Mammal Habitats: Where Mammals Live and How They Adapt

Mammals occupy nearly every major environment on Earth, from tropical forest canopies to open oceans, from underground burrow systems to seasonally flooded floodplains. This article examines the primary habitat categories where mammals live, the physiological and behavioral adaptations that enable survival in each, and the practical methods researchers and land managers use to study mammal habitat use. The content draws on peer-reviewed studies of mammal assemblages across Amazonian forests, African drylands, boreal and temperate systems, and human-modified landscapes. The practical outcome is a habitat-adaptation map that links representative mammal species to their environments and the specific traits that allow them to persist there.

At a Glance: Mammal Habitat Categories and Representative Adaptations

Terrestrial Forest Habitats

Forests support the highest mammal species richness of any terrestrial habitat category. The structure of forest vegetation, including canopy cover, understory complexity, and edge characteristics, directly shapes which mammal species can persist in a given area.

Canopy Cover and Small Mammal Community Structure

Forest canopy cover acts as a primary filter for small mammal communities. A study conducted in the Xiaozhaizigou National Nature Reserve within Giant Panda National Park in Sichuan, China, surveyed small mammals across 16 sampling plots in four canopy cover classes ranging from 0 to 24 percent up to 75 to 100 percent during 2023 and 2024. Forests with the lowest canopy cover exhibited the highest alpha diversity due to greater habitat heterogeneity, while the highest canopy cover forests supported habitat-specialist species including the endemic Père David's rock squirrel and the Sichuan niviventer. Rodentia showed significantly higher abundance than Eulipotyphla across all canopy classes. Beta diversity analysis revealed that species turnover was the main driver of community differentiation, with non-endemic species exhibiting higher beta diversity than endemic species. Endemic species showed positive associations with herb layer complexity, while non-endemic species preferred simpler habitat structures. The study concluded that forest restoration strategies prioritizing canopy closure for flagship species like giant pandas may overlook small mammal habitat requirements, and recommended balanced forest management maintaining both high and low canopy environments in a mosaic approach (Forest canopy cover and small mammal diversity study).

Edge Effects and Habitat Fragmentation

Habitat fragmentation transforms contiguous forest tracts into smaller patches and alters mammal abundance, movement patterns, and disease transmission pathways. A multi-scale study in Essex County, Massachusetts examined small mammal communities across four edge types: interior forest, pasture edge, natural edge, and residential edge. Northern short-tailed shrew abundance did not differ based on edge type, whereas white-footed mouse abundance was greatest at pasture edges, although the relationship was relatively weak. White-footed mouse abundance was negatively associated with the amount of forested area within a 500-meter radius, while northern short-tailed shrew abundance demonstrated a positive relationship with fragmentation indices at the 200-meter radius. Notably, white-footed mice captured in interior forest habitat were more likely to be infected with the Lyme disease bacterium than individuals from edge habitat, countering previous studies (Habitat fragmentation and small mammal study).

Predation Risk and Foraging Behavior

Predators influence prey populations through both consumptive and non-consumptive effects. Prey employ risk-induced trait responses such as shifts in habitat use or changes in foraging behavior in response to predator presence. A study of free-living white-footed mice used auditory calls of a local terrestrial cursorial predator and a local avian ambush predator to simulate predation risk in both forest edge and forest interior habitats. Mice had reduced foraging when exposed to predation risk, but the degree of response depended on an interaction among habitat, refuge use, and predator type. Prey had the greatest reduction in foraging and used refuges most when exposed to cursorial-hunting foxes at the open forest edge. The risk-induced reduction in foraging and refuge use was much weaker in the forest interior, but even there foxes elicited a greater response compared to owls. Foraging tended to decrease with increasing moonlight, though this relationship was not statistically significant (Risk-induced foraging behavior study).

