Nest-Tree Use by Northern and Southern Flying Squirrels in Central Ontario

Northern and southern flying squirrel use of space within home ranges in central Ontario

“…Firstly, given that core areas provide important nest habitat, we observed more intensive use of core areas by multiple individuals (higher spatial overlap of core areas by neighbouring squirrels) on recent selection cuts than in uncut sites. Secondly, southern flying squirrels species nested nearly exclusively in live declining trees in the region (Holloway and Malcolm, 2007). In uncut stands, the strongest factors predicting southern flying squirrels habitat use was a positive association with the density of declining trees, but this relationship was not seen in recent cuts.…”

“…We used the same approach to construct regression models as described above. We did not undertake similar analyses for southern flying squirrels because comparisons of core versus non-core locations would be redundant with tests of nest and non-nesting habitat reported elsewhere (Holloway and Malcolm, 2007).…”

Comparison of nest trees of two sympatric flying squirrel species in northern Pakistan

“…For the two marginally sympatric flying squirrels, G. volans and G. sabrinus, the dominance of nest cavities by G. volans could competitively exclude G. sabrinus (Weigl 1978). Also, in central Ontario, Glaucomys species prefer different nest tree resources: G. volans tend to use American beech (Fagus grandifolia) more often than expected by chance, whereas G. sabrinus use trembling aspen (Populus tremuloides), white birch (Betula papyrifera), and yellow birch (Betula alleghaniensis) more than expected by chance (Holloway and Malcolm 2007). There are, however, few reports how sympatric arboreal mammalian species partition nest cavities to avoid competition.…”

Cavity Nest Materials of Northern Flying Squirrels, <em>Glaucomys sabrinus</em>, and North American Red Squirrels, <em>Tamiasciurus hudsonicus</em>, in a Secondary Hardwood Forest of Southern Ontario

“…Tree cavities are generally most abundant in old growth forests where large diameter trees and well-decayed snags are commonplace (Holloway and Malcolm 2006;Holloway and Malcolm 2007). Cavities also may form in live trees where the entry of rot has been facilitated by disease, deformities, broken limbs or woodpecker excavations.…”

“…Both species are primarily associated with conifer-dominated forests, although in many areas of eastern North America they inhabit hardwood and mixed hardwood-conifer forests (Flyger and Gates 1982;Holloway and Malcolm 2006;Patterson 2008). Both G. sabrinus and T. hudsonicus have been found to use cavities in trees more intensively than external or subterranean shelters, especially for natal nests (Layne 1954;Bakker and Hastings 2002;Holloway and Malcolm 2007).…”