Overview

Mastomys coucha – (Smith, 1834) 

ANIMALIA – CHORDATA – MAMMALIA – RODENTIA – MURIDAE – Mastomys – coucha 

Common Names: Southern Multimammate Mouse, Southern African Mastomys (English), Vaalveldmuis (Afrikaans), Lehomo (Sesotho)  

Synonyms: No Synonyms 

Taxonomic Note: A good review of the systematics of Mastomys is provided by Granjon et al. (1997). Mastomys spp. are cryptic and difficult to distinguish morphologically but clearly separable by molecular and chromosomal markers (Britton-Davidian et al. 1995; Lecompte et al. 2005). For example, within the assessment region, M. coucha and M. natalensis can be distinguished only through chromosome number (in M. coucha 2n = 36; in M. natalensis 2n = 32) and molecular markers (Colangelo et al. 2013) but not on cranio-dental features, nor a multivariate analysis (Dippenaar et al. 1993). 

Red List Status: LC – Least Concern

Assessment Information

Assessor: Russo, I.M.¹ & da Silva, J. M.²

Reviewer: Smith, C.³ 

Institutions: ¹Cardiff University, ²South African National Biodiversity Institute,³Endangered Wildlife Trust 

Previous Assessors & Reviewers: du Plessis, J., Russo, I.M. & Child, M.F. 

Previous Contributors: Avenant, N., Avery, M., Baxter, R., MacFadyen, D., Monadjem, A., Palmer, G., Taylor, P. & Wilson, B. 

Assessment Rationale 

This species is listed as Least Concern as it has a wide distribution within the assessment region, where it likely occurs in most protected areas. Mastomys coucha is abundant in human-transformed areas, including agricultural areas and areas affected by human disturbances. There are currently no significant threats that could cause range-wide decline. Additionally, both species of Mastomys are known as prolific breeders with population numbers likely to recover quickly after a decline. Because of their reproductive characteristics, population eruptions often occur under favourable conditions. Landowners and managers should pursue ecologically-based rodent management strategies and biocontrol instead of rodenticides to regulate population explosions of this species. 

Regional population effects: Significant dispersal is unlikely because the bulk of the population occurs within the assessment region. There are two disjunct populations in Angola–Namibia and Zimbabwe–Mozambique.  

Reasons for Change 

Reason(s) for Change in Red List Category from the Previous Assessment: No change 

Red List Index 

Red List Index: No change 

Recommended Citation: Russo IM & da Silva JM. 2025. A conservation assessment of Mastomys coucha. In Patel T, Smith C, Roxburgh L, da Silva JM & Raimondo D, editors. The Red List of Mammals of South Africa, Eswatini and Lesotho. South African National Biodiversity Institute and Endangered Wildlife Trust, South Africa.

Regional Distribution and occurrence

Geographic Range

They have a very wide distribution across the savannahs, grasslands and agricultural landscapes of sub- Saharan Africa (Monadjem et al. 2015). Mastomys coucha is restricted to the grasslands and semi-arid savannahs of South Africa, Zimbabwe and Namibia, occurring south of the Zambezi River (Monadjem et al. 2015). It probably occurs in eastern and southern Botswana where there are records of Mastomys (previously assigned to M. natalensis; for example, de Graaff 1981) but that have not been sequenced or karyotyped. Similarly, its status in Mozambique is currently unknown. There are disjunct subpopulations in Angola–Namibia and Zimbabwe–Mozambique (Leirs 2013a). The exact distribution of these latter two populations should be verified (Skinner & Chimimba 2005).

Within the assessment region, M. coucha generally occurs in the high altitude/moderate rainfall regions in the central and northeastern part of South Africa (Venturi et al. 2004; Figure 1). The species occurs throughout the North West province (Skinner & Chimimba 2005; Leirs 2013a), where it is the most widespread and common murid (Power 2014), and the Free State (Lynch 1983; Skinner & Chimimba 2005; Leirs 2013a), where it is likely the only Mastomys species (Avenant 1996). It also occurs throughout the Limpopo and Gauteng Provinces, throughout most of the Mpumalanga Province, excluding the southern parts, in the northeastern and eastern parts of the Northern Cape Province, in the southeastern and eastern parts of the Western Cape Province and in the western and northwestern parts of the Eastern Cape Province (Skinner & Chimimba 2005; Leirs 2013a). Lynch (1994) found that it is relatively uncommon in Lesotho, although later suggestions by Ambrose (2006) are that it may be more common. It occurs from the low-lying regions to altitudes exceeding 2,500 m asl within Lesotho (Avenant 1996; Lynch 1994). According to Leirs (2013a), M. coucha may occur in a very small part of northern Eswatini, the possibility of which is not precluded by Monadjem (1998). Mastomys coucha co-occurs only marginally with M. natalensis in South Africa (Venturi et al. 2004), with a possible zone of overlap along the eastern escarpment. It overlaps more extensively in southern Zimbabwe (Gordon 1978) and northern Namibia (Monadjem et al. 2015). Additional research is still needed to determine the precise zone of parapatry (Venturi et al. 2004).

