1
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Use of underpasses by animals on a fenced expressway in a suburban area in western Poland

      , , , ,

      Nature Conservation

      Pensoft Publishers

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisher
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Expressways act as barriers to animals that block free movement in their habitats, especially when the roads are continuously fenced to prevent collisions between animals and vehicles. Various types of animal passages have been repeatedly studied in terms of their utility, albeit rather less frequently in the suburban environment. We conducted our research in a section of the fenced expressway S3 connecting two closely located cities in western Poland (Lubuskie province). Over the course of one year, we monitored four underpasses intended for small- and medium-sized animals using tracks. The underpasses were inspected weekly. Animal traces most frequently found belonged to roe deer Capreolus capreolus (20.9%), red fox Vulpes vulpes (15.1%), wild boar Sus scrofa (14%), and domestic dog Canis l. familiaris (12.4%). Surprisingly, the results of our study indicate that underpasses for small and medium mammals are also used by ungulate mammals. The use of the underpasses varied seasonally, being the highest in spring (37.9%) and the lowest in winter (10.4%). Moreover, seasonal differences in the use of passages were related to particular species/groups of animal species. We found that 22% of animals that entered the passage did not completely traverse it. People accounted for 17.1% of all stated traces in the underpasses. Stagnant water in the underpasses reduced the number of predatory mammals and wild boars using the underpasses but did not affect the activity of roe deer. These studies indicate that animal underpasses located in suburban areas are used by many species of animals despite the activity of humans and domesticated mammals.

          Related collections

          Most cited references 34

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Use of highway undercrossings by wildlife in southern California

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Do small mammals avoid roads because of the traffic?

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              How Effective Is Road Mitigation at Reducing Road-Kill? A Meta-Analysis

              Road traffic kills hundreds of millions of animals every year, posing a critical threat to the populations of many species. To address this problem there are more than forty types of road mitigation measures available that aim to reduce wildlife mortality on roads (road-kill). For road planners, deciding on what mitigation method to use has been problematic because there is little good information about the relative effectiveness of these measures in reducing road-kill, and the costs of these measures vary greatly. We conducted a meta-analysis using data from 50 studies that quantified the relationship between road-kill and a mitigation measure designed to reduce road-kill. Overall, mitigation measures reduce road-kill by 40% compared to controls. Fences, with or without crossing structures, reduce road-kill by 54%. We found no detectable effect on road-kill of crossing structures without fencing. We found that comparatively expensive mitigation measures reduce large mammal road-kill much more than inexpensive measures. For example, the combination of fencing and crossing structures led to an 83% reduction in road-kill of large mammals, compared to a 57% reduction for animal detection systems, and only a 1% for wildlife reflectors. We suggest that inexpensive measures such as reflectors should not be used until and unless their effectiveness is tested using a high-quality experimental approach. Our meta-analysis also highlights the fact that there are insufficient data to answer many of the most pressing questions that road planners ask about the effectiveness of road mitigation measures, such as whether other less common mitigation measures (e.g., measures to reduce traffic volume and/or speed) reduce road mortality, or to what extent the attributes of crossing structures and fences influence their effectiveness. To improve evaluations of mitigation effectiveness, studies should incorporate data collection before the mitigation is applied, and we recommend a minimum study duration of four years for Before-After, and a minimum of either four years or four sites for Before-After-Control-Impact designs.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Nature Conservation
                NC
                Pensoft Publishers
                1314-3301
                1314-6947
                April 24 2020
                April 24 2020
                : 39
                : 1-18
                Article
                10.3897/natureconservation.39.33967
                © 2020

                Comments

                Comment on this article