2024
DOI: 10.1111/1365-2664.14582
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Do wildlife crossing structures mitigate the barrier effect of roads on animal movement? A global assessment

Kylie Soanes,
Trina Rytwinski,
Lenore Fahrig
et al.

Abstract: The widespread impacts of roads on animal movement have led to the search for innovative mitigation tools. Wildlife crossing structures (tunnels or bridges) are a common approach; however, their effectiveness remains unclear beyond isolated case studies. We conduct an extensive literature review and synthesis to address the question: What is the evidence that wildlife crossing structures mitigate the barrier effect of roads on wildlife movement? In particular, we investigated whether wildlife crossing structu… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2024
2024
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 9 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 61 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…A common strategy to mitigate the impacts of roads on wildlife is to install wildlife crossing structures, i.e., structures designed to allow movement of an animal from one side of a road to another without travelling across the road surface, ultimately promoting or restoring movement across the landscapes (Smith et al 2015). We argue, that installing crossing structures in areas of high WVC risk only addresses one part of the problem and ignores the issue of barrier effects all together (Soanes et al 2024;Zimmermann Teixeira et al 2017). Our approach to compare WVC risk to crossing activity is an appropriate tool to inform the correct implementation of effective measures to reduce WVC and enhance landscape connectivity, especially when demographic data of individuals involved in WVC, or when GPS-collar data across multiple populations, are available.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A common strategy to mitigate the impacts of roads on wildlife is to install wildlife crossing structures, i.e., structures designed to allow movement of an animal from one side of a road to another without travelling across the road surface, ultimately promoting or restoring movement across the landscapes (Smith et al 2015). We argue, that installing crossing structures in areas of high WVC risk only addresses one part of the problem and ignores the issue of barrier effects all together (Soanes et al 2024;Zimmermann Teixeira et al 2017). Our approach to compare WVC risk to crossing activity is an appropriate tool to inform the correct implementation of effective measures to reduce WVC and enhance landscape connectivity, especially when demographic data of individuals involved in WVC, or when GPS-collar data across multiple populations, are available.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…An understanding of when, where and why wildlife use roads can guide mitigation planning for management activities, identify spatio-temporal patterns and inform conservation strategies [ 29 , 33 , 53 , 54 , 116 ]. Wildlife–vehicle collision mitigation and road effect reduction strategies are discussed elsewhere [ 2 , 54 , 117 ], but we note that some roadkill mitigation measures (e.g. overpasses) have been initially effective in the Sonoran Desert ecoregion [ 117 , 118 ].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Wildlife–vehicle collision mitigation and road effect reduction strategies are discussed elsewhere [ 2 , 54 , 117 ], but we note that some roadkill mitigation measures (e.g. overpasses) have been initially effective in the Sonoran Desert ecoregion [ 117 , 118 ]. Here, we focused on anthropogenic, environmental and temporal factors associated with roadkill across biodiverse vertebrate groups in an aridland wildland–urban interface.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…
Editorial on the Research TopicAmphibian and reptile road ecology Roads have complex negative impacts on biodiversity and may threaten the persistence of wildlife populations by acting as barriers to movement or sources of increased and sometimes substantial mortality (e.g., van der Ree et al, 2015;Moore et al, 2023). Amphibians and reptiles (herpetofauna) are known to be particularly susceptible to negative road impacts (e.g., Beebee, 2013;Andrews et al, 2015).
…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, progress in knowledge of their effectiveness has been hampered by a lack of postmitigation research focused on individual and population-level responses to passagebarrier systems. Examples of critical knowledge gaps include quantified understandings of the proportions of individuals that successfully cross via passages or changes in population abundance over time (e.g., Soanes et al, 2024).This Research Topic aimed to increase our understanding of both the effects of roads on amphibians and reptiles and the effectiveness of mitigation structures. We sought research from a diversity of regions, landscapes, and species that addressed meaningful road ecology science questions to help inform conservation.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%