This habitat preference appears to apply at small spatial scales too. For example, in Roan Camp, Kruger National Park, M. natalensis dominated in wetter areas, whereas M. coucha was found in relatively more high-altitude, low-rainfall areas (Kneidinger et al. 2014).  

There are likely to be errors in the distribution maps due to the inability of being able to separate the two species on morphological evidence. Even sperm morphology is very similar between M. natalensis and M. coucha (Breed 1995). The use of molecular research to vet and reclassify museum records should be used to more accurately delineate the areas of sympatry of these two species. 

Elevation / Depth / Depth Zones 

Elevation Lower Limit (in metres above sea level): 0 

Elevation Upper Limit (in metres above sea level): 1600 

Depth Lower Limit (in metres below sea level): (Not specified) 

Depth Upper Limit (in metres below sea level): (Not specified) 

Depth Zone: (Not specified) 

Map

Figure 1. Distribution records for Southern Multimammate Mouse (Mastomys coucha) within the assessment region (South Africa, Eswatini and Lesotho). Note that distribution data is obtained from multiple sources and records have not all been individually verified.

Biogeographic Realms 

Biogeographic Realm: Afrotropical 

Occurrence 

Countries of Occurrence 

Large Marine Ecosystems (LME) Occurrence 

Large Marine Ecosystems: (Not specified) 

FAO Area Occurrence 

FAO Marine Areas: (Not specified) 

Climate change

This species only occurs in most of the provinces in South Africa but is concentrated in the inland. There is a possibility that it might be affected by the 1.5-4°C increase in temperature predicted under various climate change scenarios (Engelbrecht et al. 2024). Rainfall is predicted to decrease in its range. These decreases will result in a more arid and drought-prone habitat which could affect food availability in the species distribution range.     

Population

Mastomys is often the most abundant genus in an area. For instance, MacFadyen (2007) found that in the Roan Camp, Kruger National Park, Mastomys spp. were the most abundant genus in, around and outside the enclosure, comprising 81% of captures. Mastomys coucha is a common species throughout their distribution range (Leirs 2013a) with expected cyclic fluctuations in population numbers (Avenant 2011). Its numbers generally dominate in human disturbed habitats or in areas exposed to a natural disturbance (Avenant et al. 2008; MacFadyen et al. 2012). On transects set near Kgomo-Kgomo in the North West Province, Power (2014) recorded 1–4 individuals in every trap set. Due to an opportunistic breeding behaviour, population outbreaks are often associated with this species under favourable conditions (Skinner & Chimimba 2005; MacFadyen et al. 2012), which may cause it to become an agricultural pest (Skinner & Chimimba 2005; Monadjem et al. 2011).  

Population Information 

Current population trend: Stable/increasing, based on no net decline in habitat and possible range expansions in the assessment region.  

Continuing decline in mature individuals: No  

Number of mature individuals in population: Unknown  

Number of mature individuals in largest subpopulation: Unknown  

Number of subpopulations: Unknown  

Severely fragmented: No, occurs extensively in agricultural and disturbed areas and has high dispersal rates (van Hooft et al. 2008). 

Quantitative Analysis 

Probability of extinction in the wild within 3 generations or 10 years, whichever is longer, maximum 100 years: (Not specified) 

Probability of extinction in the wild within 5 generations or 20 years, whichever is longer, maximum 100 years: (Not specified) 

Probability of extinction in the wild within 100 years: (Not specified) 

Population Genetics

A time-calibrated species tree for Mastomys based on 56 phylogenomic loci recognised eight extant Mastomys species with M. coucha and M. shortridgei as sister taxa (Hánová et al. 2021). Based on a mitochondrial DNA analysis, clustering of M. coucha and M. shortridgei are not monophyletic (Hánová et al. 2021) even though the two species are differentiated based on ecology, karyotypes and morphology (Eiseb et al. 2021). 