Forest Modification and Mammal Assemblage Responses

Tropical forests are being heavily modified by varying intensities of land use ranging from structural degradation to complete conversion. A study in Eastern Brazilian Amazonia assessed the responses of medium and large-bodied mammal assemblages to reduced impact logging, secondary regrowth, and eucalyptus and oil palm plantations using within-landscape paired baseline-treatment comparisons. Oil palm and eucalyptus plantations exerted the greatest assemblage-wide impact, followed by secondary regrowth and selectively logged forests. Selectively logged and secondary forests did not experience discernible biodiversity loss except for the total number of primary forest species retained. Secondary forests experienced pronounced species turnover with loss of community integrity. The study reinforced the landscape-scale importance of setting aside large preserved areas for biodiversity retention (Amazonian forest modification study).

Grassland and Dryland Habitats

Dryland systems present unique challenges for mammals, including scarce fertile soils, low primary productivity, and predation pressure. The relative importance of productivity versus predation as drivers of mammal assemblages has been a central question in dryland ecology.

Habitat as a Mediator of Predation

A prevailing view in dryland systems holds that mammals are constrained by the scarcity of fertile soils and primary productivity. An alternative view is that predation is a primary driver of mammal assemblages, especially in Australia where two introduced mesopredators, the feral cat and the red fox, are responsible for severe declines of dryland mammals. A study using data from 90 sites in dryland Australia examined productivity and predation as drivers of native mammal assemblage structure. Predation was supported as a major driver of extant mammal richness, but its effect was strongly mediated by habitat. Areas that were rugged or had dense grass cover supported more mammal species than more productive and topographically simple areas. Twelve species in the critical weight range of 35 to 5500 grams, which is most vulnerable to mesopredator predation, were extirpated from the continent's central region. The severity of species loss correlated negatively with ruggedness and positively with productivity. Large areas of rugged terrain provided vital refuge for Australian dryland mammals, and the study predicted such areas will support the persistence of critical weight range species in the face of ongoing mammal declines elsewhere in Australia (Mesopredator-driven mammal extinction study).

Linear Habitats in Agricultural Landscapes

Semi-arid agricultural landscapes contain linear habitat elements such as field margins, shelterbelts, and roadside vegetation that can support small mammal populations. Research on small mammal abundance and diversity in response to various linear habitats in semi-arid agricultural landscapes has documented how these corridors function as habitat refuges and movement pathways (Small mammals in semi-arid agricultural landscapes). Land managers in dryland agricultural regions can maintain native vegetation strips and avoid clearing linear habitat features to support small mammal communities.

Aquatic and Semi-Aquatic Habitats

Mammals that live in aquatic environments face distinct physiological challenges, particularly osmoregulation, thermoregulation, and locomotion in water. Freshwater habitats present additional challenges compared to marine environments, including reduced salinity and different prey availability.

Freshwater Seal Adaptations

The Baikal seal and Saimaa ringed seal are phocid species inhabiting freshwater regions. Unlike their marine relatives, these freshwater seals face distinct environmental challenges, particularly osmoregulation, making marine-to-freshwater habitat transitions an excellent model for investigating the molecular basis of adaptive evolution. A comparative genomic analysis across 14 pinniped species identified lineage-specific adaptive changes in genes involved in osmoregulation, wound healing, and circadian rhythm, including ACE2, ALMS1, F12, SERPING1, and PER3, that are critical for freshwater seals to thrive in environments with reduced salinity and distinct ecological pressures. The study also discovered insertion-deletion variants in conserved non-coding elements that may influence the expression of osmoregulatory genes, offering new insights into the regulatory mechanisms underpinning freshwater adaptation (Freshwater Pusa seal genomic study).

