Effects of Roads on Small Mammals

Abstract

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.. British Ecological Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Applied Ecology. SUMMARY(1) The study was designed to determine the effects of roads on the diversity, spatial distribution, and density of small mammals.(2) Forty species of small mammal (5859 individuals) were snap-trapped in the study. Data resulted from 144 360 trap-nights of effort for an average of 4.06 captures per 100 trap-nights.(3) Small mammal community structure and density were both influenced by roads. Community structure in right-of-way (ROW) habitat was different from that in adjacent habitat. Five species did not prefer ROW habitat: the golden mouse, dusky-footed woodrat, brush mouse, pifion mouse, and California red-backed vole. However, there were more species present in ROW habitat than in adjacent habitat. Grassland species generally preferred ROW habitat and many less habitat-specific species were distributed in ROW and adjacent habitat.(4) Small mammal density (all species combined) was greater in interstate ROW habitat than in adjacent habitat. This was also true individually for the eastern harvest mouse, white-footed mouse, meadow vole, prairie vole, vagrant shrew, Townsend's vole, and California vole. Small mammal density was less in county road ROWs than in adjacent habitat, probably because of the small size of these areas. The data indicate that ROW habitat and its accompanying edge are attractive no; only to grassland species but also to many less habitat-specific species that make us, of the ROW-edge-adjacent habitat complex.(5) Mortality on interstate highways was greatest for those species with highest densities in ROW habitat, and did not appear to be detrimental to populations of these species.

Behavioral Responses of Northern Leopard Frogs (Rana pipiens) to Roads and Traffic: Implications for Population Persistence

“…Like amphibians, some snakes also stop or move more slowly on roads, increasing their vulnerability to road mortality (Andrews and Gibbons 2005). In contrast, studies on the effects of roads on small mammal abundances typically show very weak effects (Adams andGeis 1983, Rosa andBissonette 2007) or even positive effects (Johnson andCollinge 2004, Rytwinski andFahrig 2007). Several studies have documented that small mammals avoid going onto roads, probably due to the lack of protective cover on the road surface (Oxley et al 1974, Kozel and Fleharty 1979, Rico et al 2007, Ford and Fahrig 2008, McGregor et al 2008.…”

Nest Survival Relative to Patch Size in a Highly Fragmented Shortgrass Prairie Landscape

“…Spatial patterns in nestling mass and nest survival can be driven by many factors, including predation risk, food availability, and parental behaviors (Naef-Daenzer et al 2000, Ostfeld and Keesing 2000, Zanette et al 2000, 2011, Frid and Dill 2002, Massaro et al 2008. Areas of high turbine density may be risky for birds because rodent species that depredate nests are often more abundant near energy development and roads (Adams and Geis 1983, Rytwinski and Fahrig 2007, Abernethy 2011, Hethcoat and Chalfoun 2015. We therefore expected reduced nest survival near turbines, but personnel at the wind farms in our study combatted rodent infestations by setting traps at the bases of turbines (R. Brown personal communication), likely reducing the number of mice and therefore the probability that increased predation rates would be observed in relation to turbine proximity.…”

Influence of fragmentation and disturbance on the potential impact of feral predators on native fauna in Australian forest ecosystems

“…For example, a study in the USA found that there were more species of small mammals along roadside verges than in the adjacent habitat, and that most of the species that preferred the roadside verges and accompanying edge habitat were grassland and generalist species (Adams and Geis 1983;Adams 1984). There were also greater population densities of animals in the roadside habitat than in the adjacent habitat.…”