Roadless Areas
Home/Species/ Sonoma Tree Vole

Arborimus pomo

(Johnson and George, 1991)

Sonoma Tree Vole

G3Vulnerable Found in 1 roadless area NatureServe Explorer →
G3VulnerableGlobal Rank
Near threatenedIUCN
MediumThreat Impact
Identity
Unique IDELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.105805
Element CodeAMAFF23030
Record TypeSPECIES
ClassificationSpecies
Classification StatusStandard
Name CategoryVertebrate Animal
IUCNNear threatened
Endemicendemic to a single state or province
KingdomAnimalia
PhylumCraniata
ClassMammalia
OrderRodentia
FamilyCricetidae
GenusArborimus
Synonyms
Phenacomys pomo
Concept Reference
Wilson, D. E., and D. M. Reeder (editors). 2005. Mammal species of the world: a taxonomic and geographic reference. Third edition. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore. Two volumes. 2,142 pp. [As modified by ASM the Mammal Diversity Database (MDD) at https://www.mammaldiversity.org/index.html]
Taxonomic Comments
This species was recognized as distinct from A. longicaudus by Johnson and George (1991). Included in the genus Phenacomys by some authors (e.g. Carleton and Musser 1984, Repenning and Grady 1988, and Verts and Carraway 1998). Bellinger et al. (2005) noted that recognition of Arborimus as a distinct genus is subject to interpretation of data.

MtDNA data (Bellinger et al. 2005) indicate species-level differences among red tree vole (Arborimus longicaudus or Phenacomys longicaudus), Sonoma tree vole (A. pomo or P. pomo), white-footed vole (A. albipes or P. albipes), and western heather vole (P. intermedius) but no clear difference between the two Oregon subspecies of red tree voles (longicaudus and silvicola). These data further indicate a close relationship between tree voles and A. albipes or P. albipes, validating inclusion of albipes in Arborimus. Bellinger et al. (2005) did not find that P. intermedius clustered with Microtus.
Conservation Status
Rank MethodLegacy Rank calculation - Excel v3.1x
Review Date2017-11-26
Change Date2000-11-14
Edition Date2017-11-26
Edition AuthorsClausen, M. K., and G. Hammerson; Rev. Davidson, A. D. (2017)
Threat ImpactMedium
Range Extent5000-20,000 square km (about 2000-8000 square miles)
Number of Occurrences81 to >300
Rank Reasons
Restricted range along the coast of northwestern California; threatened by forest fragmentation, habitat loss, and climate change.
Range Extent Comments
This vole inhabits northwestern California, from Freestone, Sonoma County, north through Mendocino, Humboldt, and western Trinity counties to the South Fork of the Smith River, Del Norte County (Johnson and George 1991). The northern border of its range is at or near the Klamath River (Adam and Hayes 1998).
Occurrences Comments
According to Gordon Gould (California Department of Game and Fish), there are currently 900 observations of nests or animals. Approximately 875 of these observations are from the mid- to late 1990s and the remainder are from the early 1990s. Observations are mapped by the California Department of Game and Fish into occupied legal sections. These data probably will result in the mapping of about 325 occupied sections in California. Gould also stated that most surveys were completed at the request of the timber industry. This species does occupy areas that are not of interest to the timber industry. As a result, there are gaps in distributional information, and many more sections may be occupied than currently indicated (Gordon Gould, pers. comm., 1998).
Threat Impact Comments
Timber harvesting and fragmentation of mature coniferous, especially Douglas-fir, forests has been the biggest threat facing this species. Climate change is a growing threat with the increase in occurrence and intensity of fires causing further loss of mature forest habitat. The predicted reduction of the fog belt along the northern California coast under a warming climate may further reduce the suitable habitat for this moisture-dependent species.
Ecology & Habitat

Description

This red-furred vole has a long, well-furred tail, curved claws, and ears partly concealed in the pelage. Total length: 158-186 mm (Jameson and Peeters 2004).

Diagnostic Characteristics

Differs from Phenacomys longicaudus in chromosomes (diploid number of 40 or 42, vs. 52 in northern range of longicaudus), smaller overall size, and certain skull and muscle characteristics (Johnson and George 1991). See key in Adam and Hayes (1998).

