The effect of fauna passages and landscape characteristics on barrier mitigation success

Karlson, Mårten; Seiler, Andreas; Mörtberg, Ulla

doi:10.1016/j.ecoleng.2017.04.059

Cited by 13 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 44 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…That question remains a dilemma as it has no universal answer; the best strategy depends on, i.a., to what extent the smaller areas share species, on the environmental variability in and among areas, and on the distance between areas (Simberloff and Abele 1976;Akcakaya and Ginzburg 1991;Ovaskainen 2002). The SLOSS dilemma of road ecologythe trade-off between single large or several small crossing structures (Karlson et al 2017)is likely to share many characteristics with that of protected area designation.…”

Section: Size Vs Number Of Crossing Structuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The issue of SLOSS wildlife crossing structures has previously been addressed by Karlson et al (2017), using a theoretical approach comparing outcome in model landscapes with different level of habitat contrast and aggregation. They concluded that in homogenous (lowcontrast, low-aggregation) landscapes, a number of smaller crossing structures are better than one large, given that each still meets minimum ecological design criteria.…”

Section: Size Vs Number Of Crossing Structuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Following this line of argument, and with support from the results from the modelling approach adopted by Karlson et al (2017), the default strategy for transport agencies should be to construct several small crossing structures rather than concentrating the passage opportunities along major transport infrastructures to a single large structure. What to choose should however depend on the context, for example the degree of habitat heterogeneity (aggregation and contrast), habitat predictability, the dimension requirements of target species, and the spatial overlap between species (Mata et al 2005;Karlson et al 2017).…”

Section: Implications For the Planning Of Wildlife Mitigationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The SLOSS dilemma of road ecology: Are several small wildlife crossing structures better than a single large?

Helldin¹

2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Crossing structures for large wildlife are increasingly being constructed at major roads and railways in many countries, and current guidelines for wildlife mitigation at linear infrastructures tend to advocate for large crossing structures sited at major movement corridors for the target species. The concept of movement corridors has however been challenged, and pinching animal movements into bottlenecks entail risks. In this paper, I address the SLOSS dilemma of road ecology, i.e., the discussion whether a Single Large Or Several Small crossing structures along a linear barrier would produce the most benefit for wildlife. I point out risks, ecological as well as practical, with investing in one large crossing structure, and list a number of situations where it may be more beneficial to distribute the conservation efforts in the landscape by constructing several smaller crossing structures; for example when the ecological knowledge is insufficient, when animal interactions are expected to be significant, when the landscape changes over time, or when future human development cannot be controlled. I argue that such situations are often what infrastructure planning faces, and that the default strategy therefore should be to distribute rather than to concentrate passage opportunities along major transport infrastructures. I suggest that distributing passage opportunities over several smaller crossing structures would convey a risk diversification, and that this strategy could facilitate the planning of wildlife mitigation. What to choose would however depend on, i.a., landscape composition and ecology, and on relationships among target species. A single large should be selected where it is likely that it can serve a large proportion of target animals, and where the long-term functionality of the crossing structure can be guaranteed. I illustrate how species and regional differences may influence the choice, using the case of ungulates in Sweden. New research is needed to support trade-offs between size and number of crossing structures. Cost-effectiveness analyses of wildlife crossing structures are currently rare and need to be further explored. Camera trapping and video surveillance of crossing structures provide opportunities to analyze details concerning, for example, any individual biases according to sex, age, status and grouping, and any antagonism between species and individuals. Wildlife ecology research need to better address questions posed by road and railway planning regarding the importance of specific movement routes and movement distances.

show abstract

Section: Size Vs Number Of Crossing Structuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Size Vs Number Of Crossing Structuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Implications For the Planning Of Wildlife Mitigationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The SLOSS dilemma of road ecology: Are several small wildlife crossing structures better than a single large?

Helldin¹

2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Roads can have a number of negative impacts on wildlife, such as habitat loss and fragmentation, barrier effects and loss of landscape connectivity, and mortality due to collisions with vehicles (Forman, Sperling, Bissonette, & Clevenger, 2003; Jaeger et al, 2005; Eigenbrod, Hecnar, & Fahrig, 2009; van der Ree, Smith, & Grilo, 2015). These impacts can be mitigated using crossing structures such as green bridges (Bissonette & Adair, 2008; Forman, 2012; Karlson, Seiler, & Mörtberg, 2017; Smith, van der Ree, & Rosell, 2015). Green bridges (wildlife overpasses) are large, vegetated structures designed to reduce the risk of wildlife mortality while improving habitat connectivity by facilitating the safe passage of wild animals from one side of a road to the other and reducing the exposure of individuals to traffic (Iuell et al, 2003; Smith et al, 2015).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…as green bridges (Bissonette & Adair, 2008;Forman, 2012;Karlson, Seiler, & Mörtberg, 2017;Smith, van der Ree, & Rosell, 2015). Green bridges (wildlife overpasses) are large, vegetated structures designed to reduce the risk of wildlife mortality while improving habitat connectivity by facilitating the safe passage of wild animals from one side of a road to the other and reducing the exposure of individuals to traffic (Iuell et al, 2003;Smith et al, 2015).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Green bridges in a re‐colonizing landscape: Wolves (Canis lupus) in Brandenburg, Germany

Plaschke

Bhardwaj

König

et al. 2021

Conservat Sci and Prac

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Gray wolves (Canis lupus) are recolonizing many parts of central Europe and are a key part of international conservation directives. However, roads may hinder the reestablishment of gray wolves throughout their historic range by reducing landscape connectivity and increasing mortality from wildlife‐vehicle collisions. The impact of roads on wolves might be mitigated by the construction of green bridges (i.e., large vegetated overpasses, designed to accommodate the movement of wildlife over transportation corridors). In this study, we investigated the seasonal and diurnal use of a green bridge by wolves and three of their main prey species: red deer (Cervus elaphus), roe deer (Capreolus capreolus), and wild boar (Sus scrofa). We found that all four species used the green bridge. Wolves were most active in winter, whereas prey species were most active in spring and summer. All species were more active at dusk and during the night than at dawn and during the day. We found no evidence that wolf presence influenced bridge‐use by prey species, consistent with other tests of the prey‐trap hypothesis. Our results suggest that green bridges are used by wolves and prey species alike, and may foster connectivity and recolonization for these species in rewilding landscapes.

show abstract

Overpasses intended for human use can be crossed by middle and large-size mammals

Asari

Noro²,

Yamada³

et al. 2019

Landscape Ecol Eng

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The effect of fauna passages and landscape characteristics on barrier mitigation success

Cited by 13 publications

References 44 publications

The SLOSS dilemma of road ecology: Are several small wildlife crossing structures better than a single large?

The SLOSS dilemma of road ecology: Are several small wildlife crossing structures better than a single large?

Green bridges in a re‐colonizing landscape: Wolves (Canis lupus) in Brandenburg, Germany

Overpasses intended for human use can be crossed by middle and large-size mammals

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About