2020
DOI: 10.1016/j.foreco.2020.118172
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Daily roost utilization by edible dormouse in a managed pine-dominated forest

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
6
0
1

Year Published

2020
2020
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
2

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 9 publications
(7 citation statements)
references
References 54 publications
0
6
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Human‐induced land use changes may eliminate natural roosting and nesting habitats for wildlife, particularly for species that typically roost in cavities and crevices in mature trees. Practitioners often supply “nest” boxes as alternative roosts (e.g., Arias, Gignoux‐Wofsohn, Kerwin, & Maslo, 2020; Collins, Ross, Ferguson, Williams, & Langton, 2020; Lindenmayer et al, 2017; Rueegger, Goldingay, Law, & Gonsalves, 2019); such roosts are commonly deployed for bats (Flaquer, Torre, & Ruiz‐Jarillo, 2006; Mering & Chambers, 2012; Mering & Chambers, 2014), birds (De León & Mínguez, 2003; Demeyrier, Lambrechts, Perret, & Grégoire, 2016; Stephens, Kaminski, Leopold, & Gerard, 1998), rodents (Iwińska, Boratyński, Trivedi, & Borowski, 2020), and marsupials (Beyer & Goldingay, 2006; Isaac, Parsons, & Goodman, 2008; Rueegger, Goldingay, & Brookes, 2012). While intended to enhance the recovery and persistence of at‐risk species, on some occasions these artificial structures have adverse negative effects, leading to low survival and fecundity (e.g., Klein, Nagy, Csörgo, & Mátics, 2007; Miller, 2002; Semel, Sherman, & Byers, 1988).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Human‐induced land use changes may eliminate natural roosting and nesting habitats for wildlife, particularly for species that typically roost in cavities and crevices in mature trees. Practitioners often supply “nest” boxes as alternative roosts (e.g., Arias, Gignoux‐Wofsohn, Kerwin, & Maslo, 2020; Collins, Ross, Ferguson, Williams, & Langton, 2020; Lindenmayer et al, 2017; Rueegger, Goldingay, Law, & Gonsalves, 2019); such roosts are commonly deployed for bats (Flaquer, Torre, & Ruiz‐Jarillo, 2006; Mering & Chambers, 2012; Mering & Chambers, 2014), birds (De León & Mínguez, 2003; Demeyrier, Lambrechts, Perret, & Grégoire, 2016; Stephens, Kaminski, Leopold, & Gerard, 1998), rodents (Iwińska, Boratyński, Trivedi, & Borowski, 2020), and marsupials (Beyer & Goldingay, 2006; Isaac, Parsons, & Goodman, 2008; Rueegger, Goldingay, & Brookes, 2012). While intended to enhance the recovery and persistence of at‐risk species, on some occasions these artificial structures have adverse negative effects, leading to low survival and fecundity (e.g., Klein, Nagy, Csörgo, & Mátics, 2007; Miller, 2002; Semel, Sherman, & Byers, 1988).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Average daily movements in male dormice may range from ~ 100 m (Cornils et al 2017) up to 200-500 m, depending on high and low population density, respectively (Jurczyszyn and Zgrabczyńska 2007). Moreover, in our another study, we found that males equipped with radiotransmitters captured at the nest-boxes system were also exploring the natural shelters up to 200m outside the plot (Iwińska et al, 2020). Since individuals captured only at peripheral lines of the nest-box system were likely spending more time outside the plot (in comparison to animals from the central part), they were expected a priori to have also lower chances to nd a feeder placed on the study plot or in close vicinity (see also: Supplementary materials: Fig.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 57%
“…Хотя преобладающей породой в них был дуб (Q. robur), доля сосны (P. sylvestris) и березы (B. pendula, B. pubescens) была также высока [34,35]. Также на северной периферии распространения в Центральной Польше полчки со стабильной численностью обитают в лесах с преобладанием сосны (77%), в состав которых входят также береза (B. pendula) (11%), скальный дуб (Q. petraea) (9%) и вяз (C. betulus) (2%) [33]. В изолированной точке ареала, на территории Московской области, полчки были обнаружены на левобережье Оки в березовом лесу [13].…”
Section: биотопические предпочтенияunclassified