1 mm.
 Hind Foot Length (HFL) is the distance from the base of the calcar or the
calcaneum in bats lacking a calcar respectively to the tip of the longest toe
(tip of the claw for American convention). The foot is flattened on a ruler and
the length is recorded to the nearest 1 mm.
 Ear Length (EL) is measured with a ruler placed gently in the notch at the
base of the ear. The distance between the base and the tip of the pinna
should be measured to the nearest 0.5 mm. In presence of a tragus, form
and length are recorded.
 Forearm Length (FA) is defined as the distance from the elbow (tip of the
ulnar olecranon process) to the wrist. To measure the forearm, the wing has
to be folded. A ruler can be used, but a sliding calliper is more convenient to
record to the nearest 0.5 mm.
Apart from these 5 standard field measurements, other data may also be
relevant for species identification, e.g. the colour of the fur and presence/
absence of colour patterns (e.g. epaulettes, stripes; Handley, 1988).

Other field notes

For each capturing site, the GPS and location data (e.g. distances to road,
river, building, etc.) should be gathered. Additionally, it is important to write

508
down the number and types of nets used. A brief description of the vegetation
and type of habitat (e.g. gallery forest, primary forest, savannah) will help future
data analysis. In some instances, it may also be helpful to draw a map of the
capturing sites. If possible, meteorological data from a close-by weather station
should be noted. As a general recommendation, the season (rainy or dry
season), the cloud cover and the moon phase should be recorded in the field
book.
For each captured bat it is important to note the site of the net, the net number
and type and the height above ground (net shelf). It is essential to record the
time of capture and if applicable the type and location of the roost. In addition,
notes should be made regarding the number of ectoparasites and whether the
captured bat was a recapture. All samples (e.g. faecal, pollen, blood, tissue
samples) taken from the specimen in the field should be labelled and
identification numbers should be added to the field note book. Appendix 2
provides a template data sheet.

2.3.5. Acoustic techniques

Acoustic sampling of bats provides the inventory with important additional

information. Bats, which routinely fly beyond the reach of nets and traps, can be
sampled. Many different bat detectors are used to identify bat species without
the necessity to capture the animals. For more detailed information see Chapter
5.

2.3.6. Workflow and personnel

Mist nets should be set up before sunset. Care should be taken not to open the
nets too early, because birds could get trapped as well. We recommend setting
up a work station where people can work nearby using chairs and a table when
dealing with several mist nets at the same time and when many bats are
expected. Once mist nets are opened, they should be checked at regular
intervals depending on the frequency of bat captures.
If many different samples (e.g. ectoparasites, wing punches, blood samples) are
planned to be collected from each captured bat and a high number of bats are
expected at one site, it might be helpful to divide the work. One person should
check the nets and traps frequently and store the captured bats in bat bags and
provide each bag with a small sheet of paper with notes (net number and shelf,
time of capture). A second person measures and identifies the bats, while a
third person is taking the samples and releases the animals (or keeps the
animals in case of specimen preservation).

3. Preservation and DNA sampling

Depending on the project objectives, the collection and preservation of whole

voucher specimens, or taking DNA tissue samples from live animals are the
best way to identify and document small mammals and bats. For any voucher

509
preservation, collection and import and export permits need to be obtained well
in advance of the field work and special regulations regarding the presence of
threatened or endangered species should be known (see also Chapter 3).
For the collection of specimens, the following five conditions should be met:
 Obtain the appropriate training (and practice) in the preparation and
preservation of vouchers along with all health & safety precautions and
equipment.
 Obtain research methodology clearance from your institutional animal care
and use committee (IACUC in the US). See the recent review by Gannon
et al. (2007) for the US.
 Arrange with a well-curated and officially recognized collection for
accession of your specimens upon return from the field. No vouchers
should be held in “private” or “personal” collections for extended periods.
 Obtain all necessary collecting and export permits from the host country or
state and customs and other import permits from the country where the
vouchers are to be housed (USFWS form 3-177 in the US).
 Keep meticulous records. Attach basic field data and/or a unique number to
each specimen and cross-reference it in your field catalogue or field journal
(Yates et al., 1996). Do not rely solely on electronic records!
The field methods used to kill animals should be quick and as painless as
possible for the animal. Humane methods for euthanizing small mammals in the
field include the use of inhalants like Isofluran and cervical dislocation
(Simmons & Voss, 2009). Lethal injection is another method, but it requires
veterinary training. We highly recommend following regulations of the particular
country, e.g. Veterinary Medical Associations.
Specimens to be kept as vouchers can be killed in a large, tightly closable
container (large wide-mouth lab jars, large pickle jar, some plastic buckets with
lids) in which a cotton swab soaked with an inhalation anaesthetic such as
Isofluran or Enfluran has been placed. The animal should be left in the container
for about 20-30 min. To avoid needless stress for larger animal we suggest
placing the animal in the trap together with the anaesthetic in a tightly sealing
durable plastic bag. Anaesthetics can be difficult to obtain in tropical countries
(contact the country’s chief veterinarian office and/or hospital medical supply
companies). Most anaesthetics are controlled substances for airline travel and
can only be transported by air with special permits and specially labelled
packaging. See the 2007 report of the AVMA (American Veterinary Medical
Association) Panel on Euthanasia for more details (AVMA, 2007). Gannon et al.
(2007) also recommend quick mechanical methods like cervical dislocation for
mammals of small body size, instead of the extra steps of sedation and
anaesthesia that might only add distress to the animals. Field workers should
receive the appropriate training and permits for all of these methods!
Depending on the specific study goal, different ways of preservation are
possible for voucher specimens: museum dry mounts with skull or skeleton or
complete liquid preservation.

510
Irrespective of the type of preservation, standard measurements should be
taken from all specimens before fixation and dead animals should be processed
as quickly as possible. All specimens should be tagged. Tags on dry specimens
should note the (1) collection date, (2) capture locality, (3) collector, (4) field
measurements (Yates et al., 1996). Tags on fluid preserved specimens should
only note the specimen’s sex, the collector’s initials and the field catalogue
number.

