Search

Abstract Road mortality is the most easily visible effect of roads and traffic on wildlife populations. Mitigation measures such as fences and wildlife passages have been applied to reduce these effects. During the widening of Quebec's Highway 175 from two to four lanes between 2006 and 2012, 33 wildlife passages designed specifically for small and medium-sized mammals were installed under the road in combination with short fences. This study examined the effectiveness of the fences at reducing the number of small and medium-sized mammals killed along a 68 km section of the road while controlling for the potential confounding effects of landscape variables. Repeated daily mortality surveys were conducted by car during the summers of 2012–2015 to measure roadkill occurrence and detection probability. A total of 893 dead animals from 13 taxa were detected. Roadkill occurrence was significantly greater at fence ends than in fenced sections and unfenced sections (fence-end effect), indicating that the fences were not long enough to discourage animals from moving along the fence to the fence ends. Greater length would be required to meet the target of reduced road mortality. Shrubby vegetation in the median strip separating the two directions of the highway was associated with high roadkill occurrence for medium-sized species. Roadkill detection probability for all species combined was 0.72, ranging from 0.17 for small mammals (<1 kg) to 0.82 for medium-sized mammals (>1 kg). To reduce road mortality, when wildlife passages are constructed along with new highways or retrofitted to old highways, fences either should be continuous or sufficiently long to encourage passage use rather than movement around the fence ends. Future road mortality studies should be combined with data about wildlife abundance and detection probability to more accurately estimate the effects at the population level. Graphical abstract Image Highlights • The study addresses the effectiveness of mitigation measures at reducing roadkill. • Detection probability ranged from 0.17 (small) to 0.82 (medium-sized mammals). • Landscape variables (distance to forest, etc.) influenced spatial roadkill patterns. • Roadkill levels were higher at fence ends than within fenced and unfenced sections. • The fences were not long enough to meet the target of road mortality reduction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: There is an increasing need and interest in including indicators of landscape fragmentation in monitoring systems of sustainable landscape management. Landscape fragmentation due to transportation infrastructure and urban development threatens human and environmental well-being by noise and pollution from traffic, reducing the size and viability of wildlife populations, facilitating the spread of invasive species, and impairing the scenic and recreational qualities of the landscape. This paper provides the rationale, method, and data for including landscape fragmentation in monitoring systems, using as an example the Swiss Monitoring System of Sustainable Development (Monet). We defined and compared four levels of fragmentation analysis, or fragmentation geometries (FGs), each based on different fragmenting elements, e.g., only anthropogenic, or combinations of anthropogenic and natural elements. As each FG has specific strengths and weaknesses, the most appropriate choice of FG depends on the context and objectives of a study. We present data on the current degree of landscape fragmentation for the five ecoregions and 26 cantons in Switzerland for all four FGs. Our results show that the degree of landscape fragmentation as quantified by the effective mesh size method is strongly supported by the postulates and indicator selection criteria of Monet, and we identify the most suitable FG focusing on the land area below 2100m (e.g., excluding lakes) and allowing for an equitable comparison of fragmentation degrees among regions that differ in area covered by lakes and high mountains. For a more detailed analysis of landscape fragmentation in the context of environmental impact assessments and strategic environmental assessments, a combination of all four FGs may provide a more informative tool than any single FG. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Roads increase wildlife mortality and present a movement barrier for many species. While wildlife passages have been advocated as a solution to many of the problems associated with roads, they are expensive and many roads still have none. However, roads usually have a series of drainage culverts designed to allow water to cross underneath the road, which might also be used by some mammals. This study aims to (1) determine what variables influence the number of successful passages of drainage culverts by mammals, and to (2) parse the effects that these variables have on the entry into and subsequent full passage of drainage culverts by individual mammals, using cameras and animal track stations along a 20 km stretch of autoroute 10 in Southern Quebec (Canada). Overall, 20 species were observed outside of the drainage culverts, but only about half of them were detected making full crossings. While various species were often seen outside, only animals highly tolerant to water, including raccoons (Procyon lotor) and American mink (Neovison vison), were observed fully crossing the structures with regularity, whereas the number of full crossings was small (<8) for all other species. High-water levels and use of polyethylene as a construction material were the strongest deterrents for both the number of successful passages and the probability of entry into the culverts. While several variables (e.g., water level, structure material, moon luminosity, distance to forest) influenced culvert entry, none had an influence on a mammal's probability of complete passage once it had entered. The results imply that ordinary drainage culverts are unsuitable as substitutes for designated wildlife passages for mammals. We recommend the installation of designated wildlife passages and fences, and that in places where wildlife passages are not feasible, dry ledges be installed in existing drainage culverts to better allow small and medium-sized mammals to safely cross under roads while avoiding the water inside of the culverts. To our knowledge, this study is the first to successfully combine trail cameras inside of drainage culverts with track-box data in the adjacent habitat. Image 1 • We asked what species use ordinary drainage culverts under roads to cross safely. (80). • Twenty species were observed outside the drainage culverts, but only few used them. (82). • Only two species highly tolerant to water crossed the structures regularly. (74). • Water level and polyethylene as construction material were the strongest deterrents. (85). • Drainage culverts are unsuitable as substitutes for wildlife passages for mammals. (81). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An experimental approach to road mitigation that maximizes inferential power is essential to ensure that mitigation is both ecologically-effective and cost-effective. Here, we set out the need for and standards of using an experimental approach to road mitigation, in order to improve knowledge of the influence of mitigation measures on wildlife populations. We point out two key areas that need to be considered when conducting mitigation experiments. First, researchers need to get involved at the earliest stage of the road or mitigation project to ensure the necessary planning and funds are available for conducting a high quality experiment. Second, experimentation will generate new knowledge about the parameters that influence mitigation effectiveness, which ultimately allows better prediction for future road mitigation projects. We identify seven key questions about mitigation structures (i.e., wildlife crossing structures and fencing) that remain largely or entirely unanswered at the population-level: (1) Does a given crossing structure work? What type and size of crossing structures should we use? (2) How many crossing structures should we build? (3) Is it more effective to install a small number of large-sized crossing structures or a large number of small-sized crossing structures? (4) How much barrier fencing is needed for a given length of road? (5) Do we need funnel fencing to lead animals to crossing structures, and how long does such fencing have to be? (6) How should we manage/manipulate the environment in the area around the crossing structures and fencing? (7) Where should we place crossing structures and barrier fencing? We provide experimental approaches to answering each of them using example Before-After-Control-Impact (BACI) study designs for two stages in the road/mitigation project where researchers may become involved: (1) at the beginning of a road/mitigation project, and (2) after the mitigation has been constructed; highlighting real case studies when available. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]