Mammal use of undercrossings is influenced by openness and proximity to riparian corridors
Alex J. Jensen
A * , John D. Perrine A , Andrew Schaffner B , Robert Brewster A , Anthony J. Giordano C , Morgan Robertson D and Nancy Siepel D
+ Author Affiliations
- Author Affiliations
A Biological Sciences Department, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, CA 93407-0401, USA.
B Statistics Department, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, CA 93407-0401, USA.
C S.P.E.C.I.E.S. – Society for the Preservation of Endangered Carnivores and their International Ecological Study, PO Box 7403, Ventura, CA 93006, USA.
D California Department of Transportation, 50 Higuera Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401, USA.
Wildlife Research 50(7) 495-506 https://doi.org/10.1071/WR21183
Submitted: 17 December 2021 Accepted: 21 May 2022 Published: 26 July 2022
© 2023 The Author(s) (or their employer(s)). Published by CSIRO Publishing
Abstract
Context: A central problem in road ecology is the need to minimise roadkill without exacerbating fragmentation. The best current solution to this problem is wildlife-exclusion fencing combined with crossing structures. However, because species vary in their propensity to use crossing structures, optimising their design for a suite of species remains a challenge.
Aims: We investigated medium- and large-mammal use of undercrossings along Highway 101 in the Central Coast of California. Specifically, we quantified how undercrossing size, surrounding habitat, and the presence of a wildlife-exclusion fence, influenced overall species richness, as well as use by black bear, mule deer, puma, and bobcat.
Methods: Using wildlife cameras, we documented mammal use at 11 undercrossings in our study area. We calculated the openness index of each undercrossing and remotely measured habitat features, such as percentage tree cover, and distance to nearest stream. We determined the relative importance of these factors on overall species richness, and the activity of focal species, using generalised linear mixed models in an information-theoretic framework.
Key results: Mesocarnivores used a wider variety of undercrossings, and used them more frequently, than did larger mammals. Species richness and bear activity were greater closer to streams, and there was more bear activity at undercrossings within the wildlife-exclusion fence zone than outside it. Deer activity was strongly and positively related to undercrossing openness. Our puma and bobcat analyses were uninformative, likely because we detected puma too infrequently, and because bobcats showed little variation in use across sites.
Conclusions: Our results support previous research highlighting natural travel corridors (e.g. riparian areas) as important places for wildlife crossings, both for a diversity of medium–large mammals and a low-density large carnivore. Ungulates may be the most selective taxa in respect to undercrossing use.
Implications: Large, open undercrossings along natural travel routes accommodate the greatest diversity of medium–large mammal species.
Keywords: black bear, bobcat, California, connectivity, movement corridor, mule deer, puma, road ecology, wildlife crossing.
References
Allen, TDH, Huijser, MP, and Willey, DW (2013). Effectiveness of wildlife guards at access roads. Wildlife Society Bulletin 37, 402–408.| Effectiveness of wildlife guards at access roads.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Barton K (2009) MuMin: multi-modal inference. R package.
Beier, P (1995). Dispersal of juvenile cougars in fragmented habitat. The Journal of Wildlife Management 59, 228–237.
| Dispersal of juvenile cougars in fragmented habitat.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Bhardwaj, M, Olsson, M, and Seiler, A (2020). Ungulate use of non-wildlife underpasses. Journal of Environmental Management 273, 111095.
| Ungulate use of non-wildlife underpasses.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Blackburn, A, Anderson, CJ, Veals, AM, Tewes, ME, Wester, DB, Young, JH, DeYoung, RW, and Perotto-Baldivieso, HL (2021). Landscape patterns of ocelot–vehicle collision sites. Landscape Ecology 36, 497–511.
| Landscape patterns of ocelot–vehicle collision sites.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Brooks, ME, Kristensen, K, van Benthem, KJ, Magnusson, A, Berg, CW, Nielsen, A, Skaug, HJ, Mächler, M, and Bolker, BM (2017). glmmTMB balances speed and flexibility among packages for zero-inflated generalized linear mixed modeling. The R Journal 9, 378–400.
| glmmTMB balances speed and flexibility among packages for zero-inflated generalized linear mixed modeling.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2002) ‘Model selection and inference: a practical information-theoretic approach.’ 2nd edn. (Springer-Verlag: New York)
Caldwell, MR, and Klip, JMK (2020). Wildlife interactions within highway underpasses. The Journal of Wildlife Management 84, 227–236.
| Wildlife interactions within highway underpasses.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Clevenger, AP, and Waltho, N (2000). Factors influencing the effectiveness of wildlife underpass in Banff National Park, Alberta, Canada. Conservation Biology 14, 47–56.
