Are roads and railroads barriers to bumblebee movement in a temperate suburban conservation area?

Bhattacharya, Madhumita; Primack, Richard B.; Gerwein, Joel

doi:10.1016/s0006-3207(02)00130-1

Cited by 168 publications

(129 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

116

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Tagging must be adapted to the size and the ecology of the target species. CMR with numbered plastic tags allowed Bhattacharya et al (2003) to monitor bumblebee movement across a railway, with a recapture rate of 31% (n = 367). In France, Vandevelde et al (2012) (see Chap.…”

Section: Direct Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Bumblebees (Bombus impatiens and B. affinis) in the USA (Bhattacharya et al 2003) provide an example of a species to which the railway is a behavioral barrier. These species are reluctant to cross railways (and roads) because of their high fidelity to their foraging site.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These species are reluctant to cross railways (and roads) because of their high fidelity to their foraging site. In experiments, individuals of these species could come back to their patches of origin after being translocated, or could leave their patch when their food was removed, but these movements were rarely in-control (non-translocated) individuals (Bhattacharya et al 2003). Bhattacharya et al (2003) observed that foraging bees turned back when they reached the edge of a patch (i.e., bisected by a railway); thus, rather than physically impassable barriers to bumblebees, railways acted as barriers because they are likely to be strong landmarks.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In experiments, individuals of these species could come back to their patches of origin after being translocated, or could leave their patch when their food was removed, but these movements were rarely in-control (non-translocated) individuals (Bhattacharya et al 2003). Bhattacharya et al (2003) observed that foraging bees turned back when they reached the edge of a patch (i.e., bisected by a railway); thus, rather than physically impassable barriers to bumblebees, railways acted as barriers because they are likely to be strong landmarks. On the other hand, most of the translocated gatekeeper butterflies (Pyronia tithonus) crossed the French High Speed Rail (hereinafter "HSR") to return to their capture plot, as this species shows a strong homing behavior (Vandevelde et al 2012; see also Chap.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Railways as Barriers for Wildlife: Current Knowledge

Barrientos

Borda‐de‐Água

2017

Railway Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this chapter we provide practical suggestions, together with examples, to identify, monitor and mitigate railway barrier effects on wildlife, as this is considered one of the railways' greatest impacts. Railways can be both physical and behavioral barriers to wildlife movement, as well as disturbance to populations living close to them. Also, mortality is recognized as an important contribution to the barrier effect. However, the consequences of habitat loss, and fragmentation due to railways alone remain largely unexplored. Barrier effects have mainly been mitigated with wildlife passes, with the effectiveness of this tool being one of the most-studied topics in Railway Ecology. Methods formerly employed to monitor pass usage, such as track beds or video-surveillance, are now being replaced by molecular ones. Among the latter methods, genetic fingerprinting allows individual-based approaches, opening the door to population-scale studies. In fact, genetic sampling allows for the assessment of functional connectivity, which is closely linked to successful reproduction and population viability, variables not necessarily coupled with crossing rates. There is strong evidence that railway verges offer new habitats for generalist species and for opportunistic individuals, a point that deserves to be experimentally explored in order to find wildlife-friendly policies. Preventing animals from crossing (e.g., by fencing), should be reserved for collision hotspots, as it increases barrier effects. Instead, it has been shown that warning signals or pole barriers effectively reduce collisions without increasing barrier effects. In this respect, we argue that computer simulations are a promising field to investigate potential impact scenarios. Finally, we present a protocol to guide planners and managers when assessing barrier effects, with emphasis on monitoring and mitigation strategies.

show abstract

Section: Direct Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Railways as Barriers for Wildlife: Current Knowledge

