(DRAFT) - Taxonomy
Species MOUSE, COTTON, KEY LARGO
Species Id ESIS054006
Date 14 MAR 96
TAXONOMY
NAME - MOUSE, COTTON, KEY LARGO
OTHER COMMON NAMES - MOUSE, COTTON, KEY LARGO; MOUSE, COTTON, KEYS;MOUSE, DEER+, KEY LARGO;MOUSE and COTTON
ELEMENT CODE -
CATEGORY - Mammals
PHYLUM AND SUBPHYLUM - CHORDATA,
CLASS AND SUBCLASS - MAMMALIA,
ORDER AND SUBORDER - RODENTIA,
FAMILY AND SUBFAMILY - MURIDAE,
GENUS AND SUBGENUS - PEROMYSCUS,
SPECIES AND SSP - GOSSYPINUS, ALLAPATICOLA
SCIENTIFIC NAME - PEROMYSCUS GOSSYPINUS ALLAPATICOLA
AUTHORITY -
TAXONOMY REFERENCES -
COMMENTS ON TAXONOMY -
Key Largo Cotton Mouse
Peromyscus gossypinus allapaticola Schwartz, 1952
KINGDOM: Animal GROUP: Mammal
PHYLUM: Chordata CLASS: Mammalia
ORDER: Rodentia FAMILY: Muridae
The Key Largo cotton mouse (09) is a large mouse. Its fur is
dark hazel dorsally, grading into grizzled medium brown on the sides,
and white ventrally with a cinnamon-buff wash over the throat and
chest. The tail is bicolored, brown above and white below. This
subspecies is distinctly larger and more reddish in color than other
subspecies of cotton mice from peninsular Florida. Average
measurements for this subspecies are 179 mm in total length, 77 mm in
tail length, 18 mm for ear from notch, 28.3 mm in greatest skull
length, 14.1 mm in zygomatic breadth, and 4.0 mm in length of the
maxillary tooth row.
The type specimen is number 97721 in the mammal collection of the
Museum of Zoology, University of Michigan. A color photograph of a
Key Largo cotton mouse was published on page 1D of the St. Petersburg
Times on May 9, 1984.
This subspecies is also known by the common names Key Largo
Taxonomy - 1 (DRAFT) - Taxonomy
Species MOUSE, COTTON, KEY LARGO
Species Id ESIS054006
Date 14 MAR 96
deermouse and Keys cotton mouse (14).
Taxonomy - 2 (DRAFT) - Status
Species MOUSE, COTTON, KEY LARGO
Species Id ESIS054006
Date 14 MAR 96
STATUS
Coded Status
Florida; Federal Endangered
Florida; Officially Listed
E: Federal Endangered
COMMENTS ON STATUS -
U.S. STATUSES AND LAWS:
The Key Largo cotton mouse (Peromyscus gossypinus allapaticola)
has been designated an Endangered species pursuant to the Endangered
Species Act of 1973 (50 CFR 17.11; P.L. 93-205, 87 Stat. 884;
16 U.S.C. 1531-1540), as amended. The subspecies has this status
wherever found including the State of Florida.
This subspecies is protected by the Lacey Act (P.L. 97-79, as
amended; 16 U.S.C. 3371 et seq.) which makes it unlawful to import,
export, transport, sell, receive, acquire, or purchase any wild animal
(alive or dead including parts, products, eggs, or offspring):
(1) in interstate or foreign commerce if taken, possessed,
transported or sold in violation of any State law or
regulation; or
(2) if taken or possessed in violation of any U.S. law,
treaty, or regulation or in violation of Indian tribal law.
It is also unlawful to possess any wild animal (alive or dead
including parts, products, eggs, and offspring) within the U.S.
territorial or special maritime jurisdiction (as defined in
18 U.S.C. 7) that is taken, possessed, transported, or sold in
violation of any State law or regulation, foreign law, or Indian
tribal law.
RESPONSIBLE FEDERAL AGENCIES:
USFWS -Responsible for the management/recovery, listing, and
law enforcement/protection of this species.
