Overview

Crocidura fuscomurina – (Heuglin, 1865) 

ANIMALIA – CHORDATA – MAMMALIA – EULIPOTYPHLA – SORICIDAE –Crocidura – fuscomurina 

Common Names: Tiny Musk Shrew, Bicolored Musk Shrew (English), Dwergskeerbek, Dwergskeerbekmuis (Afrikaans)

Synonyms: No Synonyms 

Taxonomic Note: Meester et al. (1986) listed two subspecies: C. f. bicolor (Bocage 1889) occurring in the northern Free State, KwaZulu-Natal, North West, Limpopo, Mpumalanga, and Gauteng Provinces, as well as Zimbabwe, Mozambique and north-eastern Botswana; and C. f. woosnami (Dollman 1915) from the southern Free State, northern and central Botswana and northern Namibia. The species known as C. bicolor was shown to be a synonym of C. fuscomurina (Hutterer 1983). The taxonomic status of the Lowveld subpopulations in the Limpopo and Mpumalanga Provinces needs revision as they might comprise a different species (R. Hutterer unpubl. data). 

Red List Status: LC – Least Concern, (IUCN version 3.1) 

Assessment Information

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

Reviewer: Patel, T.³ 

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

Previous Assessors: Taylor, P., Baxter, R. & Monadjem, A. 

Previous Reviewer: Child, M.F. 

Previous Contributors: Avery, M., MacFadyen, D., Avenant, N., Wilson, B. & Palmer, G.  

Assessment Rationale 

This small species is widely but patchily distributed across the assessment region existing at the edge of its Africa range. It exists in many protected areas, including the Kruger National Park and across multiple habitat types such as agricultural landscapes (if not overgrazed), and can be locally abundant in suitable habitats. As with all shrew species, this species may suffer local declines from ongoing wetland and grassland loss caused by land-use and climate change. The species is also present in savannah habitat where habitat loss is not so intense. It is therefore listed as Least Concern. This is a poorly known species and further research, and field studies are required. Museum records should be confirmed to more accurately delineate distribution and habitat requirements. Similarly to other shrew species interventions such as protected area expansion of moist grassland habitats,  incentivising landowners to sustain natural vegetation around wetlands and to keep livestock or wildlife at ecological carrying capacity to avoid overgrazing could benefit the species. 

Regional population effects: This species is too small to disperse over long distances, so no significant rescue effects are possible. 

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 Crocidura fuscomurina. 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 

The Tiny Musk Shrew is widely distributed in sub-Saharan Africa ranging from Senegal, through West Africa and Central Africa to southern Sudan and Ethiopia in the east, and into southern Africa, as far south as north-eastern South Africa. Within the assessment region, scattered records indicate the species exists patchily in all provinces besides the Western and Eastern Cape. In Eswatini, it is sparsely recorded from the Lowveld and Middleveld regions (Monadjem 1998). Although they have not been recorded from Lesotho, (Lynch 1994) they may occur in the low-lying areas considering they have a wider distribution in the Free State Province than once thought (Avery et al. 2003). In the North West Province, it has been recently confirmed from the Bospoort Dam area and many outstanding specimens are suspected to be this species, thus it may be a more widespread species than currently recorded (Power 2014). A possible range contraction or local extinction may have occurred in the Tussen-die-Riviere Nature Reserve area in the Free State Province where Lynch (1983) recorded this species close to the reserve but has since not been recorded (Watson 2006). 

Elevation / Depth / Depth Zones 

Elevation Lower Limit (in metres above sea level): (Not specified) 

Elevation Upper Limit (in metres above sea level): (Not specified) 

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 Tiny Musk Shrew (Crocidura fuscomurina) 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

There is no information on how climate change may impact this species at present. 

Population

This species is not readily trapped, especially in Sherman traps (pitfall traps are better), because individuals are so small. They can be one of the dominant sandveld small mammal species. For example, when using pitfall trapping, they have been found to be locally common in Mkhuze Game Reserve, KwaZulu-Natal Province, where C. hirta and C. fuscomurina accounted for 73% of all shrew captures (Delcros et al.2015). Similarly, it had the greatest abundance and occurred in the greatest number of vegetation types of all shrews sampled at Phinda Private Game Reserve, KwaZulu-Natal Province, where abundance was not significantly different amongst seasons or vegetation types (Rautenbach et al. 2014). If we assume this relative abundance occurs in other protected areas across the range, we can extrapolate a high abundance within the assessment region. 

