Study

Roads and wildlife: impacts, mitigation and implications for wildlife management in Australia

  • Published source details Taylor B.D. & Goldingay R.L. (2010) Roads and wildlife: impacts, mitigation and implications for wildlife management in Australia. Wildlife Research, 37, 320-331.

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Install overpasses over roads/railways

Action Link
Reptile Conservation

Install tunnels/culverts/underpasses under roads/railways

Action Link
Reptile Conservation

Install overpasses over roads/railways

Action Link
Terrestrial Mammal Conservation

Install tunnels/culverts/underpass under roads

Action Link
Terrestrial Mammal Conservation

Install culverts or tunnels as road crossings

Action Link
Amphibian Conservation

Install barrier fencing and underpasses along roads

Action Link
Terrestrial Mammal Conservation
  1. Install overpasses over roads/railways

    A review in 2010 of studies monitoring 329 road crossing structures in Australia, Europe and North America (Taylor & Goldingay 2010) found that reptiles used overpass crossing structures in three of 15 studies. Reptiles were recorded using overpasses in two of 15 studies and wildlife overpasses in one of 10 of the studies (in one study reptiles were present but did not use the structure). One study of a rope bridge did not record any reptiles. The use of overpasses, wildlife overpasses and canopy-rope bridges by wildlife was reported for 15 studies.

    (Summarised by: Katie Sainsbury)

  2. Install tunnels/culverts/underpasses under roads/railways

    A review in 2010 of studies monitoring 329 road crossing structures in Australia, Europe and North America (Taylor & Goldingay 2010) found that reptiles used crossing structures in 21 of 37 studies. From a total of 37 studies, reptiles used pipes in four of five studies, drainage culverts in nine studies (total number of studies unclear), adapted culverts in four of six studies and bridge underpasses in three of seven studies. Reptiles used a wildlife underpass in one of 13 studies, and in one study they were seen, but did not use the structure. A database (Web of Science) was searched for peer-reviewed, English language studies published in 1998–2008, using a range of keywords relating to roads and wildlife (see paper for details), and reference lists of any papers obtained were also checked.

    (Summarised by: Katie Sainsbury)

  3. Install overpasses over roads/railways

    A review of 30 papers monitoring 329 crossing structures in Australia, Europe and North America (Taylor & Goldingay 2010) found that overpasses were used by a range of mammals, particularly larger mammal species. Small mammals used conventional bridge overpasses (demonstrated by 2/4 relevant studies) and wildlife overpasses (4/7 studies). Arboreal mammals used wildlife overpasses (1/1 study). Medium-sized mammals used conventional bridge overpasses (4/5 studies) and wildlife overpasses (5/7 studies). Large mammals used conventional bridge overpasses (9/11 studies) and wildlife overpasses (23/23 studies). Studies suggested that ungulates used overpasses more when they were close to vegetation cover and a river or stream and less when they were in a cropland area. Narrow overpasses (<6 m wide) were not used by deer. Thirty papers, monitoring 329 crossing structures, were reviewed. Fourteen papers investigated multiple structure types, resulting in a total of 52 studies of different structure types. Overpasses included land bridges, wildlife overpasses with grass, trees or other vegetation, combined wildlife and vehicle overpasses, pole bridges and rope bridges.

    (Summarised by: Rebecca K. Smith)

  4. Install tunnels/culverts/underpass under roads

    A review of 30 studies reporting on monitoring of 329 crossing structures in Australia, Europe and North America (Taylor & Goldingay 2010) found that mammals used most culverts and underpasses. Small mammals used pipes (demonstrated by 6/7 relevant studies), drainage culverts (5/5 studies), adapted culverts (5/5 studies), wildlife underpasses (3/4 studies) and bridge underpasses (2/3 studies). Arboreal mammals used pipes (1/1 studies), drainage culverts (4/4 studies), adapted culverts (4/4 studies) and bridge underpasses (1/1 studies). Medium-sized mammals used pipes (8/11 studies), drainage culverts (12/13 studies), adapted culverts (8/8 studies), wildlife underpasses (6/8 studies) and bridge underpasses (6/7 studies). Large mammals used pipes (6/9 studies), drainage culverts (11/12 studies), adapted culverts (11/11 studies), wildlife underpasses (24/24 studies) and bridge underpasses (14/15 studies). Larger mammals tended to use more open underpasses. Small and medium-sized mammals used underpasses with funnel-fencing or adjoining walls and those with vegetation cover close to entrances. Those with vegetation cover tended to be avoided by some ungulates. Thirty papers reporting monitoring of 329 crossing structures were reviewed. Fourteen papers investigated multiple structure types, resulting in a total of 52 studies of different structure types. Underpasses, from small drainage pipes to dry passage bridges, comprised 82% of crossings.