Flooded Forest Habitats

Seasonally flooded forests of the Amazon basin support mammal communities that must adapt to survive in environments where large areas become inundated during high-water periods. A study in the Cuieiras River basin in the Central Amazon used 10,743 camera trap days over four campaigns to compare terrestrial mammal assemblages in unflooded terra firme forests and seasonally flooded igapó forests. A total of 31 mammal species were recorded in both forest types. Species richness was similar in the igapó and terra firme forests, but species abundance and biomass were greater in the terra firme forest, probably due to its higher primary productivity. Evenness was increased in the igapós compared to the terra firme forest. Although both forest types shared 84 percent of species, a marked difference was observed in the composition of terrestrial mammal species. During the low-water phase, the igapó becomes available to terrestrial species that make use of both forest types, and these lateral movements between hydrologically distinct forest types represent an important adaptation to seasonal flooding (Central Amazon flooded forest study).

Fossorial and Soil-Associated Habitats

Soil represents an immense habitat for diverse organisms across the tree of life. A review of the biodiversity literature estimated that soil is likely home to 59 percent plus or minus 15 percent of the species on Earth, approximately two times greater than previous estimates. The review included representatives from the simplest microbial organisms to the most complex mammals. Enchytraeidae, a group of small annelid worms, have the greatest percentage of species in soil at 98.6 percent, followed by fungi at 90 percent, plants at 85.5 percent, and termites at 84.2 percent. The study concluded that soil is the most biodiverse singular habitat on Earth (Soil biodiversity enumeration study).

For mammals, fossorial habitats include burrow systems used by rodents, insectivores, and other small mammals. These underground environments provide protection from predators and temperature extremes but require adaptations for digging, navigating in darkness, and managing gas exchange in enclosed spaces. Small mammal communities in tropical forest habitats have been documented in studies such as those conducted in Mudumalai Wildlife Sanctuary in southern India, where researchers examined species composition and habitat associations across different forest types (Small mammal communities in Mudumalai Wildlife Sanctuary).

Human-Modified Landscapes

Human activities increasingly shape mammal habitats through agriculture, plantation forestry, urbanization, and other land uses. The response of mammal communities to these modifications varies by taxon, habitat type, and the intensity of modification.

Plantation Forestry and Mammal Diversity

Commercial forest plantations of fast-growing species have been established globally to meet increasing demands for timber, pulpwood, and other wood products. A study in the Bengkoka Peninsula of Sabah, East Malaysia investigated relationships between habitat gradients and community attributes of medium-sized to large mammals in a mixed plantation mosaic using 59 remote camera stations deployed for a minimum of 21 days across natural forest, Acacia plantations, and non-Acacia plantations including oil palm, rubber, and young Eucalyptus pellita. More than 22 mammal species were recorded over 1572 sampling occasions. Natural forest area was positively associated with mammal species richness and detections of threatened mammals. Overall detections of mammals increased with decreasing elevation but decreased within and close to Acacia plantations. Detections of threatened mammals increased with greater proportions of natural forest and Acacia and increasing proximity to roads. Species richness of mammals in Acacia and natural forest was considerably higher than in non-Acacia plantations (Commercial plantation mammal study).

Forest Conversion and Taxon-Specific Responses

Forest conversion from natural forests to secondary forests and plantations has significantly altered wildlife habitats in subtropical regions. A four-year camera-trapping dataset comparing the taxonomic, functional, and phylogenetic diversity of birds and mammals found that forest conversion impacts biodiversity differently across taxa. Birds exhibited higher taxonomic and phylogenetic diversity in secondary forests than in plantations. Mammals exhibited considerable taxonomic diversity but showed higher phylogenetic diversity and structure in secondary forests. Beta diversity analysis revealed significant differences in bird taxonomic composition and mammal phylogenetic composition between secondary and plantation forests. Elevation primarily influenced bird taxonomic diversity, phylogenetic diversity, and structure in secondary forests, whereas mammal functional diversity, phylogenetic diversity, and structure were more sensitive to elevational changes in both secondary and plantation forests. The study emphasized that management strategies must be group-specific, recommending preservation of secondary forests as biodiversity refugia for birds and landscape-scale conservation approaches for mammals (Forest conversion and mammal diversity study).