Fluid preservation

Fluid preservation is increasingly being used over making dry mounts to save
field time for other activities. It is the preferred method for bats to preserve
important diagnostic facial features (nose-leaves, etc.). DNA tissue samples
from internal organs (e.g. liver, spleen, kidneys) are taken before fluid
preservation. The skull can be removed immediately or later in the museum. Fur
colour should be recorded as exactly as possible before preparing the specimen
because it will fade over time in fluid preservation (Simmons & Voss, 2009).
Usually specimens are now fixed directly in 75% ethanol without intermediate
fixing in formalin (Handley, 1988). In most museum collections the storage
media are ethyl alcohol or isopropyl alcohol. If the specimen has not been
opened to extract DNA tissue samples or to remove internal organs a certain
amount of the storage media should be injected into the specimen’s abdomen
using a conventional syringe and needle. This is particularly important in large
specimens because fermentation of ingesta in the digestive tract will damage
the abdominal tissue. All specimens should be preserved in containers that are
filled with sufficient amounts of fluid and all containers should be tightly sealed.
No pinning or other preparations are required, except for a bit of manual
manipulation of the carcass to straighten it out – in cases where the specimen
has died in a contorted or curled-up position (Griffin & Kolberg, 2004).
Fluid-submerged labels should be of 100% rag paper and labelled with
permanent ink (e.g. Pelican fine drawing ink or similar). Test permanence of
inks/markers before leaving for the field! Attach the label to the right hind foot of
specimens with 100% cotton string (Yates et al., 1996). For field transportation
fluid-preserved specimens remain submerged in ethanol in a tightly sealed
container carried upright (e.g. wide-mouth barrel normally used for water sports:
http://www.curtec.com; available from e.g. http://www.globetrotter.de).
For overseas transportation fluid preserved specimens can be temporarily
preserved by wrapping them in several layers of cotton cheesecloth soaked in
ethanol (moist but not dripping wet!) and packed in a triple layer of zip loc plastic
bags inside a sealed container. In this way they can be safely transported for up
to three days. However, specimens should not be preserved in such a way over
a prolonged period of time.

Dry skins

Prepared dry skins have the advantage of preserving fur colour variations and
of being relatively easy to transport, store, and manage long-term in collections,

511
as they do not require special fire-safe storage facilities and regular fluid level
controls.
In museum dry mounts of small mammals cotton-filled and subsequently
thoroughly dried skins of the animals are preserved with tail and feet attached.
The skull or entire skeleton are usually dried or temporarily stored in ethanol
and later cleaned with the help of dermestid beetle larvae before they are rinsed
and dried again for the collection. We do not provide guidelines for making dry
mounts here but refer readers to various detailed and well-illustrated sources
(Hall, 1962; Setzer, 1968; Nagorsen & Peterson, 1980; Griffin & Kolberg, 2004)
and the abbreviated recommendations in Yates et al. (1996). All of these
sources also discuss standard methods of field catalogue and journal keeping
and appropriate tagging of specimens (Fig. 7).

Fig. 7. Dry-mounted small mammal (Hylomyscus alleni) skin showing “field side” of the
specimen tag with sex, field (collector’s) number, locality, field measurements (total
length-tail-hind foot-ear-weight) and date. (Photo by Jan Decher)

Dry mounted specimens should remain pinned on a foam board or Styrofoam

sheets for several days. In the field these sheets can be cut to fit in shallow
plastic (“Tupperware”) containers where the specimens can be stored safely
from ants and humidity at night or during rain when not being air-dried. A
desiccant (Silicagel-type), which can be recharged by heating over a small fire
or camp stove should be placed in cloth bags inside the specimen containers at
night and during transport. Air-drying skulls or skeletons should be hung from
wire rings to keep away ants or other predators and/or lay them in a little screen
cage to protect them from insects. For overseas transport, specimens should be
un-pinned from the foam sheets and packed in layers of cotton inside the plastic
tubs, which can then placed in expedition boxes or duffle bags padded with
clothes. Skulls can be packed with fluid-preserved materials. If specimens
cannot be prepared immediately post mortem, they should be stored in ethanol
or in plastic bags (to reduce dehydration) and kept frozen until further treatment.

512
DNA samples

Species identification or the verification of the morphologically identified species

in the field can be achieved by DNA analysis. In many cases for the sampling of
DNA tissues the animals do not need to be killed.
Taking wing biopsy punches or small amounts of blood are the most common
DNA sampling methods for bats. Blood can be obtained from venous puncture
of the antebrachial vein running along the anterior edge of the antebrachium or
of the major vein in the interfemoral membrane (Kunz & Kurta, 1988; Watt &
Fenton, 1995). Small amounts of blood can be collected in heparinised
hematocrit tubes and larger samples should be collected by using heparinised
syringes (Dessauer et al., 1990, 1996; Prendini et al., 2002). If the project
design aims to quantify blood parasites or other pathogens, blood should be
collected on a filter paper and/or prepared as a blood smear. Blood smears are
usually fixed in methanol and air-dried.
Tissue samples for genetic analyses can be collected from bats by puncturing
the wing membrane (chiropatagium) or the tail membrane (uropatagium) using
biopsy punches (Worthington-Wilmer & Barratt, 1996). The chiropatagium is
easy to access, is less vascularized and bleeds less compared to the tail
membrane (uropatagium). A 3 mm diameter biopsy punch will yield sufficient
DNA for future analysis. When taking biopsy samples from the wing membrane,
care should be taken not to cause damage to larger veins. The results of Faure
et al. (2009) show that tail wounds healed significantly faster than wing wounds
and more DNA from tail biopsies could be extracted than from wing biopsies of
the same size. They recommend that tissue biopsy for molecular analyses in
bats should be taken from the tail membrane. Biopsies of the wing membrane
are useful for marking associated with recapture programmes, because the
wound and scar will persist longer (Faure et al., 2009). The hole, which is left in
the membrane after puncture, will close and heal within 2 to 4 weeks. If dry
mounted or fluid specimens are being collected, small DNA tissues from internal
organs (liver, kidney, spleen) can be sampled, before these organs are removed
from the specimens.
Tissue samples from live small terrestrial mammals can be collected by tail-
clipping or ear punching. The tail-clipping method implies the amputation of a
small portion (1-2 mm) of the distal tail using sharp scissors. The ear punch
method involves punching a hole or making a notch in the ear. Both methods do
not require the use of anaesthesia or analgetics. In case toe-clipping is applied
as a marking method (see Section 2.2.3) the amputated phalange can be used
for genetic analyses. The tissue is immediately transferred in a vial with
preserving solution (see Chapter 7). Afterwards the scissors and biopsies punch
should be disinfected by dipping the tool into 95 % ethanol and burning the
liquid off with a lighter flame.
The best preservation of fresh tissue samples can be achieved by freezing the
samples using either dry ice or liquid nitrogen (Prendini et al., 2002) or
preserving in a lysis buffer (Longmire et al., 1997). Placing the tissue sample
directly in 95-100% ethanol in leak-proof 5 ml cintillation vials (or similar small
plastic containers) will be more feasible in most situations (Kilpatrick, 2002). For

513
long-term preservation all tissues should be kept frozen (methods for collecting,
storing, and archiving tissue samples: Dessauer et al., 1990, 1996; Longmire
et al., 1997; Kilpatrick, 2002; Prendini et al., 2002). For more detailed
DNA/tissue collection techniques see Chapter 7. The collection of fur, faecal
and pollen samples might be useful for a variety of further studies and we
recommend the book edited by Kunz & Parsons (2009) as a reference.