All Federal agencies have responsibility to ensure that any
action authorized, funded, or carried out by that agency is not likely
to jeopardize the continued existence of the species or result in the
destruction or adverse modification of Critical Habitat (50 CFR 402),
and to utilize their authorities to carry out programs for the
conservation of the species.
STATE STATUSES AND LAWS:
STATE: Florida
DESIGNATED STATUS: Endangered
ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY: Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish
Commission, Department of Natural
Resources.
STATE STATUTE: Florida Administrative Code, Sections
39-27.03-05, 39-1.02 and 39-1.04.
Status - 1 (DRAFT) - Status
Species MOUSE, COTTON, KEY LARGO
Species Id ESIS054006
Date 14 MAR 96
INTERNATIONAL STATUSES, TREATIES, AND AGREEMENTS:
None.
ECONOMIC STATUSES:
None.
80/04/28:45 FR 49861/49862 - Acceptance of petition and status review
83/09/21:48 FR 43040/43043 - Emergency rule
84/02/09:49 FR 04951/04956 - Proposed rule with Critical Habitat
84/04/06:49 FR 13720/13721 - Prop. rule/pub. hearing/ext. com. period
84/08/31:49 FR 34504/34510 - Final rule without CH
84/11/24:49 FR 45887/45888 - Reopened comment period for proposed CH
85/04/11:50 FR 14299/14301 - Notice of intent to prepare EIS
85/10/09:50 FR 41223/41334 - Notice draft scoping doc/mtg, HCP permit
86/02/18:51 FR 05746/05747 - Withdrawal of proposal to designate CH
Status - 2 HABITAT ASSOCIATIONS
HABITAT - TERRESTRIAL
TERRESTRIAL
LAND USE -
Evergreen Forest Land
COMMENTS ON HABITAT ASSOCIATIONS -
The Key Largo cotton mouse occurs in subtropical evergreen
hardwood forest in the life zone designated Dry Tropical Forest (05).
The forest is taxonomically and ecologically similar to that found on
the coasts of Caribbean islands. Composition of the forest community
has been described as follows (04): it includes 48 species of trees,
6 shrubs, 10 vines, 8 epiphytes, 3 herbs, 2 grasses, and 2 ferns. An
area of 0.4 ha included 3,703 trees of 34 species. Seven dominant
species of trees accounted for 61% of the basal area, 69% of the
importance value, and 79% of the density in this area.
This subspecies is most abundant in relatively mature hardwood
forest and is uncommon in stands of intermediate age. Preliminary
density estimates were 22 individuals per ha in mature forest and 1/ha
in forest of intermediate age (02). A subsequent trapping study
indicates that densities may exceed twenty-six mice per hectare
in some areas (16). The type locality had a deep leaf
litter and abundant dead and decaying logs. Where animals were absent
farther southwest on Key Largo, "the Key Largo limestone comes almost
to the surface, trees (Lysiloma bahamensis) are dense, and there is
good shrubby growth between them" (10). Although this habitat
association is restrictive, any upland site in an early successional
stage of hardwood forest, adjacent to a mature forest serving as a
source of seeds, and allowed to undergo succession should mature to
form good habitat for the subspecies. Goodyear (15) captured the
subspecies in a burned area which had succeeded to bracken.
A pineland once occurred on Key Largo, but only a few of the
pineland-related species persist there (01). This is good evidence
that Key Largo has been free of fire for many decades except in
association with forest-clearing projects. Given the habitat
requirements of the Key Largo cotton mouse, this portion of the Key
probably has been unoccupied for a long time. Where fires occur,
whether natural or intentional, both the living plants and the peat
soil are removed. A bare limestone surface remains, so succession to
the climax association (apparently most favorable to this subspecies)
is probably very slow.
