EDWARDS ET AL.— MAMMAL ABUNDANCE AT FORT HOOD 
15 
Table 5 . ¥-values for capture means from analysis of variance comparing high and low use sites within 
savannah and riparian habitats. Three transects were nested in each site and data were analyzed for differences 
among trap sizes (small, medium, and large) for level of use. Collections were repeated for three days in each of 
the four seasons. F-values are given for ANOVA analyses (ns = not significant, * = P <0.05, ** = P < 0.01). 
Species 
Day 
Transect 
Season 
Trap Size 
Use Type 
Savannah Habitats 
Procyon lotor 
1.56 ns 
0.46 ns 
0.77 ns 
4.57* 
5.28* 
Didelphis virgin!ana 
0.92 ns 
2.98 ns 
1.81 ns 
0.16 ns 
2.92 ns 
Mephitis mephitis 
0.70ns 
0.70 ns 
0.67 ns 
0,48 ns 
0.16 ns 
Bassariscus astutus 
0.47 ns 
1.84 ns 
2.77 ns 
0.04 ns 
10.90** 
Total Capture Mean 
0.32 ns 
4.50* 
0.52 ns 
1.57 ns 
5.06* 
Riparian Habitats 
Procyon lotor 
0.19 ns 
1.20 ns 
2.50 ns 
1.86 ns 
5.54* 
Didelphis virginiana 
L19ns 
2.19 ns 
2.12ns 
0.22 ns 
6.02* 
Mephitis mephitis 
0.85 ns 
0.00 ns 
1,13 ns 
0.86 ns 
0.35 ns 
Total Capture Mean 
l.62ns 
3.67 ns 
0.887 ns 
0.39 ns 
0.82 ns 
icd at these sites was significantly higher in areas where 
no or little military training had occurred. 
McKeever (1959), VanDniff and Rowse (1986), 
Leberg and Kennedy (1988), and Kennedy et al. (1991) 
reported differences in habitat association for numer¬ 
ous mammal species. Opossums generally utilized a wide 
variety of habitats, ranging from areas of relative aridity 
to much more mesic environments, but are typically 
found in the wetter areas, particularly near streams and 
swamps (McManus, 1974). Kissell and Kennedy (1992) 
reported highest abundance of opossums in riparian habi¬ 
tats with lowest abundances in areas dominated by sa¬ 
vannah habitats. Results of live-trapping efforts in this 
study support the trend of higher opossum abundance in 
riparian areas. Their abundance, however, was not sig¬ 
nificantly higher in riparian areas than in savannah habi¬ 
tats. Opossum abundance in upland habitats was signifi¬ 
cantly lower than in both riparian and savannah habitats. 
Studies involving raccoons have shown higher 
abundance in riparian habitats (Lotze and Anderson, 
1979; Kaufman, 1982), than in upland and savannah sites 
(Lotze and Anderson, 1979; Kaufman, 1982; Leberg and 
Kennedy, 1988). However, in this study, the highest rela¬ 
tive abundance of raccoons was reported in savannah 
habitats. No significant differences in capture means 
were detected between riparian and upland habitats. The 
apparent preference of raccoons for savannah habitats 
might be misleading. Both savannah habitats sampled 
contained widespread oak-juniper stands of varying 
canopy cover. These stands are large enough to provide 
adequate cover for this species. Although traps were 
placed to sample savannah habitats, they often times were 
in close proximity to fairly dense upland habitat. The 
majority of Sav 1 and Sav 2 are, however, savannah habi¬ 
tats. Furthermore, as seen in Fig. 3 and 4, the majority 
of live-trapping stations within these areas were located 
within savannah habitats. 
Striped skunks generally inhabit areas consisting 
of a mixture of woodlands, brushy comers, and open 
fields broken by wooded ravines and rocky outcrops 
(Wade-Smith and Verts, 1982). Striped skunk abundance 
at Fort Hood showed a similar trend; relative abundance 
of striped skunks was significantly higher in upland habi¬ 
tats than in riparian or savannah habitats. McKeever 
(1959) reported significantly higher stnped skunk abun¬ 
dance in areas dominated by savannah habitat when com¬ 
pared to primarily wooded areas such as upland or ripar¬ 
ian sites. Similarly, Verts (1967) found striped skunks 
more abundant in intensively cultivated areas of Illinois 
rather than in areas where woodlands, brush!ands, and cul¬ 
tivated areas were intermixed. 
