Wildlife Interactions within Highway Underpasses

Caldwell, Molly R.; Klip, J. Mario K.

doi:10.1002/jwmg.21801

Cited by 24 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The most notable of our conclusions is that predators and prey do not use wildlife passages independently and that observed dependencies seem related to size(prey)-matching, with potential repercussions for the usefulness of such structures, as was also recently pointed out by Caldwell and Klip [19]. On the one hand, crossing structures may become prey traps if predators use them to seek prey [16].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 72%

“…Dickson and colleagues [17] found no evidence of cougars being attracted to crossing structures to hunt deer, and Ford and Clevenger [18] have shown that evidence of predator-prey interactions among large mammals at wildlife crossings do not match the prey-trap hypothesis in the Trans-Canada Highway. However, recently, Caldwell and Klip [19] have found that predator-prey interactions influenced underpass uses by several species, but little is known about the generality of these findings and, particularly, if passages may influence interactions between smaller-sized predators and prey. Among them, a close association between both groups may happen, and some species may show less aversion to the road environment [18].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Attraction and Avoidance between Predators and Prey at Wildlife Crossings on Roads

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Wildlife passages are currently built at roads and railway lines to re-establish connectivity. However, little is known about whether predator-prey interactions may reduce the effectiveness of the crossing structures. We evaluated the co-occurrence patterns of predator-prey species-pairs at 113 crossing structures, noting their coincidence at the same structure and/or on the same day. We built occupancy models using presence-absence matrices for three prey and five predator types obtained during 2076 passage-days of monitoring. The results indicate that predators and prey do not use passages independently. Attraction or segregation effects occurred in 20% of predator-prey species-pairs and were detected in 67% of cases with respect to same-day use. Our results show that both predator and prey species used the same structures to cross fenced roads. However, the spatial and daily patterns of crossing suggest that there were predators that attended crossings to search for prey and that prey species avoided using crossings in the presence of predators. Our results support two recommendations to avoid crossing structures losing effectiveness or becoming prey traps: (i) increase the number of wider structures to reduce the risks of predator-prey encounters and (ii) include inside them structural heterogeneity and refuges, to reduce the likelihood for predator-prey interactions.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 72%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Attraction and Avoidance between Predators and Prey at Wildlife Crossings on Roads

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…An alternative to our conclusion that prey avoid a prey-trap (whether or not it was through temporal clustering by prey) is that predators track prey, but we failed to detect those efforts. A recent study inferred spatiotemporal avoidance from a significantly smaller sample size than seen here, while still not documenting interspecific interactions in the wildlife passages 23 . While we cannot rule out the possibility that the use of the wildlife passages here was still too infrequent for scent trails to be readily used in this study system this possibility is unlikely, especially given this earlier study.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 64%

“…Only a handful of studies have empirically tested the prey-trap hypothesis in the context of wildlife passages 17 , 19 , 23 , 24 , but these offer insufficient evidence to determine the generality of a prey-trap effect 18 , 25 . In the context of wildlife passages, a prey-trap could occur via several mechanisms.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Temporal clustering of prey in wildlife passages provides no evidence of a prey-trap