4. Safety precautions

Handling wild animals can always include the possibility of exposure to zoonotic
diseases (Childs et al., 1995; Gage et al., 1995; Kunz et al., 1996a; Chomel
et al., 2007). Some of these pathogens may have limited health risks others can
lead to fatal diseases (i.e. rabies). This short section discusses some issues
regarding the reduction of health risk during field work. Zoonotic pathogens are
transmitted by various routes. Beside the well-known “rabid bite”, where the
rabies virus is transmitted into the wound via saliva of an infected animal, all
other body fluids can also contain infectious agents. Urine from rodents, for
example, may be a source of hantavirus or Leptospira spp. (Levett, 2001;
Fulhorst et al., 2007; Machado et al., 2009). Even if mice are not handled
directly, urine may have contaminated traps or the surrounding soil.
Aeroionisation is the typical way of contracting a hantavirus infection (Machado
et al., 2009; Olsson et al., 2009). Faeces, blood, and fur can also contain
infectious pathogens. Wearing disposable gloves should become routine habit
when working in direct contact with wild animals. With some larger or more
aggressive species leather gloves are a good protection against bites and
scratches. When gloves become soiled by the animal’s excretions, they can be
disinfected with a spray solution, which needs to be designed to eliminate
viruses, bacteria and fungi on most material surfaces (e.g. Pursept-A Xpress®
(Merz)) at the end of a day’s/night’s field work. The manufacturer’s instructions
should be checked beforehand as not all disinfectants will destroy every
pathogen. Many disinfectants are only designed to destroy bacteria and do not
contain protective remedies for certain viruses or protozoa. A hypochlorite
solution (household bleach) in a 1:10 dilution can also be used. If using a spray,
avoid inhaling the aerosol, for example outdoors by monitoring the wind
direction. Spray solution can also be used to wipe off all equipment (including
traps) and sample containers. For skin disinfection, products are available that
are specially made for this particular purpose (for example: Virusept Manorapid
Synergy® (Merz)), which are less aggressive and also contain some skin care
ingredients.
Another important pathogen vector is dust. Face masks can prevent inhaling
aerosols and/or light particulate matter. Surgical masks may be a first
precaution, but they cannot be considered pathogen safe as they do not seal. A
safe mask needs to cover mouth and nose without any gap and should remain
so for some time. However, in a hot and humid environment the mask’s fabric
easily gets soaked with moisture allowing particles to enter and should be
replaced in time. So-called FFP3 masks (for example manufactured by 3MTR)
feature a small breathing filter to allow air to enter at a lower point of resistance
simultaneously keeping the rim of the mask better attached to the skin. As

514
peoples’ faces are differently shaped it is advisable to try out differently
shaped/sized masks before setting off. Additionally, protective eye gear might
have to be included for field work, particularly if there is a possibility to be
exposed to contaminated material dropping from ceiling inside caves, etc., or
exposure to blood or urine. Mucous membranes can serve as contact points for
many pathogens and the eyes are least protected by the immune system.
Overalls protect and allow discriminating between contaminated working and
everyday clothing.
Carcass dissection increases the risk of exposure to zoonotic pathogens.
Beside the described personal protection, dissection should be performed as
safe and clean as possible. Covering the worktop with a paper towel for each
animal will give cleanliness. A separate disposal bag should be kept ready to
collect soiled gloves, paper towels, etc. Sharp items like scalpel blades must be
stored in an unbreakable container. In case of accidental cuts sufficient
amounts of blood should be pressed out of the wound and the lesion cleaned
from pathogenic agents. The wound can be washed with mineral water or safe
drinking water. Afterwards a disinfectant like Povidone iodine (spray or
ointment) should be applied onto the wound and covered with plaster or clean
bandages. If immediate medical support is far away, the body temperature
should be monitored to detect an infection, which should be medically treated
with antibiotics or likewise as soon as possible.
Above all, it is important to become familiar with zoonotic pathogens that can
occur in certain animal species and a particular geographical area, during the
planning phase. Medical advice should be sought about vaccinations and a
well-equipped first-aid kit, including medication, should be planned well in
advance. All scientists who are working with bats should be vaccinated against
rabies (Rupprecht et al., 2008) as well as travelling to countries with high rabies
prevalence should imply rabies vaccination (Briggs & Hanlon, 2007).
Vaccination against tetanus should be considered obligatory for anybody
working in the field. To list all zoonotic agents would exceed the given space,
but the following website
(http://www.merckvetmanual.com/mvm/htm/bc/tzns01.htm) provides a summary
of pathogens, their animal source and means of transmission. As the
distribution of diseases varies by the different geographic regions information on
specific pathogens can also be retrieved from web pages of OIE, WHO or CDC.
Further information about disease risks for mammalogists can also be found in
the following publications: Cox (1979); Krebs et al. (1995); Mills et al. (1995);
Kunz et al. (1996a); Hafner (2007).

5. Practical notes

5.1. Checklist “Before launching“

Before launching a mammal biodiversity inventory, the investigator must clearly

define the objective(s) of the study. The objective(s) guide the survey through all
stages of planning and execution (Rudran & Foster, 1996). Fund raising,
establishing contacts with other experts, review of scientific literature, purchase

515
of equipment, recruitment of personnel and organisation of the travel itself
(flight, visa, permits, transport of equipment, vaccinations, etc.) usually need
more time then estimated in the beginning, according to experience.
The first step in preparing for a survey is to review the scientific literature for
mammal studies conducted in the project area, at nearby sites or in comparable
habitats in the region. The information obtained is used to compile a preliminary
list of species that may be encountered at the study site. Identification keys
relevant to the study area and other guide books should be obtained. For
example, in the case of West Africa, the only published field key for shrews is
The Shrews of Nigeria (Hutterer & Happold, 1988) and for rodents we still
frequently use The Mammals of Africa, an identification manual (Meester &
Setzer, 1971). If no identification keys are available for the specific study area, a
preliminary survey and/or visits to museum mammal collections to become
familiar with the species which might be expected, should be considered.
Knowledge of the natural history (physiology, behaviour, distribution) of the
target species is important for choosing the right techniques. The choice of
appropriate techniques depends on the available budget and on the specifics of
the field situation. Purchase of equipment and recruitment of personnel should
commence as their need is really identified.
During the planning phase it is important to contact other experts and/or project
coordinators to gain access to information about the region, habitat and fauna.
Information about on-site logistics, e.g. accessibility of field sites (foot/vehicle),
storage options for vouchers (esp. in the tropics), lab space (if needed),
availability of drinking water, medical care, maps, etc. are helpful for planning.
Please inform and prepare yourself also about human health concerns and
disease risks. It might also be useful to coordinate your survey with other
scientists, for example with botanists, who would provide habitat descriptions.

5.2. Field equipment

A list of field equipment for an inventory of terrestrial small mammals and bats is
provided in Appendix 3. It covers: trapping, netting, treatment of the animals,
tissue taking in the field, specimen preservation, habitat assessment and others.
This list is not exhaustive and has to be adapted to the particular inventory. The
set of equipment of course depends on e.g. the selected methods, selected
sites, local conditions and others.

