Study

Effects of prescribed fire, supplemental feeding, and mammalian predator exclusion on hispid cotton rat populations

  • Published source details 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

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Provide supplementary food after fire

Action Link
Terrestrial Mammal Conservation

Use fencing to exclude predators or other problematic species

Action Link
Terrestrial Mammal Conservation
  1. Provide supplementary food after fire

    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.

  2. Use fencing to exclude predators or other problematic species

    A replicated, randomized, controlled study in 2005–2009 in eight woodland sites in Georgia, USA (Morris et al. 2011) found that excluding predators did not increase survival, transition to reproductive states or abundance of hispid cotton rats Sigmodon hispidus. In non-fire periods, estimated 13-week survival in exclosures (0.16–0.39) were similar to that outside exclosures (0.16–0.38). The same pattern applied in fire periods (exclosures: 0.02–0.04; outside exclosures: 0.02–0.04). Rates of transition to reproductive states varied considerably with season and fire status but were not affected by predator exclusion (exclosure: 0.06–0.59; outside exclosure: 0.06–0.59). Averaged across all plots, predator exclusion did not change abundance (data not presented). Eight plots (40 ha each) were studied. Four were exclosures, with electric fencing to deter predator entry, and four were unfenced. All plots were burned in February 2005, 2007, and 2009. 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.

Output references

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 18

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