Habitat

Habitat consists of mixed evergreen forests; optimum habitat appears to be wet and mesic old-growth Douglas-fir forest, but this species also occurs in younger forests (e.g., Douglas-fir 47 years old). This vole is primarily arboreal but exhibits some terrestrial activity. It nests in trees, 2-50 m above ground; it may use old nests of birds, squirrels, or woodrats. Nests usually are in Douglas-fir trees but sometimes may be in other conifer or in Pacific madrone (Meiselman and Doyle 1996, Vrieze 1980, Zentner 1977, all as cited in Adam and Hayes 1998). Meiselman and and Doyle (1996) found that nests were most abundant in old-growth forests; the species was associated with large-diameter Douglas-fir, high percent canopy cover, high stump density, low snag density, shorter snags and logs, and lower elevation; all nests were in Douglas-fir, mostly adjacent to the trunk on the south side.

Ecology

Thought to have very limited dispersal capability (Thomas et al. 1993). Predators include Spotted Owls (ARBORIMUS LONGICAUDUS made up almost 50% of prey items of Spotted Owls in Oregon), and probably other owls, Raccoons, and Fishers (Adam and Hayes 1998).

Reproduction

Breeds throughout the year. Ovulation induced by copulation (Adam and Hayes 1998). Females may breed within 24 hrs of giving birth. Sometimes exhibits delayed implantation. Gestation period 27 to 48 days, average 31 days (Hamilton 1962). Litter size usually is 2 (range 1-5) (Adam and Hayes 1998). Newborns are altricial, weaned at 25 to 46 days (Hamilton 1962).
Terrestrial Habitats
Forest - Conifer
Other Nations (1)
United StatesN3
ProvinceRankNative
CaliforniaS3Yes
Threat Assessments
ThreatScopeSeverityTiming
1 - Residential & commercial developmentLarge - smallModerate - slightHigh (continuing)
1.1 - Housing & urban areasLarge - smallModerate - slightHigh (continuing)
5 - Biological resource usePervasive (71-100%)Extreme - seriousHigh (continuing)
5.3 - Logging & wood harvestingPervasive (71-100%)Extreme - seriousHigh (continuing)
11 - Climate change & severe weatherPervasive (71-100%)Serious - moderateHigh (continuing)

