Effectiveness of Road Mitigation for Common Toads (Bufo bufo) in the Netherlands

Roads and traffic may have major impacts on amphibian populations, primarily as a result of amphibian road mortality. A variety of measures have been developed to prevent road mortality of amphibians, such as the construction of fences to keep the animals off the road and amphibian tunnels to provide them a safe passage. We carried out a capture-mark-recapture study to evaluate the performance of two tunnels and permanent drift fences for common toads at a local road in the Netherlands. We found that of the marked toads only 31% used the tunnels to cross the road. We assessed four possible explanations for the fact that a proportion of the toads did not use the tunnels: for toad groups that used the tunnels, as compared to toad groups that did not use the tunnels, (1) the mean distance between the location of first capture and the nearest tunnel was significantly smaller; (2) the mean movement distance along the fence was significantly larger; (3) the number of toad groups that walked in the wrong direction after encountering the drift fence was lower; (4) the mean number of nights between first and last capture of the toad group was significantly higher. Over all study years 28% of the migrating toads—marked and unmarked—that attempted to cross the road ended up on the road pavement, despite the mitigation. Migrating population numbers decreased with about 75% after the mitigation measures were installed. We emphasize that better baseline studies on where toads cross before mitigation and improved knowledge on effects of tunnel design and the distances the animals move along a drift fence are vital to mitigate road impacts properly and maintain viable toad populations. We recommend to base tunnel densities on the mean movement distance of the toads that move only small distances and spent relatively little time along the drift fence, install drift fences that go well beyond the location where toads cross the road, take appropriate measures at entrance roads and at fence ends and consider alternatives to tunnels and fences, such as the creation of breeding waters on both sides of the road

Effects of roads and traffic on wildlife populations and landscape function: Road ecology is moving toward larger scales

Road ecology has developed into a significant branch of ecology with steady growth in the number of refereed journal articles, books, conferences, symposia, and “best practice” guidelines being produced each year. The main objective of this special issue of Ecology and Society is to highlight the need for studies that document the population, community, and ecosystem-level effects of roads and traffic by publishing studies that document these effects. It became apparent when compiling this special issue that there is a paucity of studies that explicitly examined higher order effects of roads and traffic. No papers on landscape function or ecosystem-level effects were submitted, despite being highlighted as a priority for publication. The 17 papers in this issue, from Australia, Canada, the Netherlands, and USA, all deal to some extent with either population or community-level effects of roads and traffic. Nevertheless, many higher order effects remain unquantified, and must become the focus of future studies because the complexity and interactions among the effects of roads and traffic are large and potentially unexpected. An analysis of these complex interrelations requires systematic research, and it is necessary to further establish collaborative links between ecologists and transportation agencies. Many road agencies have “environmental sustainability” as one of their goals and the only way to achieve such goals is for them to support and foster long-term and credible scientific research. The current situation, with numerous small-scale projects being undertaken independently of each other, cannot provide the information required to quantify and mitigate the negative effects of roads and traffic on higher levels. The future of road ecology research will be best enhanced when multiple road projects in different states or countries are combined and studied as part of integrated, well-replicated research projects

Evaluating the effectiveness of road mitigation measures.

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 col- laboration 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 recom- mendations on how to incorporate such evaluations in road planning practices