Barrientos

Borda‐de‐Água

2017

Railway Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Roads can affect wildlife in numerous different ways, both direct and indirectly. Habitat loss, degradation and fragmentation [2] [3], as well as animal mortality [4] [5] are acknowledged as direct and reduction of permeability [6], barrier effects [7] and loss of connectivity [8] [9] are indirect effects, which collectively reduce long-term survival and population viability [10]. Nowadays, besides of commercial exploitation, pollutions and introduced species, non-natural sources of mortality of wildlife, road mortality has become a serious source of wildlife mortality worldwide [11].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Spatio-Temporal Patterns of Wildlife Road Mortality in Golestan National Park-North East of Iran

Kazemi¹,

Jafari²,

Yavari³

2016

OJE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Nowadays, wildlife road mortality is acknowledged as a main source of threatening long-term survival of wildlife. This paper as the first to analysis wild life vehicle collisions in Iran, aims to reconstruct and interpret the spatio-temporal patterns of WVCs on Asiaei highway in Golestan National Park (GNP). With the collaboration of environmental protection department of GNP, we identified about 1900 WVC Records involving 34 different species of mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians between 2004 and 2013. Mammals were involved in more than 50% of overall WVCs, among which wild boar (Sus scrofa), Golden Jackal (Canis aureus), Red Fox (Vulpes vulpes), hedgehog (Erinaceus concolor), stone marten (Martes foina) and porcupine (Hystrix indica) were involved in more than 90% of mammals' mortalities; So, we focused on analyzing spatio-temporal pattern of vehicle collisions of these six mammal species. During the study period, these species have undergone 95% increase in road mortalities, averagely. Detailed temporal analyses exhibited an increasing trend of road mortalities from spring to summer and then a reducing one to late winter. It was shown that a large number of collisions occurred in holiday periods when recreational trips considerably increased the traffic volume of Asiaei highway. Preliminary inspection of spatial patterns using Kernel density analysis revealed six collision hotspots, mostly located in the road bends with densely forested land cover on both sides; the promenades along the road seemed to play a significant role too. Scale dependency analyses of collision patterns, demonstrated clustering pattern at micro scales less than 10 km, randomness at meso scales 10 -20 km and both regularity and clustering at macro scales more than 20 km. This paper suggests that road mortality of common species in GNP is a momentous issue, which needs to be considered by relevant governmental and public organizations. We also emphasize that the analyses of spatial and temporal patterns of WVCs are fundamentals to plan for mitigate wildlife road mortality.

show abstract

Ecological Consequences of Habitat Fragmentation

Didham

2010

Encyclopedia of Life Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Habitat fragmentation is the process by which habitat loss results in the division of large, continuous habitats into smaller, more isolated habitat fragments. Habitat fragmentation is one of the most important processes contributing to population decline, biodiversity loss, and alteration of community structure and ecosystem functioning in anthropogenically-modified landscapes. Many thousands of individual scientific studies now show unequivocal evidence for the impacts of patch area, edge effects, patch shape complexity, isolation, and landscape matrix contrast on population and community dynamics in mosaic landscapes. However, striking disparities in the results of individual studies across differing taxa and differing ecosystems have raised considerable debate about the relative importance of the different mechanisms underlying fragmentation effects, and even debate about the utility of the 'habitat fragmentation' concept in general. Resolution of this debate lies in clear discrimination of the direct and indirect causal relationships among patch versus landscape variables. The most important recent advances in our understanding of the ecological effects of habitat fragmentation all stem from recognition of the strong context dependence of ecosystem responses, including spatial context dependence at multiple scales, time lags in population decline, trait dependence in species responses, and synergistic interactions between habitat fragmentation and other components of global environmental change.

show abstract

Are roads and railroads barriers to bumblebee movement in a temperate suburban conservation area?

Cited by 168 publications

References 32 publications

Railways as Barriers for Wildlife: Current Knowledge

Railways as Barriers for Wildlife: Current Knowledge

Spatio-Temporal Patterns of Wildlife Road Mortality in Golestan National Park-North East of Iran

Ecological Consequences of Habitat Fragmentation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About