Land Use and Disease Dynamics

Human land use affects small mammal community composition and in turn disease dynamics. A study in northeast Madagascar investigated links between land use and infectious disease risk across a gradient of natural moist evergreen forest, forest fragments, flooded rice fields, other agricultural fields, and village homes. The relative abundance and proportion of exotic species was highest in anthropogenic habitats, while the relative abundance of native species was highest in forested habitats. Prevalence of Leptospira, a bacterial pathogen maintained in small mammal reservoirs, was significantly higher in introduced compared to endemic species. The probability of infection with Leptospira was highest in introduced small mammal species and lower in forest fragments compared to other habitat types. Introduced species likely transmit Leptospira to native species where they co-occur and may displace the Leptospira species naturally occurring in Madagascar. The frequent spatial overlap of people and introduced species also has consequences for public health (Leptospira prevalence study in Madagascar).

Habitat Heterogeneity and Functional Diversity

The relationship between habitat heterogeneity and mammal functional diversity has implications for understanding both contemporary communities and historical habitat reconstructions.

Functional Diversity Metrics

A study using modern mammal data for 141 sites in Africa tested whether mammal functional diversity is positively associated with habitat heterogeneity. Species average body mass and locomotor and dietary information were compiled for all species over 500 grams. Functional diversity was measured using five metrics: locomotor richness, trophic richness, functional richness, functional divergence, and functional evenness. The overall number of species found at a site was strongly positively associated with functional richness, locomotor richness, and trophic richness at all spatial resolutions. The number of habitat types at a site and the density of habitat patches showed a modest positive relationship with most functional diversity metrics at most spatial resolutions. The coefficient of variation in woody cover was a very poor predictor of functional diversity. The locomotor and trophic richness of mammal communities were positively associated with habitat heterogeneity and may be useful for reconstructing aspects of ancient habitats (Mammal functional diversity and habitat heterogeneity study).

Mosaic Habitats and Species Assemblages

Hominin habitats are frequently described as mosaic based on interpretations of fossil assemblages comprising taxa with divergent functional adaptations such as both grazers and browsers. This interpretation rests on an assumption that mammal functional diversity is positively associated with habitat heterogeneity. The study of African mammal communities supported this assumption for locomotor and trophic richness, suggesting that habitat heterogeneity at the landscape scale promotes functional diversity in mammal communities.

Practical Assessment of Mammal Habitats

Researchers and land managers use several standardized methods to assess mammal habitat use and community composition. These methods generate data that inform conservation planning, habitat management, and disease risk assessment.

Camera Trap Surveys

Camera trapping is a widely used method for documenting mammal presence, abundance, and habitat use. The Central Amazon study deployed camera traps for 10,743 trap days across four campaigns to compare mammal assemblages in different forest types (Central Amazon flooded forest study). The commercial plantation study in Sabah used 59 remote camera stations deployed for a minimum of 21 days with 24-hour sampling occasions (Commercial plantation mammal study). Standard camera trap protocols include:

1. Define survey objectives and target species
2. Select sampling sites across habitat gradients
3. Deploy cameras at consistent heights and orientations
4. Maintain cameras for a minimum sampling duration
5. Identify species from images using standardized criteria
6. Calculate detection rates and occupancy estimates
7. Compare assemblages across habitat types using rarefaction and ordination

Live Trapping

Live trapping remains essential for studying small mammal communities, particularly for collecting tissue samples, measuring individual traits, and assessing pathogen prevalence. Trap type can influence capture success. Research on live-trap type preferences of small mammals in relation to habitat, taxon, and sex has documented that wooden and metal traps differ in their effectiveness for different species and demographic groups (Live-trap type preferences of small mammals). Standard live trapping protocols include:

1. Obtain necessary permits and ethical approvals
2. Select trap type appropriate for target species
3. Establish trapping grids or transects across habitat types
4. Set traps in the evening and check in early morning
5. Identify species, record sex, age, and reproductive condition
6. Collect tissue samples for genetic or pathogen analysis
7. Release animals at capture location

Vegetation Surveys

Vegetation structure is a primary determinant of mammal habitat suitability. Standard vegetation measurements include canopy cover, understory density, herb layer complexity, and ground cover. The canopy cover study in Sichuan used 16 sampling plots of 50 by 50 meters across four canopy cover classes (Forest canopy cover and small mammal diversity study). Vegetation classifications can serve as descriptors of small mammal habitat preference, though different classification systems vary in their predictive power (Vegetation classifications as descriptors of small mammal habitat preference).