Effectiveness of road mitigation for common toads (Bufo bufo) in the Netherlands

<p>Roads and traffic may have major impacts on amphibian populations, primarily as a result of amphibian road mortality. A variety of measures have been developed to prevent road mortality of amphibians, such as the construction of fences to keep the animals off the road and amphibian tunnels to provide them a safe passage. We carried out a capture-mark-recapture study to evaluate the performance of two tunnels and permanent drift fences for common toads at a local road in the Netherlands. We found that of the marked toads only 31% used the tunnels to cross the road. We assessed four possible explanations for the fact that a proportion of the toads did not use the tunnels: for toad groups that used the tunnels, as compared to toad groups that did not use the tunnels, (1) the mean distance between the location of first capture and the nearest tunnel was significantly smaller; (2) the mean movement distance along the fence was significantly larger; (3) the number of toad groups that walked in the wrong direction after encountering the drift fence was lower; (4) the mean number of nights between first and last capture of the toad group was significantly higher. Over all study years 28% of the migrating toads-marked and unmarked-that attempted to cross the road ended up on the road pavement, despite the mitigation. Migrating population numbers decreased with about 75% after the mitigation measures were installed. We emphasize that better baseline studies on where toads cross before mitigation and improved knowledge on effects of tunnel design and the distances the animals move along a drift fence are vital to mitigate road impacts properly and maintain viable toad populations. We recommend to base tunnel densities on the mean movement distance of the toads that move only small distances and spent relatively little time along the drift fence, install drift fences that go well beyond the location where toads cross the road, take appropriate measures at entrance roads and at fence ends and consider alternatives to tunnels and fences, such as the creation of breeding waters on both sides of the road.</p

Effectiveness of road mitigation for common toads (Bufo bufo) in the Netherlands

Roads and traffic may have major impacts on amphibian populations, primarily as a result of amphibian road mortality. A variety of measures have been developed to prevent road mortality of amphibians, such as the construction of fences to keep the animals off the road and amphibian tunnels to provide them a safe passage. We carried out a capture-mark-recapture study to evaluate the performance of two tunnels and permanent drift fences for common toads at a local road in the Netherlands. We found that of the marked toads only 31% used the tunnels to cross the road. We assessed four possible explanations for the fact that a proportion of the toads did not use the tunnels: for toad groups that used the tunnels, as compared to toad groups that did not use the tunnels, (1) the mean distance between the location of first capture and the nearest tunnel was significantly smaller; (2) the mean movement distance along the fence was significantly larger; (3) the number of toad groups that walked in the wrong direction after encountering the drift fence was lower; (4) the mean number of nights between first and last capture of the toad group was significantly higher. Over all study years 28% of the migrating toads-marked and unmarked-that attempted to cross the road ended up on the road pavement, despite the mitigation. Migrating population numbers decreased with about 75% after the mitigation measures were installed. We emphasize that better baseline studies on where toads cross before mitigation and improved knowledge on effects of tunnel design and the distances the animals move along a drift fence are vital to mitigate road impacts properly and maintain viable toad populations. We recommend to base tunnel densities on the mean movement distance of the toads that move only small distances and spent relatively little time along the drift fence, install drift fences that go well beyond the location where toads cross the road, take appropriate measures at entrance roads and at fence ends and consider alternatives to tunnels and fences, such as the creation of breeding waters on both sides of the road.</p

Assessing the impact of roads on animal population viability

Different tools have been developed to study the potential effects of spatial developments, such as the construction of roads, on the viability of animal populations. For instance, with dynamic (meta)population models the impacts of spatial developments can be accurately quantified. However, these models are often species specific and require detailed field research to validate the parameters used. If a multi-species analyses is needed, the use of such models is often impractical and expensive. In that case, an expert system, in which analyses of different species can be aggregated, may be a better tool to assess these kinds of impacts. Pros and cons of both types of tools are illustrated with (1) the ex-ante analyses of badger (Meles meles) population viability in central Limburg (The Netherlands) after the (proposed) construction of highway A73, and (2) the multi-species analyses of high priority locations to restore habitat connectivity across main roads in The Netherlands

How effective is road mitigation at reducing road-kill? A meta-analysis

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.</p

Relationship between weighted-mean effect sizes and the weighted-mean percent road-kill decrease for crossing structures and fencing alone and in combination.

<p>Values in parentheses are the number of effect size estimates. Error bars indicate 95% confidence intervals.</p

Relationship between weighted-mean effect sizes and the weighted-mean percent road-kill reduction for (A) study design, and (B) whether mortality data collected during construction of the mitigation measure was excluded, based on studies employing BA or BACI designs.

<p>Values in parentheses are the number of effect size estimates. Error bars indicate 95% confidence intervals.</p