Version classiqueVersion mobile

What Works in Conservation 2021

 | 
William Junior Sutherland
, 
Lynn V. Dicks
, 
Silviu O. Petrovan
, 
et al.

15. Terrestrial mammal conservation

15.4 Threat: Transportation and service corridors

Texte intégral

15.4.1 Roads and railroads

Beneficial

Install barrier fencing along roads

1Twelve studies evaluated the effects on mammals of installing barrier fencing along roads. Eight studies were in the USA, one each was in Canada, Germany and Brazil and one spanned the USA, Canada and Sweden.

2COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

3POPULATION RESPONSE (9 STUDIES)

4Survival (9 studies): Three controlled studies, in the USA, Germany and Brazil, found that roadside fencing or equivalent barrier systems reduced the numbers of mammals, including wildcats and coypu, killed by vehicles on roads. Two before-and-after studies, in the USA, found that roadside fencing with one-way gates to allow escape from the road, reduced the number of collisions between vehicles and deer. A study in the USA found that a 2.7-m-high fence did not reduce road-kills of white-tailed deer compared to a 2.2-m-high fence. A controlled, before-and-after study in the USA found that barrier fencing with designated crossing points did not significantly reduce road deaths of mule deer. A replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in Canada found that electric fences, (along with an underpass beneath one highway), reduced moose-vehicle collisions. A review of fencing studies from USA, Canada and Sweden, found that longer fencing along roadsides led to a greater reduction of collisions between large mammals and cars than did shorter fence sections.

5BEHAVIOUR (5 STUDIES)

6Behaviour change (5 studies): A controlled, before-and-after study in the USA found that 2.3-m-high fencing in good condition prevented most white-tailed deer accessing a highway. A replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in Canada found that electric fences reduced moose access to highways. Three studies (two replicated), in the USA, found that higher fences (2.4–2.7 m) prevented more white-tailed deer from entering highways than did fences that were 2.2 m high, 1.2 m high with outriggers or 1.2–1.8 m high.

7Assessment: beneficial (effectiveness 70 %; certainty 70 %; harms 0 %).

https://www.conservationevidence.com/​actions/​2567

Install barrier fencing and underpasses along roads

8Fifty-five studies evaluated the effects on mammals of installing barrier fencing and underpasses along roads. Twenty-seven were in the USA, nine were in Canada, seven were in Australia, two each were in Spain, Portugal, the UK and Sweden, one each was in Denmark, Germany and Croatia and one was a review covering Australia, Europe and North America.

9COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

10POPULATION RESPONSE (15 STUDIES)

11Survival (15 studies): Eleven of 15 studies (including 12 before-and-after studies and two site comparisons), in the USA, Australia, Sweden and Canada, found that installing underpasses and associated roadside barrier fencing reduced collisions between vehicles and mammals. Three studies found that the roadkill rate was not reduced and one study found that vehicle-mammal collisions continued to occur after installation.

12BEHAVIOUR (52 STUDIES)

13Use (52 studies): Seventeen of 18 studies (including 10 before-and-after studies) in the USA, Canada and Sweden, which reported exclusively on ungulates, found that underpasses installed along with roadside barrier fencing were used by a range of ungulate species. These were mule deer, mountain goat, pronghorn, white-tailed deer, elk, moose and Florida Key deer. The other study found that underpasses were not used by moose whilst one of the studies that did report use by ungulates further reported that they were not used by white-tailed deer. Further observations from these studies included that elk preferred more open, shorter underpasses to those that were enclosed or longer, underpass use was not affected by traffic levels and that mule deer used underpasses less than they used overpasses. Thirty-four studies (including four before-and-after studies, seven replicated studies, three site comparisons and two reviews), in the USA, Canada, Australia, Spain, Portugal, the UK, Denmark, Germany, Croatia and across multiple continents, that either studied mammals other than ungulates or multiple species including ungulates, found that underpasses in areas with roadside fencing were used by mammals. Among these studies, one found that small culverts were used by mice and voles more than were larger underpasses, one found that bandicoots used underpasses less after they were lengthened and one found that culverts were used by grizzly bears less often than were overpasses.

