Mephitis mephitis (striped skunk)
- Summary of Invasiveness
- Taxonomic Tree
- Notes on Taxonomy and Nomenclature
- Distribution Table
- History of Introduction and Spread
- Risk of Introduction
- Habitat List
- Biology and Ecology
- Latitude/Altitude Ranges
- Air Temperature
- Natural enemies
- Notes on Natural Enemies
- Means of Movement and Dispersal
- Pathway Causes
- Impact: Economic
- Impact: Environmental
- Impact: Social
- Risk and Impact Factors
- Uses List
- Detection and Inspection
- Similarities to Other Species/Conditions
- Prevention and Control
- Gaps in Knowledge/Research Needs
- Links to Websites
- Principal Source
- Distribution Maps
Don't need the entire report?
Generate a print friendly version containing only the sections you need.Generate report
PicturesTop of page
IdentityTop of page
Preferred Scientific Name
- Mephitis mephitis (Schreber, 1776)
Preferred Common Name
- striped skunk
International Common Names
- English: skunk
- Spanish: zorrillo-listado del norte
- French: mouffette rayée
Local Common Names
- Netherlands: gestreept stinkdier
Summary of InvasivenessTop of page
Mephitis mephitis, the striped skunk, is a medium sized mustelid that is widespread and increasing distribution across its native range in Southern Canada, USA and Mexico. As a habitat generalist, the species can spread to a wide range of habitats and due to its winter denning behaviours, may remain undetected for long time periods. Throughout its native area, the species occurs in a wide range of climatic zones from warm to cool temperate, fully encompassing the Nearctic equivalents of conditions that are found throughout much of Europe. Introduced to new areas in Europe through the pet trade, escapes or releases of captive animals have led to the subsequent establishment of wild populations, with the potential to become invasive.
Taxonomic TreeTop of page
- Domain: Eukaryota
- Kingdom: Metazoa
- Phylum: Chordata
- Subphylum: Vertebrata
- Class: Mammalia
- Order: Carnivora
- Family: Mephitidae
- Genus: Mephitis
- Species: Mephitis mephitis
Notes on Taxonomy and NomenclatureTop of page
There are 13 subspecies of M. mephitis found across the species native range in North America (Wilson and Reeder, 2005), all being commonly referred to as striped skunk. In several Native American dialects (Cree, Oijb and Saut), the skunk was referred to as ‘shee-gawk’, which is thought to be at the origin of the word Chicago, meaning skunk land (Seton, 1909).
DescriptionTop of page
The striped skunk is a medium sized carnivorous mustelid ranging from 520 to 770 mm total length and weighing between 1.8 and 4.5 kg (Valdez-Villavicenio et al., 2014). The species has triangular shaped heads that taper to the nose, small round ears and black eyes. They have stocky legs with long curved claws on their forefeet and shorter straighter claws on their hind feet that make them well adapted for digging (Rosatte and Lawson, 2003). The colour pattern of the striped skunk can vary, but typically consists of black fur with a characteristic white stripe or ‘V’-shaped stripe that extends down the back of the animal (Wade-Smith and Verts, 1982; Rosatte and Lawson, 2003). The skunk is well known for its ability to spray a foul odour as a defensive behaviour, a characteristic that has been widely depicted in literature, on television and in films, thus making skunks likely recognisable to many non-specialists (Wilson, 2011).
DistributionTop of page
Widespread across its native range of Southern Canada, USA and Mexico (Long, 2003), the species is found at highest densities in the central region of the United States (McCune, 1973). Striped skunks have been expanding their range in mainland Canada and have also been successfully introduced in several parts of Canada, including Prince Edward Island, Vancouver Island and Nova Scotia (Long, 2003).
Several attempts to release the species into Russia and Ukraine occurred in the 1930s; however, the releases were not successful and the animals are no longer thought to be present in these areas (DAISIE, 2015). Skunks are kept as pets in the Netherlands, Germany, Belgium and the UK (Parrott et al., 2009; van Belle and Schut, 2010) and likely in many other European countries, although the pet trade is not well documented. It is thought that a small population of escaped/released pet animals has established in a Northern Province of the Netherlands (van Belle and Schut, 2010; NOBANIS, 2015), but the population does not seem to have spread to neighbouring Germany or Belgium. There have been several reports of animals in the Forest of Dean in the UK, but their origin and current status is not known (Wilson, 2011).
