Artificial lighting reduces the effectiveness of wildlife-crossing structures for insectivorous bats

2020 ◽  
Vol 262 ◽  
pp. 110313
Author(s):  
M. Bhardwaj ◽  
K. Soanes ◽  
J.J. Lahoz-Monfort ◽  
L.F. Lumsden ◽  
R. van der Ree
Keyword(s):  
Insectivorous Bats ◽  
Artificial Lighting ◽  
Crossing Structures ◽  
Wildlife Crossing Structures

scholarly journals Landscape Characteristics Based on Effectiveness of Wildlife Crossing Structures in South Korea

2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 675
Author(s):  
Hyunjin Seo ◽  
Chulhyun Choi ◽  
Kyeongjun Lee ◽  
Donggul Woo
Keyword(s):  
Landscape Management ◽  
Spatial Pattern Analysis ◽  
Extrinsic Factors ◽  
Intrinsic Factors ◽  
Landscape Characteristics ◽  
Crossing Structures ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Management Plans ◽  
Wildlife Crossing Structures ◽  
Surrounding Landscape

Roads are notable and responsible for the loss of biodiversity and disruption of wildlife habitats connectivity. Wildlife crossing structures (WCS) help wildlife move between habitats by connecting fragmented habitats. Their effectiveness is affected by various factors. Here, to identify methods for improving the effectiveness of wildlife crossing structures, we controlled the effect of intrinsic factors, such as size, that are difficult to improve in an already installed area, and then, evaluated the differences in extrinsic factors using 12 landscape characteristics. Our results show that 18 wildlife crossing structures were selected with propensity-score (PS) matching method. The surrounding landscape characteristics differed between high-effectiveness wildlife crossing structures and low-effectiveness wildlife crossing structures. Particularly, there was a significant difference between the ‘statutory protected area’ and the ‘edge’ index of the morphological spatial pattern analysis among the landscape characteristic variables derived within 1 km2 of wildlife crossing structures. We empirically demonstrate that characteristics around highly effective WCS, statutory protected areas are widely distributed, and the ratio of edge of MSPA is low (within 1 km2). Therefore, an important outcome of our research is the demonstration that management of WCS itself is important, but conservation of surrounding habitats and landscape management plans are also significant.

scholarly journals The SLOSS dilemma of road ecology: Are several small wildlife crossing structures better than a single large?

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jan Olof Helldin
Keyword(s):  
Road Ecology ◽  
Landscape Composition ◽  
Ecological Knowledge ◽  
Target Species ◽  
Wildlife Ecology ◽  
Crossing Structures ◽  
Trade Offs ◽  
Wildlife Crossing Structures ◽  
New Research ◽  
Changes Over Time

Crossing structures for large wildlife are increasingly being constructed at major roads and railways in many countries, and current guidelines for wildlife mitigation at linear infrastructures tend to advocate for large crossing structures sited at major movement corridors for the target species. The concept of movement corridors has however been challenged, and pinching animal movements into bottlenecks entail risks. In this paper, I address the SLOSS dilemma of road ecology, i.e., the discussion whether a Single Large Or Several Small crossing structures along a linear barrier would produce the most benefit for wildlife. I point out risks, ecological as well as practical, with investing in one large crossing structure, and list a number of situations where it may be more beneficial to distribute the conservation efforts in the landscape by constructing several smaller crossing structures; for example when the ecological knowledge is insufficient, when animal interactions are expected to be significant, when the landscape changes over time, or when future human development cannot be controlled. I argue that such situations are often what infrastructure planning faces, and that the default strategy therefore should be to distribute rather than to concentrate passage opportunities along major transport infrastructures. I suggest that distributing passage opportunities over several smaller crossing structures would convey a risk diversification, and that this strategy could facilitate the planning of wildlife mitigation. What to choose would however depend on, i.a., landscape composition and ecology, and on relationships among target species. A single large should be selected where it is likely that it can serve a large proportion of target animals, and where the long-term functionality of the crossing structure can be guaranteed. I illustrate how species and regional differences may influence the choice, using the case of ungulates in Sweden. New research is needed to support trade-offs between size and number of crossing structures. Cost-effectiveness analyses of wildlife crossing structures are currently rare and need to be further explored. Camera trapping and video surveillance of crossing structures provide opportunities to analyze details concerning, for example, any individual biases according to sex, age, status and grouping, and any antagonism between species and individuals. Wildlife ecology research need to better address questions posed by road and railway planning regarding the importance of specific movement routes and movement distances.