Population Information 

Current population trend: Stable. Occurs in a wide variety of habitats and in both urban and agricultural habitats, so no reason to suspect population decline based on habitat loss.  

Number of mature individuals in population: Unknown  

Number of mature individuals in largest subpopulation: Unknown  

Number of subpopulations: Unknown  

Severely fragmented: No. Occurs in a wide variety of habitats and in both urban and agricultural habitats. 

Extreme fluctuations in the number of subpopulations: (Not specified) 

Continuing decline in number of subpopulations: (Not specified) 

All individuals in one subpopulation: (Not specified) 

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

While the species has been investigated in a phylogenetic context (Willows-Munro & Conradee 2011), no population genetics study has been conducted on this species within the assessment region. It is possible the species exists as a single metapopulation in the region, however, given its limited dispersal capabilities it is more likely to exist in isolated subpopulations. Further molecular studies are needed to investigate this. Given the absence of density and population size estimates, it is not possible to quantify effective population size (Ne). 

Habitats and ecology

This species is generally associated with savannahs (Skinner and Chimimba 2005), including the dry Kalahari savannah and grasslands of the west and the moist woodlands and bush savannah of the east. The species generally occur in thick grass, such as Couch grass (Cynodon dactylon) along the water’s edge, but also occur on dry, sandy soil near water and has been recorded from rubbish heaps and wood piles (Skinner and Chimimba 2005). In both Phinda and Mkhuze Game Reserves, it occurred in most sites sampled, including Acacia woodland, Combretum molle woodland, riverine woodlands, Lebombo thicket, floodplain grassland and sand forest, indicating a wide habitat tolerance (Rautenbach et al. 2014, Delcros et al. 2015). In Eswatini, specimens have been collected from Lowveld Acacia woodland and from a home in an industrial area (Monadjem 1998, 1999). They can also survive in agricultural landscapes, if not overgrazed (P. Taylor pers. comm.). Like other Crocidura species, they appear to be active both nocturnally and diurnally and show preference for dense vegetation – especially during the day to escape the heat and predators. They also prefer moist soils (Dickman 1995), presumably because of the higher prey content. The species is an insectivore and takes prey from the soil surface or among leaf litter and other debris.  

Ecosystem and cultural services: An important prey species, having been found in owl remains (e.g., Avery et al. 2003). 

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

There is no known subsistence or commercial use of this species. 

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

The main threat to shrews is the loss or degradation of moist, productive areas such as wetlands and rank grasslands within suitable habitat. The two main drivers behind this are abstraction of surface water and draining of wetlands through industrial and residential expansion, and overgrazing of moist grasslands, which leads to the loss of ground coverand decreases small mammal diversity and abundance (Bowland and Perrin 1989, 1993; Monadjem 1999). The species can exist in agricultural landscapes as long as the areas are not overgrazed. Suppression of natural ecosystem processes, such as fire, can also lead to habitat degradation through bush encroachment or loss of plant diversity through alien invasives, and is suspected to be increasing with human settlement expansion. There are also clear overlaps and synergistic effects between these threats.  

Current habitat trend: As this is predominantly a savannah species, it does not suffer as much from habitat loss as grassland or forest specialist species, as savannah remains relatively intact within the assessment region (Driver et al. 2012). Furthermore, as it can be commensal with humans, urban and rural expansion has fewer negative effects. Similarly, climate change is not predicted to become a major threat for this species as savannahs are projected to expand (for example, Kgope et al. 2010). Thus, the habitat for this species is stable. However, it may suffer local declines from ongoing wetland and grassland loss caused by land-use changes and degradation through overexploitation. 