—

Roadless Areas (1)
California (1)
AreaForestAcres
SoliderSix Rivers National Forest14,918
References (47)
  1. Adam, M. D., and J. P. Hayes. 1998. <i>Arborimus pomo</i>. Mammalian Species No. 593:1-5.
  2. American Society of Mammalogists (ASM). 2024. The Mammal Diversity Database (MDD). Online. Available: www.mammaldiversity.org
  3. Baker, R. J., L. C. Bradley, R. D. Bradley, J. W. Dragoo, M. D. Engstrom, R. S. Hoffman, C. A. Jones, F. Reid, D. W. Rice, and C. Jones. 2003a. Revised checklist of North American mammals north of Mexico, 2003. Museum of Texas Tech University Occasional Papers 229:1-23.
  4. Banks, E. M., R. J. Brooks, and J. Schnell. 1975. A radiotracking study of home range and activity of the brown lemming (<i>Lemmus trimucronatus</i>). Journal of Mammalogy 56:888-901.
  5. Bellinger, M. R., S. M. Haig, E. D. Forsman, and T. D. Mullins. 2005. Taxonomic relationships among <i>Phenacomys</i> voles as inferred by cytochrome <i>b</i>. Journal of Mammalogy 86:201-210.
  6. Benson, S. B., and A. E. Borell. 1931. Notes on the life history of the red tree mouse, <i>Phenacomys longicaudus</i>. Journal of Mammalogy 12:226-233.
  7. Bowman, J. C., M. Edwards, L. S. Sheppard, and G. J. Forbes. 1999. Record distance for a non-homing movement by a deer mouse, <i>Peromyscus maniculatus</i>. Canadian Field-Naturalist 113:292-293.
  8. Brooks, R. J., and E. M. Banks. 1971. Radio-tracking study of lemming home range. Communications in Behavioral Biology 6:1-5.
  9. Brylski, J. H. 1990. M132 Red Tree Vole, <i>Phenacomys longicaudus</i>. Pages 256-257 in Zeiner, D. C., W. F. Laudenslayer, Jr., K. E. Mayer, and M. White, editors. California's Wildlife, Volume III, Mammals. Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento California. pp 256-257.
  10. Carleton, M. D., and G. G. Musser. 1984. Muroid rodents. Pages 289-379 in Anderson, S., and J. K. Jones, Jr., eds. Orders and families of Recent mammals of the world. John Wiley & Sons, N.Y. xii + 686 pp.
  11. Castleberry, S., B., T. L. King, P. B. Wood, and W. M. Ford. 2002. Microsatellite DNA analysis of population structure in Allegheny woodrats (<i>Neotoma magister</i>). Journal of Mammalogy 83:1058-1070.
  12. Corn, P. S., and R. B. Bury. 1986. Habitat use and terrestrial activity by red tree voles (<i>Arborimus longicaudus</i>) in Oregon. J. Mamm. 67:404-406.
  13. Douglass, R. J. 1977. Population dynamics, home ranges, and habitat associations of the yellow-cheeked vole, <i>Microtus xanthognathus</i>, in the Northwest Territories. Canadian Field-Naturalist 91:237-47.
  14. Garland, T., Jr. and W. G. Bradley. 1984. Effects of a highway on Mojave Desert rodent populations. American Midland Naturalist 111:47-56.
  15. Gould, G. I. Forest mammal survey and inventory. Unpublished internal report dated October 2, 1987. California Department of Fish and Game Project W-65-R-4 Final Report. 11pp.
  16. Gould, G. Wildlife Biologist, California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA. Personal communication.
  17. Hall, E. R. 1981a. The Mammals of North America, second edition. Vols. I &amp; II. John Wiley &amp; Sons, New York, New York. 1181 pp.
  18. Hamilton, W. J., III. 1962. Reproductive adaptations of the red tree mouse. Journal of Mammalogy 43:486-504.
  19. Hayes, J. P. 1996. <i>Arborimus longicaudus</i>. Mammalian Species 532:1-5.
  20. Howell, A. B. 1926. Voles of the genus <i>Phenacomys</i>. I. Revision of the genus <i>Phenacomys</i>. II. Life history of the red tree mouse (<i>Phenacomys longicaudus</i>). North American Fauna 48: i-iv, 1-66.
  21. Huff, M. H., R. S. Holthausen, and K. B. Aubry. 1992. Habitat management for red tree voles in Douglas-fir forests. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, General Technical Report, PNW-GTR-302:1-16.
  22. Ingles, L. G. 1965. Mammals of the Pacific States. Stanford University Press, Stanford, California.
  23. Jameson, E. W., Jr., and H. J. Peeters. 2004. Mammals of California. Revised edition. University of California Press, Berkeley. 429 pp.
  24. Jike, L., G. O. Batzli, L. L. Geta. 1988. Home ranges of prairie voles as determined by radiotracking and by powdertracking. Journal of Mammalogy 69:183-186.
  25. Johnson, M. L., and S. B. George. 1991. Species limits within the <i>Arborimus longicaudus</i> species-complex (Mammalia: Rodentia) with a description of a new species from California. Nat. Hist. Mus. Los Angeles County Contrib. Sci. (429):1-16.
