Abstract
AbstractThe unavoidable impact of roads on arboreal fauna in protected areas has received little attention. We investigated this impact on two gibbon species in Khao Yai National Park, Thailand: two groups had home ranges traversed by roads (roadside groups) and another two lived nearby roads (interior groups). Roads partially delineated the edges of home ranges of roadside groups, and gibbons crossed them only at a few locations. Gibbons’ space use decreased near roads for roadside groups and showed road reluctance as their crossing rates were smaller than those produced by a null movement model. Generalised linear models (GLMs) indicated that a long canopy gap reduced gibbons’ crossing probability, whereas forest cover had a positive effect. A large part of the road network had a low probability of being crossed by gibbons according to GLMs, especially at areas around park headquarters. Roads were still relatively permeable to gibbon movement with a mean 35% crossing probability. The relatively short and narrow road network in the park constitutes a positive assessment of the standards of how roads should be built in protected areas. Nonetheless, this assessment might be the consequence of the park being set in a mountainous region with difficulties of road development.
Highlights
Roads traversed gibbons’ minimum convex polygon (MCP) for a total length of 1639 m and 709 m in L2 and P1 groups, respectively (Figure 2). Home ranges of these groups were fragmented in various regions by roads, which were only connected by a few crossings: three regions and four crossings in the case of group L2, and two regions and five crossings in the case of group P1
Roads concurred with part of the edge of L2 home range, virtually making a barrier for part of it, though this was not the case of P1
Managers of protected areas have the duty of mitigating the unavoidable impact of roads on resident fauna and flora
Summary
Roads unavoidably remove habitat available to fauna by linear gaps (Clevenger 2005; Hawbaker et al 2006; Miller et al 1996; Perz et al 2008; Roedenbeck et al 2007) and act as barriers to animal movement or alter movement patterns such as home range, daily movement, or migration (Brody & Pelton 1989; Gibson & Koenig 2012; Ortega & Capen 1999; Trombulak & Frissell 2000). Animals are often reluctant to approach roads because of the risk of mortality by vehicle collision or due to noise, smell, or fear of humans (Forman & Alexander 1998; Goosem & Marsh 1997; Jaeger et al 2005). These impacts may generate spatial impediments that restrict reproduction, feeding opportunities, and gene flow, and in turn create decline in species population (Andren,1994; Hawbaker et al 2006; Riley et al 2006; Saunders et al 1991). The mere presence of any type of road in protected areas gives potential access to poachers who capture, kill, and butcher wild animals (Beringer et al 1990), which constitutes hot zones where pathogens may jump to people (Wolfe et al 2005)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
