Ambroise A Dalecky
email: ambroise.dalecky@ird.fr

Khalilou Bâ
email: khalilou.ba@ird.fr

Sylvain S Piry
email: piry@supagro.inra.fr

Cédric Lippens
email: lippens.cedric@gmail.com

Christophe A Diagne

Mamadou Kane
email: mamadou.kane@ird.fr

Aliou Sow
email: aliou.sow@ird.fr

Mamoudou Diallo
email: mamadou.diallo@ird.fr

Youssoupha Niang
email: youssoupha.niang@ird.fr

Adam Konecny
email: akonecny@sci.muni.cz

LPED Ird

Khalilou Bâ Ird

Cédric Lippens Ird

CBGP Christophe A Diagne Ird

Mamadou Kane Ird

Aliou Sow Ird

Mamoudou Diallo Ird

Youssoupha Niang Ird

CBGP Adam Konečný Ird

Nathalie Sarr Ird
email: nathalie.sarr@ird.fr

Emmanuelle Artige
email: artige@supagro.inra.fr

Nathalie Charbonnel
email: nathalie.charbonnel@supagro.inra.fr

CBGP Laurent Granjon Ird
email: laurent.granjon@ird.fr

CBGP Jean-Marc Duplantier Ird
email: jean-marc.duplantier@ird.fr

Carine Brouat Ird
email: carine.brouat@ird.fr

Range expansion of the invasive house mouse Mus musculus domesticus in Senegal, West Africa: a synthesis of trapping data over three decades, 1983-2014

Keywords: Biological invasion, commensalism, community ecology, rodent, species richness

HAL is

INTRODUCTION

The worldwide intensification of human-associated exchanges is making previous biogeographical barriers meaningless in terms of living organism dispersion, and favours the multiplication of invasion processes at various geographical scales [START_REF] Searle | The genetics of mammalian invasions: a review[END_REF]. As a result, invasions are now of major concern in biological sciences. They are identified as having a significant impact on evolutionary processes [START_REF] Mooney | The evolutionary impact of invasive species[END_REF], represent a major threat to biodiversity [START_REF] Clavero | Invasive species are a leading cause of animal extinctions[END_REF], and are also likely to entail new sanitary and human health problems [START_REF] Pyšek | Invasive species, environmental change and management, and health[END_REF]. Among invasive species, rodents undoubtedly represent the vertebrate group that has most often accompanied humans in their history of global dispersal. Rodents have also had numerous opportunities to settle where they were introduced, and then to become invasive. Ecological, palaeoecological, and archaeological studies have documented the direct and indirect impacts of invasive rodents on native plants and animals, leading to in-depth environmental modifications in some cases, for instance on islands (see Drake & Hunt 2009 and references therein). In addition to their effects on biodiversity, invasive rodents have profound impacts on human activities [START_REF] Stenseth | Mice, rats, and people: the bio-economics of agricultural rodent pests[END_REF]) and on health [START_REF] Meerburg | Rodent-borne diseases and their risks for public health[END_REF]). These combined effects prompted [START_REF] Lowe | 100 of the World's Worst Invasive Alien Species: a Selection from the Global Invasive Species Database[END_REF] to include three rodent species in their list of 100 of the world's worst invasive alien species. Two of them (the black rat Rattus rattus and the house mouse Mus musculus) were also ranked among the top three main rodent pest species by [START_REF] Capizzi | Rating the rat: global patterns and research priorities in impacts and management of rodent pests[END_REF]. Like other invasive species, rodents become difficult to eradicate once they have been introduced [START_REF] Genovesi | Eradications of invasive alien species in Europe: a review[END_REF]). Recent bioeconomic analyses support the conclusion that preventing future invasions is the most cost-effective form of management [START_REF] Broennimann | Predicting current and future biological invasions: both native and invaded ranges matter[END_REF].

Accordingly, monitoring the spatial progress of ongoing rodent invasions is a major prerequisite that should represent a priority step in strategies aimed at controlling the effects of invasive rodents on native biodiversity, human health and human activities.

Surprisingly, there are still few data describing ongoing house mouse invasions [START_REF] Nathan | Experimental island invasion of house mice[END_REF]. Recent spatio-temporal surveys of rodent communities have been conducted on some invaded islands (e.g. [START_REF] Russell | The origin of Rattus rattus on the Iles Eparses, Western Indian Ocean[END_REF][START_REF] Jones | Fellow travellers: a concordance of colonization patterns between mice and men in the North Atlantic region[END_REF]) but, to our knowledge, such studies are very scarce in continental areas (e.g. [START_REF] Khlyap | Synanthropic and agrophilic rodents as invasive alien mammals[END_REF][START_REF] Jung | Alien invaders: recent establishment of an urban population of house mice (Mus musculus) in the Yukon[END_REF]. In this paper, we briefly review the worldwide status of the subspecies Mus musculus domesticus, with special focus on its situation in Africa. We then describe the ongoing range expansion of the house mouse in Senegal, in order to update its distribution area, assess the location of the invasion front, describe the spatio-temporal dynamics of the invasion at the country scale and evaluate its impact on native communities. Our work is based on analyses of small mammal trapping data in commensal habitats recorded throughout Senegal since 1983. This dataset is probably one of the most comprehensive ever gathered on commensal rodent communities at a country scale. It enables us to draw a clear picture of the trends observed in the last 30 years during this specific biological invasion.

