Comparison of Methods of Monitoring Wildlife Crossing‐Structures on Highways

Abstract

ABSTRACT Wildlife crossing‐structures (e.g., underpasses and overpasses) are used to mitigate deleterious effects of highways on wildlife populations. Evaluating performance of mitigation measures depends on monitoring structures for wildlife use. We analyzed efficacy of 2 noninvasive methods commonly used to monitor crossing‐structure use by large mammals: tracking and motion‐activated cameras. We monitored 15 crossing‐structures every other day between 29 June and 24 October 2007 along the Trans‐Canada Highway in Alberta, Canada. Our objectives were to determine how species‐specific detection rates are biased by the detection method used, to determine factors contributing to crossing‐event detection, and to evaluate the most cost‐effective approach to monitoring. We detected 3,405 crossing events by tracks and 4,430 crossings events by camera for mammals coyote‐sized and larger. Coyotes (Canis latrans) and grizzly bears (Ursus arctos) were significantly more likely to be detected by track‐pads, whereas elk (Cervus elaphus) and deer (Odocoileus sp.) were more likely to be detected by cameras. Crossing‐event detection was affected by species, track‐pad length, and number of animals using the crossing structure. At the levels of animal activity observed in our study our economic analysis indicates that cameras are more cost‐effective than track‐pads for study durations >1 year. Understanding the benefits and limitations of camera and track‐pad methods for monitoring large mammal movement at wildlife crossing‐structures will help improve the efficiency of studies designed to evaluate the effectiveness of highway mitigation measures.