Hispid cotton rat
|Hispid cotton rat|
|Species group:||S. hispidus|
Say and Ord, 1825
The hispid cotton rat (Sigmodon hispidus) is a rodent species long thought to occur in parts of South America, Central America, and southern North America. However, recent taxonomic revisions, based on mitochondrial DNA sequence data, have split this widely distributed species into three separate species (S. hispidus, S. toltecus, and S. hirsutus). Carroll et al. (2004) indicate that the southern edge of the S. hispidus distribution is likely near the Rio Grande where it meets the northern distribution of S. toltecus (formerly S. h. toltecus). The northern extent of S. hispidus distribution is to the Platte River in Nebraska and from Arizona to Virginia. Adult Size is total length 202-340 mm; tail 87-122 mm, frequently broken or stubbed; hind foot 29-35 mm; ear 16-20 mm; weight 50-250 grams. They have been used as laboratory animals.
The currently accepted scientific name for the hispid cotton rat is Sigmodon hispidus Say and Ord. It is a member of the family Cricetidae (Animal Diversity Web, University of Michigan Museum of Zoology). Although there are currently 25 accepted subspecies including the type subspecies, the most distinct genetic subdivision within S. hispidus separates the species into two genetic lineages, an eastern lineage and a western lineage, which hybridize along a contact zone.
In the United States, the hispid cotton rat ranges from southern Virginia and North Carolina west through Tennessee, northern Missouri, Kansas, and extreme southern Nebraska to southeastern Colorado, New Mexico, and southeastern Arizona; south to the Gulf Coast; and south to northern South America. It does not occur on the coastal plain of North Carolina nor in the mountains of Virginia. Disjunct populations occur in southeastern Arizona and extreme southeastern California into Baja California Norte. In Kansas, it appeared within the last 50 years.
Hispid cotton rats occur in mesquite (Prosopis spp.) bosques in Arizona and New Mexico. On the Coastal Plain, hispid cotton rats occupy the periphery of central ponds and more distant ecotonal areas of baldcypress (Taxodium distichum) swamps. Hispid cotton rats are abundant in fallow rice fields in Texas, primarily near heavily overgrown canalbanks and levees.
In Florida, hispid cotton rats are common in sabal palm (Sabal palmetto)-coconut palm (Cocos nucifera) savanna. In the Southeast, hispid cotton rats prefer grassy understories of fire-maintained loblolly pine (Pinus taeda)-shortleaf pine (P. echinata) and longleaf pine (P. palustris)-slash pine (P. elliottii) stands.
In Florida, sand pine (P. clausa) scrub has been invaded by hispid cotton rats for short periods. Reasons for the invasion were not clear but were probably related to increased population densities in nearby optimum habitat (pine flatwoods with a dense ground cover of grasses and herbs). Sand pine scrub has little ground cover and is marginal habitat for hispid cotton rats.
Timing of major life events
Some studies have suggested that hispid cotton rats are mainly nocturnal, but activity has been observed at all hours. Activity patterns appear to be influenced by both biotic and abiotic factors. Hispid cotton rats are active year-round.
Hispid cotton rat populations usually exhibit a bimodal breeding season, with peak litter production occurring in late spring and in late summer-early fall. Rose  reported reproductive peaks in March and June for hispid cotton rats; all of trapped females were pregnant from March through July, but none were breeding in November and December. They do not breed in the coldest winter months. In Kansas breeding is restricted to the frost-free months.
A nest is constructed by the female either on the ground surface or in a burrow. Nests are cup- to ball-shaped and woven of grasses. Hispid cotton rats in the northern parts of their range make nests that are thicker and denser, but not larger, than those of southern hispid cotton rats.
Gestation in hispid cotton rats lasts approximately 27 days. Litter sizes range from 1 to 15 young, with larger litters more typical of northern populations and also of late-season litters. Neonates are well developed; they are mobile and lightly furred but the eyes are not open. The eyes open approximately 18 to 36 hours after birth. Hispid cotton rats are weaned in 10 to 15 days and reach minimum adult size by about 41 days.
