Search Field Guide
Advanced Search
MT Gov Logo
Montana Field Guide

Montana Field Guides

Montane Vole - Microtus montanus

Native Species

Global Rank: G5
State Rank: S5
(see State Rank Reason below)


Agency Status
USFWS:
USFS:
BLM:


 

External Links





State Rank Reason (see State Rank above)
Species is relatively common within suitable habitat and widely distributed across portions of the state
  • Details on Status Ranking and Review
    Montane Vole (Microtus montanus) Conservation Status Review
    Review Date = 05/03/2018
    Range Extent

    ScoreG - 200,000-2,500,000 km squared (about 80,000-1,000,000 square miles)

    Comment220,714 square Kilometers from Natural Heritage Program range maps

    Long-term Trend

    ScoreE - Relatively Stable (±25% change)

    CommentHabitat is likely stable within +/- 25% since European settlement

    Short-term Trend

    ScoreU - Unknown. Short-term trend in population, range, area occupied, and number and condition of occurrences unknown.

    CommentNo data on trends available

    Threats

    ScoreH - Unthreatened. Threats if any, when considered in comparison with natural fluctuation and change, are minimal or very localized, not leading to significant loss or degradation of populations or area even over a few decades’ time. (Severity, scope, and/or immediacy of threat considered Insignificant.)

    CommentNo operational threats in the next 15-20 years identified

    Intrinsic Vulnerability

    ScoreC - Not Intrinsically Vulnerable. Species matures quickly, reproduces frequently, and/or has high fecundity such that populations recover quickly (< 5 years or 2 generations) from decreases in abundance; or species has high dispersal capability such that extirpated populations soon become reestablished through natural recolonization (unaided by humans).

    CommentNot Intrinsically Vulnerable. Species matures quickly, reproduces frequently, and/or has a high fecundity such that populations recover quickly (< 5 years or 2 generations) from decreases in abundance. Species has good dispersal capabilities such that e

    Environmental Specificity

    ScoreD - Broad. Generalist. Broad-scale or diverse (general) habitat(s) or abiotic and/or biotic factors are used or required by the species, with all key requirements common in the generalized range of the species in the area of interest. If the preferred food(s) or breeding/nonbreeding microhabitat(s) become unavailable, the species switches to an alternative with no resulting decline in numbers of individuals or number of breeding attempts.

    CommentFound across diverse habitats

    Raw Conservation Status Score

    Score 3.5 + 0 (geographic distribution) + 0.5 (environmental specificity) + 0 (long-term trend) + 1 (threats) = 5

 
General Description
The adult Montane Vole can measure from 5 1/2 to 7 1/2 inches long, from tip of nose to end of tail. Its back will be blackish brown or black, with a gray cast to the fur. Pale, buffy sides, a whitish belly and dusky-colored feet help it blend into dry grasslands. This rodent's ears are small enough to be hidden in its fur (Foresman 2012).


Diagnostic Characteristics
Measurement of the tail helps differentiate the Montane Vole from Meadow and Long-tailed Voles but is not diagnostic. The tail is less than 50% of body length (Foresman 2012) or about twice the size of the hind foot (Zeveloff and Collett 1988). To identify this species with any certainty a detailed examination of structure of the molars must be performed.

Species Range
Montana Range Range Descriptions

Native

Western Hemisphere Range

 


Observations in Montana Natural Heritage Program Database
Number of Observations: 502

(Click on the following maps and charts to see full sized version) Map Help and Descriptions
Relative Density

Recency

 

(Observations spanning multiple months or years are excluded from time charts)



Migration
Non-migratory.

Habitat
Usually dry grassland or sagebrush-grasslands. Will use wet meadows and marshes at high elevations when M. pennsylvanicus is absent (Pattie 1967 and Hoffmann et al. 1969).