Records and Measurements

Consistent data collection and record keeping are essential for understanding mammal habitat use and detecting changes over time.

Essential Data Fields

Data Management Practices

Standard data management practices include maintaining field notebooks with standardized data sheets, entering data into relational databases, georeferencing all sampling locations, archiving tissue samples with unique identifiers, and documenting all methods and equipment used. Camera trap data should include deployment dates, camera locations, and species identification records. Live trapping data should include trap location, trap type, and individual animal measurements.

Common Failure Patterns in Mammal Habitat Assessment

Several recurring problems can compromise mammal habitat studies and management decisions.

Inadequate Sampling Effort

Insufficient sampling effort leads to underestimation of species richness and biased community comparisons. The Central Amazon study required 10,743 camera trap days to document 31 mammal species, illustrating the substantial effort needed to characterize mammal communities in species-rich tropical systems (Central Amazon flooded forest study). Researchers should conduct pilot surveys to estimate detection probabilities and calculate required sampling effort before initiating full surveys.

Ignoring Habitat Heterogeneity Within Categories

Treating broad habitat categories as homogeneous units obscures important ecological variation. The Amazon study found that igapó and terra firme forests shared 84 percent of mammal species but differed markedly in species composition and abundance (Central Amazon flooded forest study). Similarly, the canopy cover study found that different canopy cover classes supported different small mammal communities, with low canopy forests supporting higher diversity and high canopy forests supporting habitat specialists (Forest canopy cover and small mammal diversity study).

Overlooking Taxon-Specific Responses

Management strategies that assume uniform responses to habitat modification across taxa are likely to fail. The forest conversion study found that birds and mammals respond distinctively to forest conversion, with birds showing higher diversity in secondary forests and mammals showing different phylogenetic diversity patterns (Forest conversion and mammal diversity study). Conservation planning must account for these taxon-specific responses.

Failing to Account for Predator-Mediated Effects

Habitat characteristics can mediate predation risk in ways that are not immediately obvious. The dryland Australia study found that rugged terrain and dense grass cover supported more mammal species despite lower productivity, because these habitats reduced mesopredator foraging efficiency (Mesopredator-driven mammal extinction study). Habitat assessments that focus only on productivity or vegetation structure may miss these predator-mediated effects.

Limitations and Knowledge Gaps

Current understanding of mammal habitats has several important limitations.

Geographic Bias

Research effort is unevenly distributed across the globe. Tropical forests, temperate systems, and drylands have received substantial attention, while other habitats remain understudied. The studies cited here span the Amazon, Australia, Africa, Southeast Asia, China, Madagascar, and North America, but many regions lack basic inventory data for mammal communities.

Detection Limitations

All survey methods have detection limitations. Camera traps may miss small or arboreal species, live traps may be biased toward certain taxa or sexes, and both methods require substantial effort to detect rare species. The live-trap type preference study documented that trap design affects capture success, highlighting the need for method standardization (Live-trap type preferences of small mammals).

Temporal Scale

Most mammal habitat studies cover relatively short time periods, often one to four years. Long-term studies are needed to document population trends, responses to climate variability, and successional changes in habitat suitability. The Dokima forest bird study in Ethiopia conducted surveys between November 2018 and December 2020 across dry and wet seasons, illustrating the value of multi-season sampling (Bird diversity in Dokima forest study).

