Provide supplementary food after fire

Overall effectiveness category Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)
Number of studies: 1
Share Tweet Email

View assessment score

How is the evidence assessed?

Effectiveness

0%
Certainty

21%
Harms

0%

Calculating overall effectiveness category

Background information and definitions

This intervention specifically covers cases where supplementary food is provided in an attempt to offset threats associated with fire. Natural or prescribed fires, whilst being integral parts of some ecosystems, can temporarily reduce or remove available food. Supplementary food may be provided for rare or otherwise valued mammal species.

Study locations

Key messages

One study evaluated the effects on mammals of providing supplementary food after fire. This study was in the USA.

COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY)

Survival (1 study): A replicated, randomized, controlled study in the USA found that supplementary feeding did not increase survival of hispid cotton rats following prescribed fire.

BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)

About key messages

Key messages provide a descriptive index to studies we have found that test this intervention.

Studies are not directly comparable or of equal value. When making decisions based on this evidence, you should consider factors such as study size, study design, reported metrics and relevance of the study to your situation, rather than simply counting the number of studies that support a particular interpretation.

Supporting evidence from individual studies

A replicated, randomized, controlled study in 2005–2009 of woodland in Georgia, USA (Morris et al. 2011) found that supplementary feeding did not increase survival rates of hispid cotton rats Sigmodon hispidus following prescribed fire. Survival rates over a 13-week post-fire period during which supplementary food was offered (0.02–0.04) were similar to those with no supplementary food offered (0.02–0.04). Eight plots (40 ha each) were studied. Four plots (exclosures) were surrounded by electric fencing to deter predator entry. All plots were burned in February of 2005, 2007, and 2009. From June 2007 to August 2009, two exclosures and two non-fenced plots received supplementary feed of rabbit chow. No food was provided at the other four plots. Pairs of grids were live-trapped four times/year from January 2005 to June 2007 and eight times/year from July 2007 to June 2009.
Study and other actions tested
Referenced paper
Morris G., Hostetler J.A., Conner L.M. & Oli M.K. (2011) Effects of prescribed fire, supplemental feeding, and mammalian predator exclusion on hispid cotton rat populations. Oecologia, 167, 1005-1016.

Please cite as:

Littlewood, N.A., Rocha, R., Smith, R.K., Martin, P.A., Lockhart, S.L., Schoonover, R.F., Wilman, E., Bladon, A.J., Sainsbury, K.A., Pimm S. and Sutherland, W.J. (2020) Terrestrial Mammal Conservation: Global Evidence for the Effects of Interventions for terrestrial mammals excluding bats and primates. Synopses of Conservation Evidence Series. University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.

Where has this evidence come from?

List of journals searched by synopsis

All the journals searched for all synopses

This Action forms part of the Action Synopsis:

Terrestrial Mammal Conservation

Related Actions

Actions	Effectiveness	Studies	Category
Remove burnt trees and branches after wildfire Action Link	Unlikely to be beneficial	1	Synopsis Link
Remove mid-storey vegetation in forest Action Link	Likely to be beneficial	1	Synopsis Link
Thin trees to reduce wildfire risk Action Link	Likely to be beneficial	3	Synopsis Link