Scales of house mouse colonization: from worldwide to Senegal

One of the most widely distributed mammals at the worldwide scale is the house mouse M. m. domesticus [START_REF] Musser | Mus musculus[END_REF]. Originating from the Middle East, this subspecies probably became commensal in arid areas at the very beginning of the Neolithic in the Near East, by exploiting the niche offered by humans practicing sedentary agriculture [START_REF] Brothwell | The Pleistocene and Holocene archaeology of the house mouse and related species[END_REF][START_REF] Auffray | The house mouse progression in Eurasia: a palaeontological and archaeozoological approach[END_REF][START_REF] Cucchi | First occurrence of the house mouse (Mus musculus domesticus Schwarz & Schwarz, 1943) in the Western Mediterranean: a zooarchaeological revision of subfossil occurrences[END_REF], 2012). It then expanded its geographic range through human trade and transport. The past invasion history of M. m. domesticus has received much attention in the literature. Archaeological records and molecular data suggest a range expansion over several millennia from the Levant towards the Mediterranean area, and during the first millennium BC to Western Europe [START_REF] Cucchi | First occurrence of the house mouse (Mus musculus domesticus Schwarz & Schwarz, 1943) in the Western Mediterranean: a zooarchaeological revision of subfossil occurrences[END_REF][START_REF] Gündüz | Mitochondrial DNA variation in the western house mouse (Mus musculus domesticus) close to its site of origin: studies in Turkey[END_REF][START_REF] Rajabi-Maham | Phylogeography and postglacial expansion of Mus musculus domesticus inferred from mitochondrial DNA coalescent, from Iran to Europe[END_REF][START_REF] Bonhomme | Genetic differentiation of the house mouse around the Mediterranean basin: matrilineal footprints of early and late colonization[END_REF]. Phylogeographical studies indicate more recent expansions (during the last few centuries) of M. m. domesticus towards remote areas of Africa, the Americas, Oceania [START_REF] Searle | The diverse origins of New Zealand house mice[END_REF][START_REF] Bonhomme | House mouse phylogeography[END_REF][START_REF] Gabriel | Of mice and 'convicts': origin of the Australian house mouse, Mus musculus[END_REF]) and other islands [START_REF] Förster | Molecular insights into the colonization and chromosomal diversification of Madeiran house mice[END_REF][START_REF] Hardouin | House mouse colonization patterns on the sub-Antarctic Kerguelen Archipelago suggest singular primary invasions and resilience against re-invasion[END_REF][START_REF] Gray | Demographic history of a recent invasion of house mice on the isolated Island of Gough[END_REF], through ships of European explorers and settlers.

The geographic range of the house mouse in Africa has been recently synthetized by [START_REF] Happold | Mus musculus, house mouse[END_REF]. While referring to Mus musculus, this synthesis most probably concerned M. m. domesticus, which is the only subspecies of house mouse present in continental Africa, except in Kenya and in South Africa where Mus musculus castaneus and Mus musculus musculus, respectively, also occur [START_REF] Bonhomme | Genetic differentiation of the house mouse around the Mediterranean basin: matrilineal footprints of early and late colonization[END_REF][START_REF] Bonhomme | House mouse phylogeography[END_REF][START_REF] Monadjem | Rodents of Sub-Saharan Africa. A Biogeographic and Taxonomic Synthesis[END_REF]. M. m. domesticus appears to be patchily distributed on the continent: large permanent populations exist in North Africa, Senegal, Namibia, South Africa and Zimbabwe, and there are sparse records from numerous coastal cities [START_REF] Happold | Mus musculus, house mouse[END_REF].

However, this distribution has to be treated with caution, as it is based on few documented data. M. m. domesticus might be much more widely present in Africa. For instance, in West Africa, M. m. domesticus has also been found in inland localities in Mauritania [START_REF] Hopf | Rodent Damage to Growing Crops and to Farm and Village Storage in Tropical and Subtropical Regions[END_REF][START_REF] Granjon | Les Rongeurs de l'Afrique Sahélo-soudanienne[END_REF], Nigeria [START_REF] Hopf | Rodent Damage to Growing Crops and to Farm and Village Storage in Tropical and Subtropical Regions[END_REF]) and Niger [START_REF] Dobigny | A cytotaxonomic survey of Rodents from Niger: implications for systematics, biodiversity and biogeography[END_REF][START_REF] Granjon | Les Rongeurs de l'Afrique Sahélo-soudanienne[END_REF][START_REF] Garba | Spatial segregation between invasive and native commensal rodents in an urban environment: a case study in Niamey, Niger[END_REF]. Furthermore, M. m. domesticus has not been recorded in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) by [START_REF] Happold | Mus musculus, house mouse[END_REF], while [START_REF] Kaleme | Origin and putative colonization routes for invasive rodent taxa in the Democratic republic of Congo[END_REF] studied a sample from Kinshasa, stating that "older records suggest its presence in the east [START_REF] Misonne | Les Rongeurs du Ruwenzori et des Régions Voisines[END_REF])" and that "anecdotal reports also raise the possibility of the presence of the house mouse in the northeastern part of the DRC, specifically around Kisangani." The species is not reported either from western Cameroon by [START_REF] Happold | Mus musculus, house mouse[END_REF], while [START_REF] Ihle | An analysis of signatures of selective sweeps in natural populations of the house mouse[END_REF] sampled a natural population in Kumba (Southwest Province).

Similarly, no mention of the species in Sierra Leone and Guinea is made by [START_REF] Happold | Mus musculus, house mouse[END_REF], while [START_REF] Leslie | An attempt to determine the absolute number of rats on a given area[END_REF] captured it in Freetown (Sierra Leone), and both [START_REF] Fichet-Calvet | Spatial distribution of commensal rodents in regions with high and low Lassa fever prevalence in Guinea[END_REF] and [START_REF] Denys | New data on the taxonomy and distribution of Rodentia (Mammalia) from the western and coastal regions of Guinea West Africa[END_REF] showed it to be present in villages of the prefecture of Kindia (west of Guinea). Recent city surveys in northern Nigeria (Kano, M. Garba, unpublished data) and eastern Gabon (Franceville, J. Mangombi, unpublished data) have also yielded house mouse specimens in areas where the species was not mentioned by [START_REF] Happold | Mus musculus, house mouse[END_REF]. From these few examples, it is quite clear that the geographic range of the house mouse in Africa is probably widely underestimated.