Some male hispid cotton rats are sexually mature by 60 days, some females are receptive by 30 to 40 days. The earliest recorded pregnancy was at 38 days. Hispid cotton rats have been noted as one of the most prolific mammals in the Southeast. Females bear two to several litters per year depending on latitude and local weather. Females mate within 24 hours of giving birth.
Hispid cotton rat populations are largely sedentary; population density depends mainly on current reproductive effort and not as strongly on immigration. In Kansas remnant prairie, hispid cotton rat population density was highest in fall and early winter and lowest in spring and early summer. In the northernmost parts of hispid cotton rat range, severe weather is associated with rapid hispid cotton rat population declines and local extinctions. In Kansas, most hispid cotton rat mortality was associated with severe weather in March and April. Populations in the northern part of hispid cotton rat range experience dramatic declines in the nonbreeding season. In many areas local extinction is frequent . In Georgia, hispid cotton rat spring abundance in old fields was lowest following drought and extreme winter cold. The reductions in hispid cotton rat populations were associated with sharp declines in vegetative biomass and cover.
In Georgia, a density of 15 hispid cotton rats per acre was considered the predator-limited carrying capacity. Mammalian predators did not have a substantial effect on hispid cotton rat population density. At densities higher than 15 per acre mortality was high; below 15 hispid cotton rats per acre predator-caused mortality was low. Schnell  concluded that when diverse and mobile predators are present they are more important than food, social interaction, or weather in limiting hispid cotton rat density. Also in Georgia, 1-acre (4,000 m2) field enclosures protected from avian predators (covered with a net) were monitored for the effect of avian predators on breeding hispid cotton rat populations. The presence of the cover had no effect on seasonal recruitment or spring-summer mortality; however, autumn-winter mortality was greatly reduced with the cover in place. It was therefore suggested that avian predators are more important than mammalian predators. In addition, it was concluded that nonbreeding (winter) populations suffer substantial losses from predation whereas breeding populations are either able to compensate by replacing lost individuals, are less vulnerable to predation, or both.
Hispid cotton rats occupy a wide variety of habitats within their range but are not randomly distributed among microhabitats. They are strongly associated with grassy patches that have some shrub overstory and they have little or no affinity for dicot-dominated patches. Habitat use and preference by hispid cotton rats usually appears to depend on the density of monocots. However, some studies are equivocal on the importance of other vegetation. For example, hispid cotton rats may respond favorably to a high percentage of dicots in a stand if cover remains optimal. In Kansas, hispid cotton rats increased on root-plowed prairie that experienced an increase in the diversity and biomass of early-successional forbs.
Male hispid cotton rats exhibit a lower degree of habitat selectivity than females. In Texas males were found on different habitat types (grassy, shrubby, and mixed) approximately in proportion to availability; female hispid cotton rats tended to choose mixed habitats more often than expected based on availability.
Habitat use varies with season and breeding status. In Texas grassy areas with some shrubs were preferred in spring and areas with more shrubby cover were preferred in fall.
In Kansas remnant prairie the preferred habitat of hispid cotton rats has dense undergrowth and an upper layer of protective vegetation such as big bluestem (Andropogon gerardii)/kochia (Kochia scoparia)/annual sunflower (Helianthus annuus). Hispid cotton rats prefer grassy clearings, croplands, overgrown fields, and overgrown roadsides and right-of-ways. In Kansas prairies hispid cotton rats occur at relatively high abundance in ungrazed uplands and sandy mixed-grass native prairie, but also prefer disturbed areas. Kaufman and others suggested that the use of disturbed areas was probably important in the recent invasion of hispid cotton rats into north-central Kansas from the northern presettlement limit of their range in Oklahoma. On Texas rangelands, hispid cotton rats appeared to respond to increased biomass of standing crop and increases in the proportion of the standing crop in potential food plants such as bristlegrasses (Setaria spp.). Hispid cotton rat density was four times greater on areas planted to exotic grasses including King Range bluestem (Bothriochloa ischaemum) and buffel grass (Enchrus ciliaris) than on native range dominated by windmill grass (Chloris spp.) and Texas wintergrass (Stipa leucotricha).