5.3. Simultaneous inventory of small mammals and bats

If nocturnal bat work is planned (see Section 2.3) it can be helpful to split the
team into a bat and a terrestrial small mammal group allowing the bat group to
sleep in in the morning and not participate in early morning trap checks after
long hours of nocturnal netting and processing of bats (Tab. 2).

516
 Bat Group Small Mammal Group
0400-0600h resting (alternative: early resting
morning bat netting, depending
on team size)
0600-0900h resting early morning trap inspection
0900-1000h resting / breakfast breakfast
1000-1300h Bat voucher processing Small Mammal voucher processing
1300-1400h lunch lunch
1400-1500h afternoon rest / field note afternoon rest / field note writing
writing
1500-1800h re-setting of bat nets / harp voucher preparation followed by
trap. Mending of nets replacing/opening of traps
1800-1900h dinner & opening of nets dinner
1900-2300h bat netting assist with bat netting,
also nocturnal surveys for galagos,
civets, pottos etc. with flash light
and camera / tape recorder
2300-0100h bat netting resting
0100-0400h resting resting
Table 2. “Idealized” 2-group field team schedule for bat and small mammal work.

5.4. By-catch

Quite frequently non-target species are captured during small mammal and bat
surveys. Apart from non-target mammal species a diverse suite of species
belonging to invertebrates (insects, snails, etc.) and other vertebrates, e.g.
lizards, snakes, birds are sometimes captured coincidentally.
See the corresponding Chapters in this manual for handling/preservation of
these species.
 Nocturnal/crepuscular birds in mist nets; during night and day birds in
tomahawk traps, large Sherman traps, snap traps.
 Snakes, lizards, amphibians in Pitfall traps, Sherman traps, Snap traps.
 Insects in mist nets (e.g. Coleoptera, Lepidoptera), Sherman traps, Pitfall
traps.

6. References

AMERICAN VETERINARY MEDICAL ASSOCIATION. 2007. AVMA Guidelines on

Euthanasia. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 218: 669-
696.
ANADU, P.A., ELAMAH, P.O. & OATES J.F. 1988. The bushmeat trade in
southwestern Nigeria: a case study. Human Ecology 16: 199-208.
ANDRZEJEWSKI, R., FEJGIN, H. & LIRO A. 1971. Trappability of trap-prone and
trap-shy bank voles. Acta Theriologica 16: 401-412.
ANGELICI, F.M., LUISELLI, L. & POLITANO, E. 1999. Distribution and habitat of
selected carnivores (Herpestidae, Mustelidae, Viverridae) in the rainforests of

517
southeastern Nigeria. Zeitschrift für Säugetierkunde 64: 116-120.
ANTHONY, E.L.P. 1988. Age determination in bats. In: Kunz, T.H. (Ed.).
Ecological and Behavioral Methods for the study of bats. Smithsonian Institution
Press, Washington, DC: 47-58.
ANTHONY, N.M., RIBIC, C.A. BAUTZ, R. & GARLAND JR.,T. 2005. Comparative
effectiveness of Longworth and Sherman live traps. Wildlife Society Bulletin 33:
1018-1026.
BANG, P. & DAHLSTROM, P. 2001. Animal tracks and signs. Oxford University
Press, UK: 264 pp.
BOURLIERE, F. 1975. Mammals, small and large: the ecological implications of
size. In: GOLLEY, F., PETRUSEWICZ, K. & RYSZKOWSKI, L. (Eds). Small mammals:
their productivity and population dynamics. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, UK: 1-8.
BOWKETT, A.E., LUNT, N., ROVERO, F. & PLOWMAN, A.B. 2006. How do you
monitor rare and elusive mammals? Counting duikers in Kenya, Tanzania and
Zimbabwe. In: ZGRABCZYÑSKA, E., ĆWIERTNIA, P. & ZIOMEK, J. (Eds). Animals,
Zoos and Conservation. Zoological Garden in Poznan, Poland: 21-28.
BOYE, P. 1994. Heimische Säugetiere. Ein Bestimmungsschlüssel für die in der
Bundesrepublik Deutschland wildlebenden Säugetiere, ausser den Ordnungen
Robben, Paarhufer und Wale. 11. Edition. Deutscher Jugendbund für
Naturbeobachtungen, Hamburg: 103 pp.
BRIGGS, D. & HANLON, C.A. 2007. World Rabies Day: focussing attention on a
neglected disease. Veterinary Record 161: 288-289.
CAUGHLEY, G. 1977. Analysis of Vertebrate populations. John Wiley and Sons,
New York: 234 pp.
CHILDS, J.E., MILLS, J.N. & GLASS, G.E. 1995. Rodent-borne hemorrhagic fever
viruses: A special risk for mammalogists? Journal of Mammalogy 76: 664-680.
CHOATE, J.R. 1971. Notes on geographic distribution and habitats of mammals
eaten by owls in southern New England. Kansas Academy of Science 74: 212-
216.
CHOMEL, B.B., BELOTTO, A. & MESLIN, F.-X. 2007. Wildlife, exotic pets, and
emerging diseases. Emerging Infectious Diseases 13: 6-11.
COETZEE, C.G. 1972. The identification of Southern African small mammal
remains in the owl pellets. Cimbebasia, Series A 2: 54-62.
COLE, F.R. & WILSON, D.E. 1996. Mammalian Diversity and Natural History
(Chapter 2). In: WILSON, D.E., COLE, F.R., NICHOLS, J.D., RUDRAN, R. & FOSTER,
M.S. (Eds). Measuring and Monitoring Biological Diversity: Standard Methods
for Mammals. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington and London: 9-39.
COLWELL, R.K., MAO, C.X. & CHANG, J. 2004. Interpolating, extrapolating, and
comparing incidence-based species accumulation curves. Ecology 85: 2717-
2727.