Conservation

This species is found in many protected areas across its range including the Kruger National Park. Although no interventions are currently necessary, protecting and restoring suitable habitat, such as moist grassland patches, will benefit this species. Biodiversity stewardship schemes should be promoted to conserve such patches. Importantly, at the local scale, landowners and managers should be educated, encouraged and incentivised to conserve the habitats on which shrews and small mammals depend. Retaining ground cover is the most important management tool to increase small mammal diversity and abundance. This can be achieved through lowering grazing pressure (Bowland and Perrin 1989), or by maintaining a buffer strip of natural vegetation around wetlands (Driver et al. 2012). Small mammal diversity and abundance is also higher in more complex or heterogeneous landscapes, where periodic burning is an important tool to achieve this (Bowland and Perrin 1993). Removing alien vegetation from watersheds, watercourses and wetlands is also an important intervention to improve flow and water quality, and thus habitat quality for shrews. Education and awareness campaigns should be employed to teach landowners and local communities about the importance of conserving wetlands and moist grasslands. 

Recommendations for land managers and practitioners: 

• Landowners and communities should be incentivised to stock livestock or wildlife at ecological carrying capacity to avoid overgrazing and to maintain a buffer of natural vegetation around wetlands. 

• Enforce regulations on developments that could potentially impact on the habitat integrity of grasslands and wetlands. 

Research priorities: 

•  This is a poorly known species and further research, and field studies are recommended. 

• Additional field surveys are needed to clarify and confirm the distribution of this species. 

• Museum specimens must be vetted to refine the distribution map. 

• Molecular research is needed to revise the taxonomic status of putative subspecies. 

Encouraged citizen actions: 

• Citizens are requested to submit any shrews killed by cats or drowned in pools to a museum or a provincial conservation authority for identification, thereby enhancing our knowledge of shrew distribution (carcasses can be placed in a ziplock bag and frozen with the locality recorded). 

• Practice indigenous gardening to sustain small mammals. 

Bibliography

Avery, D.M., Avery, G. and Colahan, B.D. 2003. Micromammals and barn owls in the Free State, South Africa: Prey distribution and predator behaviour. Navorsinge van die Nasionale Museum Bloemfontein 19: 2-18. 

Bowland, A.E. and Perrin, M.R. 1989. The effect of overgrazing on the small mammals in Umfolozi Game Reserve. Zeitschrift für Säugetierkunde 54: 251–260. 

Bowland, J.M. and Perrin, M.E. 1993. Wetlands as reservoirs of small-mammal populations in the Natal Drakensberg. South African Journal of Wildlife Research 23: 39–43. 

Delcros, G., Taylor, P.J., and Schoeman, M.C. 2015. Ecological correlates of small mammal assemblage structure at different spatial scales in the savannah biome of South Africa. Mammalia 79(1): 1-14. 

Dickman CR. 1995. Diets and habitat preferences of three species of crocidurine shrews in arid southern Africa. Journal of Zoology 237: 499-514. 

Driver, A., Sink, K.J., Nel, J.N., Holness, S., Van Niekerk, L., Daniels, F., Jonas, Z., Majiedt, P.A., Harris, L. and Maze, K. 2012. National Biodiversity Assessment 2011: An assessment of South Africa’s biodiversity and ecosystems. Synthesis Report. South African National Biodiversity Institute and Department of Environmental Affairs, Pretoria, South Africa. 

Hutterer, R. 1983. Taxonomy and distribution of Crocidura fuscomurina (Heuglin, 1865). Mammalia 47: 221-227. 

Kgope BS, Bond WJ, Midgley GF. 2010. Growth responses of African savanna trees implicate atmospheric [CO2] as a driver of past and current changes in savanna tree cover. Austral Ecology 35: 451-463. 

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. 

Meester, J.A.J., Rautenbach, I.L., Dippenaar, N.J. and Baker, C.M. 1986. Classification of Southern African Mammals. Monograph number 5. Transvaal Museum , Pretoria, South Africa. 

Monadjem A. 1998. The mammals of Swaziland. Conservation Trust of Swaziland and Big Games Parks, Mbabane, Swaziland. 

Monadjem A. 1999. Geographic distribution patterns of small mammals in Swaziland in relation to abiotic factors and human land-use activity. Biodiversity & Conservation 8: 223-237. 

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. 

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

Watson JP. 2006. Check list of the mammals of Tussen-die-Riviere Provincial Nature Reserve, Free State Province, South Africa. Koedoe 49: 111-117.