2018
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.10.056
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Synoptic scale mammal density index map based on roadkill records

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
8
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 13 publications
(8 citation statements)
references
References 33 publications
0
8
0
Order By: Relevance
“…A better understanding of the spatial distribution of WVC [4,20] requires consideration of many factors. They include, but are not limited to, understanding of wildlife movements and behaviors, localization of wildlife corridors [51,[56][57][58], knowledge of population density [59], population dynamics and habitat properties. In line with other authors [15,52,53,60] we also confirm that placing mitigation measures is challenging, because of the lack of knowledge on the local spatiotemporal patterns of wildlife dynamics, including population, behavior, pathways and habitat suitability [13,20].…”
Section: Evaluation Of Wildlife Fencesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A better understanding of the spatial distribution of WVC [4,20] requires consideration of many factors. They include, but are not limited to, understanding of wildlife movements and behaviors, localization of wildlife corridors [51,[56][57][58], knowledge of population density [59], population dynamics and habitat properties. In line with other authors [15,52,53,60] we also confirm that placing mitigation measures is challenging, because of the lack of knowledge on the local spatiotemporal patterns of wildlife dynamics, including population, behavior, pathways and habitat suitability [13,20].…”
Section: Evaluation Of Wildlife Fencesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Two covariates were considered to analyse their effects on the spatial distribution of roadkills: surface of forests and surface of crop fields, given as a percentage based on a buffer area of 0.5 km around the roads. Several authors have considered these two covariates as possible predictors of wildlife-vehicle collisions, see for instance, Ha and Shilling (2018), Hegland and Hamre (2018), Tatewaki and Kioke (2018) who have considered forests as an explanatory covariate to explain the distribution of roadkills, whilst Hubbard et al (2000), Acevedo et al (2014), Colino-Rabanal andPeris (2016) analysed the effect of the surface of crop fields as a predictor for these type of traffic collisions.…”
Section: Case Study: Wildlife-vehicle Collisions On a Road Networkmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A better understanding of the spatial distribution of WVC [4] requires the consideration of many factors. They include, but are not limited to, understanding of wildlife movements and behaviours, localisation of wildlife corridors [38,[47][48][49], knowledge of population density [50], population dynamics and habitat properties. In line with other authors [15,51,52] we also con rm that placing of mitigation measures is challenging, due to the lack of knowledge on the local spatial-temporal patterns of wildlife dynamics, including population, behaviour, pathways and habitat suitability [13].…”
Section: Evaluation Of Wildlife Fencesmentioning
confidence: 99%