  26. Jones, C., R. S. Hoffman, D. W. Rice, M. D. Engstrom, R. D. Bradley, D. J. Schmidly, C. A. Jones, and R. J. Baker. 1997. Revised checklist of North American mammals north of Mexico, 1997. Occasional Papers, Museum of Texas Tech University 173:1-20.
  27. Jones, J. K., Jr., R. S. Hoffman, D. W. Rice, C. Jones, R. J. Baker, and M. D. Engstrom. 1992a. Revised checklist of North American mammals north of Mexico, 1991. Occasional Papers, The Museum, Texas Tech University, 146:1-23.
  28. Krohne, D. T., and G. A. Hoch. 1999. Demography of <i>Peromyscus leucopus</i> populations on habitat patches: the role of dispersal. Canadian Journal of Zoology 77:1247-1253.
  29. Lidicker, W.Z. 2013. Sonoma red tree vole/red tree vole Species Account in Interim Draft: Terrestrial Mammal Species of Special Concern in California, Part 2 – Species Accounts (Spencer, W.D., and J.A. Stallcup, editors). Report submitted to California Department of Fish and Game Wildlife Branch, Nongame Wildlife Program for Contract No. P0880022. Nongame Wildlife Program Report.
  30. MacMillen, R. E. 1964. Population ecology, water relations and social behavior of a southern California semidesert rodent fauna. University of California Publications in Zoology 71:1-59.
  31. Maier, T. J. 2002. Long-distance movements by female white-footed mice, <i>Peromyscus leucopus</i>, in extensive mixed-wood forest. Canadian Field-Naturalist 116:108-111.
  32. Maser, C., B. R. Mate, J. F. Franklin, and C. T. Dyrness. 1981. Natural history of Oregon coast mammals. Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Expt. Sta., USDA, Forest Service, Gen Tech. Rep. PNW-133:1-496.
  33. McGriff, D. Lead Zoologist, California Natural Heritage Division, Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA
  34. Meiselman, N., and A. T. Doyle. 1996. Habitat and microhabitat use by the red tree vole (<i>Phenacomys longicaudus</i>). American Midland Naturalist 135:33-42.
  35. Oxley, D. J., M. B. Fenton and G. R. Carmody. 1974. The effects of roads on populations of small mammals. Journal of Applied Ecology 11: 51-59.
  36. Rehmeier, R. L., G. A. Kaufman, and D. W. Kaufman. 2004. Long-distance movements of the deer mouse in tallgrass prairie. Journal of Mammalogy 85:562-568.
  37. Smith, M. H. 1965. Dispersal capacity of the dusky-footed wood rat, <i>Neotoma fuscipes</i>. American Midland Naturalist 74:457-463.
  38. Storer, T. I., F. C. Evans, and F. G. Palmer. 1944. Some rodent populations in the Sierra Nevada of California. Ecological Monographs 14:166-192.
  39. Thomas, J. W., Ward, J., Raphael, M.G., Anthony, R.G., Forsman, E.D., Gunderson, A.G., Holthausen, R.S., Marcot, B.G., Reeves, G.H., Sedell, J.R. and Solis, D.M. 1993. Viability assessments and management considerations for species associated with late-successional and old-growth forests of the Pacific Northwest. The report of the Scientific Analysis Team. USDA Forest Service, Spotted Owl EIS Team, Portland Oregon. 530 pp.
  40. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2016. Review of Native Species that are Candidates for Listing as Endangered or Threatened; Annual Notification of Findings on Resubmitted Petitions; Annual Description of Progress on Listing Actions. Federal Register 81(232): 87246-87272.
  41. Verts, B. J., and L. N. Carraway. 1998. Land mammals of Oregon. University of California Press, Berkeley. xvi + 668 pp.
  42. Vrieze, J. M. 1980. Spatial patterning of red tree mouse, <i>Arborimus longicaudus</i>, nests. M. S. thesis, Humboldt State University, Arcata, California. 37pp.
  43. Wilkins, K. T. 1982. Highways as barriers to rodent dispersal. Southwestern Naturalist 27: 459-460.
  44. Williams, D.F. 1986. Mammal Species of Special Concern in California. State of California, Natural Resources Agency, Dept. of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA. 107pp. https://sdmmp.com/upload/SDMMP_Repository/0/q432h7cwzp9dbsymx05jg1vrfnk68t.pdf
  45. Wilson, D. E., and D. M. Reeder (editors). 1993. Mammal species of the world: a taxonomic and geographic reference. Second edition. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC. xviii + 1206 pp. Available online at: http://www.nmnh.si.edu/msw/.
  46. Wilson, D. E., and D. M. Reeder (editors). 2005. Mammal species of the world: a taxonomic and geographic reference. Third edition. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore. Two volumes. 2,142 pp. [As modified by ASM the Mammal Diversity Database (MDD) at https://www.mammaldiversity.org/index.html]
  47. Zentner, P. L. 1977. The nest of <i>Phenacomys longicaudus</i> in Northwestern California. M. A. Thesis, California State University, Sacramento. 59pp.