Towards effective culvert design: monitoring seasonal use and behavior by Mediterranean mesocarnivores

Serronha, Ana; Mateus, Ana Rita; Eaton, Finn; Santos‐Reis, Margarida; Grilo, Clara

doi:10.1007/s10661-012-3020-3

Cited by 39 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Although overpasses were used by a wide range of species, they were not convenient structures for those with specific habitat requirements, like otters, which usually move along watercourses. Thus, for semiaquatic species, essential features for WCS involve securing the free flow of water and providing enough space for river banks (Serronha et al 2013). Nonetheless, our studies proved also that among underpasses, larger constructions (> 20 m of width) are used by larger number of species and have higher crossing rates than smaller ones, and so should be considered during road investments elsewhere.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 50%

Mammal use of wildlife crossing structures along a new motorway in an area recently recolonized by wolves

Mysłajek

Olkowska²,

Wronka-Tomulewicz³

et al. 2020

Eur J Wildl Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Wildlife crossing structures (WCSs) enhance connectivity between habitats of wild animals fragmented by fenced motorways, but factors affecting their use by targeted species remain understudied, particularly in areas recently recolonized by large carnivores. We investigated the use of WCS—6 overpasses (width 30-45m), 5 large underpasses (width 33–114 m) and 4 small underpasses (width 15–19 m)—located along the A4 motorway in the Lower Silesian Forest (western Poland), a large forest tract recently recolonised by wolves (Canis lupus). Identifying and counting tracks of mammals left on sand-beds as well as individuals recorded by camera traps were used to determine species diversity, number and activity patterns of mammals on WCS, and to reveal seasonal and temporal changes of WCS use over 3 years of study (2010–2013). WCSs were mostly used by wild species (51.5%), followed by humans (34.8%), livestock and pets (13.7%). Among wild species, ungulates were the most common (77.4% of crossings), while lagomorphs and carnivores were recorded less often (15% and 7.6% of crossings, respectively). The number of species and crossings of wild mammals, especially wild ungulates and wolves, was substantially higher on overpasses (mean effective number of species (Hill numbers): 0D = 7.8, 1D = 4.1 and 2D = 3.3) than on underpasses (0D = 6.3, 1D = 2.9 and 2D = 2.3) and was not affected by distance between WCS and human settlements or WCS width. There was a higher diversity of wild species and more crossings under large extended bridges than on smaller underpasses. The number of species and number of crossings of wild mammals, domestic animals and people increased from 2010 to 2013. There was a significant difference in activity patterns, with almost all wild species being nocturnal, in contrast to people and dogs. There was no relationship between crossing time and rates of wild carnivores and potential prey. We conclude that overpasses, even with steep entrance slopes (25–26.5%) or integrated with moderately used gravel roads, maintain movement of wild terrestrial mammals much better than underpasses, and the presence of wolves does not hamper the movement of other wild species. As there are significant temporal changes in use of WCS by mammals, we recommend monitoring WCS in all seasons for at least 3 years as a minimum standard for the post-investment assessment of WCS utilization by animals.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 50%

Mammal use of wildlife crossing structures along a new motorway in an area recently recolonized by wolves

Mysłajek

Olkowska²,

Wronka-Tomulewicz³

et al. 2020

Eur J Wildl Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, marten use of crossing structures, particularly culverts, is well documented [32]–[34], [79], [80]. However, our results suggest individual preferences for specific crossing structures: F3 crossed the highway at least 30 times during our tracking sessions, but apparently did so through a single passage despite at least two similar structures being within her home range (Fig.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 65%