In northeastern Kansas, hispid cotton rats occurred at high population densities in tallgrass prairie (dominated by perennial grasses); population density declined to levels too low to accurately estimate over 28 years of succession to brush and trees. They are occasionally found in habitats dominated by early successional grassland species (i.e., annual grasses and forbs).
Hispid cotton rats occur in grassy areas or early-successional habitats within open woods. In the Southeast hispid cotton rat population density increases with the density of broomsedge (Andropogon virginicus) and other low growing plants, but declines with succession to brush and trees. In Texas pine-hardwood forests, hispid cotton rats were captured most often in narrow streamside management zones which have more light and thus more ground cover, and slightly less often in wider zones. In longleaf pine-slash pine stands of central Louisiana hispid cotton rats were captured in sawtimber, sapling, and regeneration stands but not in pole-sized timber; stands with surface cover were more likely to support hispid cotton rats. Pole-sized timber is dense, little light reaches the ground, and surface cover is minimal. In Louisiana and Mississippi, hispid cotton rats were more numerous in cut than in uncut bottomland hardwoods. They were also more numerous in cottonwood (Populus spp.) plantations than in uncut cottonwood stands. In northern Georgia intensive site preparation following clearcutting of pine-hardwood mixtures increases forage production and increased numbers of small mammals (presumably including hispid cotton rats).
In Colorado, hispid cotton rats occupy semimoist areas with abundant grasses and weeds and appear to be restricted to relatively warm areas. In New Mexico, hispid cotton rats do not occur regularly in areas with a mean annual temperature lower than 55 degrees Fahrenheit (13 °C) and a growing season shorter than 180 days. In Trans-Pecos, Texas, hispid cotton rats occur at the warmer, low elevations in areas of moderate to dense grassy cover.
When water and wastewater are added to baldcypress (Taxodium distichum var. distichum) domes, small mammals including hispid cotton rat move to peripheral areas that are drier. The rising water tables favor marsh rice rats (Oryzomys palustris) over hispid cotton rats.
Cameron and McClure  compiled reports of hispid cotton rat population densities. The mean hispid cotton rat population density range for all studies was 5.3 to 31.1 rats per hectare. Population density ranges in Texas include 1 to 14 rats per hectare in coastal prairie, 17 to 84 rats per hectare in unmowed right-of-ways, 9 to 29 rats per hectare in old fields, 6 to 54 rats per hectare in abandoned fields, and 0.7 to 5 rats per hectare in grass-prickly-pear (Opuntia spp.). In Florida population density ranges include 0 to 24 rats per hectare in sand pine scrub, 2 to 47 rats per hectare in pine flatwoods, and 27 to 94 rats per hectare in tropical hammock. In Kansas hispid cotton rat density ranges were 0.2 to 21 rats per hectare in grassland; the highest estimated density was 65.4 hispid cotton rats per hectare in favored habitat.
In a study of the effects of habitat patchiness on movement, hispid cotton rats preferred only the largest patches which were 165 feet (50 m) by 330 feet (50×100 m). Patches were established by mowing strips between blocks of grasses. Hispid cotton rats were present in intermediate numbers on medium sized patches which were 39.6 feet by 79.2 feet (12×24 m), but were so scarce on the smallest patches that their movement pattern could not be analyzed.