Ecological Systems Associated with this Species
  • Details on Creation and Suggested Uses and Limitations
    How Associations Were Made
    We associated the use and habitat quality (common or occasional) of each of the 82 ecological systems mapped in Montana for vertebrate animal species that regularly breed, overwinter, or migrate through the state by:
    1. Using personal observations and reviewing literature that summarize the breeding, overwintering, or migratory habitat requirements of each species (Dobkin 1992, Hart et al. 1998, Hutto and Young 1999, Maxell 2000, Foresman 2012, Adams 2003, and Werner et al. 2004);
    2. Evaluating structural characteristics and distribution of each ecological system relative to the species' range and habitat requirements;
    3. Examining the observation records for each species in the state-wide point observation database associated with each ecological system;
    4. Calculating the percentage of observations associated with each ecological system relative to the percent of Montana covered by each ecological system to get a measure of "observations versus availability of habitat".
    Species that breed in Montana were only evaluated for breeding habitat use, species that only overwinter in Montana were only evaluated for overwintering habitat use, and species that only migrate through Montana were only evaluated for migratory habitat use.  In general, species were listed as associated with an ecological system if structural characteristics of used habitat documented in the literature were present in the ecological system or large numbers of point observations were associated with the ecological system.  However, species were not listed as associated with an ecological system if there was no support in the literature for use of structural characteristics in an ecological system, even if point observations were associated with that system.  Common versus occasional association with an ecological system was assigned based on the degree to which the structural characteristics of an ecological system matched the preferred structural habitat characteristics for each species as represented in scientific literature.  The percentage of observations associated with each ecological system relative to the percent of Montana covered by each ecological system was also used to guide assignment of common versus occasional association.  If you have any questions or comments on species associations with ecological systems, please contact the Montana Natural Heritage Program's Senior Zoologist.

    Suggested Uses and Limitations
    Species associations with ecological systems should be used to generate potential lists of species that may occupy broader landscapes for the purposes of landscape-level planning.  These potential lists of species should not be used in place of documented occurrences of species (this information can be requested at: mtnhp.org/requests) or systematic surveys for species and evaluations of habitat at a local site level by trained biologists.  Users of this information should be aware that the land cover data used to generate species associations is based on imagery from the late 1990s and early 2000s and was only intended to be used at broader landscape scales.  Land cover mapping accuracy is particularly problematic when the systems occur as small patches or where the land cover types have been altered over the past decade.  Thus, particular caution should be used when using the associations in assessments of smaller areas (e.g., evaluations of public land survey sections).  Finally, although a species may be associated with a particular ecological system within its known geographic range, portions of that ecological system may occur outside of the species' known geographic range.

    Literature Cited
    • Adams, R.A.  2003.  Bats of the Rocky Mountain West; natural history, ecology, and conservation.  Boulder, CO: University Press of Colorado.  289 p.
    • Dobkin, D. S.  1992.  Neotropical migrant land birds in the Northern Rockies and Great Plains. USDA Forest Service, Northern Region. Publication No. R1-93-34.  Missoula, MT.
    • Foresman, K.R.  2012.  Mammals of Montana.  Second edition.  Mountain Press Publishing, Missoula, Montana.  429 pp.
    • Hart, M.M., W.A. Williams, P.C. Thornton, K.P. McLaughlin, C.M. Tobalske, B.A. Maxell, D.P. Hendricks, C.R. Peterson, and R.L. Redmond. 1998.  Montana atlas of terrestrial vertebrates.  Montana Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit, University of Montana, Missoula, MT.  1302 p.
    • Hutto, R.L. and J.S. Young.  1999.  Habitat relationships of landbirds in the Northern Region, USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station RMRS-GTR-32.  72 p.
    • Maxell, B.A.  2000.  Management of Montana's amphibians: a review of factors that may present a risk to population viability and accounts on the identification, distribution, taxonomy, habitat use, natural history, and the status and conservation of individual species.  Report to U.S. Forest Service Region 1.  Missoula, MT: Wildlife Biology Program, University of Montana.  161 p.
    • Werner, J.K., B.A. Maxell, P. Hendricks, and D. Flath.  2004.  Amphibians and reptiles of Montana.  Missoula, MT: Mountain Press Publishing Company. 262 p.

Food Habits
In the Beartooths, in close association with M. richardsoni, used mostly forbs (Pattie 1967).

Ecology
Estimated 1.0 to 3.4/acre in the Beartooths, mean adjacent range length of 236 ft. (Pattie 1967). Population fluctuates. Can be an agricultural pest (Banfield 1974).

Reproductive Characteristics
Begins breeding in early June (Beartooths). Adults average 6.8 young/litter, subadults 5.0 young/litter. Some young females born in spring breed as subadults; some males sexually mature in August (Pattie 1967).


References
  • Literature Cited AboveLegend:   View Online Publication
    • Banfield, A.W.F. 1974. The mammals of Canada. University of Toronto Press for National Museum of Natural Science and the National Museums of Canada, 438 pp.
    • Foresman, K.R. 2012. Mammals of Montana. Second edition. Mountain Press Publishing, Missoula, Montana. 429 pp.
    • Pattie, D.L. 1967. Dynamics of alpine small mammal populations. Ph.D dissertation. University of Montana, Missoula. 102 pp.
    • Zeveloff, S.I. and F.R. Collett. 1988. Mammals of the Intermountain west. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, Utah.
  • Additional ReferencesLegend:   View Online Publication
    Do you know of a citation we're missing?
    • [WWPC] Washington Water Power Company. 1995. 1994 wildlife report Noxon Rapids and Cabinet Gorge Reservoirs. Washington Water Power Company. Spokane, WA.
    • Allen, K.L., T. Weaver, and D. Flath. 1994. Small mammals in Northern Rocky Mountain ecosystems. Unpubl. report to Bureau of Land Management and United States Forest Service, August 31, 1994. Montana State Univ., Bozeman. 54 pp.
    • Anderson, S. 1959. Distribution, variation, and relationships of the montane vole (Microtus montanus). 97 pp.
    • Bachen, D.A. 2014. Cheatgrass invasion of sagebrush steppe: Impacts of vegetation structure on small mammals. M.Sc. Thesis. Bozeman, Montana: Montana State University. 96 p.
    • Belk, M. C., Smith, H. D., and J. Lawson. 1988. Use and partitioning of montane habitat by small mammals. J. Mammal. 69(4):688-695.
    • Butts, T.W., Western Technology and R.L. Eng. 1993. Continental Lime Indian Creek Mine, Townsend, MT. Life of Mine Wildlife Reconnaissance. In Life-of-Mine Amendment. Continental Lime, Inc., Indian Creek Mine & Plant. Vol. 2. October 13, 1992.
    • Carlsen, T. 1980. Small mammal trapping in the Elkhorns. [Unpublished report]. 7 pp.
    • Carlsen, T. and R. Northrup. 1992. Canyon Ferry Wildlife Management Area Final Draft Management Plan. March 1992.
    • Clark, S.G. and M.R. Stromberg. 1987. Mammals in Wyoming. University of Kansas Museum of Natural History, Public Education Series Number 10. xii + 314 pp.
    • Craighead, A.C. 2000. Pellet and scat analysis as indicators of present and past habitats. M.Sc. Theses. Bozeman, MT: Montana State University. 219 p.
    • Davis, W.B. 1937. Some mammals from western Montana and eastern Idaho. The Murrelet 18(2): 22-27.
    • Douglass, R.J. 1973. Spatial interactions and microhabitat selections of two locally sympatric voles, Microtus montanus and Microtus pennsylvanicus. Ph.D. Dissertation. Bozeman, Montana: Montana State University. 48 p.
    • Douglass, R.J. 1976. Spatial interactions and microhabitat selections of two locally sympatric voles, Microtus montanus and Microtus pennsylvanicus. Ecology 57: 346-352.
    • Eng, R.L. 1976. Wildlife Baseline Study [for West Fork of the Stillwater and Picket Pin drainages]
    • Feigley, H.P. 1981. Studies on native small mammals as intermediate hosts of Echinococcus multilocularis. M.Sc. Thesis. Bozeman, Montana: Montana State University. 50 p.
    • Feldhamer, G.A. 1979. Vegetative and edaphic features affecting the abundance and distribution of small mammals in southeast Oregon. Great Basin Nat. 39:207-218.