Since no population genetic study has been undertaken, estimating the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework genetic indicators (PM indicator and Ne 500 indicator) cannot be calculated. It is highly recommended that a population genetic study be undertaken for this species to better understand the population genetic structure and diversity within the species and to quantify the estimated indicator values.  

Habitats and ecology

As the common and generic names suggest, there is a large number of mammae present, between eight and 12 pairs from the sternum to inguinal region. Both Mastomys species are terrestrial and nocturnal with a diet that varies from granivorous to omnivorous, sometimes including arthropods and carrion (Monadjem et al. 2015).  
Mastomys coucha demonstrates a wide habitat tolerance (Skinner & Chimimba 2005; Leirs 2013a; Power 2014) in high altitude/moderate rainfall regions (Venturi et al. 2004). It is often associated with human-dominated landscapes and is regularly found inside and around human dwellings (Skinner & Chimimba 2005; Leirs 2013a). It is abundant in human disturbed areas or in areas that are recovering from a natural disturbance. In disturbed areas, its abundance generally decreases, although it never disappears as succession proceeds (Avenant et al. 2008; MacFadyen et al. 2012). For example, it may stay on in an area during and directly after a fire (Avenant 2011). Although the specific impact of M. coucha on agricultural crops has not yet been assessed, it is widely accepted that it may cause extensive losses similar to that observed for M. natalensis (Skinner & Chimimba 2005; Leirs 2013a).  

Both M. coucha and M. natalensis are opportunistic breeders that have the ability to breed throughout the year whenever conditions are favourable, and breeding is strongly correlated with rainfall. In most areas, however, reproduction does not occur during winter. They are known as prolific breeders and, although this rarely happens, they can carry up to 24 foetuses at once, under favourable conditions. Their gestational periods and the interval between litters are also relatively short, with litter sizes varying from 1–27 young (Monadjem et al. 2015). Due to their reproductive characteristics, multimammate mice populations are known to erupt under favourable conditions (Skinner & Chimimba 2005; Leirs 2013a, 2013b). 

Ecosystem and cultural services: Mastomys spp. are indicators of poor ecosystem integrity as they become the dominant small mammals in a community during and after a disturbance (Avenant & Kuyler 2002; Avenant et al. 2008; Avenant 2011). They are also vectors of disease, where M. coucha is more susceptible to experimental plague infection than M. natalensis, and thus more implicated in plague epidemiology (Isaäcson et al. 1981; Venturi et al. 2004). Both species may act as seed dispersers, pollinators, and form a forage resource for carnivores, especially in post-fire landscapes, as they do not vacate the area following fires. 

IUCN Habitats Classification Scheme 

Life History 

Generation Length: (Not specified) 

Age at maturity: female or unspecified: (Not specified) 

Age at Maturity: Male: (Not specified) 

Size at Maturity (in cms): Female: (Not specified) 

Size at Maturity (in cms): Male: (Not specified) 

Longevity: (Not specified) 

Average Reproductive Age: (Not specified) 

Maximum Size (in cms): (Not specified) 

Size at Birth (in cms): (Not specified) 

Gestation Time: (Not specified) 

Reproductive Periodicity: (Not specified) 

Average Annual Fecundity or Litter Size: (Not specified) 

Natural Mortality: (Not specified) 

Does the species lay eggs? (Not specified) 

Does the species give birth to live young: (Not specified) 

Does the species exhibit parthenogenesis: (Not specified) 

Does the species have a free-living larval stage? (Not specified) 

Does the species require water for breeding? (Not specified) 

Movement Patterns 

Movement Patterns: (Not specified) 

Congregatory: (Not specified) 

Systems 

System: Terrestrial 

General Use and Trade Information

Both species are used for the pet industry. However, this is not expected to impact the populations. 

