Recreational Co‐Use of Wildlife Crossing Structures

Ree, Rodney van der; Grift, E.A. van der

doi:10.1002/9781118568170.ch22

Cited by 25 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In this study, human activities appeared to influence mule deer use of overpasses along a major canal, although the effect varied across 2 seasons and between 2 types of human activities. Numerous researchers demonstrated that human activities can influence habitat use of wildlife (Reed and Merenlender 2008, Naylor et al 2009, Coppes et al 2017, Reilly et al 2017, Lewis et al 2021) and wildlife use of crossing structures along major roads (Clevenger and Walto 2000, Barrueto et al 2014, van der Ree and van der Grift 2015). This study contributes novel information about how human activities also influence wildlife use of crossing structures along canals, which can exhibit different patterns of human activities and disturbance compared to other types of ALIs.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Disturbances from vehicles, maintenance, and construction (i.e., activities from CAP canal personnel) can also cause mule deer to avoid areas because of increases in vehicle traffic and noise associated with these activities (Sawyer et al 2009, Northrup et al 2021). Few studies have evaluated the influence of human activities on use of crossing structures by wildlife across multiple resolutions of human and wildlife activity, although ungulates will reduce use of crossing structures that are also used by humans (Clevenger and Waltho 2000, van der Ree and van der Grift 2015).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A diversity of wildlife species will use overpasses along roads and other types of ALIs, such as canals (Olsson et al 2008, McGregor et al 2015, Simpson et al 2016, Denneboom et al 2021, Azedo et al 2022). Human activities (e.g., hiking) can influence wildlife use of overpasses along some types of ALIs (Clevenger and Waltho 2000, 2005; Barrueto et al 2014; van der Ree and van der Grift 2015). Compared to roads, relatively little information is available about how multiple types of human activities affect wildlife use of crossing structures, especially for some types of ALIs that are understudied.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, as human recreation increases in an area, some animals may avoid or reduce their use of the area (Jeppesen 1987, George and Crooks 2006, Spaul and Heath 2016, Lewis et al 2021). Specifically at crossing structures along roads, wildlife will use these areas less as human recreation increases (Clevenger and Waltho 2000, Olsson et al 2008, Grift et al 2011, Greene 2015, van der Ree and van der Grift 2015). In addition, wildlife might be especially sensitive to vehicle traffic (Tigas et al 2002, D'Amico et al 2015, Thurfjell et al 2015), and some wildlife avoid areas as traffic volume increases (Seiler 2005, Olsson et al 2008, Northrup et al 2012, Barrueto et al 2014, Jacobson et al 2016).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Human activities influence mule deer use of overpasses across multiple scales

Hamilton,

Bommarito,

Lewis

2024

J Wildl Manag

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Anthropogenic linear infrastructures (ALIs), including roads, railways, and canals, provide important resources to humans, but they can affect wildlife through habitat fragmentation and reduced movement through landscapes. To mitigate these effects, overpass crossing structures (i.e., overpasses) can facilitate wildlife movement across ALIs and maintain landscape connectivity. Human activities can potentially influence spatial and temporal patterns in wildlife use of overpasses; however, little information is available about human–wildlife interactions across some types of ALIs. Using remote wildlife cameras, we evaluated human and mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) use and interactions at 43 overpasses along the Central Arizona Project canal in Arizona, USA, during 2 seasons (warm and cool) from February 2021 to February 2022. Mule deer exhibited spatial avoidance of human activities at overpasses, although the effect varied across seasons and types of human activity. At a broad scale, the presence of recreationists at overpasses did not exclude mule deer from using overpasses to cross the canal; however, human presence reduced mule deer detection probability in the warm season. At a fine scale, mule deer decreased use of overpasses as activity associated with canal personnel (i.e., security and maintenance workers) increased in the cool season. For both seasons, mule deer exhibited greater overlap in daily activity patterns with recreationists compared to canal personnel. Further, mule deer shifted daily activity patterns to be more active earlier in the morning at sites with high amounts of recreational use compared to sites with lower recreational use. Because human activities can influence mule deer crossings at overpasses, managers might consider minimizing human activities at crossing locations to increase wildlife use and promote wildlife movement across canals and other types of ALIs.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Human activities influence mule deer use of overpasses across multiple scales

Hamilton,

Bommarito,

Lewis

2024

J Wildl Manag

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Fencing is commonly used to prevent wildlife road access except at crossing structures (van der Ree, Gagnon, et al, 2015). However, for monkeys with exceptional climbing ability, an effective fence design blocking ground crossings would be challenging.…”

Section: Bridge Effectivenessmentioning

confidence: 99%

An effect of canopy bridges on monkey‐vehicle collision hotspots: Spatial and spatiotemporal analyses

Cunneyworth

Andrášik

Bíl

2023

American J Primatol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Almost one‐quarter of primate species are reported to be involved in vehicle collisions. To mitigate these collisions, canopy bridges are used though their effectiveness is not broadly substantiated. We studied bridge impact on 23 years of vehicle collisions (2000–2022: N = 765) with colobus (Colobus angolensis palliatus), Sykes' (Cercopithecus mitis albogularis), and vervet (Chlorocebus pygerythrus hilgerti) monkeys in Diani, Kenya. Along a 9 km road, collisions did not decrease over the study duration, although bridges increased from 8 to 30. Using the kernel density estimation plus (KDE+) method, collisions appeared highly concentrated at some locations. These concentrations, called hotspots, represent hazardous road segments, though the hotspots for all three species overlapped for only 3% of the road length. We then inspected the collision hotspots over time, using the spatiotemporal extension of the KDE+ method. We compared hotspot presence in the 3 years before and after bridge installation to determine if bridges mitigated these hotspots. Hotspots disappeared for ~60% of bridges postinstallation, suggesting that bridges effectively reduce some collisions. However, of the bridges installed in locations that were not hotspots, 13% had hotspots emerge. Surprisingly, regardless of preinstallation hotspot occurrence, almost one‐fifth of bridges had postinstallation hotspots. To understand the extent to which bridges mitigate collisions, other factors need consideration, including species attributes and crossing behavior, and road features and vehicle volume. We used the novel analytical method because it best suited our data set, given the challenges of determining the bridge impact zone and the low collision frequency.

show abstract

Towns, Ecology, and the Land

Forman¹

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recreational Co‐Use of Wildlife Crossing Structures

Cited by 25 publications

References 9 publications

Human activities influence mule deer use of overpasses across multiple scales

Human activities influence mule deer use of overpasses across multiple scales

An effect of canopy bridges on monkey‐vehicle collision hotspots: Spatial and spatiotemporal analyses

Towns, Ecology, and the Land

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About