Habitat Associations - 1 (DRAFT) - Food Habits
Species MOUSE, COTTON, KEY LARGO
Species Id ESIS054006
Date 14 MAR 96
FOOD HABITS
TROPHIC LEVEL -
OMNIVORE
LIFESTAGE FOOD FOOD PART
General Evergreen Shrubs-Leaves/Twigs
General Evergreen Shrubs-Flowers/Fruit/Seed
General Coniferae
General Evergreen Trees-Flowers/Fruit/Seed
General Arthropods
General Molluscs
Food Habits - 1 (DRAFT) - Environment Associations
Species MOUSE, COTTON, KEY LARGO
Species Id ESIS054006
Date 14 MAR 96
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSOCIATIONS
G = General A = Adult
LIM = Limiting RA = Resting Adult
J = Juvenile FA = Feeding Adult
RJ = Resting Juvenile BA = Breeding Adult
FJ = Feeding Juvenile P = Pupae
L = Larvae E = Egg
RL = Resting Larvae
FL = Feeding Larvae
LIFESTAGE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSOCIATIONS
G
G Coastal Features: Vegetated offshore islands
G Terrestrial Features: Burrows
G Terrestrial Features: Downed logs
Environment Associations - 1 (DRAFT) - Life History
Species MOUSE, COTTON, KEY LARGO
Species Id ESIS054006
Date 14 MAR 96
LIFE HISTORY
FOOD HABITS:
The diet of the Key Largo cotton mouse has not been documented.
If this subspecies resembles other subspecies of the cotton mouse, it
forages mainly in the forest canopy on leaves, fruits, and seeds. And
it may consume some invertebrate species as a minor portion of its
diet.
HOME RANGE/TERRITORY:
No data are available for this subspecies, however, data are
available on the activity range of a different subspecies (gossypinus)
in northern Florida (06). The study conducted on P. g. gossypinus
revealed an average distance between release point and recapture of
103 feet during high population density and 142 feet during low
density. The average distance moved by males was larger than for
females, indicating larger activity ranges. Activity ranges of the
two sexes overlapped extensively, but territoriality appeared to be
strong within each sex. Activity ranges of males overlapped somewhat,
but after a resident male was removed, the ranges of neighboring males
extended into the vacant area. Activity ranges of females did not
overlap at all. Ranges shifted to "ridges" (swells in swell-and-swale
terrain) during flooding. This study was done in hydric hammock, a
type of swamp forest characterized by broadleaf evergreen trees.
Because the productivity of hydric hammock may differ from that of
subtropical hardwood forest (in which P. g. allapaticola occurs), and
of a cotton mouse probably differs in the two types of forest.
Population size of P. g. gossypinus was correlated with the success of
acorn production; however, no oak trees occur in the subtropical
forest habitat of P. g. allapaticola.
PERIODICITY:
Activity of this subspecies is nocturnal.
MIGRATION PATTERNS:
Non-migratory.
COVER/SHELTER REQUIREMENTS:
When released at trapping sites, individuals run directly to
small, inconspicuous holes in the forest floor, under logs or roots
(02).
REPRODUCTIVE SITE REQUIREMENTS:
No special site requirements are known for reproduction.
REPRODUCTIVE CHARACTERISTICS:
Two sketchy studies reach different conclusions about
reproduction of this subspecies. The first (10) concluded that
litters are probably born year-round, as in the mainland form, P. g.
palmarius. No pregnant females were captured. Two females taken on
6 and 7 February 1951 were lactating. Immatures with gray pelage were
captured on 28 December 1950. The second (02) concluded that breeding
is highly seasonal. Among the 15 adult females examined in June 1979,
Life History - 1 (DRAFT) - Life History
Species MOUSE, COTTON, KEY LARGO
Species Id ESIS054006
Date 14 MAR 96
none was pregnant or lactating, and 6 had perforate vulvae, indicating
recent copulation. Similarly, most of the adult males (14 of 20) had
descended testes in June. No juvenile animals were captured in June.
PARENTAL CARE:
Parental care has not been described but may resemble the
behavior studied in captivity of another subspecies (gossypinus) from
northern Florida (07). At birth the young were hairless, their eyes
were closed, and their pinnae were folded over the ear openings. The
young were alert and made directed movements by their tenth day, and
their eyes usually opened by day 13. The young began to take solid
food before day 20, and young separated from their mothers at 20-25
days of age matured with no ill effects.
POPULATION BIOLOGY:
The introduction onto Lignumvitae Key in 1970 included 14 cotton
mice, 6 females and 8 males (03).
Some information on maximum longevity is available for a
subspecies (gossypinus) in a different habitat in northern Florida
(06). Three of 68 individuals trapped lived at least 1 year and 9
months.
In a different habitat in northern Florida, the subspecies,
gossypinus, had an average litter size of 3.7 with a 1:1 sex ratio at
birth (07).
The earliest record of a fertile mating of a female cotton mouse
(subspecies gossypinus, in captivity) was for one 73 days old (07).
SPECIES INTERRELATIONSHIPS:
With one exception, incidents of predation are undocumented.
Potential predators include racoons (Procyon lotor), feral cats (Felix
catus), bobcats (Lynx rufus), and snakes such as rat snakes (Elaphe
guttata and E. obsoleta), indigo snakes (Drymarchon corais), and
diamond rattlesnakes (Crotalus adamanteus). The exception is frequent
consumption of cotton mice taken from mammalogists' livetraps by
raccoons, which quickly learn to check traplines when an odiferous
bait such as peanut butter is used. This behavior does not occur with
a non-odiferous bait such as oatmeal (13).
OTHER LIFE HISTORY DESCRIPTORS:
None.
Life History - 2 (DRAFT) - Management Practices
Species MOUSE, COTTON, KEY LARGO
Species Id ESIS054006
Date 14 MAR 96
MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
RESULT MANAGEMENT PRACTICE
Beneficial Suppressing wildfire
Beneficial Maintaining undisturbed/undeveloped areas
Beneficial Restricting/regulating human use of habitats
Beneficial Land Acquisition
Beneficial Controlling pollution [thermal, chemical, physical]
Beneficial Controlling/Restricting Herbicide Use
Beneficial Reforestation
Beneficial Restricting Timber Harvest
Beneficial Maintaining Later Stages of Succession
Beneficial Controlling/Removing Nonnative Vegetation
Beneficial Controlling/Removing Native Vegetation
Beneficial Transplanting wild animals
Beneficial Controlling/Removing Native Vertebrates
Beneficial Controlling/Removing Exotic Vertebrates
Adverse Rural Residential/Industrial Areas
Existing Rural Residential/Industrial Areas
Adverse Recreational development
Existing Recreational development
Adverse Highway/Railroads
Existing Highway/Railroads
Adverse Transmission Lines/Towers
Existing Transmission Lines/Towers
Adverse Soil compaction by heavy equipment in mine areas
Existing Soil compaction by heavy equipment in mine areas
Adverse
Existing
Adverse Harvesting
Existing Harvesting
COMMENTS ON MANAGEMENT PRACTICES -
The reason for the Endangered status of the Key Largo cotton
mouse is extensive destruction of habitat and conversion to human
uses. Much of the hardwood forest habitat of this cotton mouse on Key
Largo was cleared for agriculture (mostly pineapples) in the late 19th
century. Selective harvest of mahogany for furniture and lignumvitae
for ships also occurred. In 1906 a severe pineapple blight occurred,
and by 1915 production had ended. Since then, many tracts of land
underwent succession to young hardwood forests. Only a few clearings
for agriculture have occurred in recent decades. Although people have
lived on Key Largo for more than a century, land-clearing for
residential and commercial development accelerated greatly after World
War II. On southern Key Largo, which receives fresh water from the
mainland by pipeline, only remnants of the hardwood forest remain
among intensive real estate development.
An early record (08) indicates a more extensive range, but all
recent reports (02,10) show that suitable habitat now occurs only on
the northern end of the Key. Except for a small parcel in and
adjacent to John Pennekamp Coral Reef State Park, no mature forest
Management Practices - 1 (DRAFT) - Management Practices
Species MOUSE, COTTON, KEY LARGO
Species Id ESIS054006
Date 14 MAR 96
remains on the southern two-thirds of the Key. Judging from soil
depth and tree diameter, the area between the northeast 1/4 of Sec.