In Kansas remnant prairie, the average annual home range of adult male hispid cotton rat was estimated as 0.969 acre (0.39 ha) and that of adult females as 0.543 acre (0.21 ha). The greatest distance traveled by an adult male was 330 feet (100 m) and by an adult female was 250.9 feet (76.4 m). In Texas male hispid cotton rats also had larger home ranges than females. Home ranges were larger in summer and winter than in spring and fall. Home range size was positively correlated with body mass and negatively correlated with population density. There was a relatively high degree of exclusivity (41%), indicating intolerance of conspecifics, particularly of the same sex . In Texas hispid cotton rats found their original home ranges (homed) from displacements of up to 5,000 feet (1,500 m). Returns were relatively high from displacements of up to 990 feet (300 m), suggesting that hispid cotton rats are familiar with the area within that distance. Hispid cotton rats released in areas with no cover homed better than hispid cotton rats released in typical hispid cotton rat habitat. Spencer and others  used site fidelity as a measure of an individual's actual home range and concluded that hispid cotton rats have both single-day and multiday site fidelity and therefore establish true home ranges.
On the southern Coastal Plain, hispid cotton rats use gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus) burrows for shelter in sandhill scrub dominated by longleaf pine, bluejack oak (Quercus incana) and sand post oak (Q. stellata ssp. margaretta).
Hispid cotton rats are omnivorous, but the major portion of their diet consists of green vegetation. They occasionally consume insects and other small animals. Field observations of hispid cotton rat diet indicate that preferred foods are the stems, foliage, and seeds of crop and wild plants. Golley reported that in the Southeast, perennial legumes and broomsedge comprised a large portion of the diet of hispid cotton rats. They also consumed roots and tubers. In Texas hispid cotton rat diets always included the lower green stems of grasses (which are relatively low in nutritive value); raspberries (Rubus spp.), privet (Ligustrum spp.) fruits, and leaves of fogfruits (Phyla spp.) were consumed as available.
Hispid cotton rats are preyed on by many birds and reptiles, and by other mammals. In Oklahoma hispid cotton rats were a major prey item in the diet of Swainson's hawks (Buteo swainsoni). In central Missouri hispid cotton rats comprised 19% of prey items in red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis) nests. Hispid cotton rat remains comprised a substantial portion of short-eared owl (Asio flammeus) pellets in Arkansas. Hispid cotton rats were the third most important prey item of red wolves (Canis rufus) in eastern Texas and Louisiana. In North Carolina, bobcats (Lynx rufus) consumed substantial numbers of hispid cotton rats. Hispid cotton rats were a minor item in the diet of Florida panthers (Felis concolor coryi). In north-central Florida the only direct evidence of predation on hispid cotton rats was the presence of hispid cotton rat remains in a barred owl (Strix varia) pellet. The authors also observed a corn snake (Elaphe guttata guttata) killing a hispid cotton rat just after the rat was released from a trap. The snake apparently had been waiting on the runway where the trap had been set.
- Linzey, A.V., Matson, J., Timm, R. & Woodman, N. (2008). "Sigmodon hispidus". IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2009.2. International Union for Conservation of Nature. Retrieved 6 February 2010.
- Carroll, D. S., L. L. Peppers, and R. D. Bradley. 2004. Molecular systematics and phylogeography of the Sigmodon hispidus species group. pp. 85–98, in Contribuciones Mastozoologicas en Homenaje a Bernardo Villa (Sanchez-Cordero V. y R. A. Medellin Eds.) Instituto de Biologia e Instituto de Ecologia, UNAM, Mexico.
- "Hispid Cotton Rat Sigmodon hispidus (Say and Ord)". New World Mice And Rats (Family Cricetidae). University of Kansas Field Station. Retrieved 21 April 2013.
- Mittal, S. K.; Middleton, D. M.; Tikoo, S. K.; Prevec, L.; Graham, F. L.; Babiuk, L. A. (1996). "Pathology and immunogenicity in the cotton rat (Sigmodon hispidus) model after infection with a bovine adenovirus type 3 recombinant virus expressing the firefly luciferase gene". Journal of General Virology 77 (1): 1–9. doi:10.1099/0022-1317-77-1-1. PMID 8558115.
- Hall, E. Raymond. 1981. The mammals of North America. 2nd ed. Vol. 2. New York: John Wiley and Sons
- Phillips, C. D.; C. A. Henard; R. S. Pfau (2007). "Amplified fragment length polymorphism and mitochondrial DNA analyses reveal patterns of divergence and hybridization in the hispid cotton rat (Sigmodon hispidus)". Journal of Mammalogy 88 (2): 351–359. doi:10.1644/06-MAMM-A-089R1.1.