The situation in Senegal may appear to be unusual, as historical information on the presence of the house mouse in the country appears to be fairly comprehensive. The house mouse may have reached sub-Saharan West Africa from the 15 th century with Portuguese sailors (Rosevear 1969b). To our knowledge, archeological information is not available for this area. Preliminary molecular data did not contradict the classical view of an introduction of M. m. domesticus in Senegal by Western European settlers [START_REF] Bonhomme | Genetic differentiation of the house mouse around the Mediterranean basin: matrilineal footprints of early and late colonization[END_REF], probably a few centuries ago. The first historical inventories of rodent fauna in West Africa date from the late 19 th century. They report large and likely standing populations of house mice in colonial coastal cities without mention of specific localities [START_REF] Temminck | Esquisses zoologiques sur la côte de Guinée. 1° Mammifères[END_REF][START_REF] Rochebrunne | Faune de la Sénégambie -2ème partie: Mammifères[END_REF]). In Senegal, historical inventories from the early 20 th century indicated a distribution of the house mouse restricted specifically to Dakar, surrounding localities [START_REF] Lafont | Une épidémie de peste humaine à Dakar (avril 1914-février 1915)[END_REF][START_REF] Léger | De la peste chez les Muridés et les musaraignes à Dakar[END_REF][START_REF] Blazy | Considérations sur les rapports de faune des rongeurs avec les manifestations pesteuses à Dakar[END_REF][START_REF] Sorel | La lutte préventive contre la peste dans la circonscription de Dakar et dépendances durant l'année 1928[END_REF][START_REF] Cazanove | La peste au Senegal (1924-1929)[END_REF][START_REF] Cazanove | Le problème du rat dans le territoire de Dakar et dépendances[END_REF] and other places located less than a few tens of km from the coast along the main road and railway connecting Dakar to Saint-Louis [START_REF] Lefrou | Rapport sur une mission d'étude de la peste au Cayor (Aout 1928)[END_REF]). In the second half of the 20 th century, house mice were found to be well established in the main coastal cities of the country (e.g. Dakar, Saint-Louis) and to dominate the rodent communities of villages in coastal areas north of the Gambia River. They were absent further south and inland [START_REF] Duplantier | Répartition actuelle du rat noir (Rattus rattus) au Sénégal: facteurs historiques et écologiques[END_REF][START_REF] Duplantier | Répartition biogéographique des petits rongeurs au Sénégal[END_REF].

Recent inland occurrences of the species were in Richard-Toll city, on the edge of Senegal River delta, ca. 100 km from the coast [START_REF] Böhme | Kommentierte Liste einer Säugetier-Auframmlung aus dem Senegal[END_REF]. The last published update on house mouse distribution in Senegal included a number of localities further east in the country, up to 350-400 km from the coast, mostly along the main west-east road that runs north of the Gambia [START_REF] Granjon | Les Rongeurs de l'Afrique Sahélo-soudanienne[END_REF].

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Captures

The dataset presented here results from a historical compilation of 700 indoor trapping sessions that have taken place during the last 30 years (March 1983-February 2014) in ca.

376 localities throughout Senegal. It was extracted from the Sahelo-Soudanian Rodent Database [START_REF] Granjon | Les Rongeurs de l'Afrique Sahélo-soudanienne[END_REF]) and complemented using our original field notes for the most ancient records (for information on the small mammal collection see http://www1.montpellier.inra.fr/CBGP/?q=fr/content/petits-mammifères-0). For this paper we only considered trapping sessions conducted indoors in human settlements (hamlets, villages or cities; hereafter referenced as localities, see Fig. 1A) because M. m. domesticus is strictly commensal (i.e. confined to human buildings) in West Africa [START_REF] Rochebrunne | Faune de la Sénégambie -2ème partie: Mammifères[END_REF], Rosevear 1969a[START_REF] Granjon | Les Rongeurs de l'Afrique Sahélo-soudanienne[END_REF][START_REF] Happold | Mus musculus, house mouse[END_REF].

In trapping sessions, small mammals including rodents and shrews were caught in live traps. Between 1983 and 1994, we mainly used single capture wire-mesh traps (Firobind 8 x 8

x 25 cm and Manufrance 9 x 10 x 26 cm), but we occasionally added Sherman folding box traps (8 x 9 x 23 cm) or multiple capture traps (Manufrance 38 x 13 x 13 cm, equipped with a gravity-closing door). Between 1998 and 2014, we typically used both locally made single capture wire-mesh live traps (8.5 x 8.5 x 26.5 cm) and Sherman folding box traps (8 x 9 x 23 cm). Traps were set inside buildings (dwelling houses, storehouses or shops) for trapping sessions of 1-5 consecutive days. A variable number of rooms were sampled (median ~ 20) in each locality and trapping session; typically two traps (one wire-mesh and one Sherman) were set per room. Traps were checked and baited once a day with peanut butter, sometimes supplemented with other food items such as fresh onions.

Permission to enter and work within villages was obtained from the appropriate institutional, traditional and familial authorities. Animals were treated in a humane manner, in accordance with relevant requirements of Senegalese legislation and following [START_REF] Sikes | Guidelines of the American Society of Mammalogists for the use of wild mammals in research[END_REF]. Small mammals were euthanatized by cervical dislocation once trapped, as recommended by [START_REF] Mills | Methods for Trapping and Sampling Small Mammals for Virologic Testing[END_REF], and were then weighed, measured, and dissected for research purposes beyond the scope of this paper (e.g. tissue sampling for screening of pathogens, rodent phylogeography and population genetics).

Species identification

Small mammal species nomenclature follows [START_REF] Wilson | Mammal Species of the World: a Taxonomic and Geographic Reference (3rd edition)[END_REF]. Most of the rodents and shrews trapped could be identified to the species or genus level based on morphological, ecological and biogeographical knowledge of this region [START_REF] Granjon | Les Rongeurs de l'Afrique Sahélo-soudanienne[END_REF][START_REF] Happold | Mus musculus, house mouse[END_REF]. When necessary, molecular or chromosomal data were obtained to allow unambiguous species identification of rodents (following procedures described by [START_REF] Granjon | The importance of cytotaxonomy in understanding the biogeography of African rodents: Lake Chad murids as an example[END_REF], Lecompte et al. 2005[START_REF] Dobigny | A cytotaxonomic and DNA-based survey of rodents from Northern Cameroon and Western Chad[END_REF]. For house mice, 51 males from 38 localities throughout Senegal between 2011 and 2013 (1-3 mice per locality) were identified with the aid of molecular genetics at the subspecies level using the nuclear genetic marker Zfy2, following [START_REF] Prager | Genetic variation and phylogeography of Central Asian and other house mice, including a major new mitochondrial lineage in Yemen[END_REF].

