Sugar Glider (Petaurus breviceps) Fact Sheet: Population & Conservation Status

Population estimates

• No systematic scientific estimates
• “Locally common over much of its range” (Salas et al. 2016)
  • More common in mainland Australia and New Guinea compared to other islands in its distribution range (Nowak 2018a)
• Population trend
  • Likely stable (Suckling 2008; Jackson 2015a)
  • “[Populations] probably the most secure of all the Australian gliders” (Lindenmayer 2002)

Population structure

• High genetic diversity in mainland Australia (Malekian et al. 2010)
  • Australia: 2 divergent clades
  • New Guinea: 5 divergent clades
• Introduced to Tasmania
  • Population originated from a small number of individuals from southern Australian (most likely Victoria) (Campbell et al. 2018)
    • Zero genetic diversity

IUCN

• Least Concern (2016 assessment) (Salas et al. 2016)
  • Wide distribution
  • Large population
  • Occurs in protected areas
  • No major threats
• Previous assessments (Salas et al. 2016)
  • 2008: Least Concern
  • 1996: Lower risk/least concern

CITES

• Not listed (UNEP 2019)

Government laws and regulations

• Protected in Australia (Department of the Environment 2018)
  • Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act of 1999
• Protected in Tasmania (Campbell et al. 2018)
  • Nature Conservation Act 2002
  • See “Bird predation in Tasmania” in Management Actions

General

• No major threats (Salas et al. 2016)
• Sugar gliders can tolerate a broad range of habitats, including degraded ones (Jackson 2015a)
  • Depend on old trees with hollows for nesting (Nowak 2018a)
  • Populations may become isolated where fragmented forests impede dispersal (Jackson 2015b; Malekian et al. 2015)
    • Must be able to jump from tree to tree

Habitat loss

• Deforestation
  • Land cleared for agriculture (Jackson 2015a)
    • Tree hollows destroyed
    • Forest habitat fragmented
• Wildfires
  • Forest habitat lost (Jackson 2015a)
• Light pollution
  • Exposure to light at night may impact nighttime activity patterns (Barber-Meyer 2007)

Accidental death

• Entanglement in barbed wire fencing (Council 2010)
• Drowning (if trapped in a body of water and cannot climb out) (Johnson 2011)

Protection

• Conservation of important glider habitat (McKay 1989)

Habitat connectivity

• Particularly important in agricultural areas (Downes et al. 1997; Suckling 2008)
• Strips of forest habitat along roadways allow dispersal (Suckling 1984)
• Poles and rope bridges can help gliders cross over roads and gaps between fragmented forest patches (e.g., cross roads) (Jackson 2015b; Goldingay et al., in press)
  • Enable dispersal and a larger foraging range

Reintroduction

• Successfully reintroduced to restored forest in southern Victoria (Suckling 2008)
• Require nest boxes where there are few natural tree hollows (Suckling 2008; Council 2010; Goldingay et al. 2015, 2018)
  • Alternative cavities may also be effective (e.g., Rueegger 2017)

Bird predation in Tasmania

• Sugar gliders in Tasmania prey heavily on birds, some of which are endangered species (Stojanovic et al. 2014; Campbell et al. 2018)
  • Considered unusual behavior; does not occur in mainland Australia
  • May require management/intervention
    • Actions limited because current laws protect sugar gliders in Australia
  • Also see “Alteration of Tasmanian food webs” in Ecological Role

Conservation groups

• Australian Wildlife Conservancy
• TRAFFIC

Sugar gliders depend on tree hollows for nesting and breeding.

Nest boxes, as seen here, are used in Australia to connect habitat areas fragmented by wildfires.

Image credit: © Greenfleet Australia. Some rights reserved.