Study

Small-mammal responses to pine regeneration treatments in the Ouachita Mountains of Arkansas and Oklahoma, USA

  • Published source details Perry R.W. & Thill R.E. (2005) Small-mammal responses to pine regeneration treatments in the Ouachita Mountains of Arkansas and Oklahoma, USA. Forest Ecology and Management, 219, 81-94

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Clear or open patches in forests

Action Link
Terrestrial Mammal Conservation

Use selective harvesting instead of clearcutting

Action Link
Terrestrial Mammal Conservation

Thin trees within forest

Action Link
Terrestrial Mammal Conservation
  1. Clear or open patches in forests

    A replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in 1991–1997 of two second-growth forests in Arkansas and Oklahoma, USA (Perry & Thill 2005) found that felling small groups of trees increased small mammal abundance relative to unharvested stands, but not to clearcut stands. Before harvesting, average small mammal abundances were similar between stands planned for different treatments (unharvested: 2.5 small mammals/100 trap nights; small group felling: 2.2; clearcut: 0.9). After harvesting, more small mammals were caught in small group felling stands (6.7/100 trap nights) than in unharvested stands (1.7) but a similar number was caught in clearcut stands (10.7). In each of four blocks of second-growth forest (59–69 years old at start of study), one stand was managed by felling trees to create 3–10 openings of 0.04–1.9 ha, covering 6–14% of stand area, one was clearcut and one was unharvested. Harvesting was conducted in summer 1993. Stands covered 13–28 ha. Small mammals were surveyed using an average of 66.5 Sherman live traps/stand, pre-harvest in 1991 and 1992, and post-harvest in 1995, 1997 and 1999. Traps were operated for seven consecutive nights during winter (December–January).

    (Summarised by: Nick Littlewood)

  2. Use selective harvesting instead of clearcutting

    A replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in 1991–1997 of two second-growth forests in Arkansas and Oklahoma, USA (Perry & Thill 2005) found that selectively harvesting isolated trees did not increase small mammal abundance relative clearcutting. Before harvesting, average small mammal abundances did not differ significantly between stands planned for different treatments (single tree selection: 2.7 small mammals/100 trap nights; clearcut: 0.9). Similarly, after harvesting, small mammals numbers did not differ significantly between single tree selection stands (6.4/100 trap nights) and clearcut stands (10.7). In each of four blocks of second-growth forest (59–69 years old at start of study), one stand was managed by single tree selection and one was clearcut, harvested in summer 1993. Tree basal area after harvesting was 15–16 m2/ha in single tree selection plots (compared to 24–32 m2/ha in unharvested forest). Stand extent was 13–28 ha. Small mammals were surveyed using an average of 67 Sherman live traps/stand, pre-harvest in 1991 and 1992, and post-harvest in 1995, 1997 and 1999. Traps were operated for seven consecutive nights during winter (December–January).

    (Summarised by: Nick Littlewood)

  3. Thin trees within forest

    A replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in 1991–1997 of two second-growth forests in Arkansas and Oklahoma, USA (Perry & Thill 2005) found that thinning trees increased small mammal abundance relative to unthinned stands, but not to clearcut stands. Before management, average small mammal abundances were similar between stands planned for different treatments (thinning: 2.4 small mammals/100 trap nights; no thinning: 2.5; clearcut: 0.9). After management, more small mammals were caught in thinned stands (9.3/100 trap nights) than in unthinned stands (1.7) but a similar number was caught in clearcut stands (10.7). In each of four blocks of second-growth forest (59–69 years old at start of study), one stand was thinned, retaining 49–99 of the largest trees/ha, one was not thinned and one was clearcut. Tree removal was conducted in summer 1993. Stand extent was 13–28 ha. Small mammals were surveyed using an average of 67 Sherman live traps/stand, pre-management in 1991 and 1992, and post-management in 1995, 1997 and 1999. Traps were operated for seven consecutive nights during winter (December–January).

    (Summarised by: Nick Littlewood)

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

Discover more on our blog

Our blog contains the latest news and updates from the Conservation Evidence team, the Conservation Evidence Journal, and our global partners in evidence-based conservation.


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