    (Summarised by: Rebecca K. Smith)

  5. Install culverts or tunnels as road crossings

    A review in 2010 of studies monitoring 327 road crossing structures in Australia, Europe and North America (Taylor & Goldingay 2010) found that amphibians used crossing structures in 12 of 14 studies. Amphibians used drainage culverts in four of five studies, adapted culverts in all three studies and pipes in both studies they were monitored. Wildlife underpasses, bridge underpasses and overpasses were used in the one study that monitored each. Amphibians did not use the one wildlife overpass monitored. Fourteen of the 30 published papers investigated multiple structure types, which resulted in a total of 52 studies of different structure types.

     

     

  6. Install barrier fencing and underpasses along roads

    A review of 30 papers reporting on monitoring of 329 crossing structures in Australia, Europe and North America (Taylor & Goldingay 2010) found that mammals used most culverts and underpasses, among which some were in areas with roadside barrier fencing. Small mammals used pipes (demonstrated by 6/7 relevant studies), drainage culverts (5/5 studies), adapted culverts (5/5 studies), wildlife underpasses (3/4 studies) and bridge underpasses (2/3 studies). Arboreal mammals used pipes (1/1 studies), drainage culverts (4/4 studies), adapted culverts (4/4 studies) and bridge underpasses (1/1 studies). Medium-sized mammals used pipes (8/11 studies), drainage culverts (12/13 studies), adapted culverts (8/8 studies), wildlife underpasses (6/8 studies) and bridge underpasses (6/7 studies). Large mammals used pipes (6/9 studies), drainage culverts (11/12 studies), adapted culverts (11/11 studies), wildlife underpasses (24/24 studies) and bridge underpasses (14/15 studies). Larger mammals tended to use more open underpasses. Small and medium-sized mammals used underpasses with funnel-fencing or adjoining walls and those with vegetation cover close to entrances. Those with vegetation cover tended to be avoided by some ungulates. Thirty papers reporting monitoring of 329 crossing structures were reviewed. Fourteen papers investigated multiple structure types, resulting in a total of 52 studies of different structure types. Underpasses, from small drainage pipes to dry passage bridges, comprised 82% of crossings.

    (Summarised by: Rebecca K. Smith)

Output references
What Works 2021 cover

What Works in Conservation

What Works in Conservation provides expert assessments of the effectiveness of actions, based on summarised evidence, in synopses. Subjects covered so far include amphibians, birds, mammals, forests, peatland and control of freshwater invasive species. More are in progress.

More about What Works in Conservation

Download free PDF or purchase
The Conservation Evidence Journal

The Conservation Evidence Journal

An online, free to publish in, open-access journal publishing results from research and projects that test the effectiveness of conservation actions.

Read the latest volume: Volume 19

Go to the CE Journal

Discover more on our blog

Our blog contains the latest news and updates from the Conservation Evidence team, the Conservation Evidence Journal, and our global partners in evidence-based conservation.


Who uses Conservation Evidence?

Meet some of the evidence champions

Endangered Landscape Programme Red List Champion - Arc Kent Wildlife Trust The Rufford Foundation Save the Frogs - Ghana Bern wood Supporting Conservation Leaders National Biodiversity Network Sustainability Dashboard Frog Life The international journey of Conservation - Oryx British trust for ornithology Cool Farm Alliance UNEP AWFA Butterfly Conservation People trust for endangered species Vincet Wildlife Trust