Distribution TableTop of page
The distribution in this summary table is based on all the information available. When several references are cited, they may give conflicting information on the status. Further details may be available for individual references in the Distribution Table Details section which can be selected by going to Generate Report.
|Continent/Country/Region||Distribution||Last Reported||Origin||First Reported||Invasive||Reference||Notes|
|Canada||Widespread||Native||Present based on regional distribution. Considered both native and introduced in the country|
|-Alberta||Widespread||Native||Helgen and Reid, 2016|
|-British Columbia||Widespread||Native||Helgen and Reid, 2016|
|-Manitoba||Widespread||Native||Helgen and Reid, 2016|
|-Nova Scotia||Widespread||Introduced||Long, 2003|
|-Ontario||Widespread||Native||Helgen and Reid, 2016|
|-Prince Edward Island||Widespread||Introduced||Long, 2003|
|-Quebec||Widespread||Native||Helgen and Reid, 2016|
|-Saskatchewan||Widespread||Native||Helgen and Reid, 2016|
|Mexico||Widespread||Native||Smith et al., 1986|
|USA||Widespread||Native||Present based on regional distribution|
|-Arizona||Widespread||Native||Barton and Wisely, 2012|
|-Arkansas||Widespread||Native||Ferguson and Heidt, 1981|
|-California||Widespread||Native||Barton and Wisely, 2012; Raghavan et al., 2016|
|-Colorado||Widespread||Native||Barton and Wisely, 2012|
|-Connecticut||Widespread||Native||Durden and Richardson, 2003|
|-District of Columbia||Widespread||Native||Helgen and Reid, 2016|
|-Florida||Widespread||Native||Barton and Wisely, 2012|
|-Georgia||Widespread||Native||Barton and Wisely, 2012|
|-Idaho||Widespread||Native||Zoellick et al., 2005|
|-Illinois||Widespread||Native||Greenwood and Sargeant, 1994; Larivière and Messier, 1998; Barton and Wisely, 2012|
|-Indiana||Widespread||Native||Barton and Wisely, 2012|
|-Iowa||Widespread||Native||Kuehl and Clarke, 2002|
|-Kansas||Widespread||Native||Raghavan et al., 2016|
|-Kentucky||Widespread||Native||Smith et al., 1986|
|-Louisiana||Widespread||Native||Barton and Wisely, 2012|
|-Maine||Widespread||Native||Barton and Wisely, 2012|
|-Massachusetts||Widespread||Native||Dubey et al., 1996|
|-Michigan||Widespread||Native||Barton and Wisely, 2012|
|-Minnesota||Widespread||Native||Greenwood and Sargeant, 1994|
|-Mississippi||Widespread||Native||Helgen and Reid, 2016|
|-Missouri||Widespread||Native||Dijak and Thompson, 2000|
|-Montana||Widespread||Native||Greenwood and Sargeant, 1994; Barton and Wisely, 2012|
|-Nebraska||Widespread||Native||Barton and Wisely, 2012; Raghavan et al., 2016|
|-Nevada||Widespread||Native||Barton and Wisely, 2012|
|-New Hampshire||Widespread||Native||Helgen and Reid, 2016|
|-New Jersey||Widespread||Native||Helgen and Reid, 2016|
|-New Mexico||Widespread||Native||Barton and Wisely, 2012|
|-New York||Widespread||Native||Helgen and Reid, 2016|
|-North Carolina||Widespread||Native||Helgen and Reid, 2016|
|-North Dakota||Widespread||Native||Greenwood and Sargeant, 1994; Greenwood et al., 1999; Barton and Wisely, 2012|
|-Ohio||Widespread||Native||Barton and Wisely, 2012|
|-Oklahoma||Widespread||Native||Helgen and Reid, 2016|
|-Oregon||Widespread||Native||Barton and Wisely, 2012|
|-Pennsylvania||Widespread||Native||Helgen and Reid, 2016|
|-Rhode Island||Widespread||Native||Helgen and Reid, 2016|
|-South Carolina||Widespread||Native||Helgen and Reid, 2016|
|-South Dakota||Widespread||Native||Greenwood et al., 1999|
|-Tennessee||Widespread||Native||Neiswenter and Dowler, 2007|
|-Texas||Widespread||Native||Neiswenter and Dowler, 2007; Barton and Wisely, 2012; Brashear et al., 2015; Raghavan et al., 2016|
|-Utah||Widespread||Native||Helgen and Reid, 2016|