- Whitaker, John O., Jr. 1980. National Audubon Society field guide to North American mammals. New York: Alfred A. Knopf
- Sauer, John R.; Slade, Norman A. (1985). "Mass-based demography of a hispid cotton rat (Sigmodon hispidus) population". Journal of Mammalogy 66 (2): 316–328. doi:10.2307/1381244. JSTOR 1381244.
- Mares, M. A.; Hulse, A. C. 1977. Patterns of some vertebrate communities in creosote bush deserts. In: Mabry, T. J.; Hunziker, J. H.; DiFeo, D. R., Jr., eds. Creosote bush: Biology and chemistry of Larrea in New World deserts. U.S./IBP Synthesis Series 6. Stroudsburg, PA: Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross, Inc: 209–226
- Harris, Larry D.; Vickers, Charles R. 1984. Some faunal community characteristics of cypress ponds and the changes induced by perturbations. In: Ewel, Katherine Carter; Odum, Howard T., eds. Cypress swamps. Gainesville, FL: University of Florida Press: 171–185
- Baker, R. H. 1940. Effects of burning and grazing on rodent populations. Journal of Mammalogy. 21: 223
- Klukas, Richard W. 1969. The Australian pine problem in Everglades National Park. Part 1. The problem and some solutions. Internal Report. South Florida Research Center, Everglades National Park. 16 p.On file with: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT
- Landers, J. Larry. 1987. Prescribed burning for managing wildlife in southeastern pine forests. In: Dickson, James G.; Maughan, O. Eugene, eds. Managing southern forests for wildlife and fish: a proceedings; Gen. Tech. Rep. SO-65. New Orleans, LA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station: 19–27
- Stout, I. Jack; Demmer, Richard J. (1982). "Cotton rat invasion of sand pine scrub habitat". Journal of Mammalogy 63 (2): 236–242. doi:10.2307/1380632. JSTOR 1380632.
- Cameron, Guy N.; Spencer, Stephen R. (1981). "Sigmodon hispidus". Mammalian Species 158 (158): 1–9. doi:10.2307/3504057.
- Rose, Robert K. (1986). "Reproductive strategies of meadow voles, hispid cotton rats, and eastern harvest mice in Virginia". Virginia Journal of Science 37 (4): 230–239.
- Shump, Karl A., Jr. (1978). "Ecological importance of nest construction in the hispid cotton rat (Sigmodon hispidus)". The American Midland Naturalist 100 (1): 103–115. doi:10.2307/2424781.
- Cameron, Guy N.; Spencer, Stephen R. (1985). "Assessment of space-use patterns in the hispid cotton rat (Sigmodon hispidus)". Oecologia 68: 133–139. doi:10.1007/BF00379485. JSTOR 4217808.
- Cameron, Guy N.; McClure, Polley A. 1988. Geographic variation in life history traits of the Hispid cotton rat (Sigmodon hispidus). In: Boyce, Mark S., ed. Evolution of life histories of mammals: theory and pattern. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press: 33–64
- Komarek, E. V. (1939). "A progress report on southeastern mammal studies". Journal of Mammalogy 20 (3): 292–299. doi:10.2307/1374251.
- Fleharty, Eugene D. 1972. Some aspects of small mammal ecology in a Kansas remnant prairie. In: Zimmerman, James H., ed. Proceedings, 2nd Midwest prairie conference; 1970 September 18–20; Madison, WI. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Arboretum: 97–103
- McClenaghan, Leroy R., Jr.; Gaines, Michael S. (1978). "Reproduction in marginal populations of the Hispid cotton rat (Sigmodon hispidus) in northeastern Kansas". Papers of the Kansas University Museum of Natural History 74: 1–16.