Emerging Threats

New environmental contaminants pose emerging threats to mammal habitats. Microplastics have become a concerning global environmental problem, toxic to aquatic organisms and able to spread through the food chain. A study of polystyrene microplastics in mice found that oral exposure decreased body, liver, and lipid weights, reduced mucus secretion in the gut, and modified gut microbiota composition and diversity. Hepatic triglyceride and total cholesterol levels decreased in exposed groups, and the relative mRNA levels of key genes related to lipogenesis and triglyceride synthesis decreased in the liver and epididymal fat (Polystyrene microplastics and gut microbiota study). These findings indicate that environmental contaminants can affect mammal physiology through habitat contamination, though research on wild mammal populations remains limited.

Welfare and Safety Context

Mammal habitat research involves ethical and safety considerations that researchers and land managers must address.

Animal Welfare Standards

All live trapping and handling of mammals requires ethical approval and adherence to animal welfare standards. Researchers must minimize stress and injury during capture and handling, provide appropriate care for captured animals, and release animals at their capture locations. Trap design affects animal welfare, and researchers should select trap types that minimize injury risk while achieving study objectives (Live-trap type preferences of small mammals).

Zoonotic Disease Precautions

Mammal habitat research can involve exposure to zoonotic pathogens. The Madagascar study documented Leptospira prevalence in small mammals across different habitat types, with higher prevalence in introduced species and in anthropogenic habitats (Leptospira prevalence study in Madagascar). The Massachusetts study documented tick-borne pathogen prevalence in small mammals, including the Lyme disease bacterium, Anaplasma phagocytophilum, and Babesia microti (Habitat fragmentation and small mammal study). Researchers should use appropriate personal protective equipment when handling mammals and tissues, follow institutional biosafety protocols, and seek medical attention for any potential exposures.

Regulatory Compliance

Mammal research requires compliance with local, national, and international regulations governing wildlife capture, handling, and sampling. Researchers must obtain necessary permits before initiating fieldwork and comply with reporting requirements. Regulations vary by jurisdiction, and researchers should consult with institutional animal care and use committees and relevant wildlife agencies before beginning studies.

Professional Escalation Criteria

Land managers and researchers should seek specialized expertise when encountering specific situations.

When to Consult a Wildlife Ecologist

Consult a wildlife ecologist when planning mammal surveys in species-rich tropical systems, when designing long-term monitoring programs, when interpreting complex community data, or when developing conservation plans for threatened species. The Amazonian forest modification study illustrates the complexity of assessing mammal assemblage responses to different land use types, requiring specialized analytical approaches (Amazonian forest modification study).

When to Consult a Disease Ecologist

Consult a disease ecologist when mammal communities overlap with human settlements, when introduced species are present, when zoonotic disease transmission is suspected, or when planning studies involving pathogen sampling. The Madagascar study documented that introduced species in anthropogenic habitats had higher Leptospira prevalence, with implications for public health (Leptospira prevalence study in Madagascar).

When to Consult a Conservation Geneticist

Consult a conservation geneticist when assessing adaptive potential of mammal populations, when planning translocations or reintroductions, when evaluating population connectivity, or when studying habitat transitions. The freshwater seal genomic study identified specific genes involved in osmoregulation and adaptation to freshwater habitats, demonstrating the value of genomic approaches for understanding habitat adaptation (Freshwater Pusa seal genomic study).

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the most biodiverse mammal habitat?

Tropical forests support the highest mammal species richness of any terrestrial habitat. However, soil is the most biodiverse singular habitat on Earth, estimated to be home to 59 percent plus or minus 15 percent of all species, including representatives from the simplest microbial organisms to the most complex mammals (Soil biodiversity enumeration study). Within tropical forests, different forest types support different mammal communities, as documented in the Central Amazon where igapó and terra firme forests shared 84 percent of species but differed in abundance, biomass, and species composition (Central Amazon flooded forest study).

How do mammals adapt to seasonal flooding?

