Study

Effects of food and den-site supplementation on populations of Glaucomys sabrinus and Tamiasciurus douglasii

  • Published source details Ransome D.B. & Sullivan T.P. (2004) Effects of food and den-site supplementation on populations of Glaucomys sabrinus and Tamiasciurus douglasii. Journal of Mammalogy, 85, 206-215

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Provide supplementary food to increase reproduction/survival

Action Link
Terrestrial Mammal Conservation

Provide artificial dens or nest boxes on trees

Action Link
Terrestrial Mammal Conservation
  1. Provide supplementary food to increase reproduction/survival

    A replicated, randomized, paired sites, controlled, before-and-after study in 1996–1999 in three forest sites in British Columbia, Canada (Ransome & Sullivan 2004) found that supplementary feeding did not alter the abundance and body mass of northern flying squirrels Glaucomys sabrinus and Douglas squirrels Tamiasciurus douglasi, but it did increase survival of northern flying squirrels. Between June 1997 and April 1999, the survival rate of northern flying squirrels was higher in plots with supplementary feeding (0.93) than without supplementary feeding (0.79). Survival did not significantly differ between plots before feeding began (plots to be fed = 0.84; control plots = 0.92). The survival of Douglas squirrels was similar between fed (0.72) and unfed (0.80) plots. The abundance and body mass of squirrels did not differ significantly between plots with supplementary food (northern flying squirrel abundance: 11.8/ha; body mass: 131 g; Douglas squirrel abundance: 14.2/ha; body mass: 200 g) and plots without supplementary food (northern flying squirrel abundance: 7.7/ha; body mass: 128 g; Douglas squirrel abundance: 20.1/ha; body mass: 207 g). From April 1997 to May 1998 and from September 1998 to April 1999, supplementary food was provided at 90 feeding stations, 60 m apart in a 9×10 grid, in each of three 30-ha forest plots. Stations were filled with 7 kg of sunflower seeds at 5–6-week intervals or when seed was depleted. Three other 30-ha plots had no feeding stations. In each plot, squirrels were trapped every 5–6 weeks (when snow-free), from June 1996 to March 1999, using 80 baited Tomahawk live traps, at 40-m intervals in an 8×10 grid.

  2. Provide artificial dens or nest boxes on trees

    A replicated, randomized, paired sites, controlled, before-and-after study in 1996–1999 in three forest sites in British Columbia, Canada (Ransome & Sullivan 2004) found that nest boxes were used by northern flying squirrels Glaucomys sabrinus and Douglas squirrels Tamiasciurus douglasii but did not increase their abundance or body mass. Northern flying squirrels occupied 68–83% of boxes with Douglas squirrels occupying 0–29%. However, two years after boxes were erected, the abundance and body mass of northern flying squirrels did not differ significantly between plots with nest boxes (abundance: 9.8/ha; body mass: 134 g) and plots without nest boxes (abundance: 7.7/ha; body mass: 128 g). At the same time, the abundance and body mass of Douglas squirrels also did not differ significantly between plots with nest boxes (abundance: 15.1/ha; body mass: 198 g) and plots without nest boxes (abundance: 20.1/ha; body mass: 207 g). In February–March 1997, thirty nest boxes (12.8 × 13.6 × 15.5 cm), 100 m apart in a 5×6 grid and 5.5 m above ground, were mounted in each of three 30-ha plots. Three other 30-ha plots had no nest boxes. In each plot, squirrels were trapped every 5–6 weeks during the snow-free period, from June 1996 to March 1999, using 80 baited Tomahawk live traps, at 40-m intervals in an 8×10 grid.

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