|-Vermont||Widespread||Native||Barton and Wisely, 2012|
|-Virginia||Widespread||Native||Barton and Wisely, 2012|
|-Washington||Widespread||Native||Helgen and Reid, 2016|
|-West Virginia||Widespread||Native||Barton and Wisely, 2012|
|-Wisconsin||Widespread||Native||Helgen and Reid, 2016|
|-Wyoming||Widespread||Native||Barton and Wisely, 2012; Ramey et al., 2013|
|Belgium||Present only in captivity/cultivation||Introduced||van Belle and Schut, 2010||Kept as pets|
|Germany||Present only in captivity/cultivation||Introduced||van Belle and Schut, 2010; DAISIE, 2015||Previously in the wild, now only kept in captivity as pets|
|Netherlands||Present, few occurrences||Introduced||2000||van Belle and Schut, 2010; NOBANIS, 2015||Also kept as pets|
|Russian Federation||Absent, formerly present||Introduced||1937||Not invasive||DAISIE, 2015|
|UK||Present only in captivity/cultivation||Introduced||Wilson, 2011||Records from the Forest of Dean, supposedly no longer present in the wild; kept as pets|
|Ukraine||Absent, formerly present||Introduced||1933||Not invasive||DAISIE, 2015|
History of Introduction and SpreadTop of page
Whilst the species is thought to be expanding its native range in mainland Canada, the majority of spread outside its native range is thought to be due to intentional releases or accidental escapes. Animals found on Vancouver Island are thought to have arrived via intentional release (Long, 2003). Animals reported in European countries are likely to have escaped or been released from captivity as pets (Parrott et al., 2009; van Belle and Schut, 2010).
IntroductionsTop of page
|Introduced to||Introduced from||Year||Reason||Introduced by||Established in wild through||References||Notes|
|Natural reproduction||Continuous restocking|
|Germany||1994||Pet trade (pathway cause)||No||No||DAISIE (2015)||First record in Freiburg; release thought to be intentional|
|Netherlands||2000||Pet trade (pathway cause)||No||No||van Belle and Schut (2010)||Population thought to have established with a rare distribution in a northern province|
|UK||Pet trade (pathway cause)||No||No||Wilson (2011)||Potential escaped individuals in the Forest of Dean|
|Russian Federation||1937||Intentional release (pathway cause)||No||No||Long (2003)|
|Ukraine||1933||Intentional release (pathway cause)||No||No||DASIE (2015)|
Risk of IntroductionTop of page
M. mephitis is likely to be introduced to new areas through the pet trade and subsequent escapes or deliberate releases due to abandonment of pet animals. The risk of deliberate pet abandonment may be higher in areas where performing de-scenting procedures is illegal (Wilson, 2011).
Skunks have been recorded to disperse distances in excess of 100 Km, although more commonly they disperse around 20 km (Sargeant et al., 1982). Once released into new environments, they have the potential to spread and establish populations, as has occurred in the Netherlands (van Belle and Schut, 2010).
HabitatTop of page
As a habitat generalist, the species is found in almost every type of habitat across North America (Bixler and Gittleman, 2000), although not in deserts. M. mephitis is abundant on agricultural lands and can also be found in wetlands, woods, grassland and forested areas (Neiswenter and Dowler, 2007). The species is particularly associated with human altered areas, such as barns and outbuildings, and can be found under houses and garages in urban areas (Helgen and Reid, 2016). In Canada, striped skunks have been reported to select wetlands more than any other type of habitat and to use farmstead and cropland significantly less than the other available habitat types (Neiswenter and Dowler, 2007).
