2009
DOI: 10.5751/es-02753-140127
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Road Zone Effects in Small-Mammal Communities

Abstract: Our study focused on the putative effects of roads on small-mammal communities in a high desert region of southern Utah. Specifically, we tested whether or not roads create adjacent zones characterized by lower small-mammal densities, abundance, and diversity. We sampled abundance of small mammals at increasing distances from Interstate 15 during two summers. We recorded 11 genera and 13 species. We detected no clear abundance, density, or diversity effects relative to distance from the road. Only two of 13 sp… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

2
47
0
2

Year Published

2010
2010
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
8
1
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 61 publications
(51 citation statements)
references
References 47 publications
2
47
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…Transmitter-equipped bobcats showed an avoidance of areas in proximity to roads based on use-versus-availability analysis (Reed 2013) .That avoidance could be a consequence of limited prey in these areas or a response to a perceived risk factor (e.g., traffic noise). We suspect that perceived risk is a more likely explanation because roadsides are often characterized by brushy edges that may be suitable habitat for potential prey (Bissonette and Rosa 2009;Fahrig and Rytwinski 2009). This may be especially relevant to some multi-lane highways in our study area that support relatively dense populations of lagomorphs (J. Litvaitis, personal observations; Fenderson et al 2014).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…Transmitter-equipped bobcats showed an avoidance of areas in proximity to roads based on use-versus-availability analysis (Reed 2013) .That avoidance could be a consequence of limited prey in these areas or a response to a perceived risk factor (e.g., traffic noise). We suspect that perceived risk is a more likely explanation because roadsides are often characterized by brushy edges that may be suitable habitat for potential prey (Bissonette and Rosa 2009;Fahrig and Rytwinski 2009). This may be especially relevant to some multi-lane highways in our study area that support relatively dense populations of lagomorphs (J. Litvaitis, personal observations; Fenderson et al 2014).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…The objective of mitigation is typically enhanced traffic safety rather than conservation. Important research efforts have focussed on identifying factors that explain the spatiotemporal distribution of roadkills, especially ungulates (Puglisi et al 1974;Bashore et al 1985;Finder et al 1999;Hubbard et al 2000;Joyce and Mahoney 2001;Nielsen et al 2003;Malo et al 2004;Mysterud 2004;Seiler 2004Seiler , 2005, but also large carnivores (Kolowski and Nielsen 2008) and smaller mammals (Inbar and Mayer 1999;Clevenger et al 2003;Ramp et al 2005;Bissonette and Rosa 2009;Grilo et al 2009). …”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Aside from the known direct negative effects of roads through hunting and logging access to remote areas (Coffin 2007;Goosem 2007) and wildlife mortality through vehicle collisions (Bissonette and Rosa 2009), roads also facilitate the spread of exotic flora and fauna (Hulme 2009), influence the spread of disease and danger to public health (Hahn et al 2014), introduce chemicals (Coffin 2007), alter microclimates (Camargo and Kapos 1995;Fraser 2014), increase the risk of fires (Fraser 2014) and act as dispersal barriers limiting the movements of individuals with and between populations (Bissonette and Rosa 2009;Goosem 2007;Laurance et al 2014a;Pocock and Lawrence 2005). As such, the negative effects of roads can extend well beyond physical boundaries into the forest landscape.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%