- Edgar A. Grift van der (1)
- Jochen A.G. Jaeger (1)
- G.M. Cunnington (1)
- Lenore Fahrig (1)
- L. Fahrig (3)
- C.S. Findlay(older publications) (1)
- C.S. Findlay (2)
- L. Francisco Madriñan (1)
- E.A. Grift van der (3)
- Jeff Houlahan (1)
- J.E. Houlahan (2)
- J. Houlahan (1)
- J.A.G. Jaeger (3)
- N. Klar (2)
- S. Kramer-Schadt (1)
- L. Olson (1)
- R. Ree van (1)
- Rodney Ree van der (1)
- I.A. Roedenbeck (1)
- Trina Rytwinski (1)
- T. Rytwinski (1)
- Kylie Soanes (1)
- K. Soanes (1)
- R. Van der Ree van der (1)
How effective is road mitigation at reducing road-kill? A meta-analysis
Rytwinski, Trina ; Soanes, Kylie ; Jaeger, Jochen A.G. ; Fahrig, Lenore ; Findlay, C.S. ; Houlahan, Jeff ; Ree, Rodney van der; Grift, Edgar A. van der - \ 2016
PLoS One 11 (2016)11. - ISSN 1932-6203
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 metaanalysis 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 roadkill by 40% compared to controls. Fences, with or without crossing structures, reduce roadkill 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.
Experimental study designs to improve the evaluation of road mitigation measures for wildlife
Rytwinski, T. ; Van der Ree, R. van der; Cunnington, G.M. ; Fahrig, L. ; Findlay, C.S. ; Houlahan, J. ; Jaeger, J.A.G. ; Soanes, K. ; Grift, E.A. van der - \ 2015
Journal of Environmental Management 154 (2015). - ISSN 0301-4797 - p. 48 - 64.
An experimental approach to road mitigation that maximizes inferential power is essential to ensure that mitigation is both ecologically-effective and cost-effective. Here, we set out the need for and standards of using an experimental approach to road mitigation, in order to improve knowledge of the influence of mitigation measures on wildlife populations. We point out two key areas that need to be considered when conducting mitigation experiments. First, researchers need to get involved at the earliest stage of the road or mitigation project to ensure the necessary planning and funds are available for conducting a high quality experiment. Second, experimentation will generate new knowledge about the parameters that influence mitigation effectiveness, which ultimately allows better prediction for future road mitigation projects. We identify seven key questions about mitigation structures (i.e., wildlife crossing structures and fencing) that remain largely or entirely unanswered at the population-level: (1) Does a given crossing structure work? What type and size of crossing structures should we use? (2) How many crossing structures should we build? (3) Is it more effective to install a small number of large-sized crossing structures or a large number of small-sized crossing structures? (4) How much barrier fencing is needed for a given length of road? (5) Do we need funnel fencing to lead animals to crossing structures, and how long does such fencing have to be? (6) How should we manage/manipulate the environment in the area around the crossing structures and fencing? (7) Where should we place crossing structures and barrier fencing? We provide experimental approaches to answering each of them using example Before-After-Control-Impact (BACI) study designs for two stages in the road/mitigation project where researchers may become involved: (1) at the beginning of a road/mitigation project, and (2) after the mitigation has been constructed; highlighting real case studies when available.
Evaluating the effectiveness of road mitigation measures
Grift, E.A. van der; Ree, R. van; Fahrig, L. ; Houlahan, J.E. ; Jaeger, J.A.G. ; Klar, N. ; Francisco Madriñan, L. ; Olson, L. - \ 2013
Biodiversity and Conservation 22 (2013)2. - ISSN 0960-3115 - p. 425 - 448.
non-wildlife passages - banff-national-park - high-speed railway - frog rana-arvalis - large mammals - gene flow - habitat fragmentation - southern california - crossing structures - bird populations
The last 20 years have seen a dramatic increase in efforts to mitigate the negative effects of roads and traffic on wildlife, including fencing to prevent wildlife-vehicle collisions and wildlife crossing structures to facilitate landscape connectivity. While not necessarily explicitly articulated, the fundamental drivers behind road mitigation are human safety, animal welfare, and/or wildlife conservation. Concomitant with the increased effort to mitigate has been a focus on evaluating road mitigation. So far, research has mainly focussed on assessing the use of wildlife crossing structures, demonstrating that a broad range of species use them. However, this research has done little to address the question of the effectiveness of crossing structures, because use of a wildlife crossing structure does not necessarily equate to its effectiveness. The paucity of studies directly examining the effectiveness of crossing structures is exacerbated by the fact that such studies are often poorly designed, which limits the level of inference that can be made. Without well performed evaluations of the effectiveness of road mitigation measures, we may endanger the viability of wildlife populations and inefficiently use financial resources by installing structures that are not as effective as we think they are. In this paper we outline the essential elements of a good experimental design for such assessments and prioritize the parameters to be measured. The framework we propose will facilitate collaboration between road agencies and scientists to undertake research programs that fully evaluate effectiveness of road mitigation measures. We discuss the added value of road mitigation evaluations for policy makers and transportation agencies and provide recommendations on how to incorporate such evaluations in road planning practices.
The Rauischholzhausen agenda for road ecology
Roedenbeck, I.A. ; Fahrig, L. ; Findlay, C.S. ; Houlahan, J.E. ; Jaeger, J.A.G. ; Klar, N. ; Kramer-Schadt, S. ; Grift, E.A. van der - \ 2007
Ecology and Society 12 (2007)1. - ISSN 1708-3087 - p. 11 - 11.
breeding bird populations - precautionary principle - environmental impacts - swareflex reflectors - sampling design - habitat - conservation - density - deer - biodiversity
Despite the documented negative effects of roads on wildlife, ecological research on road effects has had comparatively little influence on road planning decisions. We argue that road research would have a larger impact if researchers carefully considered the relevance of the research questions addressed and the inferential strength of the studies undertaken. At a workshop at the German castle of Rauischholzhausen we identified five particularly relevant questions, which we suggest provide the framework for a research agenda for road ecology: (1) Under what circumstances do roads affect population persistence? (2) What is the relative importance of road effects vs. other effects on population persistence? (3) Under what circumstances can road effects be mitigated? (4) What is the relative importance of the different mechanisms by which roads affect population persistence? (5) Under what circumstances do road networks affect population persistence at the landscape scale? We recommend experimental designs that maximize inferential strength, given existing constraints, and we provide hypothetical examples of such experiments for each of the five research questions. In general, manipulative experiments have higher inferential strength than do nonmanipulative experiments, and full before-after-control-impact designs are preferable to before-after or control-impact designs. Finally, we argue that both scientists and planners must be aware of the limits to inferential strength that exist for a given research question in a given situation. In particular, when the maximum inferential strength of any feasible design is low, decision makers must not demand stronger evidence before incorporating research results into the planning process, even though the level of uncertainty may be high