Distribution maps

We first drew geographical maps to illustrate the geographic range of M. m. domesticus throughout Senegal, and the rough evolution of the range between 1983 and 2014. We used grid cells of 33 x 33 km. For each cell for a given period of time, we combined all available data corresponding to several sampling sessions and localities. We estimated the proportions of trapped individuals made up of invasive rodents (M. m. domesticus and Rattus spp. -Rattus rattus and a few individuals of Rattus norvegicus caught in only two sessions), native rodents and shrews. Maps showing these proportions were created for three sampling periods, corresponding to different time ranges with rather similar sampling efforts and numbers of captures (1983-1994: 324 trapping sessions, >17000 trap-nights and 3573 captures; 1998-2010: 249 trapping sessions, ≥17800 trap-nights and 3515 captures 1998-2010; 2011-2014: 127 trapping sessions, 19300 trap-nights and 4132 captures). For specific localities, we calculated the shortest distance to the coast (which was lower than the distance by road or path from a coastal city and the focal locality). In addition, we investigated the distribution of M. m. domesticus at smaller spatial scales, focusing on the proportions of trapped individuals that were invasive rodents, native rodents and shrews per locality in recent surveys at the regional scale of the medium valley of River Senegal, and per building at the scale of a recently colonised locality (Dodel).

Spatio-temporal dynamics of the house mouse invasion

For the whole country of Senegal, we analysed spatio-temporal variation in the proportion of the total number of individual small mammals trapped within a session that were identified as small mammals were captured. The relationships between p(Mus) and longitude, latitude and date of sampling were assessed using a multiple logistic regression with the likelihood-ratio method implemented in SAS v.9.4 [START_REF] Anonymous | SAS for Windows[END_REF]. From the logistic regression we inferred the amount of change of the proportion of M. m. domesticus relative to the proportion of other small mammal species [i.e. the odds ratios of p(Mus)] in local communities associated with each predictor variable.

To assess the temporal dynamics of the M. m. domesticus invasion at the local scale, we used data from localities where trapping sessions had been performed both before and after a first capture of M. m. domesticus between 1983 and 2014, and in which more than 10 individual small mammals had been captured per trapping session. We considered that these localities had recently been invaded by M. m. domesticus. The relationship between p(Mus) and the time elapsed between the session in which the first house mouse had been caught and the previous session with no house mouse capture was assessed using a logistic regression analysis with the likelihood-ratio method implemented in SAS. We used the results of the logistic regression to extrapolate the time required for M. m. domesticus (1) to reach numerical dominance over the set of other small mammal species [i.e. estimated p(Mus) ≥ 0.50] and (2) to approach exclusion of these species [i.e. estimated p(Mus) ≥ 0.90].

Impact on native communities

We aimed to evaluate the changes caused by the invasion of M. m. domesticus on the community structure of small mammals. We first analysed the spatio-temporal variation of small mammal species richness with regard to p(Mus). We expected the presence of invasive species to reduce species richness at local scales [START_REF] Gotelli | Biogeographic effects of red fire ant invasion[END_REF]. For each trapping session in which at least 10 individual small mammals had been captured, small mammal species richness was estimated using the rarefaction method implemented in EcoSim v.7.72 [START_REF] Gotelli | EcoSim: Null Models Software for Ecology[END_REF]. The relationship between species richness and p(Mus), controlling for the potential effects of latitude, longitude, and date of sampling, was assessed using backward multiple regression analysis implemented in SAS. Both linear and quadratic terms for centred values of every predictor variable were used to allow for non-linear responses, for instance between species richness and geography, as expected based on earlier analyses [START_REF] Bâ | Systématique, écologie et dynamique de populations de petits rongeurs potentiellement réservoirs ou hôtes de virus au Sénégal[END_REF]. The comparison of species richness estimates between trapping periods was done using a Mann-Whitney non-parametric test. We then compared the patterns of cooccurrence of commensal small mammal species in the absence and presence of M. m. domesticus. We expected the presence of invasive species to alter the co-occurrence patterns of native species [START_REF] Gotelli | Biogeographic effects of red fire ant invasion[END_REF]. We only used trapping sessions in which at least 10 individual small mammals had been captured. The data were organized as matrices of occurrence of capture events in which each row referred to a species and each column to a trapping session. We first focused on sessions in which only native species were captured. We then analysed sessions in which M. m. domesticus was captured. We compared observed and expected patterns under the null hypothesis of random assembly [START_REF] Gotelli | Null model analysis of species co-occurrence patterns[END_REF]. To do so, we used the standardized C-score (SCS; Stone & Roberts 1990) as a quantitative index of cooccurrence, with significant negative and positive SCS indicating aggregation and segregation, respectively. We compared the observed SCS to values obtained from 10000 iterations using null models with random matrices constrained for row and column totals to match the original matrix ("fixed-fixed" algorithm). We estimated pairwise co-occurrence scores using Pairs 1.1 (Ulrich 2008) and applied the confidence limit criterion [START_REF] Gotelli | The empirical Bayes approach as a tool to identify non-random species associations[END_REF]) to determine whether a particular pair of species was statistically aggregated, segregated, or randomly associated. Results are presented for four native taxa (Mastomys erythroleucus, Arvicanthis spp., Praomys daltoni, Crocidura spp.) that were frequently trapped (in ≥ 25% of the trapping sessions for each taxon) and that share a part of their geographic range with M. m. domesticus in Senegal to make the comparison meaningful.

RESULTS

Genetic analyses confirmed that the 51 house mice examined belonged to the subspecies M. m. domesticus, as was expected on the basis of previous research (12 house mice from two localities of Senegal were molecularly identified as M. m. domesticus: [START_REF] Bonhomme | Genetic differentiation of the house mouse around the Mediterranean basin: matrilineal footprints of early and late colonization[END_REF]. We thus considered that M. m. domesticus was the only subspecies that occurred in Senegal, at least for the period covered in this study.

