Effects of thinning on small mammals in Oregon coastal forests

  • Published source details Suzuki N. & Hayes J.P. (2003) Effects of thinning on small mammals in Oregon coastal forests. Journal of Wildlife Management, 67, 352-371.


This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Thin trees within forest

Action Link
Terrestrial Mammal Conservation
  1. Thin trees within forest

    A replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in 1994–1996 of four coniferous forest sites and a replicated, site comparison study in 1995–1996 of eight coniferous forest sites, all in Oregon, USA (Suzuki & Hayes 2003) found that thinning trees increased abundances of some small mammal species. Out of 12 species, abundances of three, deer mouse Peromyscus maniculatus, creeping vole Microtus oregoni and white-footed vole Arborimus albipes, increased in thinned plots during the two years post-thinning relative to in unthinned plots. Pacific jumping mouse Zapus trinotatus increased in thinned plots relative to in unthinned plots between the first and second years post-thinning. Seven species had similar abundances in each treatment. Western red-backed vole Clethrionomys californicus was less common in thinned than in unthinned plots. Capture rates did not significantly differ between plots before thinning. See paper for data. Of nine species, five, Pacific shrew Sorex pacificus, Trowbridge’s shrew Sorex trowbridgii, vagrant shrew Sorex vagrans, creeping vole and Pacific jumping mouse, were more abundant in plots thinned 7–24 years previously than in unthinned plots. See paper for data. Four sites, each with three 35–45-year-old Douglas-fir stands (26–40 ha/stand) were studied. Two stands/site were thinned in 1994–1995 (to averages of 193–267 trees/ha) and one was unthinned (average 500 trees/ha). Also, at eight pairs of stands, 52–100 years old and <1 mile apart, one stand (10–28 ha) had been thinned 7–24 years before surveying and one (20–73 ha) was unthinned. Small mammals were surveyed within the controlled study using pitfall traps for six weeks/year in 1994 (before thinning) and in 1995 and 1996 (after thinning). In the site comparison study, pitfall traps were operated for 40 consecutive days in each 1995 and 1996.

    (Summarised by: Nick Littlewood)

Output references
What Works 2021 cover

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, 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 21

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 ProgrammeRed List Champion - Arc Kent Wildlife Trust The Rufford Foundation Save the Frogs - Ghana Mauritian Wildlife Supporting Conservation Leaders
Sustainability Dashboard National Biodiversity Network Frog Life The international journey of Conservation - Oryx Cool Farm Alliance UNEP AWFA Bat Conservation InternationalPeople trust for endangered species Vincet Wildlife Trust