14Assessment: beneficial (effectiveness 72 %; certainty 70 %; harms 0 %).

https://www.conservationevidence.com/​actions/​2571

Install overpasses over roads/railways

15Twenty-two studies evaluated the effects on mammals of installing overpasses over roads or railways. Seven studies were in Canada, three were in Spain, three were in Australia, two were in Sweden, one each was in the Netherlands, Germany, Croatia and the USA, and three (including two reviews) were conducted across multiple countries.

16COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

17POPULATION RESPONSE (4 STUDIES)

18Survival (4 studies): Four studies (including three before-and-after studies), in Canada, Sweden and Australia, found that overpasses (in combination with roadside fencing) reduced collisions between vehicles and mammals. In two of these studies, data from overpasses and underpasses were combined for analysis.

19BEHAVIOUR (21 STUDIES)

20Use (21 studies): Nineteen studies, in North America, Europe and Australia, found that overpasses were used by mammals. A wide range of mammals was reported using overpasses, including rodents and shrews, rabbits and hares, carnivores, ungulates, bears, marsupials and short-beaked echidna. A review of crossing structures in Australia, Europe and North America found that overpasses were used by a range of mammals, particularly larger mammal species. A global review of crossing structures (including overpasses) found that all studies reported that the majority of crossings were used by wildlife. Assessment: beneficial (effectiveness 90 %; certainty 80 %; harms 0 %).

https://www.conservationevidence.com/​actions/​2526

Install rope bridges between canopies

21Ten studies evaluated the effects on mammals of install rope bridges between canopies. Eight studies were in Australia, one was in Brazil and one in Peru. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

22POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY)

23Survival (1 study): A study in Australia found that arboreal marsupials using rope bridges did not suffer high predation rates when doing so.

24BEHAVIOUR (9 STUDIES)

25Use (9 studies): Nine studies (including three replicated studies and a site comparison), in Australia, Brazil and Peru found that rope bridges were used by a range of mammals. Seven of these studies found between three and 25 species using rope bridges, one found that that they were used by squirrel gliders and one that they were used by mountain brushtail possums and common ringtail possums but not by koalas and squirrel gliders. One of the studies found that crossing rates were higher over the canopy bridges than at ground level.

26Assessment: beneficial (effectiveness 80 %; certainty 70 %; harms 0 %).

https://www.conservationevidence.com/​actions/​2556

Likely to be beneficial

Install fences around existing culverts or underpasses under roads/railways

27Four studies evaluated the effects on mammals of installing fences around existing culverts under roads/railways. Two studies were in the USA one was in Portugal and one was in South Africa.

28COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

29POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES)

30Survival (3 studies): Two out of three before-and-after studies (including a controlled and a site comparison study), in the USA, Portugal and South Africa, found that installing or enhancing roadside fencing alongside existing culverts reduced mammal road mortality whilst one study found that such fences did not alter mammal road mortality.

31BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY)

32Use (1 study): A replicated, randomized, controlled, before-and-after study in the USA found that fences installed to funnel animals to existing culverts did not increase culvert use by bobcats.

33Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 50 %; certainty 46 %; harms 0 %).

https://www.conservationevidence.com/​actions/​2525

Install ledges in culverts under roads/railways

34Three studies evaluated the effects on mammals of installing ledges in culverts under roads or railways. Two studies were in the USA and one was in Portugal.

35COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

36POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

37BEHAVIOUR (3 STUDIES)

38Use (3 studies): A replicated, controlled study in Portugal found that under-road culverts with ledges were used more than culverts without ledges by two of five mammal species. A before-and-after study in the USA found that installing ledges within under-road culverts did not increase the number or diversity of small mammal species crossing through them, and only one of six species used ledges. A study in the USA found that ledges in under-road culverts were used by nine of 12 small mammal species and ledges with access ramps were used more often than those without.

39Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 60 %; certainty 45 %; harms 0 %).

https://www.conservationevidence.com/​actions/​2523

Install one-way gates or other structures to allow wildlife to leave roadways

40Seven studies evaluated the effects on mammals of installing one-way gates or other structures to allow wildlife to leave roadways. All seven studies were in the USA.

41COMMUNITY RESPONSE (5 STUDIES)

42Survival (5 studies): Two before-and-after studies (one replicated), in the USA, found that barrier fencing with one-way gates reduced deer-vehicle collisions. One of two studies (one before-and-after and one replicated, controlled), in the USA, found that barrier fencing with escape gates along roads with one or more underpasses reduced moose-vehicle collisions, whilst the other found no reduction in total mammal road casualty rates. A replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in USA found that earth escape ramps reduced mammal road mortalities.

43POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

44BEHAVIOUR (4 STUDIES)

45Use (4 studies): One of two studies (one replicated) in the USA, found that one-way gates allowed mule deer to escape when trapped along highways with barrier fencing, whilst the other found that a small proportion used one-way gates. A replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in the USA found that earth escape ramps were used more often than were one-way escape gates to enable deer to escape highways with barrier fencing. A replicated, controlled study in the USA found that barrier fencing with escape gates and underpasses facilitated road crossings by a range of mammals.

46Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 60 %; certainty 57 %; harms 0 %).

https://www.conservationevidence.com/​actions/​2558

Install pole crossings for gliders/flying squirrels

47Seven studies evaluated the effects on gliders/flying squirrels of installing pole crossings. Six studies were in Australia and one was in the USA.

48COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

49POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY)

50Survival (1 study): A study in Australia found that arboreal marsupials using artificial road crossing structures did not suffer high predation rates when doing so.

51BEHAVIOUR (6 STUDIES)

52Use (6 studies): Six studies (five replicated), in Australia and the USA, found that poles were used for crossing roads by squirrel gliders, sugar gliders and Carolina northern flying squirrels.

53Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 80 %; certainty 60 %; harms 0 %).

https://www.conservationevidence.com/​actions/​2546

Install signage to warn motorists about wildlife presence

54Six studies evaluated the effects on mammals of installing signage to warn motorists about wildlife presence. Four studies were in the USA one was in Australia and one was in Canada.

55COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

56POPULATION RESPONSE (6 STUDIES)

57Abundance (1 study): A before-and-after study in Australia found that when wildlife signs were installed along with speed restrictions, rumble strips, reflective wildlife deterrents, wildlife escape ramps and an educational pamphlet, a small population of eastern quoll re-established in the area.

58Survival (6 studies): Three of five studies (including four controlled and three before-and-after studies), in the USA and Canada, found that warning signs did not reduce collisions between vehicles and deer. The other two studies found that warning signs did reduce collisions between vehicles and deer. A before-and-after study in Australia found that wildlife signs along with speed restrictions, rumble strips, reflective wildlife deterrents, wildlife escape ramps and an educational pamphlet, reduced collisions between vehicles and Tasmanian devils but not eastern quolls.

59BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)

60OTHER (2 STUDIES)

61Human behaviour change (2 studies): Two controlled studies (one also replicated, before-and-after), in the USA, found that signs warning of animals on the road reduced vehicles speeds.

62Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 50 %; certainty 50 %; harms 0 %).

https://www.conservationevidence.com/​actions/​2608

Install tunnels/culverts/underpass under railways

63Six studies evaluated the effects on mammals of installing tunnels, culverts or underpass under railways. Two studies were in Spain, one was in each of Australia, Canada and the Netherlands and one reviewed literature from a range of countries.

64COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

65POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY)

66Survival (1 study): A review found that most studies recorded no evidence of predation in or around passages under railways or roads of mammals using those passages.