    • Findley, J. S. 1951. Habitat preferences of four species of Microtus in Jackson Hole, Wyoming. J. Mammal. 32(1):118-120.
    • Foresman, K.R. 2001. The wild mammals of Montana. American Society of Mammalogists, Special Publication Number 12. Lawrence, KS. 278 pp.
    • Genter, D.L. 1986. Habitat selection and behavioral interactions of two sympatric voles, Microtus montanus and Microtus pennsylvanicus. M.A. thesis. University of Montana, Missoula. 49 pp.
    • Haglund, B.M. 1972. Ecological effects of weather modification, Bangtail Ridge, Bridger Range, Montana: relationships of pocket gophers (Thomomys talpoides) to time of snow melt. M.Sc. Thesis. Bozeman, Montana: Montana State University. 26 p.
    • Haight, C.P. 1937. Some observations on the predator-prey complex in the Gallatin Valley. M.Sc. Thesis. Bozeman, Montana: Montana State University. 58 p.
    • Hanauska-Brown, L., B.A. Maxell, A. Petersen, and S. Story. 2014. Diversity Monitoring in Montana 2008-2010 Final Report. Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks. Helena, MT. 78 pp.
    • Hayward, G. D. and P. H. Hayward. 1995. Relative abundance and habitat associations of small mammals in the Chamberlain Basin, central Idaho. Northwest Sci. 69(2): 114-125.
    • Heath, M.L. 1973. Small mammal populations in clearcuts of various ages in south central Montana. M.Sc. Thesis. Bozeman, Montana: Montana State University. 33 p.
    • Hendricks, P. and M. Roedel. 2001. A faunal survey of the Centennial Valley Sandhills, Beaverhead County, Montana. Report to the U.S. Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Montana Natural Heritage Program, Helena, MT. 44 p.
    • Hodgeson, J.R. 1972. Local distribution of Microtus montanus and Microtus pennsylvanicus in southwestern Montana. J. Mammal. 53(3): 487-499.
    • Hodgson, J. R. 1972. Local distribulion of Microtus montanus and M. pennsylvanicus in southwestern Montana. J. Mammal. 53:487-499.
    • Hodgson, J.R. 1970. Ecological distribution of Microtus montanus and Microtus pennsylvanicus in an area of geographic sympatry in southwestern Montana. Ph.D. Dissertation. Bozeman, Montana: Montana State University. 65 p.
    • Hoffmann, R.S. and D.L. Pattie. 1968. A guide to Montana mammals: identification, habitat, distribution, and abundance. Missoula, MT: University of Montana. 133 p.
    • Hoffmann, R.S., P.L. Wright, and F.E. Newby. 1969. The distribution of some mammals in Montana. I. Mammals other than bats. Journal of Mammalogy 50(3): 579-604.
    • Johnson, L.J. 1960. Mammal studies on the Lubrecht Forest, Montana: a preliminary report. Proc. Mont. Acad. Sci. 20: 40-47.
    • Joslin, Gayle, and Heidi B. Youmans. 1999. Effects of recreation on Rocky Mountain wildlife: a review for Montana. [Montana]: Montana Chapter of the Wildlife Society.
    • Kinsella, J. M. 1966. Helminths of Microtinae in western Montana. M.A. thesis. University of Montana, Missoula. 61 pp.
    • Klaus, M. 1997. Dispersal of Microtus richardsoni in the Beartooth Mountains of Montana and Wyoming. Ph.D. Dissertation. Bozeman, MT: Montana State University. 56 p.
    • Koplin, J.R. 1962. Competition and niche segregation in the genus Microtus. M.S. thesis. Montana State University. 66 pp.
    • Kritzman, E.B. 1977. Little mammals of the Pacific Northwest. Pacific Search Press, Seattle, WA.
    • McCaughey, W.W. 1990. Biotic and microsite factors affecting Pinus albicaulis establishment and survival. Ph.D. Dissertation. Bozeman, MT: Montana State University. 78 p.
    • Medin, D. E. and W. P. Clary. 1991. Small mammals of a beaver pond ecosystem and adjacent riparian habitat in Idaho. USDA, Forest Service, Res. Paper INT-445.