Distribution maps

Small mammals were detected in 95% of the 700 indoor trapping sessions. The distribution of M. m. domesticus in Senegal was spatially and temporally heterogeneous over the 30 years surveyed (Fig. 1). During 1983During -1994 (324 trapping (324 trapping sessions, >17000 trap-nights and 3573 captures), M. m. domesticus was mostly restricted to localities close to coastal areas (Fig. 1B). Indeed, all but one M. m. domesticus record (99.1%, n = 106 sessions with captures of house mice) and individual (99.8%, n = 555 house mouse individuals) were concentrated less than 120 km from the coast. Importantly, at the end of this time period, a first non-ambiguous capture of M. m. domesticus was reported at a large distance from the coast (ca. 350 km in 1994 in Djinkore Kountou Diombo near Tambacounda). In coastal areas of the northern half of the country, M. m. domesticus was the most abundantly captured species in most of the localities sampled. M. m. domesticus was not detected in coastal Casamance, south of the Gambia River, where Rattus rattus was the most frequently trapped rodent species. House mice were also absent from most inland localities where the typical community of indoor trapped small mammals was numerically dominated by very few species, or even consisted of a single species. Mastomys erythroleucus and Arvicanthis niloticus dominated in northern Senegal, Mastomys natalensis in south-eastern Senegal, and Rattus rattus was occasionally supplemented by a set of native rodents (Mastomys erythroleucus, Praomys daltoni, Arvicanthis spp.) and shrews (mostly Crocidura spp.) elsewhere (e.g. lower to upper Casamance, villages along the road Tambacounda-Kidira). Rattus rattus and Mastomys natalensis were found to live in sympatry in a unique locality: the city of Kédougou, south-eastern Senegal (see Fig. 1A).

During 1998-2010 (249 trapping sessions, ≥17800 trap-nights and 3515 captures), M. m. domesticus expanded inland (Fig. 1C). In addition to in the coastal areas reported above, the house mouse was repeatedly captured at large distances from the coast in several parts of the country: along the Upper Senegal River (ca. 420 km from the coast in 1998 in Dembankané Grid representation illustrates the inland progress of M. m. domesticus over the country during the last 30 years (Fig. 1). However this does not provide detailed patterns of house mouse distribution at smaller scales. Representations of captures of house mice realized at the regional and local scales revealed that recently invaded localities were still surrounded by non-invaded ones at the time of sampling (e.g. the medium valley of the River Senegal; see Fig. 2A). They also indicated that in recently colonised localities where M. m. domesticus and native species still coexist, house mice were mostly trapped along the paved road and near markets and shops (Fig. 2B).

Spatio-temporal dynamics of the house mouse invasion

We used 357 trapping sessions to analyse the spatio-temporal dynamics of the house mouse invasion at the country scale. We found that the proportion of house mice, p(Mus), varied significantly with longitude, latitude and time (likelihood ratio: χ 2

(3) = 396.21, P < 0.001; [1.06; 1.12]) every year. The significant decrease in p(Mus) from north to south remained significant when trapping sessions conducted in localities south of latitude 13.59°N (the southern limit of the historical edge of the house mouse range during the second half of the 20 th century: [START_REF] Duplantier | Répartition actuelle du rat noir (Rattus rattus) au Sénégal: facteurs historiques et écologiques[END_REF][START_REF] Duplantier | Répartition biogéographique des petits rongeurs au Sénégal[END_REF] were excluded (results not shown).

We used seven localities to analyse the temporal dynamics of the house mouse invasion at a local scale. In one case, we needed to group trapping sessions that occurred within a period of two months to reach the threshold of 10 individuals captured. We found that in recently invaded localities, p(Mus) was positively correlated with the time elapsed between the last session in which no M. m. domesticus were trapped and the first one in which house mice were captured (estimate ± SE = 0.052 ± 0.022, χ 2 (1) = 5.7, P = 0.017; model likelihood

Impact on native communities

Local species richness of commensal small mammals ranged between 1 and 5 species for 10 sampled individuals, with a mean ± SE of 2.03 ± 0.05 species per trapping session and locality. Although only slightly variable, the estimated species richness of small mammals decreased significantly with p(Mus), as predicted. It also varied quadratically with latitude and to a lesser extent increased with time (F 4,352 = 70.45, adjusted R 2 = 0.438, P < 0.001;

Table 2). The significant quadratic term for latitude indicates a mid-latitudinal peak of species richness located in central Senegal around 14°N, north of the Gambia. The temporal effect suggests that species richness estimated among the captured small mammal individuals increased during the study period. Indeed, species richness estimated over the 1998-2014 period (mean ± SE = 2.12 ± 0.06, n = 231 sessions) was slightly but significantly higher than the richness estimated over the 1983-1994 period (mean ± SE = 1.86 ± 0.08, n = 126 sessions;

Mann-Whitney test, P = 0.011). The seven localities that were used for estimating the dynamics of the invasion at the local scale had highly heterogeneous species richness levels (mean ± SE = 2.18 ± 0.24, range = 1.42-3.47) in trapping sessions occurring before the first detection of M. m. domesticus.

In the absence of M. m. domesticus, four pairs of native species were significantly aggregated, and the other two were randomly associated (Table 3a). By contrast, when M. m. domesticus was captured, only one pair of native species was found to be significantly aggregated (Mastomys erythroleucus and Praomys daltoni), while the other five were randomly associated (Table 3b).

DISCUSSION

Small mammals were caught in the majority of trapping sessions and localities. Capture efficiency may vary according to rodent species and trap type, and a large number of traps per session as well as the concomitant use of different types of trap is known to reduce strongly the likelihood of a species being present but not being captured [START_REF] Garba | Spatial segregation between invasive and native commensal rodents in an urban environment: a case study in Niamey, Niger[END_REF]. Thus, we cannot formally exclude that the use of different trapping methods between the periods 1983-1994 and 1998-2014 could have partly contributed to the significant temporal variation in the proportion of house mice we observed. However, the range expansion of M. m. domesticus was also observed between the periods 1998-2010 and 2011-2014, for which data were acquired using the same standardized trapping method. Our trapping data thus seem suitable for our examination of the geographic range of the house mouse and its variation in space and time.

