12 
OCCASIONAL PAPERS, MUSEUM OF TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY 
Table 2. Capture means for each species among areas for each season the survey was conducted. Cap¬ 
ture means were calculated by dividing number of captures by the number of operable traps. 
Area 
Winter 
Spring 
Summer 
Autumn 
Sav 2 
0.0095 Procyon lolor 
0.0250 Procyon lotor 
0.0570 Procyon lotor 
0,0250 Procyon lotor 
0.0095 Mephitis mephitis 
0.0480 Bassariscus as tutus 
0,0083 Mephitis mephitis 
0.0500 Didelphis virgin iana 
0.0170 Felis cat us 
0.0083 Bassariscus astutus 
0.0290 Felis catus 
0.0095 Sciurus niger 
0.0410 Bassariscus astutus 
Sav 1 
0.0080 Procyon lolor 
0.0160 Procyon lotor 
0.0084 Procyon lotor 
0.0360 Didelphis virginiana 
0.0080 Neotoma Jloridana 
0.0160 Didelphis Virginian a 
0.0078 Mephitis mephitis 
0.0310 Didelphis virgin iana 
0.0078 Felis catus 
0.0340 Didelphis virginiana 
0.0091 Procyon lotor 
0.0180 Neotoma Jloridana 
0.0091 Mephitis mephitis 
Upl 1 
0.0680 Mephitis mephitis 
0.0150 Neotoma foridana 
0.0310 Mephitis mephitis 
0.0097 Procyon lotor 
0.0076 Didelphis Virginian a 
0.0077 Spilogale putorius 
0.0077 Mephitis mephitis 
00077 Didelphis virgin iana 
0.0078 Didelphis virginiana 
0.0097 Neotoma Jloridana 
0.0097 Spilogale putorius 
0.0097 Mephitis mephitis 
0-0097 Sciurus niger 
Upl 2 
0.0077 Procyon lotor 
0.0079 Procyon lotor 
0.0160 Procyon lotor 
0.0076 Procyon lotor 
0.0077 Sylvilagus fioridanus 
0.0240 Mephitis mephitis 
0.0079 Didelphis virginiana 
0.0079 Spilogale putorius 
0.0160 Mephitis mephitis 
0,0076 Neotoma Jloridana 
0.0230 Mephitis mephitis 
Rip 2 
0.0780 Didelphis virginiana 
0.0460 Didelphis virginiana 
0.0490 Didelphis virginiana 
0.0070 Mephitis mephitis 
0,0079 Didelphis virginiana 
0.0079 Procyon lotor 
Rip 1 
0.0078 Procyon lotor 
0.0320 Procyon lotor 
0.0078 Mephitis mephitis 
0.0110 Procyon lotor 
0.0078 Mephitis mephitis 
0.0240 Didelphis virginiana 
0.0310 Didelphis virginiana 
0.0220 Neotoma jloridana 
0.0110 Sylvilagus Jloridanus 
equate recaptures (While et al. s 1982; Smith and Brisbin, 
1984). Because of time constraints of the study and the 
need for sampling multiple areas, each area was trapped 
only three nights which probably affected the number of 
recaptures. 
Estimation of abundance of vertebrate populations 
has proven problematic due to the general trend of low 
capture probabilities that vary among individuals (Otis 
et ah, 1978) and low densities of populations (Chao, 
1989; Hammond, 1990; Hallett et ah, 1991; Rosenberg 
et ah, 1995). Weather conditions, habitat, trap type, and 
population structure also have been related to capture 
success of various mammals (Geis, 1955; Sealander and 
James, 1958; Mystkowska and Sidorowic 2 ,1961; Gem 
try et ah, 1966; Perry et ah, 1977). 
Relative abundance is a useful alternative to den¬ 
sity studies as a tool for comparing mammal populations. 
Numerous studies have used relative abundance in analysis 
of methods for censusing medium-sized mammal spe¬ 
cies (McKeever, 1959; Wood, 1959; Davis, 1977). Cap¬ 
ture means, used as a function of relative abundance, were 
analyzed in this study. 
Analysis of overall capture means across all areas 
surveyed revealed surprising trends, differing signifi¬ 
cantly with area sampled. These results imply habitat 
association of species involved. Specifically, raccoons 
and ringtails had higher relative abundances in savannah 
habitats. Striped skunks showed higher relative abun¬ 
dances in upland habitats and opossums showed higher 
relative abundances in riparian habitats. Fifty-eight per¬ 
cent of raccoon captures («=32) were recorded in sa¬ 
vannah habitats while all ringtails («=10) were captured 
in savannah. For striped skunks, 77% (fl=30) were cap¬ 
tured in upland habitats while 56% (w=55) of opossums 
were captured in riparian habitats. Three eastern woodfats 