518
CORBET, G.B. & HARRIS, S. 1990. The handbook of British mammals. 3rd
Edition. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford: 588 pp.
COX, F.E.G. 1979. Ecological Importance of small mammals as reservoirs of
disease. In: STODDART, D.M. (Ed.). Ecology of small mammals. John Wiley &
Sons, New York: 213-238.
CROOKES, D.J., ANKUDEY, N. & MILNER–GULLAND, E.J. 2005. The value of a long-
term bushmeat market dataset as an indicator of system dynamics.
Environmental Conservation, 32: 333-339.
DAVIS, E.D. 1982. CRC Handbook of Census Methods for Terrestrial
Vertebrates. CRS Press, Boca Raton, Florida: 397 pp.
DECHER, J., NORRIS, R.W. & FAHR, J. in press. Small mammal survey in the
upper Seli River valley, Sierra Leone. Mammalia.
DELANY, M.J. 1974. Ecology of small mammals. Studies in Biology no. 51.
Hodder & Stoughton Educational, UK: 60 pp.
DESSAUER, H.C., COLE, C.J. & HAFFNER M.S. 1990. Collection and storage of
tissues. In: HILLIS D.M. & MORITZ, C. (Eds). Molecular Systematics. Sinauer,
Sunderland, MA: 25-41.
DESSAUER, H.C., COLE, C.J. & HAFFNER, M.S. 1996. Collection and storage of
tissues. In: HILLIS, D.M. MORITZ, C. & Mable B.K. (Eds). Molecular systematics,
2nd edition. Sinauer, Sunderland, MA: 29-47.
DI SALVO, A.F., AJELLO, L., PALMER, J.W., WINKLER, J.R. & WINKLER, W.G. 1969.
Isolation of Histoplasma capsulatum from Arizona bats. American Journal of
Epidemiology 89: 606-614.
DOGGART, N., PERKIN, A., KIURE, J., FJELDSA, J., POYNTON, J. & BURGESS, N.
2006. Changing places: how the results of new field work in the Rubeho
Mountains influence conservation priorities in the Eastern Arc Mountains of
Tanzania. African Journal of Ecology 44: 134-144.
DRICKAMER, L.C. 1987. Influence of time of day on captures of two species of
Peromyscus in a New England deciduous forest. Journal of Mammalogy 68:
702-703.
DUESER, R.D. & SHUGART JR., H.H. 1978. Microhabitats in a forest-floor small
mammal fauna. Ecology, 59: 89-98.
DUESER, R.D. & SHUGART JR., H.H. 1979. Niche pattern in a forest-floor small
mammal fauna. Ecology 60: 108-118.
ELTON, C. & NICHOLSON, M. 1942. The ten-year cycle in numbers of the lynx in
Canada. Journal of Animal Ecology 11: 215-244.
FAURE, P.A., RE, D.E. & CLARE, E.L. 2009. Wound healing in the flight
membranes of Big Brown Bats. Journal of Mammalogy 90: 1148-1156.
FORESMAN, K.R & PEARSON, D.E. 1998. Comparison of proposed survey
procedures for detection of forest carnivores. Journal of Wildlife Management
62: 1217-1226.

519
FRANCIS, C.M. 1994. Vertical stratification of fruit bats (Pteropodidae) in lowland
dipterocarp rainforest in Malaysia. Journal of Tropical Ecology 10: 523-530
FRASER, J.L., THOMPSON, G.G. & MORO, D. 2003. Adequacy of terrestrial fauna
surveys for the preparation of Environmental Impact Assessments in the mining
industry of Western Australia. Ecological Management & Restoration 4: 187-
192.
FULHORST, C.F., MILAZZO, M.L., ARMSTRONG, L.R., CHILDS, J.E., ROLLIN, P.E.,
KHABBAZ, R., PETERS, C.J. & KSIAZEK, T.G. 2007. Hantavirus and arenavirus
antibodies in persons with occupational rodent exposure, North America.
Emerging Infectious Diseases 13: 532-538.
GAGE, K.L., OSTFELD, R.S. & OLSON, J.G. 1995. Non-viral vector-borne zoonoses
associated with mammals in the United States. Journal of Mammalogy 76: 695-
715.
GAINES, M.S. & MCCLENAGHAN JR.,L.R. 1980. Dispersal in small mammals.
Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 11: 163-196.
GANNON, W.L., SIKES, R.S. & ASM ANIMAL CARE AND USE COMMITTEE 2007.
Guidelines of the American Society of Mammalogist for the use of wild animals
in research. Journal of Mammalogy 88: 809-823.
http://www.mammalogy.org/committees/commanimalcareuse/ASM%20Animal%
20Guidelines.pdf
GARDNER, S.L. 1996. Field parasitology techniques for use with mammals
(Appendix 6). In: WILSON, D.E., COLE, F.R., NICHOLS, J.D., RUDRAN, R. & FOSTER,
M.S. (Eds). Measuring and monitoring biological diversity. Standard methods for
mammals. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington and London: 291-298.
GREENLAW, J.S. & SWINEBROAD, J. 1967. A method for constructing and erecting
aerial-nets in a forest. Bird-Banding 38: 114-119.
GRIFFIN, M. & KOLBERG, H. 2004. Preserving biological specimens: a guide for
Namibians. Biosystematics Working Group, National Biodiversity Programme,
Windhoek, Namibia: 112 pp.
GURNELL, J. & FLOWERDEW, J.R. 2006. Live trapping small mammals. A practical
guide. 4th Edition. The Mammal Society, London: 48 pp.
HAFNER, M.S. 2007. Field research in mammalogy: An enterprise in peril.
Journal of Mammalogy 88: 1119 -1128.
HALL, E.R. 1962. Collecting and preparing study specimens of vertebrates.
University of Kansas Museum of Natural History, Miscellaneous Publications 30:
1-46.
HANDLEY, C.O. JR. 1988. Specimen preparation. In: Kunz, T.H. (Ed). Ecological
and Behavioral Methods for the study of bats. Smithsonian Institution Press,
Washington, DC.: 437-458.
HANDLEY, C.O. & KALKO E.K.V. 1993. A short history of pitfall trapping in
America, with a review of methods currently used for small mammals. Virginia
Journal of Science 44: 19-26.

