Outcomes of decades long installation of nest boxes for arboreal mammals in southern Australia

Abstract

Summary Nest boxes are commonly installed to support hollow‐using species where the abundance of hollow‐bearing trees is deficient. Recent studies have provided equivocal evidence about the effectiveness of nest box projects and have highlighted significant management costs associated with some projects. We document the functionality of 303 nest boxes installed across five different community‐led projects in southern Australia for periods of 10–25 years. As expected, we found that nest boxes lost functionality over time. However, 60% remained functional to support the Brush‐tailed Phascogale (Phascogale tapoatafa) and the Sugar Glider (Petaurus breviceps) after almost 20 years. Years installed, method of nest box attachment and tree species influenced whether boxes remained functional. Nest box construction material changed over time so could not be assessed specifically. When inspected in a single year, the Brush‐tailed Phascogale occupied 9% of functional boxes and another 48% contained their nests. The Sugar Glider occupied 15% of functional boxes and another 22% contained their nests. These values suggest the nest box installations were highly effective for these species, although more detailed study is needed to understand what contribution these installations have made to support the local populations. Maintenance of most nest boxes occurred twice a year in the first five years after installation, but many received no maintenance for periods of three years, and some 10–15 years, before our census. Our findings suggest that infrequent maintenance by community groups can sustain nest box projects over periods of several decades. Research into employing nest boxes as a management tool in Australia is still in its infancy. Further studies are needed to resolve factors that limit their effectiveness.

Nest box revealed habitat preferences of arboreal mammals in box‐ironbark forest

“…Loss of tree hollows is viewed as a threatening factor for this species (DSE 2003;OEH 2018). The high frequency of use of nest boxes (Rhind & Bradley 2002;Goldingay et al 2018; this study) suggests that nest boxes or other types of artificial hollow could be used to provide population support for the Brushtailed Phascogale. The present study suggests that areas with a high abundance of Red Box are those that should be targeted.…”

“…We tested these predictions in an area of degraded box-ironbark forest habitat in Victoria where nest boxes had been installed. Both the Phascogale and Sugar Glider occur broadly within this habitat type (Holland et al 2012;Mansfield et al 2017;Goldingay et al 2018). The forest had been subject to historic gold mining, forestry and community use, such that tree hollows are scarce (Soderquist 1999).…”

“…The Sugar Glider (Petaurus breviceps) provides an interesting contrast to the Brush-tailed Phascogale (hereafter Phascogale) because although it is also dependent on tree cavities for shelter it is widespread, locally abundant and recognised as least concern (Suckling 1984; Woinarski et al 2014). It is an omnivore that feeds on exudates, pollen and invertebrates (Smith 1982), but it is able to occupy a broad range of habitats (Suckling & Macfarlane 1983;Lindenmayer et al 1991;Allen et al 2018;Goldingay et al 2018). Such characteristics suggest that should its shelter requirements be satisfied then variation in foraging habitat may have limited influence on its occurrence, except where highly favoured food resources are locally abundant (e.g.…”

Increased microclimatic variation in artificial nests does not create ecological traps for a secondary cavity breeder

“…Our findings also confirm previous studies showing that nest boxes poorly replicate the microclimate of tree cavities. Therefore, we highlight the need to focus on protecting cavity trees, while treating nest boxes as temporary solution in species conservation, whose significant installation and maintenance costs could be difficult to sustain in the long term (Goldingay, Thomas, & Shanty, 2018; Lindenmayer et al, 2017, 2009).…”

Artificial refuges to combat habitat loss for an endangered marsupial predator: How do they measure up?

“…Artificial refuges—such as artificial nests (Goldingay, Thomas, & Shanty, 2018), rock crevices (Croak, Pike, Webb, & Shine, 2012), and hibernacula (Zappalorti, 1994)—are human‐made substitutes for natural refuges where wildlife can shelter, hibernate, and rear offspring in areas lacking natural refuges (Sherley, Barham, Barham, Leshoro, & Underhill, 2012). Artificial refuges have been used in many restoration efforts across the globe to provide shelter to animals where natural habitat has been altered or destroyed (e.g., Bolton, Medeiros, Hothersall, & Campos, 2004; Dervo et al, 2018; Keppers, Skoruppa, & Hickman, 2008).…”