BULLETIN FLORIDA MUSEUM NATURAL HISTORY VOL. 38 PT. 11(8)


 Woodrats were distributed in clusters in continuous habitats, forming what I
entitled "woodrat neighborhoods," although they used solitary den sites. The
reported "colonial" nature of woodrats in previous studies in Florida (Pearson
1952; Chamberlain 1928) may be factual, but also may be an interpretation of large
scale "coloniality," or a cluster distribution, observed in this study. It is not clear
whether these cluster distributions are associated with micro-habitats, although
they do not appear to be associated with macro-habitat types because woodrats were
not trapped throughout continuous habitats.
 While I had minimal success using fluorescent pigment powders to document
three dimensional space use, the data in this study suggest the arboreal nature of
Neotoma f floridana. The fluorescent pigment technique has been highly
successful in some studies (Mullican 1988) to document home range and arboreal
activity (Goodyear 1989). However, if vegetation density is high, and if the animal
grooms compulsively, release of pigment powder can be significantly reduced.



 LITERATURE CITED


Barbour, D.B., and S.R. Humphrey. 1982. Status and habitat of the Key Largo woodrat and cotton mouse
 (Neotomafloridana small and Peromyscus gossypinus allapaticola). J. Mamm. 63:144-148.
Burt, W.H. 1943. Territoriality and home range concepts as applied to mammals. J. Mamm. 24:346-352.
Byers, C.R., and B.K. Steinhorst. 1984. Clarification of a technique for analysis of utilization-availability
 data. J. Wildl. Mgmt. 48: 1050-1053.
Calhoun, J.B. 1962. The ecology and sociology of the Norway rat. Washington, D.C., U.S. Dept. Health
 Educ. Welfare, Public Health Serv. 288 pp.
Chamberlain, E.B. 1928. The Florida wood rat in South Carolina. J. Mamm. 9:152-153.
Coleman, J.S., and A.B. Jones, III. 1988. User's guide to TELEM88: Computer analysis system for
 radiotelemetry data. Dept Fish. Wildl., Virginia Polytechnic Inst. and State Univ., Blacksburg,
 VA. 49 pp.
Davis, D.E. 1953. The characteristics of rat populations. Quart. Rev. Biol. 28:373-401.
Dial, K.P. 1988. Three sympatric species of Neotoma: dietary specialization and coexistence. Oecologia
 76:531-537.
Dodd, C.K. 1992. Biological diversity of a temporary pond herpetofauna in North Florida sandhills.
 Biodiv. Conserv. 1:125-142.
Eisenberg, J.F. 1989. Mammalian species of the Ordway Preserve. Univ. Florida, Florida Mus. Nat. Hist.,
 Ordway Preserve Rept.1, Gainesville. 73 pp.
Fitch, H.S., and D.G. Rainey. 1956. Ecological observations on the woodrat Neotomafloridana. Univ.
 Kansas Publ.Mus. Nat Hist. 8:499-533.
Franz, R., and D.W. Hall. 1990. Vegetative communities and annotated plant lists for the Katharine
 Ordway Preserve-Swisher Memorial Sanctuary, Putnam County,Florida. Univ. Florida, Florida Mus.
 Nat. Hist., Ordway Preserve Rept.3, Gainesville. 89 pp.
Goertz, J.W. 1970. An ecological study ofNeotomafloridana in Oklahoma. J. Mamm. 51:94-104
Goodyear, N.C. 1989. Studying fine scale habitat use in small mammals. J. Wildl. Mgmt. 53:941-946.
Greer, R.E. 1978. Eastern woodrats in south-central Florida. Florida Sci. 41:191-192.
Hamilton, W.J.,Jr., and J.O. Whitaker. 1981. Mammals of the Eastern United States. Cornell Univ. Press,
 Ithaca, New York. pp. 207-211.
Hamilton, W.J.,Jr. 1953. Reproduction and young of the Florida woodrat, Neotoma ffloridana. J.
 Mamm. 34: 180-189.


242