Habitat ListTop of page
|Terrestrial – Managed||Cultivated / agricultural land||Present, no further details||Harmful (pest or invasive)|
|Cultivated / agricultural land||Present, no further details||Natural|
|Managed forests, plantations and orchards||Present, no further details||Harmful (pest or invasive)|
|Managed forests, plantations and orchards||Present, no further details||Natural|
|Managed grasslands (grazing systems)||Present, no further details||Harmful (pest or invasive)|
|Managed grasslands (grazing systems)||Present, no further details||Natural|
|Disturbed areas||Present, no further details||Harmful (pest or invasive)|
|Disturbed areas||Present, no further details||Natural|
|Urban / peri-urban areas||Present, no further details||Harmful (pest or invasive)|
|Urban / peri-urban areas||Present, no further details||Natural|
|Buildings||Present, no further details||Harmful (pest or invasive)|
|Buildings||Present, no further details||Natural|
|Terrestrial ‑ Natural / Semi-natural||Natural forests||Present, no further details||Harmful (pest or invasive)|
|Natural forests||Present, no further details||Natural|
|Natural grasslands||Present, no further details||Harmful (pest or invasive)|
|Natural grasslands||Present, no further details||Natural|
|Wetlands||Present, no further details||Harmful (pest or invasive)|
|Wetlands||Present, no further details||Natural|
|Rocky areas / lava flows||Present, no further details||Harmful (pest or invasive)|
|Rocky areas / lava flows||Present, no further details||Natural|
|Scrub / shrublands||Present, no further details||Harmful (pest or invasive)|
|Scrub / shrublands||Present, no further details||Natural|
|Arid regions||Present, no further details||Harmful (pest or invasive)|
|Arid regions||Present, no further details||Natural|
Biology and EcologyTop of page
Skunks are polygamous and normally breed once a year (Bailey, 1971). The gestation period is typically around 63 days (Verts, 1967). Captive male skunks have been reported to be sexually active for a period of 3 to 5 weeks. In the wild, the mating season typically extends from February to March, although exact timings of breeding can be affected by weather conditions (Bailey, 1971). Populations often exhibit high annual turnover, with high pregnancy rates having been repeatedly reported. The occurrence of large litters and low embryo mortality demonstrates the potential for large annual increases in populations (Greenwood and Sargeant, 1994). Average young per litter range from 5.8 to 6.3 animals (Bailey, 1971). Skunk young are altricial, born fully furred, toothless and with eyes closed. Males do not provide any parental care and the young animals remain in the natal den for a month before they start to accompany their mothers on foraging trips (Larivière and Messier, 1998). Juvenile animals stay with their mothers for the first year and typically disperse during the following mating season (Smith-Patten and Patten, 2008).
Physiology and Phenology
The striped skunk does not hibernate, but it does become dormant and den for significant periods of time during extreme winter weather. Because of the energetic demands of this behaviour, loss of body mass can be substantial during these dormant periods (Gehrt et al., 2010). Due to this denning behaviour, it is possible that animals are present in a new area for a relatively long time before their presence is detected. In addition, the species nocturnal nature can also aid individuals establish undetected in a new environment (Larivière and Messier, 1998).
High species turnover occurs in wild populations, with animals living 3 years on average (Greenwood et al., 1999). However, animals have been recorded to live for up to 10 years in captivity (Wilson, 2011).
Population Size and Structure
Home ranges of skunks are estimated to vary between 2.4 and 3.7 km2 for females, and 2.9 to 5 km2 for males; home ranges in urban areas tend to be smaller (Weissenger et al., 2009). Home ranges are also reported to be smaller during the winter than summer, and home range size may also be linked to animal body weight (Bixler and Gittleman, 2000). Females often have overlapping ranges, which they use more intensively than males, and prime sites for natal dens are often used by several females from year to year (Larivière and Messier, 1998).
Skunks are carnivorous, feeding mostly on small mammals and reptiles and on insects, although opportunistically they may consume songbird and waterfowl eggs (Cuyler, 1924; Larivière and Messier, 1998). It is thought that insects compose the majority of the species diet, with additional resources, such as bird eggs and plant foods, being occasionally consumed (Greenwood et al., 1999). Plant materials, in particular, may be an important part of the diet for animals inhabiting northern parts of the species range, filling a dietary void during snowmelt, when conditions are harsh and food is scarce (Greenwood et al., 1999).
