ORIGINAL ARTICLE Climatic drivers of pinyon mouse Peromyscus truei population dynamics in a resource-restricted environment Arjun Srivathsa 1,2 | William Tietje 3 | Virginie Rolland 4 | Anne Polyakov 3 | Madan K. Oli 1,2 1 School of Natural Resources and Environment, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida 2 Department of Wildlife Ecology and Conservation, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida 3 Department of Environmental Science, Policy, and Management, University of California- Berkeley, Berkeley, California 4 Department of Biological Sciences, Arkansas State University, State University, Jonesboro, Arkansas Correspondence Madan Kumar Oli, The School of Natural Resources and Environment, University of Florida, 103 Black Hall, Gainesville, FL 32611. Email: olim@ufl.edu Funding information Wildlife Conservation Society; University of Florida; Arkansas State University; University of California, Berkeley; Wildlife Conservation Network, Grant/Award Number: Grant 91-003 Abstract Highly variable patterns in temperature and rainfall events can have pronounced consequences for small mammals in resource-restricted environments. Climatic factors can therefore play a crucial role in determining the fates of small mammal populations. We applied Pradel's temporal symmetry model to a 21-year capture– recapture dataset to study population dynamics of the pinyon mouse (Peromyscus truei) in a semi-arid mixed oak woodland in California, USA. We examined time-, season- and sex-specific variation in realized population growth rate (λ) and its constituent vital rates, apparent survival and recruitment. We also tested the influ- ence of climatic factors on these rates. Overall monthly apparent survival was 0.81  0.004 (estimate  SE). Survival was generally higher during wetter months (October–May) but varied over time. Monthly recruitment rate was 0.18  0.01, rang- ing from 0.07  0.01 to 0.63  0.07. Although population growth rate (λ) was highly variable, overall monthly growth rate was close to 1.0, indicating a stable population during the study period (λ  SE = 0.99  0.01). Average temperature and its variabil- ity negatively affected survival, whereas rainfall positively influenced survival and recruitment rates, and thus the population growth rate. Our results suggest that seasonal rainfall and variation in temperature at the local scale, rather than regional climatic pat- terns, more strongly affected vital rates in this population. Discerning such linkages between species' population dynamics and environmental variability are critical for understanding local and regional impacts of global climate change, and for gauging via- bility and resilience of populations in resource-restricted environments. KEYWORDS apparent survival, capture-mark-recapture, climate change effects, realized population growth rate, recruitment, rodent demography 1 | INTRODUCTION Understanding factors and processes that drive population dynamics and persistence has long been an important goal in ecology (Coulson et al., 2001; Krebs, 2013; Loeuille & Ghil, 2004). Many studies aiming to discern the relative roles of intrinsic (and other biotic interactions), and extrinsic climatic factors have shown that density-dependence and bioclimatic factors jointly determine population dynamics of many spe- cies (Coulson et al., 2001; Leirs et al., 1997; Previtali, Lima, Meserve, Kelt, & Gutiérrez, 2009; Solberg et al., 2001). Nonetheless, the hypothesis that extrinsic environmental fac- tors are the primary drivers of animal population dynamics, an idea championed by Andrewartha and Birch (1954), con- tinues to receive empirical support, especially from studies conducted in unpredictable arid or semi-arid environments (Brown & Ernest, 2002; Dickman, Mahon, Masters, & Gibson, 1999; Lightfoot, Davidson, Parker, Hernández, & Laundré, 2012; Lima, Stenseth, Yoccoz, & Jaksic, 2001; Madsen & Shine, 1999). In arid and semi-arid systems where water is a restricted resource, rainfall events facilitate pulses of increased Received: 2 March 2018 Revised: 25 June 2018 Accepted: 24 September 2018 DOI: 10.1002/1438-390X.1006 122 © 2019 The Society of Population Ecology wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/pope Popul Ecol. 2019;61:122–131.