520
HELVERSEN, O. VON, WINKLER, L. & BESTMANN, H.J. 2000. Sulphur-containing
“perfumes“ attract flower-visiting bats. Journal of Comparative Physiology A
186: 143-153.
HOFFMANN, A. 1995. Fangeffizienz verschiedener Fallentypen für Kleinsäuger.
In: STUBBE, M., STUBBE, A. & HEIDECKE, D. (Eds). Methoden feldökologischer
Säugetierforschung, Martin-Luther Universität Halle-Wittenberg.
Wissenschaftliche Beiträge, Band 1: 273-280.
HOFFMANN, A. 1999. Habitatnutzung und Populationsdynamik von Kleinsäugern
im Grasland des Queen Elizabeth National Park, Uganda. Dissertation,
Technische Universität Braunschweig, Germany: 228 pp. http://www.biblio.tu-
bs.de/ediss/data/20000114a/20000114a.html.
HUTTERER, R. & HAPPOLD, D.C.D. 1983. The shrews of Nigeria. Bonner
Zoologische Monographien 18: 1-79.
JAMES, F.C. 1978. On understanding quantitative surveys of vegetation.
American Birds 32: 18-21.
JAMES, F.C. & SHUGART, H.H. 1970. A quantitative method of habitat description.
Audubon Field Notes 24: 727-736.
JONES, C., MCSHEA, W.J., CONROY, M.J. & KUNZ, T.H. 1996. Capturing Mammals
(Chapter 8). In: WILSON, D.E., COLE, F.R., NICHOLS, J.D., RUDRAN, R. & FOSTER,
M.S. (Eds). Measuring and monitoring biological diversity. Standard methods for
mammals. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington and London: 115-155.
KALKO, E.K.V. & HANDLEY JR., C.O. 1993. Comparative studies of small mammal
populations with transects of snap traps and pitfall arrays in southwestern
Virginia. Virginia Journal of Science 44: 3-18.
KINGSTON, T., FRANCIS, C.M., AKBAR, Z. & KUNZ, T.H. 2003. Species richness in
an insectivorous bat assemblage from Malaysia. Journal of Tropical Ecology 19:
1-12.
KILPATRICK, C.W. 2002. Non-cryogenic preservation of mammalian tissues for
DNA extraction: an assessment of storage methods. Biochemical Genetics 40:
53-62.
KIRKLAND, G.L.J. & SHEPPARD, P.K. 1994. Proposed standard protocol for
sampling small mammal communities. In: MERRITT, J.F., KIRKLAND, JR. G.L. &
ROSE, R.K. (Eds). Advances in the biology of shrews. Carnegie Museum of
Natural History, Special Publications, Pittsburg, Pennsylvania, 18: 277-283.
KITCHINGS, J.T. & LEVY, D.J. 1981. Habitat patterns in a small mammal
community. Journal of Mammalogy 62: 814-820.
KREBS, C.J. 1989. Ecological methodology. Harper Collins Publishers, Inc., New
York: xii + 654 pp.
KREBS, J.W., WILSON, M.L. & CHILDS, J.E. 1995. Rabies - epidemiology,
prevention, and future research. Journal of Mammalogy 76: 681-694.
KUNZ, T.H. & KURTA, A. 1988. Capture methods and holding devices. In: KUNZ,
T.H. (Ed.). Ecological and Behavioral Methods for the study of bats.

521
Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC.: 1-30.
KUNZ, T.H. & PARSONS S. 2009. Ecological and behavioral methods for the study
of bats. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore: xvii + 901 pp.
KUNZ, T.H., HODGKISON, R. & WEISE, C. 2009. Methods of capturing and
handling bats. In: KUNZ, T.H. & Parsons, S. (Eds). Ecological and behavioral
methods for the study of bats. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore:
3-35.
KUNZ, T.H., RUDRAN, R. & GURRI-GLASS, G. 1996a. Human Health Concerns
(Appendix 2). In: WILSON, D.E., COLE, F.R., NICHOLS, J.D., RUDRAN, R. & FOSTER,
M.S. (Eds). Measuring and monitoring biological diversity. Standard methods for
mammals. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington and London: 255-264.
KUNZ, T.H., TIDEMANN, C.R. & RICHARDS. G.C. 1996b. Capturing Mammals
(Chapter 8): Small volant mammals. In: WILSON, D.E., COLE, F.R., NICHOLS, J.D.,
RUDRAN, R. & FOSTER, M.S. (Eds). Measuring and monitoring biological
diversity. Standard methods for mammals. Smithsonian Institution Press,
Washington and London: 122-146.
KUNZ, T.H., WEMMER, C. & HAYSSEN, V. 1996c. Sex, age, and reproductive
condition of mammals (Appendix 5). In: WILSON, D.E., COLE, F.R., NICHOLS, J.D.,
RUDRAN, R. & FOSTER, M.S. (Eds). Measuring and monitoring biological
diversity. Standard methods for mammals. Smithsonian Institution Press,
Washington and London: 279-290.
LEVETT, P.N. 2001. Leptospirosis. Clinical Microbiology Reviews 14: 296-326.
LONGMIRE, J.L., MALTBIE, M. & BAKER, R.J. 1997. Use of “lysis buffer” in DNA
isolation and its implication for museum collections. Occasional Papers, Texas
Tech University 163: 1-4.
MACDONALD, D.W. & BARRETT, P. 2002. Mammals of Europe. Princeton
University Press: 320 pp.
MACHADO, A.M., GARCIA DE FIGUEIREDO, G., SABINO DOS SANTOS JR, G. & TADEU
MORAES FIGUEIREDO, L. 2009. Laboratory diagnosis of human hantavirus
infection: novel insights and future potential. Future Virology 4: 383-389.
MALCOLM, J.R. 1991. Comparative abundance of Neotropical small mammals by
trap height. Journal of Mammalogy 72: 188-192.
MALCOLM, J.R. 1995. Forest structure and the abundance and diversity of
neotropical small mammals. In: LOWMAN, M.D. & NADKARNI, N.M. (Eds). Forest
canopies. Academic Press, San Diego: 179-197.
MARTIN, R.E., DEBLASE, A.F. & PINE, R.H. 2000. A manual of mammalogy.
McGaw Hill, New York: 333 pp.
MEESTER, J. & SETZER, H.W. 1971. The mammals of Africa. An identification
manual. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington: 15 parts, unpaginated.
MIKICH, S.B., BIANCONI, G.V., MAIA, B.H. & TEIXERIA, S.D. 2003. Attraction of the
fruit-eating bat Carollia perspicillata to Piper gaudichaudianum essential oil.
Journal of Chemical Ecology 29: 81-86.

522
MILLS, J.N., YATES, T.L., CHILDS, J.E., PARMENTER, R.R., KSIAZEK, T.G., ROLLIN,
P.E. & PETERS, C.J. 1995. Guidelines for working with rodents potentially
infected with hantavirus. Journal of Mammalogy 76: 716-722.
MORRIS, P. 1972. A review of mammalian age determination methods. Mammal
Review 2: 69-104.
MÜHLENBERG, M. 1993. Freilandökologie. 3rd Edition. Quelle & Meyer Verlag,
Heidelberg, Wiesbaden: 512 pp.
MUNN, C.A. 1991. Tropical canopy netting and shooting lines over tall trees.
Journal of Field Ornithology 62: 454-463.
NADKARNI, H.N. 1988. Use of portable platform for observations of tropical forest
canopy animals. Biotropica 20: 350-351.
NAGORSEN, D.W. & PETERSON, R.L. 1980. Mammal collectors´ manual. A guide
for collecting, documenting, and preparing mammal specimens for scientific
research. Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto: 79 pp.
NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC SOCIETY 1998. Rain forest – heroes of the high frontier.
VHS tape. 60 minutes.
NICOLAS, V. & COLYN, M. 2006. Relative efficiency of three types of small
mammal traps in an African rainforest. Belgian Journal of Zoology 136: 107-111.
NICOLAS, V., BARRIÈRE, P., TAPIERO, A. & COLYN, M. 2009. Shrew species
diversity and abundance in Ziama Biosphere Reserve, Guinea: comparison
among primary forest, degraded forest and restoration plots. Biodiversity and
Conservation 18: 2043-2061.
OHNESORGE, G. & SCHEIBA, B. 2007. Tierspuren & Fährten in Feld und Wald.
Bassermann Verlag, München: 344 pp.
OLSSON, G.E., HJERTQVIST, M., LUNDKVIST, A. & HÖRNFELDT, B. 2009. Predicting
high risk for human hantavirus infections, Sweden. Emerging Infectious
Diseases 15: 104-106.
PANKAKOSKI, E. 1979. The cone trap - a useful tool for index trapping of small
mammals. Annales Zoologici Fennici 16: 144-150.
PERRY, R.W., TAPPE, P.A., PEITZ, D.G., THILL, R.E., MELCHOIRS, M.A. & WIGLEY,
T.B. 1996. A Comparison of Snap Traps for Evaluating Small Mammal
Populations. Proceedings of the Annual Conference of Southeastern
Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 50: 280-286.
PRENDINI L., HANNER R. & DESALLE R. 2002. Obtaining, storing and archiving
specimens for molecular genetic research. In: DESALLE. R., GIRIBET, G. &
WHEELER W. (Eds). Methods and tools in biosciences and medicine (MTBM)
techniques in molecular systematics and evolution, Birkhauser, Basel: 176-248.
PUCEK, Z. & LOWE, V.P.W. 1975. Age criteria in small mammals. In: GOLLEY,
F.B., PETRUSEWICZ, K. & RYSZKOWSKI, L. (Eds). Small mammals: their
productivity and population dynamics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge:
55-72.

