Western grey kangaroos (Macropus fuliginosus) include fauna underpasses in their home range

Abstract

Context The presence of large mammals on roads poses a serious risk to both the animals and motorists if collisions with vehicles occur. Fencing roads can reduce this risk, and it also limits the landscape-scale movements of animals. By also constructing fauna underpasses it may be possible to avoid collisions with vehicles, while, at the same time, allowing the natural movement of animals across the landscape. Aims We aimed to determine whether western grey kangaroos (Macropus fulignosus) would use fauna underpasses and to determine how this may affect their home range. Methods We used motion-activated infrared cameras to monitor the use of one large 8 × 3 m arched underpass and two 0.9-m-diameter fauna underpasses over 342 days between March 2011 and March 2012. The underpasses were situated between reserves separated by a four-lane fenced highway, with one reserve surrounded by residential properties. At the same time, 20 kangaroos (10 males and 10 females) were radio-tracked to determine the size of their home range and to test whether the animals incorporated the fauna underpasses into their daily movements. Key results The large fauna underpass was used 3116 times by individual kangaroos in groups of up to 21 animals, whereas the two smaller underpasses were used only twice. In total, 14 of the 20 radio-collared kangaroos used the large underpass over the course of the study, but underpass use did not affect home-range size. Kangaroos that did not use the underpass had a significantly higher proportion of their home range on residential properties surrounding one of the reserves than did those kangaroos that used the underpass. Conclusions The use of the underpass did not affect the size of the home range of the kangaroos, but it allowed the kangaroos to access grazing areas that would have been otherwise inaccessible. Fauna underpasses allow the safe passage of kangaroos between isolated remnant vegetation patches and may reduce significantly the risks posed to motorists and kangaroos from collisions. Implications Fencing roads and constructing fauna underpasses is a viable solution to reducing some of the problems of managing large kangaroos in peri-urban areas.

Post-Release Monitoring of Western Grey Kangaroos (Macropus fuliginosus) Relocated from an Urban Development Site

“…Over time, the movement patterns of these three animals became more regular and contained focal points that were repeatedly revisited—behavioural patterns indicating that they were adapting well to their new environment [ 53 ]. The home range size estimates for these three kangaroos was generally smaller than reported in other studies of the same species (e.g., [ 37 , 47 ]).…”

“…On the smaller-scale, Munn et al [ 36 ] reported no losses of 11 western grey kangaroos taken from the wild and relocated to an enclosure. Chachelle et al [ 37 ] likewise documented no deaths resulting from the sedation and capture of 20 western grey kangaroos. Higginbottom and Page [ 12 ] documented the relocation of 10 eastern grey kangaroos and reported 80% surviving after four months and 60% surviving for a year.…”

Impacts of exclusion fencing on target and non‐target fauna: a global review

“…In road fencing, wildlife over‐ and underpasses are often utilised with varying degrees of success against a wide variety of species (e.g. Bissonette & Rosa, 2012; Bager & Fontoura, 2013; Chachelle et al ., 2016). Of the 13 publications testing wildlife passes identified in this review, 12 reported general success, although five of these also reported caveats to success such as a target or small species failing to use the pass (Taylor & Goldingay, 2003; McCollister & Van Manen, 2010), or pass use declining with increased vehicular traffic (Olsson, Widen, & Larkin, 2008).…”

Are wildlife escape ramps needed along Australian highways?

“…; Chachelle et al . ). Road‐crossing structures in combination with fencing have been proven to be successful in reducing roadkill and enabling the movement of many species (Clevenger et al .…”

“…R oads that traverse natural habitats invariably lead to roadkill of native wildlife and may also create barriers to the movements of some species (Forman & Alexander 1998;Trombulak & Frissell 2000;Taylor & Goldingay 2004;Goldingay & Taylor 2006;Coffin 2007;Fahrig & Rytwinski 2009;Yokochi et al 2015). To mitigate road mortality and barrier effects, road agencies now install wildlife exclusion fencing to prevent road incursions (Clevenger et al 2001;Jaeger & Fahrig 2004), and road-crossing structures such as underpasses and overpasses to enable the passage of wildlife across roads (Coffin 2007;van der Ree et al 2007;Bond & Jones 2008;Taylor & Goldingay 2010;McGregor et al 2015;Soanes et al 2015;Chachelle et al 2016). Road-crossing structures in combination with fencing have been proven to be successful in reducing roadkill and enabling the movement of many species (Clevenger et al 2001;Gagnon et al 2011;Bissonette & Rosa 2012;.…”