Following the inland invasion of M. m. domesticus

Our results support the hypothesis that the range of M. m. domesticus has changed during the period surveyed, and suggest that process of expansion has not reached equilibrium yet.

Distribution maps and statistical tests converge to show an expansion of M. m. domesticus in Senegal over the 30 years surveyed, from coastal to inland areas. Quantitative estimates of range expansion rates through space and time suggest that the proportion of M. m. domesticus relative to the proportion of the other small mammal species increased by about 9% every year and by about 11.5% every ten km westward and northward. This pattern of inland expansion shows strong similarities with recent spatio-temporal changes in road infrastructures, in transport networks, and in the distribution of weekly rural markets [START_REF] Ninot | Vie de relations, organisation de l'espace et développement en Afrique de l'Ouest: la région de Tambacounda au Sénégal[END_REF]. Indeed, the current distribution of M. m. domesticus covers much of north and central Senegal, with the exception of areas less regularly connected by human traffic and commercial transportation. In the central Ferlo, for instance, the house mouse was only recorded in highly connected cities and villages along the paved part of the main road axis. It was not captured in villages located along the inland part of the road which was asphalted toward the Mauritanian boarder only after 2011. We predict a further ongoing invasion of M.

m. domesticus along this road, which could be verified by future surveys of rodent communities in this area.

M. m. domesticus was historically absent further south, in Casamance and south-eastern Senegal (Kédougou district, Fig. 1A) [START_REF] Duplantier | Répartition actuelle du rat noir (Rattus rattus) au Sénégal: facteurs historiques et écologiques[END_REF][START_REF] Duplantier | Répartition biogéographique des petits rongeurs au Sénégal[END_REF]. We show that the subspecies has not yet expanded towards these regions, except very recently in Upper

Casamance. The significant decrease of p(Mus) from north to south suggests a clinal variation of the proportion of M. m. domesticus within the geographic range of the species. Climatic effects, interspecific interactions and historical contingencies may have contributed to this pattern. For instance, Sahelian arid climatic conditions in North Senegal may be more favourable for the house mouse than southern Sudanian climatic conditions. In contrast, these may be more favourable for the invasive Rattus rattus, well established in southern Senegal where it may also represent a strong competitor that could limit the expansion of the house mouse [START_REF] Duplantier | Répartition actuelle du rat noir (Rattus rattus) au Sénégal: facteurs historiques et écologiques[END_REF]. The clinal variation in the house mouse's distribution may also relate to historical factors such as the initial introduction or introductions that probably occurred in the north of Senegal, via the historical harbour and former capital of colonial During the Iron Age, an increase in trade and human migrations resulted in the invasion, by the house mouse, of the whole of Western Europe in a short time span, and the mouse became numerically dominant in the commensal small mammal fauna [START_REF] Cucchi | First occurrence of the house mouse (Mus musculus domesticus Schwarz & Schwarz, 1943) in the Western Mediterranean: a zooarchaeological revision of subfossil occurrences[END_REF]. In Senegal, our results show that in only a few decades M. m. domesticus has invaded a large part of the country where it now dominates small mammal communities. Rapid spatial expansion combined with a severe decline in native mammals may be typical of recent invasions, due to the massive intensification of human-associated exchanges. Indeed, similar dynamics and impacts have already been observed for the house mouse in villages of western Guinea, following the increase in human population movements and traffic with nearby Sierra

Leone during the 1991-2002 civil war [START_REF] Fichet-Calvet | Spatial distribution of commensal rodents in regions with high and low Lassa fever prevalence in Guinea[END_REF], for rodent species on islands [START_REF] Wyatt | Historical mammal extinction on Christmas Island (Indian Ocean) correlates with introduced infectious disease[END_REF][START_REF] Harris | Review of negative effects of introduced rodents on small mammals on islands[END_REF], and more generally for recent invasions of other mammals (e.g. [START_REF] Waithman | Range expansion, population sizes, and management of wild pigs in California[END_REF][START_REF] Carden | Distribution and range expansion of deer in Ireland[END_REF], McDevitt et al. 2014, and references therein).

The species richness estimated in this study is rather low compared to similar estimates derived from outdoor small mammal communities in Senegal [START_REF] Bâ | Systématique, écologie et dynamique de populations de petits rongeurs potentiellement réservoirs ou hôtes de virus au Sénégal[END_REF][START_REF] Granjon | Les Rongeurs de l'Afrique Sahélo-soudanienne[END_REF][START_REF] Bâ | Ecology of a typical West African Sudanian savannah rodent community[END_REF]. Numerical dominance by very few species is, however, typical of commensal communities (e.g. [START_REF] Fichet-Calvet | Diversity, dynamics and reproduction in a community of small mammals in Upper Guinea, with emphasis on pygmy mice ecology[END_REF][START_REF] Shochat | Invasion, competition, and biodiversity loss in urban ecosystems[END_REF][START_REF] Weissbrod | Ancient urban ecology reconstructed from archaeozoological remains of small mammals in the Near East[END_REF]. We found that species richness varies with latitude with a peak at around 14°N. This non-linear spatial variation of species diversity was also observed for trapping sessions in which only native commensal mammals were captured (results not shown). A similar pattern was previously detected in studies of outdoor rodent communities in Senegal [START_REF] Bâ | Systématique, écologie et dynamique de populations de petits rongeurs potentiellement réservoirs ou hôtes de virus au Sénégal[END_REF], suggesting that it is probably independent of the house mouse invasion.

It may rather result from local mixtures of different fauna at the transition between the Sahelian and Sudanian climatic and biogeographical zones at these latitudes. Species richness increased during the study: estimates were slightly higher during the 1998-2014 period (in which two complementary models of trap were used) than during the 1983-1994 period (in which single-capture wire-mesh traps were mainly used). The use of different trapping methods between these two periods may partly contribute to the significant temporal variation in the estimated small mammal species richness. Indeed, inspection of trapping results shows that one of the most notable differences between these periods is the proportion of shrews that were captured: 1.6% of 2872 captured for 1983-1994 versus 9.5% of 7057 captured individuals for 1998-2014, almost a six-fold increase with the systematic use of Sherman traps in addition to wire-mesh live traps.