67BEHAVIOUR (5 STUDIES)

68Use (5 studies): Five studies, in Spain, Australia, Canada and the Netherlands, found that tunnels, culverts and underpasses beneath railways were used by a range of mammals including rodents, rabbits and hares, carnivores, marsupials, deer and bears. One of these studies found that existing culverts were used more than were specifically designed wildlife tunnels.

69Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 80 %; certainty 60 %; harms 0 %).

https://www.conservationevidence.com/​actions/​2519

Install tunnels/culverts/underpass under roads

70Twenty-five studies evaluated the effects on mammals of installing tunnels, culverts or underpass under roads. Eight studies were in the USA, four were in Australia, four were in Canada, two were in Spain, one each was in Germany, the Netherlands and South Korea and three were reviews with wide geographic coverage.

71COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

72POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES)

73Survival (3 studies): A study in South Korea found that road sections with higher underpass density did not have fewer wildlife-vehicle collisions. A review found that most studies recorded no evidence of predation of mammals using crossings under roads. A controlled, before-and-after, site comparison study in Australia found that overwinter survival of mountain pygmy-possums increased after an artificial rocky corridor, which included two underpasses, was installed.

74BEHAVIOUR (23 STUDIES)

75Use (23 studies): Seventeen of 20 studies (including seven replicated studies and two reviews), in the USA, Canada, Australia, Spain, the Netherlands, and across multiple continents, found that crossing structures beneath roads were used by mammals whilst two studies found mixed results depending on species and one study found that culverts were rarely used as crossings by mammals. One of the studies found that crossing structures were used by two of four species more than expected compared to their movements through adjacent habitats. A controlled, before-and-after, site comparison study in Australia found that an artificial rocky corridor, which included two underpasses, was used by mountain pygmy-possums. A replicated study in Germany found that use of tunnels by fallow deer was affected by tunnel colour and design. A study in the USA found that a range of mammals used culverts, including those with shelves fastened to the sides.

76Behaviour change (1 study): A controlled, before-and-after, site comparison study in Australia found that after an artificial rocky corridor, which included two underpasses, was installed, dispersal of mountain pygmy-possums increased.

77Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 62 %; certainty 60 %; harms 0 %).

https://www.conservationevidence.com/​actions/​2514

Install wildlife exclusion grates/cattle grids

78Three studies evaluated the effects on mammals of installing wildlife exclusion grates or cattle grids. All three studies were in the USA.

79COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

80POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

81BEHAVIOUR (3 STUDIES)

82Behaviour change (3 studies): Two of three studies (including two replicated, before-and-after studies), in the USA, found that steel grates largely prevented crossings by deer whilst two found that they did not prevent crossings by deer and elk or black bears. In one of the studies, only one of three designs prevented crossings.

83Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 47 %; certainty 41 %; harms 0 %).

https://www.conservationevidence.com/​actions/​2594

Install wildlife warning reflectors along roads

84Fifteen studies evaluated the effects on mammals of installing wildlife warning reflectors along roads. Nine studies were in the USA, three were in Austalia, two were in Germany and one was in Denmark.

85COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

86POPULATION RESPONSE (10 STUDIES)

87Abundance (1 study): A before-and-after study in Australia found that when warning reflectors were installed (along with speed restrictions, reflective wildlife signs, rumble strips, wildlife escape ramps and an educational pamphlet) a small population of eastern quoll re-established in the area.

88Survival (10 studies): Five of eight controlled or before-and-after studies in the USA and Germany found that wildlife warning reflectors did not reduce collisions between vehicles and deer. Two studies found that vehicle-deer collisions were reduced by reflectors and one found that collisions were reduced in rural areas but increased in suburban areas. A before-and-after study in Australia found that when warning reflectors were installed (along with speed restrictions, reflective wildlife signs, rumble strips, wildlife escape ramps and an educational pamphlet) vehicle collisions with Tasmanian devils, but not eastern quolls, decreased. A review of two studies in Australia found mixed responses of mammal road deaths to wildlife warning reflectors.