The striped skunk tolerates various different climates across its native range (Bixler and Glittleman, 2000). It typically does not inhabit areas above 1800 m of altitude (Wade-Smith and Verts, 1982), although it has been recorded as high as 4200 m (Valdez-Villavicenio et al., 2014). The absolute minimum temperature it tolerates is -35°C (Hwang et al., 2007).
ClimateTop of page
|BW - Desert climate||Tolerated||< 430mm annual precipitation|
|Cs - Warm temperate climate with dry summer||Tolerated||Warm average temp. > 10°C, Cold average temp. > 0°C, dry summers|
|Cw - Warm temperate climate with dry winter||Tolerated||Warm temperate climate with dry winter (Warm average temp. > 10°C, Cold average temp. > 0°C, dry winters)|
|Cf - Warm temperate climate, wet all year||Tolerated||Warm average temp. > 10°C, Cold average temp. > 0°C, wet all year|
|Ds - Continental climate with dry summer||Tolerated||Continental climate with dry summer (Warm average temp. > 10°C, coldest month < 0°C, dry summers)|
|Df - Continental climate, wet all year||Tolerated||Continental climate, wet all year (Warm average temp. > 10°C, coldest month < 0°C, wet all year)|
Latitude/Altitude RangesTop of page
|Latitude North (°N)||Latitude South (°S)||Altitude Lower (m)||Altitude Upper (m)|
Air TemperatureTop of page
|Parameter||Lower limit||Upper limit|
|Absolute minimum temperature (ºC)||-35|
|Mean annual temperature (ºC)||-3||25|
|Mean maximum temperature of hottest month (ºC)||22||32|
|Mean minimum temperature of coldest month (ºC)||-30||15|
Natural enemiesTop of page
|Natural enemy||Type||Life stages||Specificity||References||Biological control in||Biological control on|
|Bubo virginianus||Predator||Other/All Stages||not specific|
|Canis familiaris||Predator||Other/All Stages||not specific|
|Canis latrans||Predator||Other/All Stages||not specific|
|Taxidea taxus||Predator||Other/All Stages||not specific|
Notes on Natural EnemiesTop of page
Natural enemies are thought to include large raptors, as well as cats and canids (Walton and Larivière, 1994; Hunter and Barrett, 2009). However, predation occurs relatively infrequently and disease is the greatest source of mortality in wild striped skunk populations (Larivière and Messier, 1997).
Due to their conspicuous colouration, animals may be subject to predation attacks from inexperienced predators during daytime (Larivière and Messier, 1997). One instance of predation by an American badger has been recorded (Sargeant et al., 1982). Whilst the species does have some natural enemies, predation does not seem to be a relevant threat.
Means of Movement and DispersalTop of page
Natural dispersal is thought to be low for most of the year, peaking in February-March, when males search for mates and juveniles disperse from the natal den (Hansen et al., 2004). Young skunks disperse at approximately one year of age (Smith-Patten and Patten, 2008). Male skunks often disperse greater distances than females (Talbot et al., 2012). Adult male skunks are intolerant of each other, travelling extensively in early spring during mating (Bailey, 1971; Bjorge et al., 1981). Juveniles have been recorded to disperse up to 22 km and can travel long distances in a short time, allowing species spread (Bjorge et al., 1981). The species has been recorded to disperse distances in excess of 100 km, although this is uncommon (Sargeant et al., 1982).
Introductions outside the species native range, both accidental and intentional, are likely to result from the pet trade. The animals are kept as pets in several European countries (van Belle and Schut, 2010) and have the potential to escape captivity or be intentionally released/abandoned. Historic intentional releases have been recorded in Russia, although the introductions were done in small scale and not thought to have been effective (Long, 2003). Although there are little data available regarding the trade of pet skunks, introductions are probably infrequent and in low numbers (Wilson, 2011).
Pathway CausesTop of page
Impact: EconomicTop of page
Direct economic impacts are likely to relate to nuisance damage of gardens and golf courses, given the species association with human altered habitats (Wilson, 2011). In addition, minor economic losses could result from trivial losses to maize/corn crops or fruit orchards, and damage to beehives (Wilson, 2011).
Impact: EnvironmentalTop of page
Impact on Biodiversity
Recognised as an important predator of ground nesting birds in parts of its native range (Greenwood et al., 1999), where introduced the species could impact environments with ground nesting bird populations.
Outside its native range, there is also potential for skunks to compete with mesopredators. However, this is unlikely to significantly affect biodiversity, as the skunk is able to coexist with a wide range of mesopredators in its native range (Wilson, 2011).
Striped skunks may further impact biodiversity as one of the most important vector species of the rabies virus in North America (Raghavan et al., 2016). The spring peak in rabies occurrence has been hypothesized to result from the rabies transfer that occurs in communal winter dens, and dispersal of naïve susceptible juveniles (Weissenger et al., 2009). However, as the spread of skunks outside their native range is likely to occur as a result from releases/escapes of captive held animals, the risk of them carrying rabies is quite small (McCune, 1973).
Impact: SocialTop of page
The species may cause social harm through its nuisance behaviours in urban areas, because of its use of human altered habitats and man-made structures as denning sites (Wilson, 2011). Animals may also become a nuisance in pursuit of human waste food in urban areas (Fascione et al., 2004).
The species also poses a potential threat as a vector of rabies, with skunks acting as a vector of the virus and potentially spreading the disease in to or out of the urban matrix (Weissenger et al., 2009).
Risk and Impact FactorsTop of page Invasiveness
- Has a broad native range
- Abundant in its native range
- Highly adaptable to different environments
- Is a habitat generalist
- Tolerates, or benefits from, cultivation, browsing pressure, mutilation, fire etc
- Capable of securing and ingesting a wide range of food
- Highly mobile locally
- Benefits from human association (i.e. it is a human commensal)
- Fast growing
- Has high reproductive potential
- Damaged ecosystem services
- Infrastructure damage
- Negatively impacts human health
- Negatively impacts animal health
- Negatively impacts livelihoods
- Reduced native biodiversity
- Threat to/ loss of native species
- Damages animal/plant products
- Pest and disease transmission
- Highly likely to be transported internationally deliberately
UsesTop of page
In several states of the USA, skunks are trapped for fur, some states allowing year-round hunting of the animals (Helgen and Reid, 2016). However, the popularity of skunk fur decreased in the 1950s and 1960s, and the value of a single skunk pelt is relatively low. It is thought that most skunks caught in traps are a bycatch for hunters intending to capture more valuable species (Helgen and Reid, 2016).
Skunks are sold and kept as pets in several countries in Europe (Parrott et al., 2009; van Belle and Schut, 2010).
Uses ListTop of page
- Botanical garden/zoo
- Pet/aquarium trade
- Sport (hunting, shooting, fishing, racing)
Detection and InspectionTop of page
Resulting from its ability to spray a foul smelling odour, the striped skunk has been widely depicted in literature and on television, and is therefore likely to be recognisable to the general public (Wilson, 2011). Due to its perceptible striped markings, any free roaming individual is likely to be easily identified by members of the public.
Similarities to Other Species/ConditionsTop of page
The striped polecat Ictonyx striatus can be similar in appearance to the striped skunk, because of a similar body shape and its black fur and white stripes. However, the polecat is smaller than the skunk and is only found in sub-Saharan Africa; confusions between the two species are therefore unlikely (Hunter and Barrett, 2009).
Prevention and ControlTop of page
A better regulation of the pet trade could help minimize the risk of animals being intentionally released as unwanted pets. Tighter regulations of the pet trade could also be used to better understand the spatial distribution of captive animals. Improved regulations regarding the movement and selling/breeding of animals should be coupled with information campaigns aimed at increasing awareness of potential pet owners about requirements of this species. In particular, information regarding the legalities of de-scenting animals, a procedure that is illegal in some countries and is thought to influence the abandonment of animals, is essential.
Any escapes or releases of animals are likely to occur at a small scale due to the relatively low numbers of animals kept in captivity. Control of escaped animals would likely be carried out through the use of live traps and additional use of camera traps.
Gaps in Knowledge/Research NeedsTop of page
Little information is available regarding M. mephitis introductions and the success/failure of releases in the introduced areas.
ReferencesTop of page
Bailey TN, 1971. Biology of striped skunks on a Southwestern Lake Erie marsh. The American Midland Naturalist, 85(1), 196-207.
Barton HD, Wisely SM, 2012. Phylogeography of striped skunks (Mephitis mephitis) in North America: Pleistocene dispersal and contemporary population structure. Journal of Mammalogy, 93(1), 38-51.
Bixler A, Gittleman JL, 2000. Variation in home range and use of habitat in the striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis). Journal of Zoology, 251(4), 525-533.
Bjorge RR, Gunson JR, Samuel WM, 1981. Population characteristics and movements of striped skunks (Mephitis mephitis) in Central Alberta. Canadian Field Naturalist, 95(2), 149-155.
Brashear, W. A., Ammerman, L. K., Dowler, R. C., 2015. Short-distance dispersal and lack of genetic structure in an urban striped skunk population. Journal of Mammalogy, 96(1), 72-80. http://www.bioone.org/loi/mamm doi: 10.1093/jmammal/gyu004
Cuyler WK, 1924. Observations on the habits of the striped skunk (Mephitis mesomelas varians). Journal of Mammalogy, 5(3), 180-189.
DAISIE, 2015. Delivering Alien Invasive Species Inventories for Europe. DAISIE (online). http://www.europe-aliens.org/
Dubey JP, Hamir AN, Niezgoda M, Rupprecht CE, 1996. A sarcocytosis neurona-like organism associated with encephalitis in a striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis). The Journal of Parasitology, 82(1), 172-174.
Ernst CH, 1975. Skull key to adult land mammals of Delaware, Maryland and Virginia. Chesapeake Science, 16(3), 198-204.
Fascione N, Delach A, Smith M, 2004. People and predators: from conflict to coexistence, Washington, USA: Island Press.304 pp.
Ferguson, D. V., Heidt, G. A., 1981. Survey for rabies, leptospirosis, toxoplasmosis and tularemia in striped skunks (Mephitis mephitis) from three public use areas in northwestern Arkansas. Journal of Wildlife Diseases, 17(4), 515-519.
Greenwood RJ, Sargeant AB, 1994. Age-related reproduction in striped skunks (Mephitis mephitis) in the upper Midwest. Journal of Mammalogy, 75(3), 657-662.
Greenwood RJ, Sargeant AB, Piehl JL, Buhl DA, Hanson BA, 1999. Foods and foraging of prairie striped skunks during the avian nesting season. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 27(3), 823-832.
Hansen LA, Matthews NE, Vander Lee BA, Lutz RS, 2004. Population characteristics, survival rates, and causes of mortality of striped skunks (Mephitis mephitis) on the southern high plains, Texas. The Southwestern Naturalist, 49(1), 54-60.
Helgen K, Reid F, 2016. Mephitis mephitis. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2016: e.T41635A45211301. https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/41635/45211301
Howell AH, 1921. A biological survey of Alabama. North American Fauna, 45, 1-89.
Hunter L, Barrett P, 2009. A field guide to the carnivores of the world, New Holland Publishers.240 pp.
Hwang YT, Larivière S, Messier F, 2007. Energetic consequences and ecological significance of heterothermy and social thermoregulation in striped skunks (Mephitis mephitis). Physiological and Biochemical Zoology, 80(1), 138-145.
Larivière S, Messier F, 1997. Seasonal and daily activity patterns of striped skunks in the Canadian prairies. Journal of Zoology, 243, 255-262.
Larivière S, Messier F, 1998. Denning ecology of the striped skunk in the Canadian prairies: implications for waterfowl nest predation. Journal of Applied Ecology, 35, 207-213.
Neiswenter, S. A., Dowler, R. C., 2007. Habitat use of western spotted skunks and striped skunks in Texas. Journal of Wildlife Management, 71(2), 583-586. http://jwm.allentrack.net doi: 10.2193/2005-623
NOBANIS, 2015. North European and Baltic Network on Invasive Alien Species. http://www.nobanis.org/
Parrott D, Roy S, Baker R, Cannon R, Eyre D, Hill M, Wagner M, Preston C, et al., 2009. Horizon scanning for new invasive non-native animal species in England. Peterborough, UK: Natural England.