Species richness decreases with an increasing proportion of M. m. domesticus, thus small mammal communities invaded by house mice have lower species richness than non-invaded ones. This low species richness seems to be a consequence rather than a cause of the invasion processes. Indeed, the localities that were used for estimating the temporal dynamics of the invasion at the local scale had highly heterogeneous species richness levels in trapping sessions occurring before the first detection of M. m. domesticus. Furthermore, no difference in species richness was detected between these estimates and those based on seven nearby paired localities sampled in the same periods of time and not invaded by M. m. domesticus (results not shown). The analysis of co-occurrence patterns of commensal small mammal species provides additional information allowing us to understand the potential consequences of M. m. domesticus invasion on native communities. Our data suggest that the communities of native commensal small mammals were initially structured so that most species were aggregated, possibly around shared resources that are considered abundant and temporally more stable in human buildings than in outdoor environments [START_REF] Pocock | Adaptations of animals to commensal habitats: population dynamics of house mice Mus musculus domesticus on farms[END_REF]). The introduction of M. m. domesticus in such assemblages may destabilise this community structure, allowing it ultimately to converge towards a random assembly pattern. This shift from structured to random community assemblages may represent a widespread consequence of invasions, as it was already observed in plant, arthropod and amphibian invasions [START_REF] Gotelli | Biogeographic effects of red fire ant invasion[END_REF][START_REF] Sanders | Community disassembly by an invasive species[END_REF][START_REF] Reshi | Effect of invasion by Centaurea iberica on community assembly of a mountain grassland of Kashmir Himalaya, India[END_REF][START_REF] Santoro | Patterns of plant community assembly in invaded and non-invaded communities along a natural environmental gradient[END_REF][START_REF] Richter-Boix | Effects of the non-native amphibian species Discoglossus pictus on the recipient amphibian community: niche overlap, competition and community organization[END_REF]. The shift may be explained by competition resulting in lowered species richness in localities invaded by house mice, which can translate into fewer opportunities for native species to co-occur. Furthermore, the heterogeneous distribution of the house mouse within recently colonised villages may affect interspecific interactions. For instance, native mammal individuals living in allotopy with regards to house mice do not face the same risks of interspecific competition and of host shifts of pathogens than those living in syntopy with invasive mice. These changes in co-occurrence patterns, interspecific interactions and species richness may therefore have important epidemiological consequences [START_REF] Keesing | Effects of species diversity on disease risk[END_REF][START_REF] Bradley | Urbanization and the ecology of wildlife diseases[END_REF][START_REF] Telfer | The effects of invasion on parasite dynamics and communities[END_REF]. Small mammals play a significant role as reservoirs of zoonotic diseases, so changes in small mammal communities following biological invasions could affect the distribution and transmission of zoonotic agents in the wild and in human populations (e.g. [START_REF] Gardner-Santana | Commensal ecology, urban landscapes, and their influence on the genetic characteristics of city-dwelling Norway rats (Rattus norvegicus)[END_REF][START_REF] Harris | Review of negative effects of introduced rodents on small mammals on islands[END_REF][START_REF] Marsot | Introduced Siberian chipmunks (Tamias sibiricus barberi) contribute more to Lyme borreliosis risk than native reservoir rodents[END_REF]. Further surveys of rodent-borne zoonotic agents are therefore required to assess the potential increase in health risks mediated by the house mouse invasion in Senegal.

Recherche pour le Developpement (IRD), the ANR ENEMI (ANR-11-JSV7-0006) and the ANR CHANCIRA (ANR-11-CEPL-0010).

  Trapping yielded a total of 11220 captured individuals, including three exotic species: M. m. domesticus (2684 individuals), Rattus rattus (2245) and Rattus norvegicus (3), and 14 native taxa: Mastomys erythroleucus (2285 individuals), Mastomys natalensis (2074), Crocidura spp. (786), Arvicanthis spp. (705; Arvicanthis niloticus in central and northern Senegal, Arvicanthis ansorgei in southern Senegal), Praomys daltoni (352), Mastomys huberti (29), Taterillus spp. (17; Taterillus gracilis and Taterillus pygargus in sympatry), Cricetomys gambianus (16), Atelerix albiventris (7), Heliosciurus gambianus (5), Mus (Nannomys) spp. (4), Gerbillus cf. nigeriae (4), Gerbilliscus gambianus (2) and Steatomys spp. (2).

  near Bakel; ca. 500 km from the coast in 2007 in Diboli near Kidira at the border with Mali, a village where the species was not detected in 1983 / 1985 / 2005); in the central Ferlo arid area (ca. 190 km from the coast in 2000 in Barkédji); and in south-central Senegal (e.g. ca. 200 km from the coast in 2006 in Darou Wolof, Koumpentoum Department, west of Tambacounda, a village where the species was not detected in 1989). During this period M. m. domesticus thus appeared to be present in a few isolated inland populations surrounded by villages that were still occupied by native species only. The period 2011-2014 (127 trapping sessions, 19300 trap-nights and 4132 captures) gave a clear picture of the current status of M. m. domesticus in Senegal (Fig. 1D). The species was captured in most parts of the country, except in lower Casamance, south-eastern Senegal and isolated localities in the central Ferlo. It occurred in 2013 in localities where it had not been detected before, despite previous trapping sessions, such as villages along the asphalted road in the medium part of the valley of River Senegal (Dodel and Diomandou-Diéry, not detected in 1990 and in 1990 / 2007 / 2008 / 2009 / 2010 / 2011 respectively, ca. 230 km from the coast), cities along the road axis between Tambacounda and Kidira (e.g. Kidira, not detected in 1998 / 1999 / 2007, ca. 500 km from the coast; Kothiari, not detected in 1984, ca. 350 km from the coast), major villages and cities along the main road axis between Tambacounda andUpper Casamance(Gouloumbou and Vélingara, not detected in 1994 and in 1984 / 1988 respectively, ca. 300 km from the coast).