89BEHAVIOUR (5 STUDIES)

90Behaviour change (5 studies): Three of four studies (including three controlled studies), in the USA, Denmark and Germany, found that wildlife warning reflectors did not cause deer to behave in ways that made collisions with vehicles less likely (such as by avoiding crossing roads). The other study found that deer initially responded to wildlife reflectors with alarm and flight but then became habituated. A replicated, controlled study in Australia found that one of four reflector model/colour combinations increased fleeing behaviour of bush wallabies when lights approached. The other combinations had no effect and none of the combinations affected red kangaroos.

91Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 40 %; certainty 60 %; harms 5 %).

https://www.conservationevidence.com/​actions/​2591

Modify vegetation along railways to reduce collisions by reducing attractiveness to mammals

92Two studies evaluated the effects of modifying vegetation along railways to reduce collisions by reducing attractiveness to wildlife. Both studies were in Norway.

93COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

94POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES)

95Survival (2 studies): Two site comparison studies in Norway found that clearing vegetation from alongside railways reduced moose-train collisions. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)

96Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 70 %; certainty 40 %; harms 0 %).

https://www.conservationevidence.com/​actions/​2603

Provide food/salt lick to divert mammals from roads or railways

97Three studies evaluated the effects of providing food or salt licks to divert mammals from roads. One study was in the USA, one was in Norway and one was a review of studies from across North America and Europe.

98COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

99POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES)

100Survival (2 studies): A replicated, controlled study in the USA found that intercept feeding reduced mule deer road deaths along two of three highways in one of two years. A replicated, site comparison study in Norway found that intercept feeding reduced moose collisions with trains.

101BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY)

102Behaviour change (1 study): A review of feeding wild ungulates in North America, and Europe found that feeding diverted ungulates away from roads in one of three studies.

103Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 60 %; certainty 52 %; harms 0 %).

https://www.conservationevidence.com/​actions/​2617

Unknown effectiveness

Close roads in defined seasons

104One study evaluated the effects on mammals of closing roads in defined seasons. This study was in the USA.

105COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

106POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

107BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY)

108Use (1 study): A site comparison study in the USA found that closing roads to traffic during the hunting season increased use of those areas by mule deer. Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 60 %; certainty 15 %; harms 0 %).

https://www.conservationevidence.com/​actions/​2626

Dig trenches around culverts under roads/railways

109One study evaluated the effects on mammals of digging trenches around culverts under roads and/or railways. This study was in South Africa.

110COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

111POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY)

112Survival (1 study): A replicated, randomized, controlled, before-and-after study in South Africa found that digging trenches alongside culverts did not reduce mammal mortality on roads.

113BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)

114Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 10 %; certainty 20 %; harms 0 %).

https://www.conservationevidence.com/​actions/​2524

Install acoustic wildlife warnings along roads

115Two studies evaluated the effects on mammals of installing acoustic wildlife warnings along roads. One study was in Demark and one was in Australia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

116POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

117BEHAVIOUR (2 STUDIES)

118Behaviour change (2 studies): A before-and-after study in Denmark found that sound from acoustic road markings did not alter fallow deer behaviour. A controlled study in Australia found that Roo-Guard® sound emitters did not deter tammar wallabies from food and so were not considered suitable for keeping them off roads.

119Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 5 %; certainty 37 %; harms 0 %).

https://www.conservationevidence.com/​actions/​2592

Install barrier fencing along railways

120One study evaluated the effects on mammals of installing barrier fencing along railways. This study was in Norway.

121COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

122POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY)

123Survival (1 study): A before-and-after study in Norway found that fencing eliminated moose collisions with trains, except at the fence end.

124BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)

125Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 80 %; certainty 30 %; harms 0 %).

https://www.conservationevidence.com/​actions/​2590

Install traffic calming structures to reduce speeds

126One study evaluated the effects on mammals of installing traffic calming structures to reduce speeds. This study was in Australia.

127COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

128POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY)

129Abundance (1 study): A before-and-after study in Australia found that following installation of barriers to create a single lane, rumble strips, reflective wildlife signs, reflective wildlife deterrents, wildlife escape ramps and production of an educational pamphlet, a small population of eastern quoll population re-established in the area.

130Survival (1 study): A before-and-after study in Australia found that following installation of barriers to create a single lane, rumble strips, reflective wildlife signs, reflective wildlife deterrents, wildlife escape ramps and production of an educational pamphlet, vehicle collisions with Tasmanian devils, but not eastern quolls decreased.

131BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)

132Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 60 %; certainty 30 %; harms 0 %).

https://www.conservationevidence.com/​actions/​2598

Install wildlife crosswalks

133One study evaluated the effects on mammals of installing wildlife crosswalks. This study was in the USA.

134COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

135POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY)

136Survival (1 study): A replicated, before-and-after, site comparison study in the USA found that designated crossing points with barrier fencing did not significantly reduce road deaths of mule deer.

137BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)

138Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 0 %; certainty 20 %; harms 0 %).

https://www.conservationevidence.com/​actions/​2593

Modify culverts to make them more accessible to mammals

139One study evaluated the effects of modifying culverts to make them more accessible to mammals. This study was in the USA.

140COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

141POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

142BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY)

143Use (1 study): A replicated, site comparison study in the USA found that modified culverts (with a dry walkway, open-air central section and enlarged entrances) were used more by bobcats to make crossings than were unmodified culverts.

144Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 70 %; certainty 30 %; harms 0 %).

https://www.conservationevidence.com/​actions/​2522

Modify the roadside environment to reduce collisions by reducing attractiveness of road verges to mammals

145One study evaluated the effects of modifying the roadside environment to reduce collisions by reducing attractiveness of road verges to mammals. This study was in Canada.

146COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

147POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

148BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY)

149(1 study): A replicated, before-and-after, site comparison study in Canada found that draining roadside salt pools and filling them with rocks reduced the number and duration of moose visits.

150Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 60 %; certainty 25 %; harms 0 %).

https://www.conservationevidence.com/​actions/​2600

Reduce legal speed limit

151One study evaluated the effects on mammals of reducing the legal speed limit. This study was in Canada.

152COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

153POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY)

154Survival (1 study): A controlled, before-and-after study in Canada found that speed limit reductions and enforcement did not reduce vehicle collisions with bighorn sheep or elk.

155BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)

156Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 5 %; certainty 27 %; harms 0 %).

https://www.conservationevidence.com/​actions/​2596

Use road lighting to reduce vehicle collisions with mammals

157Two studies evaluated the effects on mammals of using road lighting to reduce vehicle collisions with mammals. Both studies were in the USA.

158COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

159POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES)

160Survival (2 studies): One of two studies (one controlled and one before-and-after), in the USA, found that road lighting reduced vehicle collisions with moose. The other study found that road lighting did not reduce vehicle collisions with mule deer.

161BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)

162Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 50 %; certainty 30 %; harms 2 %).

https://www.conservationevidence.com/​actions/​2614

Unlikely to be beneficial

Fit vehicles with ultrasonic warning devices

163Three studies evaluated the effects on mammals of fitting vehicles with ultrasonic warning devices. Two studies were in the USA and one was in Australia.

164COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

165POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY)

166Survival (1 study): A replicated, controlled study in Australia found that Shu Roo warning whistles did not reduce animal-vehicle collisions for eastern grey kangaroos or red kangaroos

167BEHAVIOUR (3 STUDIES)

168Behaviour change (3 studies): Three controlled studies (two replicated), in the USA and Australia, found that ultrasonic warning devices did not deter mule deer, eastern grey kangaroos, red kangaroos or white-tailed deer from roads. Assessment: unlikely to be beneficial (effectiveness 0 %; certainty 55 %; harms 0 %).

https://www.conservationevidence.com/​actions/​2606

Use chemical repellents along roads or railways

169Five studies evaluated the effects on mammals of using chemical repellents along roads or railways. Two studies were in Canada and one each was in Germany, Norway and Denmark.

170COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

171POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES)

172Survival (2 studies): Two studies (one before-and-after, one site comparison), in Germany and Norway, found that chemical-based repellents did not reduce collisions between ungulates and road vehicles or trains.

173BEHAVIOUR (4 STUDIES)

174Behaviour change (4 studies): Two of four studies (including three replicated, controlled studies), in Germany, Canada, and Denmark, found that chemical repellents, trialled for potential to deter animals from roads, did not deter ungulates. The other two studies found mixed results with repellents temporarily deterring some ungulate species in one study and one of three deterrents deterring caribou in the other.

175Assessment: unlikely to be beneficial (effectiveness 20 %; certainty 50 %; harms 0 %).

https://www.conservationevidence.com/​actions/​2615

No evidence found (no assessment)

176We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

  • Modify vegetation along roads to reduce collisions with mammals by enhancing visibility for drivers

  • Remove roadkill regularly to reduce kill rate of predators/scavengers

  • Retain/maintain road verges as small mammal habitat

  • Use alternative de-icers on roads

  • Use reflective collars or paint on mammals to reduce collisions with road vehicles

  • Use wildlife decoy to reduce vehicle collisions with mammals.

15.4.2 Utility and service lines

Likely to be beneficial

Install crossings over/under pipelines

177Three studies evaluated the effects on mammals of installing crossings over/ under pipelines. Two studies were in the USA and one was in Canada.

178COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

179POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

180BEHAVIOUR (3 STUDIES)

181Use (3 studies): A study in USA found that buried pipeline sections were used more frequently than their availability as crossing points by caribou. A study in USA found that pipeline sections elevated specifically to permit mammal crossings underneath were not used by moose or caribou more than were other elevated sections. A controlled study in Canada found that a range of large mammal species used wildlife crossings over pipelines.

182Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 60 %; certainty 40 %; harms 0 %).

https://www.conservationevidence.com/​actions/​2627

15.4.3 Shipping lanes

Likely to be beneficial

Install overpasses over waterways

183Two studies evaluated the effects on mammals of installing overpasses over waterways. One study was in the USA and one was in Spain.

184COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

185POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

186BEHAVIOUR (2 STUDIES)

187Use (2 studies): Two studies (one replicated, one a site comparison) in the USA and Spain, found that bridges and overpasses over waterways were used by desert mule deer, collared peccaries and coyotes and by a range of large and medium-sized mammals.

188Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 70 %; certainty 40 %; harms 0 %).

https://www.conservationevidence.com/​actions/​2628

Provide mammals with escape routes from canals

189Five studies evaluated the effects on mammals of providing mammals with escape routes from canals. Two studies were in Germany and one each was in the USA, the Netherlands and Argentina.

190COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

191POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES)

192Survival (2 studies): One of two studies (one before-and-after), in Germany and the USA, found that ramps and ladders reduced mule deer drownings whilst the other study found that ramps and shallow-water inlets did not reduce mammal drownings.

193BEHAVIOUR (3 STUDIES)

194Use (3 studies): Three studies (one replicated) in Germany, the Netherlands and Argentina, found that ramps and other access or escape routes out of water were used by a range of medium-sized and large mammals species. Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 60 %; certainty 45 %; harms 0 %).

https://www.conservationevidence.com/​actions/​2638

No evidence found (no assessment)

195We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

196• Install barrier fencing along waterways.

Acheter

Rechercher dans OpenEdition Search

Vous allez être redirigé vers OpenEdition Search