2 Mary K. Clark, David S. Lee, John B. Funderburg, Jr. 



various investigations of the Dismal Swamp fauna of northeastern 

 North Carolina and southeastern Virginia (e.g. Merriam 1895a,b, 1896; 

 Handley 1979). Rose (1981a) investigated mammals associated with 

 "openings" in the Dismal Swamp. Sharitz and Gibbons (1982) presented 

 some preliminary information on studies they are conducting in South 

 Carolina bays, but only three mammal species — Blarina brevicauda, 

 Reithrodontomys humulis and Sigmodon hispidus — were mentioned. 

 Lee et al. (1982) provided preliminary mammal species lists for the var- 

 ious plant communities in North Carolina, including information on 

 pocosins and Carolina bays. With these exceptions, information on the 

 mammal fauna of these specific systems was previously unavailable. 

 From 1980 to 1985 we surveyed the mammals of pocosins, Carolina 

 bays, and their associated plant communities in the North Carolina 

 Coastal Plain in order to obtain a better understanding of diversity and 

 relative density of the mammal fauna. 



Considering the widespread geographic distribution of pocosins 

 and Carolina bays it is quite surprising that their vertebrate fauna is so 

 poorly known. There are estimates of over 55,000 Carolina bays between 

 southern Maryland and Florida (Sharitz and Gibbons 1982). Wells 

 (1946) estimated pocosin habitats to have originally occupied over 20 

 percent of the Coastal Plain of North Carolina alone, and noted that 

 there were over 300 square miles of pocosin in just three southeastern 

 North Carolina counties. Since that time a good percentage of these 

 areas have been drained, partially drained, and cleared for agricultural or 

 silvicultural purposes, and some areas have been dammed to create mill 

 ponds. Other areas have been protected from fire for so long that the 

 plant communities have progressed beyond pocosin serai stages. 



There is some uncertainty about the extent of loss of such habitats 

 and the need for concern. Heath (1975) and Richardson (1981) provided 

 general summaries of the decline of these wetlands, and most subse- 

 quent studies relied on these sources as the basis for major concern for 

 pocosin habitats. Originally, Richardson (1981) stated that only 31 per- 

 cent of North Carolina pocosins remained in a natural state, but 

 Richardson (1983) acknowledged that his data sources were in error. 

 McMullan (1984) suggested that the reasons for concern may be less 

 serious than previously stated, owing to faulty data sources and incom- 

 plete or nonexistent inventories. McMullan (1984) also demonstrated, 

 through an analysis of a 300-year historical land use study of the 

 Albemarle-Pamlico peninsula of North Carolina, that pocosin commun- 

 ities have persisted in spite of a long history of clearing and draining, 

 and many present-day pocosins have developed (or redeveloped) on 

 abandoned farm lands. Assuming that the more recent reports are cor- 

 rect, it appears that the original estimates of habitat loss were too high. 