29, T60S, R39E and the northern end of the Key includes several large
tracts of forest that never have been clearcut. During field work in
1979, this area was estimated to include approximately 475 ha of
appropriate habitat (02).
The future threat to this subspecies is continued conversion of
the remaining habitat. In 1984, a total of 4089 housing units were
reported as approved or under construction in this area (11). In
1981, with funds loaned by the Farmer's Home Administration, the
Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority completed a branch pipeline from the
junction of U.S. Highway 1 and C-905 up northern Key Largo to the
Ocean Reef Club development. A restrictive hookup policy has been
adopted, including most of the proposed Crocodile Lake National
Wildlife Refuge (11), but this subspecies had no official status
during that consultation, so hookups were not precluded from most
habitat outside of the proposed refuge area. A proposed loan to the
Florida Keys Electric Cooperative by the Rural Electrification
Administration would finance an electric substation and system
expansion allowing approximately 6000 more electric drops on northern
Key Largo. On October 27, 1983, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Regional Director in Atlanta, GA issued a biological opinion that the
proposal would jeopardize the subspecies by facilitating development.
"No-electric-hookup-areas" were proposed, but this issue has not been
resolved (11).
Most of the habitat occupied by the subspecies is contained
within proposed Federal and State land acquisition projects, and much
of this area has been acquired. About half of the potential habitat
is contained in the proposed Crocodile Lake National Wildlife Refuge
(11). However, most of the best, most-mature habitat lies outside the
proposed Federal boundaries. Most of these outlying areas are within
two acquisition proposals under Florida's Conservation and
Recreational Lands program, administered by the Division of State
Lands, Florida Department of Natural Resources (15). The future of
the cotton mouse habitat will depend partly on the demand for
residential development and on planning decisions by Monroe County and
the State of Florida. Monroe Co., in cooperation with the Florida
Department of Community Affairs, is preparing a North Key Largo
Habitat Conservation Plan. The purpose of this plan is to conserve
and enhance the habitats of several Endangered species while
accomodating some development (12).
UNAPPROVED PLAN:
As of 1988, a Recovery Plan for the Key Largo cotton mouse
has not been approved.
Recovery actions for the Key Largo cotton mouse include:
1. Preserve mature hardwood hammocks by maintaining late succession,
restricting timber harvest, restrict tree poaching, encouraging land
acquisition and controlling the use of herbicides.
Management Practices - 2 (DRAFT) - Management Practices
Species MOUSE, COTTON, KEY LARGO
Species Id ESIS054006
Date 14 MAR 96
2. Exotic vegetation may displace native stock and affect the
integrity of the hammock. Control can be accomplished through land
use zoning, and land rehabilitation. Wildlife, in particular cats,
may have a direct impact on the rodents through predation. Relocating
rodents may be necessary to repopulate an area where predator control
has been successful and where the hammock will support rodents, but no
rodent population is near-by to permit natural repopulation.
3. Permit natural succession to proceed in disturbed but undeveloped
sites. This may be accomplished by restricting herbicides, fire
control, controlling pollution, and removing exotic vegetation, if
required.
4. Control fire. Wildfire can destroy a mature hammock and set back
succession. A hammock, however, will recover from fire damage, but it
will require a great deal of time. A major fire in rodent habitat
could severely affect the recovery of this species.
At present a Habitat Conservation Plan is being developed for
North Key Largo, in accordance with the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended. This plan will address levels of development in
proposed critical habitats and the issue of incidental take.
Management Practices - 3 (DRAFT) - References
Species MOUSE, COTTON, KEY LARGO
Species Id ESIS054006
Date 14 MAR 96
References
***** REFERENCES FOR ALL NARRATIVES EXCEPT N-OCCURRENCE *****
01 Alexander, T.R. 1953. Plant succession on Key Largo, Florida,
involving Pinus caribea and Quercus virginiana. Quart. J. Fla.
Acad. Sci. 16:133-138.
