Create or maintain corridors between habitat patches

How is the evidence assessed?
  • Effectiveness
    70%
  • Certainty
    50%
  • Harms
    0%

Source countries

Key messages

  • Four studies evaluated the effects on mammals of creating or maintaining corridors between habitat patches. One study was in each of Canada, the USA, Norway and the Czech Republic.

COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

BEHAVIOUR (4 STUDIES)

  • Use (4 studies): Four studies (three replicated) in Canada, the USA, Norway and the Czech Republic found that corridors between habitat patches were used by small mammals. Additionally, North American deermice moved further through corridors with increased corridor width and connectivity and root voles moved further in corridors of intermediate width.

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

  1. A replicated, site comparison study in 1989 of woodland blocks and connecting woodland and grassland corridors at a site in Ontario, Canada (Bennett et al. 1994) found that wooded corridors were used by both resident and transient eastern chipmunks Tamias striatus. In total there were 530 captures of 119 chipmunks (68 males, 51 females). Chipmunks were resident (caught in >1 trapping session) in all four woods and were trapped in 14 of the 18 corridors. They were trapped in all 13 corridors that were characterised by mature trees. Just one was caught among the five grass-dominated corridors that largely lacked trees or shrubs. Chipmunks were live-trapped in four woods and 18 corridors across 220 ha of farmland (mostly pasture and crops). Corridors were field margins alongside fences with vegetation ranging from long grass, through shrubs to mature woodland trees. Four trapping sessions were conducted in May–September 1989. Each session comprised four consecutive days trapping in woods and, the following week, four consecutive days trapping in corridors.

    Study and other actions tested
  2. A randomized, replicated study in 1992 of woodland corridors in a national park in Wyoming, USA (Ruefenacht & Knight 1995) found that increased corridor continuity and greater corridor width increased movements of North American deermice Peromyscus maniculatus. Travel along corridors by deermice was greater in continuous corridors than those with gaps and was greater in wide than narrow corridors. However, vegetation characteristics (tree density, ground cover and fallen log density) were more important in determining deermouse movements (results presented as statistical model). Twelve corridors were studied, these being linear stands of aspen Populus tremuloides, surrounded by sagebrush Artemesia sp. Three corridors were wide (20–27 m) with a 10-m gap part-way along, three were wide and continuous, three were narrow (10–16 m) with a 10-m gap and three were narrow and continuous. Deermice were monitored by live-trapping over 10 days, in May–July 1992, at each side of gaps and equivalent spacing in continuous corridors.

    Study and other actions tested
  3. A replicated study in 1992 of a grassland in southeast Norway (Andreassen et al. 1996) found that root voles Microtus oeconomus used habitat corridors, but moved further in intermediate-width than in narrow or wide corridors. In intermediate (1-m-wide) corridors, voles moved an average of 205 m along the corridor in 12 hours. In narrow (0.4-m-wide) corridors, average movement was 35 m and, in wide (3 m-wide) corridors, was 75 m. Two 5 × 5-m habitat patches were connected by a 310 m-long corridor. Patches and corridor comprised dense, homogeneous meadow vegetation. Adult male voles were released, one in each habitat patch, at 08:00 h and the trial was terminated at 18:00 h. Fieldwork spanned August–October 1992, starting with the wide corridor. Corridor width was then reduced by mowing and herbicide use. Vole movements were monitored by radio tracking and footprint plates.

    Study and other actions tested
  4. A site comparison study in 1992–1996 in an agricultural landscape in Moravia, Czech Republic (Bryja & Zukal 2000) found that corridors created between habitat patches were used by eight small mammal species. Eight small mammal species were recorded in the corridor, five of which were also present in a nearby native woodland. In 1991, native trees and shrubs were planted in agricultural fields to create a 10-m-wide corridor. To survey small mammal populations in the corridor, 100 snap-traps were placed at 3-m intervals, and 50 snap-traps were placed in a nearby forest. Each trap was baited with a wick soaked in fat and left for three nights. Traps were set twice each year, in spring and autumn, in 1992–1996, apart from in 1994, when sampling was also carried out in summer.

    Study and other actions tested
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

Terrestrial Mammal Conservation

This Action forms part of the Action Synopsis:

Terrestrial Mammal Conservation
Terrestrial Mammal Conservation

Terrestrial Mammal Conservation - Published 2020

Terrestrial Mammal Conservation

What Works in Conservation

What Works in Conservation provides expert assessments of the effectiveness of actions, based on summarised evidence, in synopses. Subjects covered so far include amphibians, birds, terrestrial mammals, forests, peatland and control of freshwater invasive species. More are in progress.

More about What Works in Conservation

Download free PDF or purchase
The Conservation Evidence Journal

The Conservation Evidence Journal

An online, free to publish in, open-access journal publishing results from research and projects that test the effectiveness of conservation actions.

Read the latest volume: Volume 17

Go to the CE Journal

Subscribe to our newsletter

Please add your details if you are interested in receiving updates from the Conservation Evidence team about new papers, synopses and opportunities.

Who uses Conservation Evidence?

Meet some of the evidence champions

Endangered Landscape Programme Red List Champion - Arc Kent Wildlife Trust The Rufford Foundation Save the Frogs - Ghana Bern wood Supporting Conservation Leaders National Biodiversity Network Sustainability Dashboard Frog Life The international journey of Conservation - Oryx British trust for ornithology Cool Farm Alliance UNEP AWFA Butterfly Conservation People trust for endangered species Vincet Wildlife Trust