- Sauer, John R. (1985). "Mortality associated with severe weather in a northern population of cotton rats". The American Midland Naturalist 113 (1): 188–189. doi:10.2307/2425360.
- Langley, Albert K., Jr.; Shure, Donald J. (1988). "The impact of climatic extremes on cotton rat (Sigmodon hispidus) populations". The American Midland Naturalist 120 (1): 136–143. doi:10.2307/2425893. JSTOR 2425893.
- Schnell, Jay H. (1968). "The limiting effects of natural predation on experimental cotton rat populations". Journal of Wildlife Management 32 (4): 698–711. doi:10.2307/3799543. JSTOR 3799543.
- Wiegert, Richard G. (1972). "Population dynamics of cotton rats (Sigmodon hispidus) and meadow voles (Microtus pennsylvanicus) in field enclosures in South Carolina". Bulletin of the Georgia Academy of Science 30: 103–110.
- Kincaid, W. Bradley; Cameron, Guy N. (1985). "Interactions of cotton rats with a patchy environment: dietary responses and habitat selection". Ecology 66 (6): 1769–1783. doi:10.2307/2937373. JSTOR 2937373.
- Kincaid, W. Bradley; Cameron, Guy N.; Carnes, Bruce A. (1983). "Patterns of habitat utilization in sympatric rodents on the Texas coastal prairie". Ecology 64 (6): 1471–1480. doi:10.2307/1937502. JSTOR 1937502.
- Fleharty, Eugene D.; Mares, Michael A. (1973). "Habitat preference and spatial relations of Sigmodon hispidus on a remnant prairie in west-central Kansas". The Southwestern Naturalist 18 (1): 21–29. doi:10.2307/3669907. JSTOR 3669907.
- Guthery, Fred S.; Anderson, Terry E.; Lehmann, Valgene W. (1979). "Range rehabilitation enhances cotton rats in South Texas". Journal of Range Management 32 (5): 354–356. doi:10.2307/3898014. JSTOR 3898014.
- Martin, Alexander C.; Zim, Herbert S.; Nelson, Arnold L. 1951. American wildlife and plants. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company
- Kaufman, Donald W.; Finck, Elmer J.; Kaufman, Glennis A. 1990. Small mammals and grassland fires. In: Collins, Scott L.; Wallace, Linda L., eds. Fire in North American tallgrass prairies. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press: 46–80
- Fitch, Henry S.; Kettle, W. Dean. 1983. Ecological succession in vegetation and small mammal populations on a natural area of northeastern Kansas. In: Kucera, Clair L., ed. Proceedings, 7th North American prairie conference; 1980 August 4–6; Springfield, MO. Columbia, MO: University of Missouri: 117–121
- Dickson, James G.; Williamson, J. Howard. 1988. Small mammals in streamside management zones in pine plantations. In: Szaro, Robert C.; Severson, Kieth E.; Patton, David R., technical coordinators. Management of amphibians, reptiles, and small mammals in North America: Proceedings of the symposium; 1988 July 19–21; Flagstaff, AZ. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-166. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 375–378
- Atkeson, Thomas D.; Johnson, A. Sydney (1979). "Succession of small mammals on pine plantations in the Georgia Piedmont". The American Midland Naturalist 101 (2): 385–392. doi:10.2307/2424604. JSTOR 2424604.
- Mullin, Keith; Williams, Kenneth L. 1987. Mammals of longleaf-slash pine stands in central Louisiana. In: Pearson, Henry A.; Smeins, Fred E.; Thill, Ronald E., compilers. Proceedings of the southern evaluation project workshop; 1987 May 26–27; Long Beach, MS. Gen. Tech. Rep. SO-68. New Orleans, LA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station: 121–124
- Wigley, T. Bently; Roberts, Thomas H. (1994). "A review of wildlife changes in southern bottomland hardwoods due to forest management practices". Wetlands 14 (1): 41–48. doi:10.1007/BF03160620.