| Factors influencing the effectiveness of wildlife underpass in Banff National Park, Alberta, Canada.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Clevenger, AP, and Waltho, N (2005). Performance indices to identify attributes of highway crossing structures facilitating movement of large mammals. Biological Conservation 121, 453–464.
| Performance indices to identify attributes of highway crossing structures facilitating movement of large mammals.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Clevenger T, Huijser MP (2009) ‘Handbook for design and evaluation of wildlife crossing structures in North America.’ (Federal Highway Administration)
Collinson, WJ, Parker, DM, Bernard, RTF, Reilly, BK, and Davies-Mostert, HT (2015). An inventory of vertebrate roadkill in the Greater Mapungubwe Transfrontier Conservation Area, South Africa. African Journal of Wildlife Research 45, 301–311.
| An inventory of vertebrate roadkill in the Greater Mapungubwe Transfrontier Conservation Area, South Africa.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Cramer PC, Bissonette JA (2005) Wildlife crossings in North America: the state of the science and practice. In ‘Proceedings of the 2005 international conference on ecology and transportation’. pp. 442–447. (Center for Transportation and the Environment, North Carolina State University: Raleigh, NC, USA)
Craveiro, J, Bernardino, J, Mira, A, and Vaz, PG (2019). Impact of culvert flooding on carnivore crossings. Journal of Environmental Management 231, 878–885.
| Impact of culvert flooding on carnivore crossings.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Crooks, KR (2002). Relative sensitivities of mammalian carnivores to habitat fragmentation. Conservation Biology 16, 488–502.
| Relative sensitivities of mammalian carnivores to habitat fragmentation.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Denneboom, D, Bar-Massada, A, and Shwartz, A (2021). Factors affecting usage of crossing structures by wildlife: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Science of the Total Environment 777, 146061.
| Factors affecting usage of crossing structures by wildlife: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Dettinger, M, and Cayan, DR (2014). Drought and the California delta: a matter of extremes. San Francisco Estuary & Watershed Science 12, 1–6.
| Drought and the California delta: a matter of extremes.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
DeVos JCJ, Conover MR, Headrick NE (Eds) (2003) ‘Mule deer conservation: issues and management strategies.’ (Berryman Institute Press, Utah State University: Logan, UT, USA)
Donaldson BM, Kweon Y-J, Lloyd LN (2015) An evaluation of roadside activity and behavior of deer and black bear to determine mitigation strategies for animal–vehicle collisions. (Virginia Transportation Research Council)
Eigenbrod, F, Hecnar, SJ, and Fahrig, L (2009). Quantifying the road-effect zone: threshold effects of a motorway on anuran populations in Ontario, Canada. Ecology and Society 14, 24.
| Quantifying the road-effect zone: threshold effects of a motorway on anuran populations in Ontario, Canada.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Ford, AT, and Clevenger, AP (2010). Validity of the prey-trap hypothesis for carnivore–ungulate interactions at wildlife-crossing structures. Conservation Biology 24, 1679–1685.
| Validity of the prey-trap hypothesis for carnivore–ungulate interactions at wildlife-crossing structures.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Freitas SR, Sousa COM, Bueno C (2013) Effects of landscape characteristics on roadkill of mammals, birds and reptiles in a highway crossing the Atlantic Forest in southeastern Brazil. In ‘Proceedings of the 2013 international conference on ecology and transportation (ICOET 2013)’, Arizona.
Glista, DJ, DeVault, TL, and DeWoody, JA (2009). A review of mitigation measures for reducing wildlife mortality on roadways. Landscape and Urban Planning 91, 1–7.
| A review of mitigation measures for reducing wildlife mortality on roadways.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Gloyne, CC, and Clevenger, AP (2001). Cougar Puma concolor use of wildlife crossing structures on the Trans-Canada highway in Banff National Park, Alberta. Wildlife Biology 7, 117–124.
| Cougar Puma concolor use of wildlife crossing structures on the Trans-Canada highway in Banff National Park, Alberta.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Gordon KM, Anderson SH (2003) Mule deer use of underpasses in western and southeastern Wyoming. In ‘Proceedings of the 2003 international conference on ecology and transportation’. pp. 309–318. (Center for Transportation and the Environment, North Carolina State University: Raleigh, NC, USA)
Grilo, C, Bissonette, JA, and Santos-Reis, M (2008). Response of carnivores to existing highway culverts and underpasses: implications for road planning and mitigation. Biodiversity and Conservation 17, 1685–1699.
| Response of carnivores to existing highway culverts and underpasses: implications for road planning and mitigation.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Grilo C, Smith DJ, Klar N (2015) Carnivores: struggling for survival in roaded landscapes. In ‘Handbook of road ecology’. (Eds R van der Ree, DJ Smith, C Grilo) pp. 300–312. (John Wiley & Sons, Ltd)
Grilo, C, Koroleva, E, Andrášik, R, Bíl, M, and González-Suárez, M (2020). Roadkill risk and population vulnerability in European birds and mammals. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 18, 323–328.
| Roadkill risk and population vulnerability in European birds and mammals.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Haas C (2000) Distribution, relative abundance, and roadway underpass responses of carnivores throughout the Puente-Chino Hills. Dissertation, California State Polytechnic University, Pomona.