Raghavan, R. K., Hanlon, C. A., Goodin, D. G., Davis, R., Moore, M., Moore, S., Anderson, G. A., 2016. Bayesian spatiotemporal pattern and eco-climatological drivers of striped skunk rabies in the North Central Plains. PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases, 10(4), e0004632. http://journals.plos.org/plosntds/article?id=10.1371/journal.pntd.0004632 doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0004632
Ramey, C. A., Mills, K. W., Fischer, J. W., McLean, R. G., Fagerstone, K. A., Engeman, R. M., 2013. Graphically characterizing the movement of a rabid striped skunk epizootic across the landscape in northwestern Wyoming. EcoHealth, 10(3), 246-256. http://rd.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10393-013-0853-3 doi: 10.1007/s10393-013-0853-3
Rosatte R, Lawson S, 2003. Skunks. In: Wild mammals of North America: biology management and conservation, [ed. by Feldhammer G, Thompson B, Chapman J]. Baltimore, USA: Johns Hopkins University Press. 692-707.
Sargeant, A. B., Greenwood, R. J., Piehl, J. L., Bicknell, W. B., 1982. Recurrence, mortality, and dispersal of prairie striped skunks, Mephitis mephitis, and implications to rabies epizootiology. Canadian Field-Naturalist, 96(3), 312-316.
Seton ET, 1909. Life histories of northern animals: an account of the mammals of Manitoba, New York, USA: Scribner.
Smith, J. S., Reid-Sanden, F. L., Roumillat, L. F. (et al.), 1986. Demonstration of antigenic variation among rabies virus isolates by using monoclonal antibodies to nucleocapsid proteins. Journal of Clinical Microbiology, 24(4), 573-580.
Smith-Patten, B. D., Patten, M. A., 2008. Diversity, seasonality, and context of mammalian roadkills in the southern Great Plains. Environmental Management, 41(6), 844-852. http://www.springerlink.com/content/j5433547237j3438/?p=742d41df60fa4ce18d132e53e4c8d205&pi=4 doi: 10.1007/s00267-008-9089-3
Talbot B, Garant D, Rioux Paquette SR, Mainguy J, Pelletier F, 2012. Lack of genetic structure and female-specific effect of dispersal barriers in a rabies vector, the striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis). PLoS ONE, 7(11), e49736.
Valdez-Villavicenio JH, Ruiz-Campos G, Escobar-Flores J, Guevara-Carrizales AA, Gonzalez-Guzman S, 2014. Current distributional status of the striped skunk Mephitis mephitis, in Baja California, Mexico. Western North American Naturalist, 74(4), 467-471.
van Belle J, Schut J, 2010. [English title not available]. (Risicoanalyse stinkdieren in Nederland). Feanwâlden, Netherlands: Altenburg and Wymenga Ecologisch Onderzoek.
Verts BJ, 1967. The biology of the striped skunk, Urbana, USA: University of Illinois Press.218 pp.
Wade-Smith J, Verts BJ, 1982. Mephitis mephitis. Mammalian Species Archive, 173, 1-7.
Walton LR, Larivière S, 1994. A striped skunk, Mephitis mephitis, repels two coyotes, Canis latrans, without scenting. Canadian Field Naturalist, 108, 492-493.
Weissinger, M. D., Theimer, T. C., Bergman, D. L., Deliberto, T. J., 2009. Nightly and seasonal movements, seasonal home range, and focal location photo-monitoring of urban striped skunks (Mephitis mephitis): implications for rabies transmission. Journal of Wildlife Diseases, 45(2), 388-397. http://www.wildlifedisease.org
Wilson C, 2011. GB Non-native organism risk assessment for Mephitis mephitis. www.nonativespecies.org
Wilson DE, Reeder DM, 2005. Mammal species of the world: A taxonomic and geographic reference. 3rd edition, Baltimore, Maryland, USA: Johns Hopkins University Press.2142 pp.
Zoellick BW, Ulmschneider HM, Stanley AW, 2005. Distribution and composition of mammalian predators along the Snake River in Southwestern Idaho. Northwest Science, 79(4), 265-272.
Principal SourceTop of page
Draft datasheet under review
ContributorsTop of page
24/08/16 Original text by:
Jessica Ward, School of Biology, Newcastle University, Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK
Distribution MapsTop of page
Unsupported Web Browser:
One or more of the features that are needed to show you the maps functionality are not available in the web browser that you are using.
Please consider upgrading your browser to the latest version or installing a new browser.
More information about modern web browsers can be found at http://browsehappy.com/