Animal use of fence crossings in southwestern rangelands.

Abstract

Net‐wire fencing built to confine livestock is common on rangelands in the Southwestern USA, yet the impacts of livestock fencing on wildlife are largely unknown. Many wildlife species cross beneath fences at defined crossing locations because they prefer to crawl underneath rather than jump over fences. Animals occasionally become entangled jumping or climbing over fences, leading to injury or death. More commonly, repeated crossings under net‐wire fencing by large animals lead to fence damage, though the damage is often tolerated by landowners until the openings affect the ability to enclose livestock. The usage, placement, characteristics, and passage rates of fence crossings beneath net‐wire fencing are poorly understood. We monitored 20 randomly selected fence crossings on net‐wire livestock fencing across two study sites on rangelands in South Texas, USA, from April 2018 to March 2019. We assessed the characteristics of fence‐crossing locations (openings beneath the fence created by animals to aid in crossing) and quantified crossing rates and the probability of crossing by all species of animals via trail cameras. We documented 10,889 attempted crossing events, with 58% (n = 6271) successful. Overall, 15 species of medium‐ and large‐size mammals and turkey (Meleagris gallopavo) contributed to crossing events. Crossing locations received 3–4 crossing attempts per day on average, but the number of attempts and probability of successful crossing varied by location and fence condition. The probability of crossing attempts was most consistently influenced by the opening size of the crossing and season; as crossing size (opening) increased, the probability of successful crossing significantly increased for all species. Peaks in crossing activity corresponded with species' daily and seasonal movements and activity. The density and size of fence‐crossing locations were dependent on fence maintenance and not associated with vegetation communities or habitat variables. However, crossing locations were often re‐established in the same locations after fence repairs. This is one of the few studies to monitor how all animal species present interacted with net‐wire livestock fencing in rangelands. Our results will help land managers understand the impact of net‐wire livestock fencing on animal movement.