Inter-Individual Variability of Stone Marten Behavioral Responses to a Highway

et al. 2014

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Efforts to reduce the negative impacts of roads on wildlife may be hindered if individuals within the population vary widely in their responses to roads and mitigation strategies ignore this variability. This knowledge is particularly important for medium-sized carnivores as they are vulnerable to road mortality, while also known to use available road passages (e.g., drainage culverts) for safely crossing highways. Our goal in this study was to assess whether this apparently contradictory pattern of high road-kill numbers associated with a regular use of road passages is attributable to the variation in behavioral responses toward the highway between individuals. We investigated the responses of seven radio-tracked stone martens (Martes foina) to a highway by measuring their utilization distribution, response turning angles and highway crossing patterns. We compared the observed responses to simulated movement parameterized by the observed space use and movement characteristics of each individual, but naïve to the presence of the highway. Our results suggested that martens demonstrate a diversity of responses to the highway, including attraction, indifference, or avoidance. Martens also varied in their highway crossing patterns, with some crossing repeatedly at the same location (often coincident with highway passages). We suspect that the response variability derives from the individual's familiarity of the landscape, including their awareness of highway passage locations. Because of these variable yet potentially attributable responses, we support the use of exclusionary fencing to guide transient (e.g., dispersers) individuals to existing passages to reduce the road-kill risk.

show abstract

“…The first monitoring studies of wildlife crossings in Europe, Australia, and North America used sand boxes to observe animal tracks, and particularly those of big game (Forman et al, 2002). More sophisticated methods are now employed, such as infrared or thermal video cameras (Serronha, Mateus, Eaton, Santos-Reis, & Grilo, 2013), genetic sampling (Corlatti, Hackländer & Frey-Roos, 2009;Sawaya, Kalinowski, & Clevenger, 2014), GPS collars (Dodd, Gagnon, Boe, & Schweinsburg, 2005;Olsson & Widen, 2008), radio telemetry (Baxter-Gilbert, Riley, Lesbarrères, & Litzgus, 2015;Dillon & Kelly, 2008), acoustic, infrared and microwave sensors (Diggins, Gilley, Kelly, & Ford, 2016;Glen, Cockburn, Nichols, Ekanayake, & Warburton, 2013;Gužvica et al, 2014), and automatically triggered cameras, also called camera traps (Šver, Bielen, Križan, & Gužvica, 2016). The choice of a monitoring technique depends on the targeted species, the goal of the study and the human and financial investment (Hardy, Clevenger, Huijser, & Neale, 2003).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A comparison of camera trap and permanent recording video camera efficiency in wildlife underpasses

Jumeau

Petrod²,

Handrich

2017

Ecology and Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the current context of biodiversity loss through habitat fragmentation, the effectiveness of wildlife crossings, installed at great expense as compensatory measures, is of vital importance for ecological and socio‐economic actors. The evaluation of these structures is directly impacted by the efficiency of monitoring tools (camera traps…), which are used to assess the effectiveness of these crossings by observing the animals that use them. The aim of this study was to quantify the efficiency of camera traps in a wildlife crossing evaluation. Six permanent recording video systems sharing the same field of view as six Reconyx HC600 camera traps installed in three wildlife underpasses were used to assess the exact proportion of missed events (event being the presence of an animal within the field of view), and the error rate concerning underpass crossing behavior (defined as either Entry or Refusal). A sequence of photographs was triggered by either animals (true trigger) or artefacts (false trigger). We quantified the number of false triggers that had actually been caused by animals that were not visible on the images (“false” false triggers). Camera traps failed to record 43.6% of small mammal events (voles, mice, shrews, etc.) and 17% of medium‐sized mammal events. The type of crossing behavior (Entry or Refusal) was incorrectly assessed in 40.1% of events, with a higher error rate for entries than for refusals. Among the 3.8% of false triggers, 85% of them were “false” false triggers. This study indicates a global underestimation of the effectiveness of wildlife crossings for small mammals. Means to improve the efficiency are discussed.

show abstract

Towards effective culvert design: monitoring seasonal use and behavior by Mediterranean mesocarnivores

Cited by 39 publications

References 38 publications

Mammal use of wildlife crossing structures along a new motorway in an area recently recolonized by wolves

Mammal use of wildlife crossing structures along a new motorway in an area recently recolonized by wolves

Inter-Individual Variability of Stone Marten Behavioral Responses to a Highway

A comparison of camera trap and permanent recording video camera efficiency in wildlife underpasses

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About