2006
DOI: 10.2193/0091-7648(2006)34[1295:coubam]2.0.co;2
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Characteristics of Ungulate Behavior and Mortality Associated with Wire Fences

Abstract: We studied the characteristics of pronghorn (Antilocapra americana), mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), and elk (Cervus elaphus) mortalities associated with wire fences along roads in Colorado and Utah, USA, from June 2004 to June 2005. We estimated an average annual mortality occurrence of 0.25 mortalities/km for the wire fences studied (0.08 mule deer mortalities/km, 0.11 pronghorn mortalities/km, and 0.06 elk mortalities/km) or 0.5 mortalities/km of road. The highest wire fence-mortality rates in our study ar… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

4
104
3
1

Year Published

2009
2009
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 85 publications
(112 citation statements)
references
References 4 publications
4
104
3
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Causes of juvenile mortality in the wild today are many, but the ones most frequently mentioned in relevant studies include accidents, starvation and malnutrition, diseases including congenital defects, extreme weather conditions, low neonatal body weight, inadequate maternal protection, high population density, and predation (Sarno et al, 1999). With regard to accidents, a study of mortality associated with wire fences in the western United States (Harrington and Conover, 2006) showed that juveniles of pronghorn (Antilocapra americana), mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), and elk (Cervus elaphus) were eight times more likely to die from fence-related accidents than adults. Interestingly, the highest mortality associated with wire fencing was observed during August, coinciding with the wean- ing of fawns.…”
Section: Juvenile Mortalitymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Causes of juvenile mortality in the wild today are many, but the ones most frequently mentioned in relevant studies include accidents, starvation and malnutrition, diseases including congenital defects, extreme weather conditions, low neonatal body weight, inadequate maternal protection, high population density, and predation (Sarno et al, 1999). With regard to accidents, a study of mortality associated with wire fences in the western United States (Harrington and Conover, 2006) showed that juveniles of pronghorn (Antilocapra americana), mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), and elk (Cervus elaphus) were eight times more likely to die from fence-related accidents than adults. Interestingly, the highest mortality associated with wire fencing was observed during August, coinciding with the wean- ing of fawns.…”
Section: Juvenile Mortalitymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In May 2008, Russian border guards temporarily dismantled fences in a good-will gesture that allowed passage for some gazelles. However, for a long-term solution, relatively minor changes to existing wire fences, such as the removal of the bottom strand of wire, lay down fences, or buck and pole fencing may be suf¿ cient to allow Mongolian gazelles to cross and avoid entanglement or prevent access to important forage (Harrington & Connover, 2006;Yoakum, 2004;Scott, 1992;Kindschey et al, 1982); however this solution Figure 3. Mongolian gazelles attempting to cross and one already successfully crossed a portion of the Trans Mongolian railway fence in Govi Sumber Aimag, Mongolia.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The impact of fencing on the ability of wildlife to access crucial habitat can have devastating affects and have the potential to severely reduce their numbers, prevent population recovery, and cause economic damage (Bies, 2007;Cohn, 2007;Harrington & Connover, 2006;Ringrose et al, 1997;Williamson & Mbano, 1983). Animal species whose life histories entail longdistance movements may be especially sensitive to habitat fragmentation and associated humangenerated barriers to movement (Berger, 2004).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The final set of environmental variables comprised elevation, distance to wetlands and rivers, vegetation communities, distance to protected areas, distance to urban settlements, and slope. the survival probability of ungulates crossing highways, even in low traffic conditions (Harrington & Conover, 2006). We therefore allocated the maximum resistance value of 100 in fenced sections of the highway.…”
Section: Habitat Suitability Modelling and Resistance Surfacementioning
confidence: 99%