02 Barbour, D.B. and S.R. Humphrey. 1982. Status and habitat of the
Key Largo woodrat and cotton mouse (Neotoma floridana smalli and
Peromyscus gossypinus allapaticola). J. Mammal 63:144-148.
03 Brown, L.N. and R.L. Williams. 1971. The Key Largo woodrat
(Neotoma floridana snalli) (sic) and cotton mouse (Peromyscus
gossypinus allapaticola) on Lignum Vitae Key, Florida. Fla. Nat.
44:95-96.
04 Hilsenbeck, C.E. 1976. A comparison of forest sampling methods in
hammock vegetation. M.S. Thesis, Univ. Miami, Coral Gables.
106 pp.
05 Holdridge, L.R. 1967. Life zone ecology. Tropical Sci. Center,
San Jose, Costa Rica. 206 pp.
06 Pearson, P.G. 1953. A field study of Peromyscus populations in
Gulf Hammock, Florida. Ecology 34:199-207.
07 Pournelle, G.H. 1952. Reproduction and early post-natal
development of the cotton mouse, Peromyscus gossypinus gossypinus.
J. Mammal. 33:1-20.
08 Osgood, W.H. 1909. Revision of the mice of the American genus
Peromyscus. North Amer. Fauna No. 28:1-285.
09 Schwartz, A. 1952a. Three new mammals from southern Florida.
J. Mammal. 33:381-385.
10 Schwartz, A. 1952b. The land mammals of southern Florida and the
Upper Florida Keys. Ph.D. Diss., Univ. Michigan, Ann Arbor.
11 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1984. Endangered and Threatened
wildlife and plants; determination of Endangered status for the
Key Largo woodrat and Key Largo cotton mouse. Federal Register
49:34504-34510.
12 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1985. Environmental impact
statement on North Key Largo (Florida) habitat conservation plan
and endangered species permit. Federal Register 50:14299-14301.
13 Humphrey, S.R. 1985. Unpublished observations.
14 Layne, J.N. 1978. Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida. Volume 1:
Mammals. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. 52 pp.
15 Goodyear, N.C. 1985. Study of Key Largo woodrats and cotton mice:
Phase I. Report to North Key Largo Study Committee. 76 pp.
16 Humphrey, S.R. 1986. Density estimates of the Key Largo
woodrat and cotton mouse using computer program "capture".
Unpubl. Rpt. to North Key Largo Habitat Conservation Plan
Study Committee. 21 pp.
***** REFERENCES FOR N-OCCURRENCE NARRATIVE ONLY *****
01 Barbour, D.B. and S.R. Humphrey. 1982. Status and habitat of the
Key Largo woodrat and cotton mouse (Neotoma floridana smalli and
Peromyscus gossypinus allapaticola). J. Mammal 63:144-148.
References - 1 (DRAFT) - References
Species MOUSE, COTTON, KEY LARGO
Species Id ESIS054006
Date 14 MAR 96
02 Brown, L.N. and R.L. Williams. 1971. The Key Largo woodrat
(Neotoma floridana smalli) (sic) and cotton mouse (Peromyscus
gossypinus allapaticola) on Lignum Vitae Key, Florida. Fla. Nat.
44:95-96.
03 Osgood, W.H. 1909. Revision of the mice of the American genus
Peromyscus. North Amer. Fauna No. 28:1-285.
04 Ruttenber, J. and a. Weiner. 1977. Florida Keys hardwood hammock
atlas. National Audubon Soc. 11 pp.
05 Schwartz, A. 1952a. Three new mammals from southern Florida.
J. Mammal. 33:381-385.
06 Schwartz, A. 1952b. The land mammals of southern Florida and the
Upper Florida Keys. Ph.D. Diss., Univ. Michigan, Ann Arbor.
07 U.S. Department of the Interior. 1983. Final land protection
plan, Crocodile Lake National Wildlife Refuge, Monroe County,
Florida. Fish and Wildlife Service, Southeast Region, Atlanta,
Georgia. 22 pp + 3 appendices, 2 maps.
08 Bentzien, M. 1985. Personal communication.
09 Minasian, L. 1985. Personal communication.
References - 2