  26, P = 0.012). Every year the odds ratio of p(Mus) increased by a factor of 1.05 (95% CI = [1.01; 1.10]) at this local scale. Based on these results, the predicted estimate of p(Mus) was 0.50 (95% CI =[0.35; 0.65]) 33 years after the first detection of the house mouse. Similarly, the predicted estimate of p(Mus) was 0.90 (95% CI = [0.46; 0.99]) 76 years after its first detection.

Fig. 1 .Fig. 2 .

 12 Fig. 1. Geographical maps of sampled localities (A) and of the distribution of Mus

  41

Table 1 )

 1

. The odds ratio of p(Mus) increased westward by a factor of 2.25 (95% CI = [1.92; 2.67]) every one degree of longitude (ca. 108 km), northward by a factor of 2.27 (95% CI = [1.93; 2.68]) every one degree of latitude (ca. 111 km), and by a factor of 1.09 (95% CI =

Table 1 .

 1 Spatio-temporal variation, over the whole country of Senegal, in the proportion of small mammals trapped within a session consisting of Mus musculus domesticus [p(Mus)].

	Maximum likelihood estimates for the relationship between p(Mus) and longitude, latitude
	and sampling date were assessed using multiple logistic regression analysis. SE = standard
	error.
	Parameter	Estimate±SE	Wald χ 2	(1)	P
	Intercept	-34.216±2.578	176.22	< 0.001
	Longitude	-0.812±0.085	92.08		< 0.001
	Latitude	0.818±0.083	96.39		< 0.001
	Sampling date	0.085±0.013	45.79		< 0.001

Table 2 .

 2 Small mammal species richness estimated using the rarefaction method based on a subsample of 10 individuals, as explained by the proportion of small mammals trapped within a session consisting of Mus musculus domesticus [p(Mus)], latitude, longitude and sampling date. Multiple regression statistics with linear and quadratic terms for centred values of predictor variables were used to allow for non-linear responses; b yi : partial regression coefficient, b yi ': standard partial regression coefficient.

	Effect	b yi ±SE	b yi '	t	P
	Intercept	3.114±0.083	--	37.41	< 0.001
	[p(Mus)] 2	-5.438±0.552	-1.115	-9.85	< 0.001
	p(Mus)	2.069±0.275	0.836	7.53	< 0.001
	(Latitude) 2	-0.169±0.023	-0.315	-7.21	< 0.001
	Sampling date	0.018±0.004	0.206	4.95	< 0.001

Table 3 .

 3 Effect of Mus musculus domesticus on the community structure of native small mammals. Four commensal native taxa were considered:Mastomys erythroleucus, Arvicanthis spp., Praomys daltoni, Crocidura spp. The standardized C-score (SCS) measured the extent to which 2 pairwise species co-occur: significant negative SCS indicates aggregation, whereas SCS that does not deviate significantly from the null 3 distribution suggests random associations. Significant P-values are in bold. We considered two types of communities: (a) those for which only

	Page 37 of 42			Mammal Review
	6
	Species 1	Number of	Species 2	Number of	Number of joint	SCS	P
		occurrences		occurrences	occurrences
	M. erythroleucus	91	Arvicanthis spp.	53	42	-2.68	0.007
	M. erythroleucus	91	P. daltoni	35	28	-2.06	0.039
	M. erythroleucus	91	Crocidura spp.	22	15	-0.25	0.799
	Arvicanthis spp.	53	P. daltoni	35	18	-1.62	0.104
	Arvicanthis spp.	53	Crocidura spp.	22	15	-2.71	0.007
	P. daltoni	35	Crocidura spp.	22	10	-2.01	0.044
	7

1 4 native species had been captured (n = 131 sessions), (b) those in which M. m. domesticus was captured (n = 123 sessions). 5 (a) Among the non-invaded communities

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Molecular data were generated thanks to the molecular biology platform of the CBGP. We thank A. Orth (ISEM, CNRS -Université Montpellier 2) for advice on protocols concerning subspecies identification of Mus musculus, M. Garba and J. Mangombi for access to unpublished data on house mouse censuses in Africa, and H. Mazurek for help with the satellite image. We are particularly indebted to all the people in Senegal who welcomed us into their homes for small mammal trapping. Funding was provided by the Institut de

French West Africa Saint-Louis, or via the subsequent development of the city of Dakar. If this hypothesis could be corroborated by genetic analyses, it would contribute to explain the pattern of north/south expansion.

In areas recently invaded by M. m. domesticus, distribution maps show a mosaic of invaded and non-invaded localities (e.g., Fig. 2A), in contrast with the homogeneous layer of localities invaded long ago observed along the coast. This mosaic pattern, rather than a frontal wave separating invaded and non-invaded homogeneous areas, is typical of biological invasions of human-dispersed species (e.g. [START_REF] Bossenbroek | Prediction of long-distance dispersal using gravity models: zebra mussel invasion of inland lakes[END_REF][START_REF] Florance | Excluding access to invasion hubs can contain the spread of an invasive vertebrate[END_REF]. In recently invaded areas of Senegal, the localities colonized first are in the cities and villages with weekly rural markets (e.g., Podor, Thillé-Boubacar, Dodel, Aeré Lao, Mboumba, Galoya in the medium valley of the Senegal River; see Fig. 2B). These inland localities are wellconnected with the major coastal cities (Dakar, Saint-Louis), where M. m. domesticus has a long history of presence, through trade. At a very local scale within recently invaded localities, a heterogeneous distribution of small mammals is also observed and corroborates this scenario: M. m. domesticus captures are most often distributed along main roads or near markets, whereas native small mammals are captured both in the same buildings as house mice (thus in syntopy, at least temporarily) and in areas not invaded yet (thus in allotopy with the house mouse), usually at the periphery of the locality. Hence, these first invaded localities may be viewed as "invasion hubs" and act as bridgeheads towards geographically close, but less accessible, villages. This scenario has previously been demonstrated for other biological invasions (e.g. Hastings et al. 2005, Lombaert et al. 2010, andreferences therein), and formal testing of the theory for the invasive house mouse may be beneficial.

Consequences of the house mouse invasion for native communities of small mammals