14 
OCCASIONAL PAPERS, MUSEUM OF TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY 
Table 3. Number of medium-sized mammals captured in each trap size for the four seasons the survey 
was conducted. 
Season 
Small 
Medium 
Large 
Winter 
5 Mephitis mephitis 
4 Didelphis virginiana 
I Sylvilagus floridanus 
1 Bassariscus astutus 
4 Mephitis mephitis 
3 Didelphis virginiana 
1 Bassariscus astutus 
6 Didelphis virginiana 
4 Procyon lotor 
3 Bassariscus astutus 
2 Mephitis mephitis 
1 Neotoma floridana 
Spring 
5 Didelphis virginiana 
1 Neotoma floridana 
1 Spilogale pu tori us 
5 Mephitis mephitis 
4 Didelphis virginiana 
3 Procyon lotor 
3 Felis catus 
] Neotoma floridana 
1 2 Didelphis virginiana 
1 Procyon lotor 
1 Memphitis mephitis 
1 Bassariscus astutus 
Summer 
6 Didelphis virginiana 
3 Mephitis mephitis 
1 Spilogale putorius 
7 Didelphis virginiana 
4 Procyon lotor 
2 Mephitis mephitis 
1 Felis catus 
5 Procyon lotor 
3 Mephitis mephitis 
3 Didelphis virginiana 
2 Felis catus 
1 Sciurus niger 
Autumn 
3 Neotoma floridana 
3 Mephitis mephitis 
3 Bassariscus astutus 
1 Didelphis virginiana 
1 Spilogale putorius 
4 Procyon lotor 
3 Neotoma floridana 
2 Didelphis virginiana 
2 Mephitis mephitis 
1 Bassariscus astutus 
5 Procyon lotor 
2 Didelphis virginiana 
1 Sciurus niger 
1 Sylvilagus floridanus 
Table 4. Species captured in each size of live trap. Species abbreviations are: 
Z)v=Didelphis virginiana, P/=Procyon lotor, Mw=Mephitis mephitis, ita ^Bassariscus astutus, 
A/^Neotoma floridana, Fc=Felis catus, 6p=Spilogale putorius, 5/=Sylvilagus floridanus, and 
5W=Sciurus niger. 
Trap Size 
Dv 
PI 
Mm 
Ba 
Nf 
Fc 
Sp 
Sf 
Sn 
Small 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
Medium 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
Large 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
home range, shifting centers of activity away from mili¬ 
tary activity, and increasing their diurnal rate of move¬ 
ment during maneuvers. Furthermore, a coyote’s re¬ 
sponse appeared to be related to the topography, amount 
of available cover, and the duration of human activity 
within the coyote’s home range. 
A study by W. D. Severinghaus et al. (1981) con¬ 
ducted at Fort Hood reported significantly higher biom¬ 
ass of Perognathus flavus in high military use areas. 
They found no significant differences in biomass of 
Peromyscus attwateri and P. pectoralis between high and 
low use sites; however, biomass of both species was 
higher in the high use area. Results of similar studies 
conducted at 10 additional military installations showed 
that military training had a negative effect on the biom¬ 
ass of small mammal populations present at each site 
(Goran etal, 1983). Biomass of small mammals stud- 
