Experimental study designs to improve the evaluation of road mitigation measures for wildlife

Rytwinski, Trina; Ree, Rodney van der; Cunnington, Glenn M.; Fahrig, Lenore; Findlay, C. Scott; Houlahan, Jeff E.; Jaeger, Jochen A.G.; Soanes, Kylie; Grift, E.A. van der

doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2015.01.048

Cited by 69 publications

(74 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, four studies postulated that the way crossing structures are currently selected and even evaluated is biased and called for more effective mitigation selection and surveillance protocols [104,[125][126][127]. Similarly, a study conducted in a conservation area in South Africa revealed that the way roadkill surveys are undertaken can strongly influence road mortality estimates [128].…”

Section: Survey Design and Mitigationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of Road Density and Pattern on the Conservation of Species and Biodiversity

Bennett

2017

Curr Landscape Ecol Rep

137

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The development and presence of roads can reduce landscape permeability, lead to habitat loss, and increase habitat fragmentation. It is these fundamental changes in landscape structure that can have both direct and indirect impacts on the conservation of species and biodiversity. In this review, I examine 215 research studies conducted between 2011 and 2015 that explore the impacts of roads and road networks on a wide range of species. I divided these studies into four main categories: 1) the direct effects of roads on wildlife, 2) the indirect effects of roads on wildlife, 3) the consequences of road networks on wildlife populations, and 4) survey design and mitigation including both innovations and evaluations. I found that the majority of studies (38%) explored the indirect effects of roads on wildlife, including displacement, fitness consequences, and road crossing ability of wildlife. Nevertheless, despite there being a pressing need to understand how existing road networks impact wildlife and how increasing road density may influence local and regional population persistence, only 10% of the studies considered the implications of road networks on wildlife. However, there is an increasing trend towards the development of predictive models that can be used for a better understanding of road network impacts, assess landscape connectivity, and devise mitigation. This review also highlighted the continued need to devise and evaluate mitigation measures so transportation authorities and conservation practitioners may be better equipped to address the ecological implications of roads and proposed road development.

show abstract

Section: Survey Design and Mitigationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of Road Density and Pattern on the Conservation of Species and Biodiversity

Bennett

2017

Curr Landscape Ecol Rep

137

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Monitoring is limited by practical considerations of cost and feasibility, so a survey of all species is unrealistic (Rytwinski et al 2015;van der Grift et al 2013). In fact, costs are one of the main reasons that the state of the habitats and species crossed by a railway are often not assessed.…”

Section: Designing a Wildlife Mortality Monitoring Plan For Railwaysmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For instance, railway mortality should be presented as an index, reflecting the number of casualties/km/year, and these results should include information on sampling effort and periodicity (Peña and Llama 1997;SCV 1996). In order to achieve consistency in the use of similar methods over temporal and spatial scales so that comparisons can be made, cooperation is required, and specialized personnel should be trained (Roedenbeck et al 2007;Rytwinski et al 2015).…”

Section: Standardization Of Monitoringmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Guidelines for evaluating the effectiveness of road mitigation measures have been proposed for roads (van der Grift et al 2013;Rytwinski et al 2015; van der Grift and van der Ree 2015), but since no similar research has been done specifically for railways, one can consider the guidelines for roads as a starting point.…”

Section: Evaluating the Effectiveness Of Mortality Mitigation Measuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Methods to Monitor and Mitigate Wildlife Mortality in Railways

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recording wildlife mortality on railways is challenging as they have narrow corridors and lower accessibility. To improve mitigation measures, surveys must be systematic and their frequency depending on the targeted species traits and biology. To obtain unbiased estimates in diverse contexts, the data should be corrected using mortality estimators. Mitigation measures must avoid that animals remain on the tracks, as trains cannot be instantly stopped. Box culverts, amphibian tunnels, and under-or overpasses allow a safe crossing, whereas exclusion fences, olfactory repellents, sound signals and sound barriers prevent the crossing of railways. Habitat management in railway verges improves the animal capability to evade trains.

show abstract

“…Consequently, we have a poor understanding of the relative importance of structural attributes (design) and locational attributes (placement) to crossing performance. Furthermore, most mitigation projects that involve wildlife fences and wildlife crossing structures primarily address an immediate problem (e.g., reducing wildlife vehicle collisions) and are not intended to contribute novel data (Rytwinski et al, 2015). Wildlife mitigation measures are usually considered late in the project planning process after limitations on design or placement have already been imposed (Cramer and Bissonette, 2007;Kroll, 2015).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Performance of Arch-Style Road Crossing Structures from Relative Movement Rates of Large Mammals

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In recent decades, an increasing number of highway construction and reconstruction projects have included mitigation measures aimed at reducing wildlife-vehicle collisions and maintaining habitat connectivity for wildlife. The most effective and robust measures include wildlife fences combined with wildlife underpasses and overpasses. The 39 wildlife crossing structures included along a 90 km stretch of US Highway 93 on the Flathead Indian Reservation in western Montana represent one of the most extensive of such projects. We measured movements of large mammal species at 15 elliptical arch-style wildlife underpasses and adjacent habitat between April and November 2015. We investigated if the movements of large mammals through the underpasses were similar to large mammal movements in the adjacent habitat. Across all structures, large mammals (all species combined) were more likely to move through the structures than pass at a random location in the surrounding habitat. At the species level, white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) and mule deer (O. hemionus) used the underpasses significantly more than could be expected based on their movement through the surrounding habitat. However, carnivorous species such as, black bear (Ursus americanus) and coyote (Canis latrans) moved through the underpasses in similar numbers compared to the surrounding habitat.

show abstract

Experimental study designs to improve the evaluation of road mitigation measures for wildlife

Cited by 69 publications

References 25 publications

Effects of Road Density and Pattern on the Conservation of Species and Biodiversity

Effects of Road Density and Pattern on the Conservation of Species and Biodiversity

Methods to Monitor and Mitigate Wildlife Mortality in Railways

Performance of Arch-Style Road Crossing Structures from Relative Movement Rates of Large Mammals

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About