Recreational Co-Use of Wildlife Crossing Structures

2015 ◽  
pp. 184-189
Author(s):  
Rodney van der Ree ◽  
Edgar A. van der Grift
Keyword(s):  
Crossing Structures ◽  
Wildlife Crossing Structures

Optimizing the positioning of wildlife crossing structures using GPS telemetry

2018 ◽  
Vol 55 (4) ◽  
pp. 2055-2063 ◽  
Author(s):  
Guillaume Bastille-Rousseau ◽  
Jake Wall ◽  
Iain Douglas-Hamilton ◽  
George Wittemyer
Keyword(s):  
Gps Telemetry ◽  
Crossing Structures ◽  
Wildlife Crossing Structures

Strategically Locating Wildlife Crossing Structures for Florida Panthers Using Maximal Covering Approaches

2013 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 46-65 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joni Downs ◽  
Mark Horner ◽  
Rebecca Loraamm ◽  
James Anderson ◽  
Hyun Kim ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Maximal Covering ◽  
Crossing Structures ◽  
Wildlife Crossing Structures

scholarly journals Monitoring the use of road-crossing structures by arboreal marsupials: insights gained from motion-triggered cameras and passive integrated transponder (PIT) tags

2015 ◽  
Vol 42 (3) ◽  
pp. 241 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kylie Soanes ◽  
Peter A. Vesk ◽  
Rodney van der Ree
Keyword(s):  
Individual Identification ◽  
Road Mortality ◽  
Pit Tag ◽  
Identification Methods ◽  
Passive Integrated Transponder ◽  
Crossing Structures ◽  
Animal Populations ◽  
Arboreal Marsupials ◽  
Eastern Australia ◽  
Wildlife Crossing Structures

Context Wildlife crossing structures are installed to mitigate the impacts of roads on animal populations, yet little is known about some aspects of their success. Many studies have monitored the use of structures by wildlife, but studies that also incorporate individual identification methods can offer additional insights into their effectiveness. Aims We monitored the use of wildlife crossing structures by arboreal marsupials along the Hume Freeway in south-eastern Australia to (1) determine the species using these structures and their frequency of crossing, (2) determine the number and demographic characteristics of individuals crossing, and (3) use the rate of crossing by individuals to infer the types of movement that occurred. Methods We used motion-triggered cameras to monitor five canopy bridges and 15 glider pole arrays installed at 13 sites along the Hume Freeway. The five canopy bridges were also monitored with passive integrated transponder (PIT)-tag readers to identify the rate of use by individuals. Key results Five species of arboreal marsupial were detected using canopy bridges and glider poles at 11 sites. Our analysis suggested that increasing the number and the distance between poles in a glider pole array reduced the rate of use by squirrel gliders. The PIT tag and camera footage revealed that the structures were used by adult males, adult females and juveniles, suggesting that all demographic groups are capable of using canopy bridges and glider poles. At two canopy bridges, multiple squirrel gliders and common brushtail possums crossed more than once per night. Conclusions Given that previous studies have shown that the freeway is a barrier to movement, and that many of the species detected crossing are subject to road mortality, we conclude that canopy bridges and glider poles benefit arboreal marsupials by providing safe access to resources that would otherwise be inaccessible. Implications Although the factors influencing crossing rate require further study, our analysis suggests that glider pole arrays with fewer poles placed closer together are likely to be more successful for squirrel gliders. The individual identification methods applied here offer insights that are not possible from measuring the rate of use alone and should be adopted in future monitoring studies.

Demographic Connectivity for Ursid Populations at Wildlife Crossing Structures in Banff National Park

2013 ◽  
Vol 27 (4) ◽  
pp. 721-730 ◽  
Author(s):  
MICHAEL A. SAWAYA ◽  
ANTHONY P. CLEVENGER ◽  
STEVEN T. KALINOWSKI
Keyword(s):  
National Park ◽  
Banff National Park ◽  
Crossing Structures ◽  
Wildlife Crossing Structures
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document