523
RACEY, P.A. 1988. Reproductive assessment in bats. In: KUNZ, T.H. (Ed.).
Ecological and Behavioral Methods for the Study of Bats. Smithsonian Institute
Press, Washington, DC: 31-46.
RATHBUN, G.B. 1979. The social structure and ecology of elephant-shrews.
Zeitschrift für Tierpsychologie 20: 1-77.
RAUTENBACH, I.L. 1985. A new technique for the efficient use of macro-mistnets.
Koedoe 28: 1-86.
REZENDES, P. 1999. Tracking and the art of seeing - how to read animal tracks
and signs. Harper Collins, New York: 336 pp.
RIEGER, J.F. & JAKOB, E.M. 1988. The sue of olfaction in food location by
frugivorous bats. Biotropica 20: 161-164.
RUDRAN, R. & FOSTER, M.S. 1996. Conducting a survey to assess mammalian
diversity (Chapter 5). In: WILSON, D.E., COLE, F.R., NICHOLS, J.D., RUDRAN, R. &
FOSTER, M.S. (Eds). Measuring and monitoring biological diversity. Standard
methods for mammals. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington and London:
71-79.
RUDRAN, R. & KUNZ, T.H. 1996. Methods for marking mammals (Appendix 7). In:
WILSON, D.E., COLE, F.R., NICHOLS, J.D., RUDRAN, R. & FOSTER, M.S. (Eds).
Measuring and monitoring biological diversity. Standard methods for mammals.
Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington and London: 299-310.
RUPPRECHT, C.E., BARRETT, J., BRIGGS, D., CLIQUET, F., FOOKS, A.R.,
LUMLERTDACHA, B., MESLIN, F.X., MÜLLER, T., NEL, L.H., SCHNEIDER, C., TORDO,
N. & WANDELER, A.I. 2008. Can rabies be eradicated? Developments in
Biologicals (Basel) 131: 95-121.
SCHMIDT, K. & KOWALCYK, R. 2006. Using scent-Marking stations to collect hair
samples to monitor Eurasian Lynx populations. Wildlife Society Bulletin 34: 462-
466.
SETZER, H.W. 1968. Directions for preserving mammals for museum study.
Smithsonian Institution Information Leaflet 380: 1-19.
SHIER, C.J. & BOYCE, M.S. 2009. Mink prey diversity correlates with mink-
muskrat dynamics. Journal of Mammalogy 90: 897-905.
SIMMONS, N.B. & VOSS, R.S. 2009. Collection, preparation, and fixation of
specimens and tissues. In: KUNZ, T.H. & PARSONS, S. (Eds). Ecological and
behavioral methods for the study of bats. The Johns Hopkins University Press,
Baltimore: 849-867.
SIMPSON, G.G. 1931. A new classification of mammals. Bulletin of the American
Museum of Natural History 59: 259-293.
SMITH, G.C., KAUFMAN, D.W., JONES, R.M., GENTRY, J.B. & SMITH, M.H. 1971.
The relative effectiveness of two types of snap traps. Acta Theriologica 16: 284-
288.
SMITH, M.H., GARDNER, R.H., GENTRY, J.B., KAUFMAN, D.W. & O'FARRELL, M.H.
1975. Density estimations of small mammals populations. In: GOLLEY, F.B.,

524
PETRUSEWICZ, K. & RYSZKOWSKI, L. (Eds). Small mammals: their productivity and
population dynamics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge: 25-53.
STUART, C. & STUART, T. 1994. A field guide to the tracks and signs of Southern
and East African wildlife. Southern Book Publishers, Cape Town: 310 pp.
STODDART, D.M. 1979. Ecology of small mammals. John Wiley & Sons, New
York: 386 pp.
TWIGG, G.I. 1975. Marking mammals. Mammal Review 5: 110-116.
TWIGG, G.I. 1978. Marking mammals by tissue removal. In: STONEHOUSE,
B. (Ed.). Animal Marking: recognition marking of animals in research. Macmillan
Press, London: 109-118.
WATT, E.M. & FENTON, M.B. 1995. DNA fingerprinting provides evidence of
discriminate suckling and non-random mating in little brown bats Myotis
lucifugus. Molecular Ecology 4: 261-264.
WEMMER, C., LUNDIE-JENKIN, G., KUNZ, T.H. & MCSHEA, W.J 1996. Mammalian
signs (Chapter 9). In: WILSON, D.E., COLE, F.R., NICHOLS, J.D., RUDRAN, R. &
FOSTER, M.S. (Eds). Measuring and monitoring biological diversity. Standard
methods for mammals. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington and London:
157-176.
WILSON, D.E, COLE, F.R, NICHOLS, J.D., RUDRAN, R. & FOSTER, M.S. 1996.
Measuring and monitoring biological diversity. Standard methods for mammals.
Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington: 409 pp.
WILSON, D.E. & REEDER, D.A.M. 2005. Mammal Species of the World. 3rd
Edition. volumes I+II Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore:. 2142 pp. URL:
http://www.bucknell.edu/msw3/
WILSON, E.O. 1992. The diversity of life. Harvard University Press, Cambridge,
Massachusetts: 424 pp.
WORTHINGTON-WILMER, J. & BARRATT, E. 1996. A non-lethal method of tissue
sampling for genetic studies of chiropterans. Bat Research News 37: 1-3.
YATES, T.L., JONES, C. & COOK, J.A. 1996. Preservation of voucher specimens
(Appendix 3). In: WILSON, D.E., COLE, F.R., NICHOLS, J.D., RUDRAN, R. & FOSTER,
M.S. (Eds). Measuring and monitoring biological diversity. Standard methods for
mammals. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington and London: 265-273.
ZIELINSKI, W.J. 1995. Track Plates. In: ZIELINSKI, W.J. & KUCERA, T.E. (Eds).
American marten, fisher, lynx, and wolverine: survey methods for their
detection. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-157. Albany, CA: Pacific Southwest
Research Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture: 67-89.