Local Livelihood: (Not specified) 

National Commercial Value: (Not specified) 

International Commercial Value: (Not specified) 

End Use: (Not specified) 

Is there harvest from captive/cultivated sources of this species? (Not specified) 

Harvest Trend Comments: (Not specified) 

Threats

These species are important from a human health purview because they are a reservoir host for a number of organisms that cause human diseases (Keogh & Price 1981; Venturi et al. 2004; Skinner & Chimimba 2005; Leirs 2013a), and because their distributions are closely related to the outbreak of plague in some areas (Isaäcson et al. 1981). They may also be considered an agricultural pest in some areas, especially during population outbreaks (Monadjem et al. 2011). Due to these threats, rodenticides are often used to control these species (Makundi & Massawe 2011). It is, however, envisaged that poisoning will only have a short-term impact on Mastomys population numbers (Makundi & Massawe 2011), with populations likely to recover due to their reproductive characteristics (Skinner & Chimimba 2005). In Limpopo Province, for example, subsistence farmers who experienced damage to staple crops from Rattus rattus, R. norvegicus and Mastomys spp. reported low success from rodenticides and kill-traps to control the damages (von Maltitz et al. 2003). Perhaps more important are the knock-on effects such poisons may have within the broader ecosystem through bioaccumulation or unintentional poisoning of non-target species, thus incentivising the use of ecologically-based management methods. It also is uncertain how the diseases associated with Mastomys species affect the rodents themselves (Leirs 2013b). 

Conservation

These species are associated with a wide range of habitats, varying from disturbed areas to areas with more pristine habitat (Avenant et al. 2008; MacFadyen et al. 2012), and thus likely occur in most protected areas throughout their distribution range. As such, no specific interventions are necessary at present. However, the use of ecologically-based rodent management (EBRM) should be encouraged over the use of pesticides to limit population explosions (Makundi & Massawe 2011). Overall, EBRM relies on a strong ecological understanding of the target species and the development of species-specific management strategies at the farming level. It may include the reduction of key resources, such as food and nesting sites, at critical times of the year through habitat modification and the selective use of techniques for culling rodents at specific times of the year and in specific habitats (Singleton et al. 2004, 2007). For example, the use of owl nest boxes has been suggested as an important bio-control method in both small mammal ecosystem services (pollinators and seed dispersers) and management (Russo et al. 2016). In a recent study, no difference in M. natalensis population dynamics was observed within monocultures or mosaic agricultural lands, meaning that management in both agricultural systems could focus on the same aspects of the species’ ecology (Sluydts et al. 2009). 

Bio-control should also be encouraged as an alternative single control method, although Vibe-Peterson et al. (2006) demonstrated that the introduction of more predators into an area may not have a clear impact on Mastomys population densities due to the influence of compensatory breeding. 

Recommendations for land managers and practitioners: 

• Development and implementation of EBRM strategies suitable to Mastomys and applicable to specific areas (Makundi & Massawe 2011). For example, as has been trialled in Limpopo Province (von Maltitz et al. 2003). 

• The use of bio-control, such as owl boxes, to mitigate the threat of Mastomys as an agricultural pest and as a threat to human health. 

Research priorities: 

• Accurate distributions of M. natalensis and M. coucha, including areas of sympatry, need to be determined using molecular markers (for example, Kneidinger et al. 2014). 

• Applied ecological studies need to be conducted that can inform and form the basis of EBRM strategies (Makundi & Massawe 2011). 

• The contribution of Mastomys spp. to the distribution and transfer of human diseases is also an important research area. 

Encouraged citizen actions: 

• Farmers could contribute to the development and implementation of EBRM strategies. 

• Promotion of bio-control to regulate population explosions by attracting predators to an area. One method is to erect perches and install owl nest boxes in urban and rural green spaces. 

Bibliography

Avenant NL, Kuyler P. 2002. Small mammal diversity in the Maguga Dam inundation area, Swaziland. South African Journal of Wildlife Research 32: 101-108. 

Avenant NL, Watson JP, Schulze E. 2008. Correlating small mammal community characteristics and habitat integrity in the Caledon Nature Reserve, South Africa. Mammalia 72: 186–191. 

Avenant, N.L. 2011. The potential utility of rodents and other small mammals as indicators of ecosystem “integrity” of South African grasslands. Wildlife Research 38: 626–639. 

Breed W. 1995. Variation in sperm head morphology of muroid rodents of Africa: phylogenetic implications. In: Jamieson GBM, Ausio J, Justine J-L (ed.), Advances in Spermatozoal Phylogeny and Taxonomy., pp. 409–420. Paris, France. 

Britton-Davidian J, Catalan J, Granjon L, Duplantier J-M. 1995. Chromosomal phylogeny and evolution in the genus Mastomys (Mammalia, Rodentia). Journal of Mammalogy 76: 248–262. 