Hilty, JA, and Merenlender, AM (2004). Use of riparian corridors and vineyards by mammalian predators in northern California. Conservation Biology 18, 126–135.
| Use of riparian corridors and vineyards by mammalian predators in northern California.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Huijser MP, Kociolek AV, Allen TD, McGowen P, Cramer PC, Venner M (2015) ‘Construction guidelines for wildlife fencing and associated escape and lateral access control measures.’ (National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies: Washington, DC, USA)
Jennings M, Lewison R (2013) Planning for connectivity under climate change: using bobcat movement to assess landscape connectivity across San Diego County’s open spaces. Report for the San Diego Foundation, Blasker Final Report.
Jones, ME (2000). Road upgrade, road mortality and remedial measures: impacts on a population of eastern quolls and Tasmanian devils. Wildlife Research 27, 289–296.
| Road upgrade, road mortality and remedial measures: impacts on a population of eastern quolls and Tasmanian devils.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Kintsch J, Cramer P, Singer P, Cowardin M, Phelan J (2019) State Highway 9 wildlife crossings monitoring – year 3 progress report. (Colorado Department of Transportation)
Lesbarrères, D, Lodé, T, and Merilä, J (2004). What type of amphibian tunnel could reduce road kills? Oryx 38, 220–223.
| What type of amphibian tunnel could reduce road kills?Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Loberger C, Gagnon J, Sprague M, Priest M, Schweinsburg R (2013) Evaluation of a wildlife fencing retrofit along Interstate-17: adding 1.2 meters (4’) to interstate right-of-way fence reduced elk–vehicle collisions by 100%. In ‘Proceedings of the 2013 international conference on ecology and transportation (ICOET 2013)’. Arizona
López-González, CA, Torres, FC, and Hidalgo Mihart, MG (2020). Female puma (Puma concolor) highway crossings in the Yucatan Peninsula. Western North American Naturalist 80, 573–580.
| Female puma (Puma concolor) highway crossings in the Yucatan Peninsula.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Martinig, AR, and Bélanger-Smith, K (2016). Factors influencing the discovery and use of wildlife passages for small fauna. Journal of Applied Ecology 53, 825–836.
| Factors influencing the discovery and use of wildlife passages for small fauna.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Martinig, AR, Riaz, M, and St. Clair, CC (2020). Temporal clustering of prey in wildlife passages provides no evidence of a prey-trap. Scientific Reports 10, 11489.
| Temporal clustering of prey in wildlife passages provides no evidence of a prey-trap.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Mastro, LL, Conover, MR, and Frey, SN (2008). Deer–vehicle collision prevention techniques. Human–Wildlife Conflicts 2, 80–92.
McCollister, MF, and van Manen, FT (2010). Effectiveness of wildlife underpasses and fencing to reduce wildlife–vehicle collisions. Journal of Wildlife Management 74, 1722–1731.
| Effectiveness of wildlife underpasses and fencing to reduce wildlife–vehicle collisions.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
McDonald, W, and St Clair, CC (2004). Elements that promote highway crossing structure use by small mammals in Banff National Park. Journal of Applied Ecology 41, 82–93.
| Elements that promote highway crossing structure use by small mammals in Banff National Park.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Murphy-Mariscal, ML, Barrows, CW, and Allen, MF (2015). Native wildlife use of highway underpasses in a desert environment. The Southwestern Naturalist 60, 340–348.
Ng, SJ, Dole, JW, Sauvajot, RM, Riley, SPD, and Valone, TJ (2004). Use of highway undercrossings by wildlife in southern California. Biological Conservation 115, 499–507.
| Use of highway undercrossings by wildlife in southern California.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Perrine JD (2015) ‘Assessment of the wildlife-exclusion infrastructure in the Tassajara Creek Region of Highway 101 in San Luis Obispo County.’ (California Department of Transportation)
Poessel, SA, Burdett, CL, Boydston, EE, Lyren, LM, Alonso, RS, Fisher, RN, and Crooks, KR (2014). Roads influence movement and home ranges of a fragmentation-sensitive carnivore, the bobcat, in an urban landscape. Biological Conservation 180, 224–232.
| Roads influence movement and home ranges of a fragmentation-sensitive carnivore, the bobcat, in an urban landscape.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Ratner, B (2009). The correlation coefficient: its values range between +1/−1, or do they? Journal of Targeting, Measurement and Analysis for Marketing 17, 139–142.
| The correlation coefficient: its values range between +1/−1, or do they?Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
R Core Team (2020) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria) Available at https://www.R-project.org/
Reed DF, Ward AL (1985) Efficacity of methods advocated to reduce deer vehicle accidents: research and rationale in the USA. In ‘Highway and wildlife relationships, symposium, 1985, Strasbourg, France’.
Richard, T, Forman, T, and Deblinger, RD (2000). The ecological road-effect zone of a Massachusetts (USA) suburban highway. Conservation Biology 14, 36–46.
| The ecological road-effect zone of a Massachusetts (USA) suburban highway.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Ridout, MS, and Linkie, M (2009). Estimating overlap of daily activity patterns from camera trap data. Journal of Agricultural, Biological, and Environmental Statistics 14, 322–337.
| Estimating overlap of daily activity patterns from camera trap data.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Riley, SPD, Pollinger, JP, Sauvajot, RM, York, EC, Bromley, C, Fuller, TK, and Wayne, RK (2006). A southern California freeway is a physical and social barrier to gene flow in carnivores. Molecular Ecology 15, 1733–1741.
| A southern California freeway is a physical and social barrier to gene flow in carnivores.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Rodriguez, A, Crema, G, and Delibes, M (1996). Use of non-wildlife passages across a high speed railway by terrestrial vertebrates. Journal of Applied Ecology 33, 1527–1540.
| Use of non-wildlife passages across a high speed railway by terrestrial vertebrates.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Roemer, GW, Gompper, ME, and Van Valkenburgh, B (2009). The ecological role of the mammalian mesocarnivore. BioScience 59, 165–173.
| The ecological role of the mammalian mesocarnivore.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Rytwinski, T, Soanes, K, Jaeger, JAG, Fahrig, L, Findlay, CS, Houlahan, J, van der Ree, R, and van der Grift, E (2016). How effective is road mitigation at reducing road-kill? A meta-analysis. PLoS ONE 11, e0166941.
| How effective is road mitigation at reducing road-kill? A meta-analysis.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Schmidt BR, Zumbach S (2008) Amphibian road mortality and how to prevent it: a review. In ‘Urban herpetology’. (Eds JC Mitchell, RE Jung Brown, B Bartolomew) pp. 157–167. (Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles: St Louis, MO, USA)
Shanley, CS, and Pyare, S (2011). Evaluating the road-effect zone on wildlife distribution in a rural landscape. Ecosphere 2, 1–16.
| Evaluating the road-effect zone on wildlife distribution in a rural landscape.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Siepel NR, Perrine JD, Schicker LK, Robertson M (2013) Saving lives and training the next generation: State Route 101 wildlife corridor safety project. In ‘Proceedings of the 2013 international conference on ecology and transportation (ICOET 2013)’. Arizona.
Spencer WD, Beier P, Penrod K, Winters K, Paulman C, Rustigian-Romsos H, Strittholt J, Parisi M, Pettler A (2010) ‘California essential habitat connectivity project: a strategy for conserving a connected California.’ (California Department of Transportation, California Department of Fish and Game, and Federal Highways Administration)
Stull, DW, Gulsby, WD, Martin, JA, D’Angelo, GJ, Gallagher, GR, Osborn, DA, Warren, RJ, and Miller, KV (2011). Comparison of fencing designs for excluding deer from roadways. Human–Wildlife Interactions 5, 47–57.
| Comparison of fencing designs for excluding deer from roadways.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Taylor, SK, Buergelt, CD, Roelke-Parker, ME, Homer, BL, and Rotstein, DS (2002). Causes of mortality of free-ranging Florida Panthers. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 38, 107–114.
| Causes of mortality of free-ranging Florida Panthers.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Thorne JH, Huber PR (2011) GIS modeling of landscape permeability for wildlife on the Highway 101 corridor between San Luis Obispo and Atascadero. Final project report to California Department of Transportation, Sacramento, CA, USA.
Thorne J, Cameron D, Jigour V (2002) Wildlands conservation in the Central Coast Region of California. California Wilderness Coalition, Oakland, CA, USA.
Thorne, JH, Cameron, D, and Quinn, JF (2006). A conservation design for the Central Coast of California and the evaluation of mountain lion as an umbrella species. Natural Areas Journal 26, 137–148.
| A conservation design for the Central Coast of California and the evaluation of mountain lion as an umbrella species.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
USDA Forest Service Geospatial Technology Applications Center (2016) USFS Cartographic 2016 Tree Canopy Cover CONUS. Available at https://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=32c888eac6bd41b5b17f51d9d8175969#
USGS National Hydrography Dataset (2020) USGS-USA Detailed Streams. Available at https://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=43c8153dc8e04cfdbde18558eab34d45