525
7. Appendices

Appendix 1. List of recording elements of capture for small terrestrial mammals.

Abbreviations: ID = identification

Recording capture data (Micro-) Habitat description

 Field number (consecutive) Description of trap location/station

 Individual ID (in case of recapture)  Trap height
 Date  Canopy density
 Collector(s)  Nearest tree/dbh
 Site ID  Nearest log/stump & diameter
 Check time / Control  Distance to water
 Trapline ID  Groundcover (percent herbs, grass,
 Trap ID soil, leaf litter, wood, rocks,
 Trap type debris)
 Bait used  Nearest termite mound (in tropical
 GPS environments)
 Species (Field ID)
 Sex: Male, Female, unknown Inventory of environmental features
 Age: Adult, Subadult, Juvenile  Elevation
 Reproductive Status:  Rainfall (last 12/24 hours if rain
Male: Testes descended or non gauge has been installed)
descended  Temperature (min/max if recording
thermometer has been
Female: Pregnant, Lactating, Vagina
installed)
perforated or non-perforated or
plugged  Humidity (min/max if recording
hygrometer has been installed)
 Body mass (g), BM
 Vegetation: ground cover, plant
 Head-body length (mm), HBL
height, plant diversity, stage of
 Tail length (mm), TL
maturity, canopy density
 Hind foot length (mm), HFL
 Habitat structures (rocks, burrows,
 Ear length (mm), EL soil, logs, termite mounds etc)
 Tissue sample  Abundance of epigaeic arthropods
 Parasite sample
 Marking
 Remarks: e.g. fate (released/recapture/
voucher/dead/kept/marked/ etc.)

526
 Appendix 2. Template data sheet for recording capture data for bats. Abbreviations: BM = Body mass, FA = Forearm
length; HBL = Head-body length; TL = Tail length; HFL = Hind foot length; EL = Ear length

Date:
GPS: Moon Phase:
Location Data: Cloud Cover:
Habitat: Types and Lengths of Nets/Traps:
Season: Net Opening Hours/ Trapping Hours:

Repr. FA HBL TL HFL EL

No. Date Species Site Time # Net # Shelf BM (g) Sex Age Remarks
Status (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm)

527
Appendix 3. List of field equipment for an inventory of small terrestrial mammals and
bats.
This list is not exhaustive.

Small Mammals Bats

Trapping Netting
 Traps: Sherman, Tomahawk, (Snap  Mist nets (different sizes)
traps?)  3 meter poles for standard ground
 Bait: Peanut butter (unsalted), oats nets (e.g. sectional aluminium or
 Insulation material: e.g. 2 litre milk PVC, if they can not be cut in the
cartons (tetrapaks) field)
 Bedding material for traps  Stakes
 Pitfall traps (buckets 5 litre)  Roles of string
 Funnel (custom-made)  Canopy net unit, freestanding
 Drift fence (e.g. roll of green nylon (sectional aluminium poles, ropes,
cord) pulley carabiners, large stakes) or:
 Staple gun and staples Canopy unit hanging
 Poles  Sling shot, bow and arrow, crossbow
 Tape measure (30 m) or a line-shooting gun to attach
 Marker tape (biodegradable, non- hanging canopy unit
polluting/brightly coloured /  Harp trap kit (additional fishing lines)
reflective)  Marker tape (biodegradable, non-
 Marking pen (water resistant) polluting/brightly coloured/ reflective)
 Aluminium tags

Treatment of animals
Treatment of animals  Gloves (firm to bites)
 Gloves (firm to bites)  Linen or cotton capture bags
 Disposable gloves  Measurement tools (ruler, calliper)
 Plastic bags (3 litre size) or cloth  Spring balances (10 g, 30 g, 100 g
 Measurement tools (ruler, calliper) and 300 g); or larger ones (1 kg ) for
 Spring balances (10 g, 30 g, 100 g Megachiroptera
and 300 g); or larger ones (1 kg, 5  Field book
kg) for animals caught in  Identification keys
Tomahawk traps
 Tubes 5-6 (15-50 mm diameter,
length 15-25 cm) from acrylic glass Tissue taking in the field
 Cotton wool  Forceps
 Marking tools (if requested)  Syringes and needles
 Cage  Heparinised hematocrit tubes
 Field book  Microscope slides
 Identification keys  Biopsy punches & 2 ml vials
 Filter paper
 Lighter (for forceps sterilization)
Tissue taking in the field  Methanol (fixation of blood smears)
 Scissors, forceps  95% Ethanol for DNA tissue (or
 DNA tools: vials … DMSO)
 95% Ethanol for DNA tissue (or
DMSO)

528
Specimen preservation dry/wet
 Container/jar (large, tightly sealing) for killing
 Shallow plastic containers (“Tupperware”)
 Wide-mouth barrel (CurTec wide neck kegs)
 Disposable gloves
 Plastic bags (3 litre size) or cloth
 Inhalation anaesthetic (e.g. Isofluran)
 Formalin
 95% (75%) Ethanol for whole body preservation
 Cintillation vials (leak-proof 5 ml)
 Scissors, scalpel
 Labels (fluid-submerged) of 100% rag paper
 Tags
 Thread or twine for tags
 Permanent ink (e.g. Pelican fine drawing ink or similar)
 Board or styrofoam sheets
 Pins, wire rings, needle
 Wires of differing thickness, wire cutters
 Cotton wool, quilting cotton, long fibre cotton
 Maize meal
 Desiccants (Silica Gel-type)
 Screen cage
Other
 Hand-held GPS unit
 Digital camera/ ideally SLR with Macro lens & flash
 Binocular
 Headlamps, additional flash lights
 Spare batteries of all needed sizes (D cell, AA, AAA etc.)
 Buckets, bowls, strainer, measuring pitcher and funnel
 Equipment case (waterproof, firm, well-arranged) e.g. light
toolbox
 Rucksacks/bags for transport of material (e.g. traps)
 Tools: spade, pliers, shovel, hammer or small hatchet for
stakes, hoe or pickaxe in tough soils
 Disinfectant
Optional
 Bat detector (Anabat, Pettersson etc.) & cassette recorder or
CF cards
 Folding table/ Folding chairs
 Warm clothes (it can get quite cold at night; even in tropical
areas)
 Bug repellent
Habitat assessment
 Altimeter (not necessary if GPS available)
 Spherical densiometer
 Fiber glass diameter tape measure (width 16 mm, length 10 m)
 Folding rule

529