Colangelo P, Verheyen E, Leirs H, Tatard C, Denys C, Dobigny G, Duplantier J-M, Brouat C, Granjon L, Lecompte E. 2013. A mitochondrial phylogeographic scenario for the most widespread African rodent, Mastomys natalensis. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 108: 901–916. 

De Graaff, G. 1981. The Rodents of Southern Africa. Butterworths, Durban, South Africa. 

Dippenaar NJ, Swanepoel P, Gordon DH. 1993. Diagnostic morphometrics of two medically important southern African rodents, Mastomys natalensis and M. coucha. South African Journal of Science 89: 300–303. 

Eiseb, S.J., Taylor, P.J., Zeller, U., Denys, C. & Nicolas, V. 2021. Rapid peripatric speciation linked with drainage evolution in a rare African rodent, Mastomys shortridgei (Rodentia: Muridae). Journal of Zoological Systematics and Evolutionary Research, 59, 522–542. https://doi.org/10.1111/jzs.12441  

Engelbrecht, FA., Steinkopf, J., Padavatan, J. & Midgley, GF. 2024. Projections of future climate change in southern Africa and the potential for regional tipping points. In: von Maltitz, G.P., et al. Sustainability of Southern African Ecosystems under Global Change. Ecological Studies, vol 248. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-10948-5_7    

Fuller, J.A. and Perrin, M.R. 2001. Habitat assessment of small mammals in the Umvoti Vlei Conservancy, KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. South African Journal of Wildlife Research 31: 1-12. 

Gordon DH. 1978. Distribution of sibling species of the Praomys (Mastomys) natalensis group in Rhodesia (Mammalia: Rodentia). Journal of Zoology 186: 397–401. 

Granjon, L., Duplantier, J.-M., Catalan, J. and Britton-Davidian, J. 1997. Systematics of the Genus Mastomys (Thomas,1915) (Rodentia: Muridae) – A Review. Belgian Journal of Zoology 127: 7-18. 

Hánová, A., Konečný, A., Mikula, O., Bryjová, A., Šumbera, R. & Bryja, J. 2021. Diversity, distribution, and evolutionary history of the most studied African rodents, multimammate mice of the genus Mastomys: an overview after a quarter of century of using DNA sequencing. J Zool Syst Evol Res 59:2500–2518.   

Hickman, G.C. and Machiné, C. 1986. Swimming behaviour in six species of African rodents (Cricetidae, Muridae). Acta Theriologica 31: 449–466. 

Isaäcson M, Arntzen L, Taylor P. 1981. Susceptibility of members of the Mastomys natalensis species complex to experimental infection with Yersinia pestis. Journal of Infectious Diseases 144: 80. 

Keogh HJ, Price PJ. 1981. The multimammate mouse: a review. South African Journal of Science 77: 484–488. 

Kneidinger CM, van Heerden H, MacFadyen D, van der Merwe M, Avenant NL, van der Bank H. 2014. Species identification, habitat preferences and population genetics of Mastomys natalensis (A. Smith, 1834) and M. coucha (A. Smith, 1836) in an enclosed area, Kruger National Park, South Africa. Navorsinge van die Nasionale Museum Bloemfontein 30: 31–45. 

Lecompte, É., Brouat, C., Duplantier, J.-M., Galan, M., Granjon, L., Loiseau, A., Mouline, K. and Cosson, J.-F. 2005. Molecular identification of four cryptic species of Mastomys (Rodentia, Murinae). Biochemical Systematics and Ecology 33: 681-689. 

Leirs H, Verheyen W, Verhagen R. 1996. Spatial patterns in Mastomys natalensis in Tanzania (Rodentia, Muridae). Mammalia 60: 545–556. 

Leirs H. 2013. Mastomys natalensis Natal multimammate mouse (Natal Mastomys). In: Happold DCD (ed.), Mammals of Africa. Volume III: Rodents, Hares and Rabbits, pp. 468–470. Bloomsbury Publishing, London, UK. 

Leirs H. 2013a. Mastomys coucha Southern African multimammate mouse (Southern African Mastomys). In: Happold DCD (ed.), Mammals of Africa: Volume III: Rodents, Hares and Rabbits, pp. 463–464. Bloomsbury Publishing, London, UK. 