    • Murie, J. O. 1971. Behavioral relationship between two sympatric voles: Relevance to habitat segregation. J. Mammal. 52(1):181-186.
    • Oechsli, L.M. 2000. Ex-urban development in the Rocky Mountain West: consequences for native vegetation, wildlife diversity, and land-use planning in Big Sky, Montana. M.Sc. Thesis. Montana State University, Bozeman. 73 p.
    • Pattie, D.L. and N.A. M. Verbeek. 1967. Alpine mammals of the Beartooth Plateau. Northwest Science 41(3): 110-117.
    • Pearson, Dean E., et al., ???, Small mammal community composition, relative abundance, and habitat selection in native bunchgrass of the Northern Rocky Mountains: implications for exotic plant invasions
    • Pinter, A. J. 1986. Population dynamics and litter size of the montane vole, Microtus montanus. Canadian Journal of Zoology 64:1487- 1490.
    • Purdue, J.R. 1984. Note on the distribution of some mammals in the Pryor Mountains, Carbon County, Montana. Proc. Mont. Acad. Sci. 44:21-24.
    • Reichel, J.D. 1996. Northern bog lemming survey: 1995: Garnet Resource Area. Montana Natural Heritage Program. Helena, MT. 35 pp.
    • Reid, F. 2006. Peterson Field Guide to Mammals of North America, 4th Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company: Boston and New York, 608 pp.
    • Rowsemitt, C. N., C. J. Welch, M. C. Kuehl, R. E. Moore and L. L. Jackson. 1988. Hormonal regulation in preputial gland function in male Microtus montanus, the Montana vole. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. 90A: 195-200.
    • Rust, H. J. 1946. Mammals of northern Idaho. J. Mammal. 27(4): 308-327.
    • Sera, W. E. and C. N. Early. 2003. Microtus montanus. American Society of Mammalogists, Lawrence, KS. Mammalian Species No. 716:1-10.
    • Stoecker, R.E. 1967. A population study of five species of small rodents in the Bridger Mountains of Montana. M.Sc. Thesis. Bozeman, Montana: Montana State University. 32 p.
    • Thompson, L.S. 1982. Distribution of Montana amphibians, reptiles, and mammals. Bozeman: Montana Audubon Council. 24 pp.
    • Thompson, Richard W., Western Resource Dev. Corp., Boulder, CO., 1996, Wildlife baseline report for the Montana [Montanore] Project, Lincoln and Sanders counties, Montana. In Application for a Hard Rock Operating Permit and Proposed Plan of Operation, Montanore Project, Lincoln and Sanders Counties, Montana. Vol. 5. Stroiazzo, John. Noranda Minerals Corp., Libby, MT. Revised September 1996.
    • Von Gunten. 1978. Pronghorn fawn mortality on the National Bison Range. M.S. thesis. University of Montana, Missoula. 82 pp.
    • Welsh, C. J. 1985. Species-typical lipids from the body surface and preputial glands of the sympatric voles Microtus montanus and M. pennsylvanicus: characterization and identification. Ph.D. thesis, Montana State University, Bozeman. 83 pp.
    • Welsh, C. J., R. E. Moore, R. J. Bartelt and L. L. Jackson. 1988. Novel, species-typical esters from preputial glands of sympatric voles, Microtus montana and M. pennsylvanicus. J. Chem. Ecology 14:143-157.
    • Williams, O. 1955. Distribution of mice and shrews in a Colorado montane forest. J. Mammal. 36(2): 221-231.
    • Wood, M.A. 1981. Small mammal communities after two recent fires in Yellowstone National Park. M.Sc. Thesis. Bozeman, Montana: Montana State University. 58 p.
  • Web Search Engines for Articles on "Montane Vole"
  • Additional Sources of Information Related to "Mammals"
Login Logout
Citation for data on this website:
Montane Vole — Microtus montanus.  Montana Field Guide.  .  Retrieved on , from