![]() large vehicles including semi-trucks, buses, recreational vehicles) on the immediate behavioral responses of elk ( Cervus elaphus Linnaeus, 1758) and white-tailed deer ( Odocoileus virginianus Zimmermann, 1780) using two wildlife underpasses in Banff National Park, Alberta, Canada. We examined the effects of traffic volume (number of vehicles passing per 15 second window), vehicle type (passenger vehicles vs. Although previous research finds relationships between traffic volume and deer or elk use of passage structures, for example see, we are aware of no previous study that examined the immediate vehicular effects on behavioral responses of animals near and/or using wildlife underpasses. Some studies have examined wildlife behavior during crossings. (2014) found that wildlife can habituate to some types of disturbances (e.g., vehicle traffic), but remain sensitive to others (e.g., foot traffic at wildlife crossing structures), and that crossing structure designs in Banff National Park were capable of buffering some of the potential aversive stimulus produced by roads (e.g., light, noise). For instance, Clevenger and Waltho (2000) previously documented the effects of width, length, and other physical dimensions of underpasses on carnivores and ungulates. Several studies have evaluated the effectiveness of physical characteristics of wildlife structures. As a result, it is possible that crossing structures alone, especially along relatively impermeable roads, may be underutilized without additional infrastructure to block sounds or sights of passing vehicles because of animal response to traffic-related stimuli. For instance, traffic-associated auditory and visual stimuli can repel wildlife from areas that are intended to serve as points of connectivity and human-generated noise is known broadly to have a host of deleterious effects on wildlife. Understanding behavioral responses of animals to these stimuli near wildlife crossing structures is essential to determine their efficacy. Auditory and visual stimuli created by passing vehicles, unlike physical dimensions of underpasses and overpasses, are a transient feature. The efficacy of wildlife-crossing structures depends on both physical characteristics as well as the auditory and visual stimuli in the surrounding environment. Mitigation efforts, such as the construction of underpasses and overpasses, are measures to reduce some of the negative effects of roads. ![]() ![]() Wildlife-vehicle collisions have increasingly been an issue of concern for many state and provincial transportation agencies. Roads and highways threaten species population viability as well as overall biodiversity by destroying habitat and fragmenting populations. Additionally, findings of species-specific response to vehicle passage are important in understanding potential fitness consequences of anthropogenic disturbance. Knowledge that vehicle movement influences wildlife behavior underscores the importance of consideration given to road and crossing structure design. Both species were more likely to move through the underpass if they exhibited foraging behavior we also found a marginally significant trend that animals were less likely to use the underpass after vigilance behavior. Both species increased vigilance and flight behaviors and reduced time spent foraging in response to vehicles. We quantified the time that elk ( Cervus elaphus) and white-tailed deer ( Odocoileus virginianus) allocated to foraging, vigilance, and flight behavior before and after vehicle passage. However, little is known about traffic’s proximal effects on wildlife behavior and use of mitigation measures. ![]() ![]() Mitigation efforts (e.g., wildlife underpasses) are constructed to prevent fragmentation and reduce wildlife-vehicle collisions. Roads fragment animal populations, vehicles kill and injure animals, and traffic may affect animal behavior. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |