Year-end Sale % OFF 
Abstract
Wildlife crossing structures can provide safe passage for wildlife across transportation corridors, and can help mitigate the effects of highways and exclusion fencing on wildlife. Due to their costs, wildlife crossing structures are usually installed sparsely and at strategic locations along transportation networks. Alternatively, non-wildlife underpasses (i.e. conventional underpasses for human and domestic animal use) are usually abundant along major infrastructure corridors and could potentially provide safe crossing opportunities for wildlife. To investigate this, we monitored the use of 40 non-wildlife underpasses by roe deer (Capreolus capreolus), and moose (Alces alces) in south-central Sweden. We found that roe deer and moose use non-wildlife underpasses, and prefer underpasses that are at least 11.5 m wide and 5 m tall. Furthermore, roe deer used structures that had little human co-use and were in locations where the forest cover differed on both sides of the highway. In most cases, roe deer and moose were detected within 50 m of the underpass more than they were detected crossing under them. This suggests that animals often approach underpasses without crossing under them, however modifications to underpass design may improve non-wildlife underpass use. We recommend non-wildlife underpasses at gravel and minor roads, particularly those with little human co-use and with variable forest cover on both sides of the highway, be built wider than 11.5 m and taller than 5 m.
Highlights
Reducing the rate of wildlife-vehicle collisions is a priority for many road agencies around the globe
Of the 33 sites where roe deer were present, they used 29 un derpasses
We found that underpass use by roe deer and moose decreased when underpasses were narrower than 11.5 m in width
Summary
Reducing the rate of wildlife-vehicle collisions is a priority for many road agencies around the globe. Common mitigation strategies include fencing, warning systems, and wildlife crossing structures (i.e. over passes and underpasses; Dodd et al, 2007; Glista et al, 2009; Huijser et al, 2009; Huijser and McGowen, 2010; Huijser et al, 2008; Iuell et al, 2003; Smith et al, 2015; van der Ree et al, 2015a; Woltz et al, 2008). Over- and underpasses are effective at providing connectivity for wildlife while reducing the risk of collision with vehicles (Beckmann et al, 2010; Clevenger et al, 2001b; Huijser et al, 2015; Iuell et al, 2003; van der Grift et al, 2016), they are costly investments and usually sparsely installed along transportation networks (Roberts and Sjo€lund, 2015; Seiler et al, 2016). Despite being relatively common along the road-network, and their apparent use by animals, non-wildlife underpasses are rarely studied, and their potential for providing safe crossing for wildlife is unknown
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.