Mammals in seasonally flooded forests adapt through lateral movements between hydrologically distinct forest types. During the low-water phase, flooded igapó forests become available to terrestrial species that also use unflooded terra firme forests. The Central Amazon study documented that terrestrial mammals move between these forest types seasonally, with species abundance and biomass greater in terra firme forests due to higher primary productivity, while evenness was increased in igapó forests (Central Amazon flooded forest study).

What habitat features protect mammals from predators?

Rugged terrain and dense vegetation cover provide refuge from predators. The dryland Australia study found that areas that were rugged or had dense grass cover supported more mammal species than more productive and topographically simple areas, because these habitats reduced the foraging efficiency of introduced mesopredators including feral cats and red foxes (Mesopredator-driven mammal extinction study).

How does forest canopy cover affect small mammal diversity?

Forest canopy cover shapes small mammal community structure in contrasting ways. Low canopy forests support higher species diversity due to greater habitat heterogeneity, while high canopy forests support habitat-specialist species. A study in Sichuan, China found that

Related Articles

• Adapt Biology Definition
• Human Biology Major
• biology major jobs
• What Is a Buffer in Biology? Definition and Examples
• What Is a Stimulus in Biology? Definition and Examples

References and Further Reading

• NCBI Literature Resources. National Center for Biotechnology Information.
• PubMed. National Library of Medicine.
• Assessing assemblage-wide mammal responses to different types of habitat modification in Amazonian forests.. Scientific reports, 2022.
• Enumerating soil biodiversity.. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2023.
• Polystyrene microplastics induce gut microbiota dysbiosis and hepatic lipid metabolism disorder in mice.. The Science of the total environment, 2018.
• Mammal functional diversity and habitat heterogeneity: Implications for hominin habitat reconstruction.. Journal of human evolution, 2020.
• Habitat as a mediator of mesopredator-driven mammal extinction.. Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology, 2017.
• Multi-scale analysis of habitat fragmentation on small-mammal abundance and tick-borne pathogen infection prevalence in Essex County, MA.. PloS one, 2022.
• Composition of terrestrial mammal assemblages and their habitat use in unflooded and flooded blackwater forests in the Central Amazon.. PeerJ, 2022.
• Diversity and relative abundance of bird species in the two habitat types of Dokima forest Awi zone, Ethiopia.. PloS one, 2023.
• Genomic insights into marine-freshwater transition: evolutionary adaptations in freshwater Pusa seals.. 2026.
• Forest Conversion Drives Divergent Responses in Bird and Mammal Diversity: Stand Structure Matters for Birds, Elevation for Mammals.. 2026.
• The impact of forest canopy cover on small mammal community diversity in the giant panda National park, sichuan, China.. 2025.
• Risk-Induced Foraging Behavior in a Free-Living Small Mammal Depends on the Interactive Effects of Habitat, Refuge Availability, and Predator Type. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution, 2021.
• Mammal species composition and habitat associations in a commercial forest and mixed-plantation landscape. Forest Ecology and Management, 2021.
• Small Mammal Habitat Preferences in a Patchwork of Adjacent Reconstructed Grasslands Subject to Semiannual Burns. Ecological Restoration, 2015.
• Effects of land use, habitat characteristics, and small mammal community composition on Leptospira prevalence in northeast Madagascar. PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases, 2020.
• Habitat Type-Based Assemblage and Distribution Prediction of Small Mammals and Chigger Mites (Acari: Trombiculidae) in Chuncheon City, Republic of Korea. Animals, 2024.
• A comparison of vegetation classifications as descriptors of small mammal habitat preference.. Vegetation Classification in Australia Proc Workshop 1978, 1981.
• Abundance and diversity of small mammals in response to various linear habitats in semi-arid agricultural landscapes. Journal of Arid Environments, 2012.
• Wooden or metal: live-trap type preferences of small mammals in relation to habitat, taxon, and sex. Mammalian Biology, 2026.
• Small mammal communities of tropical forest habitats in Mudumalai Wildlife Sanctuary, southern India. Mammalia, 2005.

This article is educational and does not replace institutional policy, professional advice, or applicable safety and regulatory requirements.