Mus musculus domesticus (mouse)
Identity
- Preferred Scientific Name
- Mus musculus domesticus Schwarz & Schwarz
- Preferred Common Name
- mouse
- Other Scientific Names
- Mus domesticus
- International Common Names
- Englishhouse mouse
- Local Common Names
- Laosnorkey
- Malaysiatikus rumah terkechil
Pictures
Distribution
Host Plants and Other Plants Affected
Host | Host status | References |
---|---|---|
Avena sativa (oats) | Main | |
Brassica napus var. napus (rape) | Main | |
Chenopodium (Goosefoot) | Other | |
Citrullus | Other | |
Glycine max (soyabean) | Main | |
Helianthus annuus (sunflower) | Main | |
Medicago (medic) | Other | |
Oryza sativa (rice) | Main | |
Poaceae (grasses) | Wild host | |
Sorghum bicolor (sorghum) | Main | |
Triticum (wheat) | Main | |
Zea mays (maize) | Main |
Symptoms
Plants eaten by mice generally have a jagged cut at the point of gnawing. Theyparticularly like to attack the node of cereals when the plants are at thebooting stage.
List of Symptoms/Signs
Symptom or sign | Life stages | Sign or diagnosis |
---|---|---|
Plants/Fruit/external feeding | ||
Plants/Growing point/external feeding | ||
Plants/Inflorescence/external feeding | ||
Plants/Seeds/external feeding | ||
Plants/Stems/external feeding |
Prevention and Control
General Methods
Many varied methods have been used to control house mice. Physical barriers, chemosterilants, repellents (e.g. electronic pulses and ultrasonics), predators, kill-trapping, bounty systems and various chemical methods have generally had limited success. Around dwellings, the use of kill-traps and poison baiting provides the best protection. The strategic placement of traps and rodenticides can have a major influence on the success of a control programme. Basically, traps and bait stations should be placed near signs of mice activity and along walls. Details of these methods, the efficacy of various chemical rodenticides and placement strategies are provided by Brookes and Rowe (1979), Meehan (1984) and Buckle (1994).In fields, poison baits have provided some protection to farmers in Australia but the efficacy is often sub-optimal (see Twigg et al., 1991) whereas the risks to non-target species are high.
IPM Programmes
In Australia, with a greater understanding of the processes generating an outbreak of mouse populations and the habitat use by mice, integrated management programmes are under trial. The programme is dependent on an early-warning system and on farmers adopting early actions. These actions include good farm hygiene, management of key breeding habitats of mice (e.g. reduction of grass growth around margins of crops; grazing stubbles of crops immediately after harvest), strategic use of chemical rodenticides (where and when to use them) and strong involvement of growers in the implementation and management of the programme to ensure control is conducted in synchrony over large areas.
Biological Control Programmes
CSIRO, Division of Wildlife and Ecology (Canberra, Australia) is conducting research on the biological control of house mice. A 3-year field trial on the potential of a liver nematode, Capillaria hepatica, finished recently (Singleton et al., 1995). Current research focuses on murine viruses and immuno-contraception. This research plus the prospects of other methods of biological control are reviewed by Singleton (1994).
Impact
Although Asian members of the musculus-domesticus complex of species cause damage to crops, they generally cause greater problems postharvest and around dwellings. In Australia, M. musculus domesticus is the only species of house mouse and they are a major preharvest, postharvest and urban pest (Redhead, 1988). House mice are sporadically very serious pests of cereals, legumes, oilseeds, maize and horticultural crops in southern and eastern Australia; these regions are prone to massive outbreaks of mice with densities reaching in excess of 1000 per hectare (Singleton and Redhead, 1989). Approximately 20% of Australia is prone to mouse plagues. The eastern grain-belt is where most plagues take place. Plagues occur aperiodically, and although it is rare for a plague to cover the whole of the eastern grain-belt in any one year, on average there is a plague somewhere in that grain-belt one in every four years. Mouse plagues can be patchy <500 km²) or widespread (500 to 10,000 km²). During 1993 and 1994, losses caused by mouse plagues in southern Australia were greater than (Aus)$ 75 million (Caughley et al., 1994; Croft and Caughley, 1995). Episodic mouse plagues which cause serious losses to crops also occur in the north-west plateau region of China (Yan, 1985). The subspecies causing the problem is M. musculus musculus. Mouse plagues have a major sociological impact because people have to share their living space with literally hundreds of mice each day and night for up to 6 months. It is this commensal nature of mice which causes the greatest economic and social problems throughout most of their geographic range. In Asian and African countries where grain storage facilities are rarely rodent-proof, the most important economic impact of mice is the destruction and fouling of stored grain. The presence of mice also causes important health and environmental problems. Firstly, through indiscriminate or widespread use of chemicals in efforts to control mice and, secondly, because mice are vectors for diseases of humans and their domestic livestock.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Copyright
Copyright © CABI. CABI is a registered EU trademark. This article is published under a Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)
History
Published online: 10 December 2019
Language
English
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
SCITE_
Citations
Export citation
Select the format you want to export the citations of this publication.
EXPORT CITATIONSExport Citation
View Options
View options
Get Access
Login Options
Check if you access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.