Martinig

Riaz

Clair

2020

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Wildlife passages are structures built across roads to facilitate wildlife movement and prevent wildlife collisions with vehicles. The efficacy of these structures could be reduced if they funnel prey into confined spaces at predictable locations that are exploited by predators. We tested the so-called preytrap hypothesis using remote cameras in 17 wildlife passages in Quebec, Canada from 2012 to 2015 by measuring the temporal occurrence of nine small and medium-sized mammal taxa (< 30 kg) that we classified as predators and prey. We predicted that the occurrence of a prey-trap would be evidenced by greater frequencies and shorter latencies of sequences in which predators followed prey, relative to prey-prey sequences. Our results did not support the prey-trap hypothesis; observed prey-predator sequences showed no difference or were less frequent than expected, even when prey were unusually abundant or rare or at sites with higher proportions of predators. Prey-predator latencies were also 1.7 times longer than prey-prey sequences. These results reveal temporal clustering of prey that may dilute predation risk inside wildlife passages. We encourage continued use of wildlife passages as mitigation tools. The negative ecological effects of road networks worldwide are extensive and well-documented 1-3. For many species of wildlife, these negative effects include direct mortality from wildlife-vehicle collisions 4, 5 and barriers to animal movement 2, 6, 7. By reducing the functional connectivity of landscapes, roads can restrict dispersal and gene flow to subdivide populations, ultimately reducing genetic diversity 2, 3. Barrier effects may be especially prevalent for small animals with limited mobility 6, 7 and high sensitivity to road surfaces and traffic 8, 9. The barrier effects of roads can be mitigated with wildlife passages: structures designed or installed to facilitate animal movement over or under a road 10, 11. Although road mitigation for large mammals has attracted more public attention, wildlife passages are also effective for small species of vertebrates, including small mammals 12-14. However, these structures have the potential to alter relationships between prey and predators 15 , including by funnelling animals into confined spaces that might be exploited by predators to trap prey 16, 17. The prey-trap hypothesis predicts that predators learn to exploit wildlife passages if the structures concentrate animal movement in predictable locations, thereby increasing prey detection and capture 12, 17-19. Among mammals, both prey and predators emphasize olfactory and visual cues to detect the recent presence of other animals 20 and the presence of predator feces or urine can induce avoidance behaviour in prey or attraction by predators 21, 22. Only a handful of studies have empirically tested the prey-trap hypothesis in the context of wildlife passages 17, 19, 23, 24 , but these offer insufficient evidence to determine the generality of a prey-trap effect 18, 25. In the context of wildlife passages, a pre...

show abstract

“…To reduce WVCs and improve migration corridors across roadways, crossing structures (i.e., underpasses and overpasses) are an effective solution in many countries (Clevenger and Waltho 2000, Olsson et al 2008, Smith et al 2015, Sawyer et al 2016 b , Caldwell and Klip 2020). Researchers have reported that wildlife crossing structures are effective at reducing mortalities and improving permeability along wildlife corridors, particularly for large migratory species, such as mule deer ( Odocoileus hemionus ; Mata et al 2008, Sawyer et al 2012, Stewart 2015, Simpson et al 2016).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Mule Deer Migrations and Highway Underpass Usage in California, USA

Caldwell

Klip

2021

J Wildl Manag

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Roadways may pose barriers to long‐distance migrators such as some ungulates. Highway underpasses mitigate wildlife‐vehicle collisions and can be an important management tool for protecting migration corridors. In northern California, 3 underpasses were built on United States Route 395 (Route 395) in Hallelujah Junction Wildlife Area (HJWA) in the 1970s for a migratory mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) herd that had been negatively affected by highway traffic. To determine whether these underpasses were still reducing mule deer mortalities >40 years after construction, we investigated deer use of the underpasses from 2006–2019 using cameras, global positioning system (GPS) collars, and roadkill records. We used occupancy models, approximations of GPS‐collared mule deer movement paths, and roadkill locations to estimate the highway crossing patterns of deer. From camera data, there was higher use of the underpasses by deer during migration (spring [Mar–Jun], fall [Oct–Dec]) than in summer (Jul–Sep), when only resident deer were present. Higher underpass usage occurred in the spring compared to fall migrations. Eleven of 21 GPS‐collared migrating mule deer crossed Route 395. We estimated 30% of the crossings (by 7 of the 11 deer) occurred south of the underpasses where deer could easily access the highway because of short (1‐m high) and deteriorating highway fencing. Roadkill data confirmed that deer‐vehicle collisions were occurring south of the underpasses and at the underpasses. This was likely due to deteriorating infrastructure at the underpasses that allows wildlife access to the highway. Overall, our study indicated that although underpasses can provide safe passage for migratory deer decades (>40 yr) after their construction, deteriorating infrastructure such as fencing and gates can lead to wildlife mortalities on highways near underpasses. © 2021 The Wildlife Society.

show abstract

Wildlife Interactions within Highway Underpasses

Cited by 24 publications

References 33 publications

Attraction and Avoidance between Predators and Prey at Wildlife Crossings on Roads

Attraction and Avoidance between Predators and Prey at Wildlife Crossings on Roads

Temporal clustering of prey in wildlife passages provides no evidence of a prey-trap

Mule Deer Migrations and Highway Underpass Usage in California, USA

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About