Lynch, C.D. 1983. The mammals of the Orange Free State, South Africa. Navorsinge van die Nasionale Museum Bloemfontein 18: 1-218. 

Lynch, C.D. 1994. The mammals of Lesotho. Navorsinge van die Nasionale Museum Bloemfontein 10(4): 177-241. 

MacFadyen D. 2007. A comparative study of rodent and shrew diversity and abundance in and outside the N’washitshumbe enclosure site in the Kruger National Park. M.Sc. Thesis. University of Pretoria. 

MacFadyen DN, Avenant NL, van der Merwe M, Bredenkamp GJ. 2012. The influence of fire on rodent abundance at the N’washitshumbe enclosure site, Kruger National Park, South Africa. African Zoology 47: 138–146. 

Makundi RH, Massawe AW. 2011. Ecologically based rodent management in Africa: potential and challenges. Wildlife Research 38: 588–595. 

Meester JAJ, Lloyd CNV, Rowe-Rowe DT. 1979. A note on the ecological role of Praomys natalensis. South African Journal of Science 75: 183–184. 

Monadjem A, Perrin M. 2003. Population fluctuations and community structure of small mammals in a Swaziland grassland over a three-year period. African Zoology 38: 127-137. 

Monadjem A, Themb’a AM, Dlamini N, Eiseb SJ, Belmain SR, Mulungu LS, Massawe AW, Makundi RH, Mohr K, Taylor PJ. 2011. Impact of crop cycle on movement patterns of pest rodent species between fields and houses in Africa. Wildlife Research 38: 603–609. 

Monadjem A. 1997. Habitat preferences and biomasses of small mammals in Swaziland. African Journal of Ecology 35: 64-72. 

Monadjem, A. 1998. Distributional patterns and conservation status of mammals of Swaziland, southern Africa. Koedoe 41: 45-59. 

Monadjem, A., Taylor, P.J., Denys, C. and Cotterill, F.P.D. 2015. Rodents of Sub-Saharan Africa: A Biogeographic and Taxonomic Synthesis.De Gruyter, Berlin, Germany. 

Mulungu LS et al. 2011. Dietary differences of the multimammate mouse, Mastomys natalensis (Smith, 1834), across different habitats and seasons in Tanzania and Swaziland. Wildlife Research 38: 640–646. 

Power, R.J. 2014. The distribution and status of mammals in the North West Province. Department of Economic Development, Environment, Conservation & Tourism, North West Provincial Government, Mahikeng. 

Rautenbach A, Dickerson T, Schoeman MC. 2014. Diversity of rodent and shrew assemblages in different vegetation types of the savannah biome in South Africa: no evidence for nested subsets or competition. African Journal of Ecology 52: 30-40. 

Singleton GR, Brown PR, Jacob J, Aplin KP. 2007. Unwanted and unintended effects of culling: A case for ecologically-based rodent management. Integrative Zoology 2: 247–259. 

Singleton GR, Brown PR, Jacob J. 2004. Ecologically-based rodent management: its effectiveness in cropping systems in South-East Asia. NJAS-Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences 52: 163–171. 

Skinner, J.D. and Chimimba, C.T. (eds). 2005. The Mammals of the Southern African Subregion. Cambridge University Press, United Kingdom, Cambridge. 

Sluydts V, Davis S, Mercelis S, Leirs H. 2009. Comparison of multimammate mouse (Mastomys natalensis) demography in monoculture and mosaic agricultural habitat: Implications for pest management. Crop Protection 28: 647–654. 

Venturi FP, Chimimba CT, van Aarde RJ, Fairall N. 2004. The distribution of two medically and agriculturally important cryptic rodent species, Mastomys natalensis and M. coucha (Rodentia: Muridae) in South Africa. African Zoology 39: 235–245. 

Vibe-Petersen S, Leirs H, Bruyn LD. 2006. Effects of predation and dispersal on Mastomys natalensis population dynamics in Tanzanian maize fields. Journal of Animal Ecology 75: 213–220. 

van Hooft P, Cosson J-F, Vibe-Petersen S, Leirs H. 2008. Dispersal in Mastomys natalensis mice: use of fine-scale genetic analyses for pest management. Hereditas 145: 262–273. 

von Maltitz EF et al. 2003. Developing a rodent management strategy for South Africa’s Limpopo province. ACIAR Monograph 96, Rats, mice and people: rodent biology and management. Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research, Canberra, Australia.