- Evans, Timothy L.; Waldrop, Thomas A.; Guynn, David C., Jr. 1991. Fell-and-burn regeneration in the North Georgia piedmont: effects on wildlife habitat and small mammals. Proceedings, Annual Conference of Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. 45: 104–114
- Lechleitner, R. R. 1969. Wild mammals of Colorado. Boulder, CO: Pruett Publishing Company
- Mohlhenrich, John S. (1961). "Distribution and ecology of the hispid and least cotton rats in New Mexico". Journal of Mammalogy 42 (1): 13–24. doi:10.2307/1377236. JSTOR 1377236.
- Schmidly, David J. 1977. The mammals of Trans-Pecos Texas: including Big Bend National Park and Guadalupe Mountains National Park. College Station, TX: Texas A&M University
- Diffendorfer, James E.; Gaines, Michael S.; Holt, Robert D. (1995). "Habitat fragmentation and movements of three small mammals (Sigmodon, Microtus, and Peromyscus)". Ecology 76 (3): 827–839. doi:10.2307/1939348. JSTOR 1939348.
- DeBusk, Joan; Kennerly, Thomas E., Jr. (1975). "Homing in the cotton rat, Sigmodon hispidus Say and Ord". The American Midland Naturalist 93 (1): 149–157. doi:10.2307/2424113. JSTOR 2424113.
- Spencer, Stephen R.; Cameron, Guy N.; Swihart, Robert K. (1990). "Operationally defining home range: temporal dependence exhibited by hispid cotton rats". Ecology 71 (5): 1817–1822. doi:10.2307/1937590. JSTOR 1937590.
- Landers, J. Larry; Speake, Dan W. 1980. Management needs of sandhill reptiles in southern Georgia. Proceedings, Annual Conference of Southeast Association Fish & Wildlife Agencies. 34: 515–529
- Golley, Frank B. 1962. The mammals of Georgia: a study of their distribution and functional role in the ecosystem. Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press
- Randolph, J. C.; Cameron, Guy N.; Wrazen, John A. (1991). "Dietary choice of a generalist grassland herbivore, Sigmodon hispidus". Journal of Mammalogy 72 (2): 300–313. doi:10.2307/1382100. JSTOR 1382100.
- Bednarz, James C. 1988. Swainson's hawk. In: Glinski, Richard L.; Pendleton, Beth Giron; Moss, Mary Beth; [and others], eds. Proceedings of the southwest raptor management symposium and workshop; 1986 May 21–24; Tucson, AZ. NWF Scientific and Technical Series No. 11. Washington, DC: National Wildlife Federation: 87–96
- Toland, Brian R. (1990). "Nesting ecology of red-tailed hawks in central Missouri". Transactions, Missouri Academy of Science 24: 1–16.
- Smith, Ronald A.; Hanebrink, Earl L. (1982). "Analysis of regurgitated short-eared owl (Asio flammeus) pellets from the Roth Prairie, Arkansas County, Arkansas". Arkansas Academy of Science Proceedings 36: 106–108.
- Shaw, James Harlan. 1975. Ecology, behavior, and systematics of the red wolf (Canis rufus). New Haven, CT: Yale University. Dissertation
- Miller, S. Douglas; Speake, Dan W. 1978. Prey utilization by bobcats on quail plantations in southern Alabama. Proceedings, Annual Conference of Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. 32: 100–111
- Maehr, David S.; Belden, Robert C.; Land, E. Darrell; Wilkins, Laurie (1990). "Food habits of panthers in southwest Florida". Journal of Wildlife Management 54 (3): 420–423. doi:10.2307/3809651. JSTOR 3809651.
- Layne, James N. 1974. Ecology of small mammals in a flatwoods habitat in north-central Florida, with emphasis on the cotton rat (Sigmodon hispidus). American Museum Novitates: No. 2544. New York: The American Museum of Natural History
- Musser, G. G. and M. D. Carleton. 2005. Superfamily Muroidea. pp. 894–1531 in Mammal Species of the World a Taxonomic and Geographic Reference. D. E. Wilson and D. M. Reeder eds. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.