Study

Are motorway passages worth building? Vertebrate use of road-crossing structures on a Spanish motorway

  • Published source details Mata C., Hervàs I., Herranz J., Suàrez F. & Malo J.E. (2008) Are motorway passages worth building? Vertebrate use of road-crossing structures on a Spanish motorway. Journal of Environmental Management, 88, 407-415.

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Install overpasses over roads/railways

Action Link
Reptile Conservation

Install barriers and crossing structures along roads/railways

Action Link
Reptile Conservation

Install overpasses over roads/railways

Action Link
Terrestrial Mammal Conservation

Install barrier fencing and underpasses along roads

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

    A replicated study in 2001 of a highway in Zamora province, Spain (Mata et al. 2008 same experimental set-up as Mata et al. 2005) found that wildlife, but not other overpasses were used by some reptiles. Ophidians (snakes and legless lacertids) were recorded crossing wildlife overpasses (0.3 crossings/day/structure) but not other overpasses, such as rural tracks. Lacertid lizards (Lacerta spp. and Podarcis spp.) were not recorded using any overpasses. Four wildlife overpasses (15–20 m wide, 60–62 m long) and six general overpasses (rural tracks, 7–8 m wide, 58–65 m long) were monitored along the A-52 motorway. The motorway had barrier fencing along its length. Marble dust (1 m wide cross) was used to record animal tracks daily for 10 days in March–June 2001.

    (Summarised by: Maggie Watson, Katie Sainsbury)

  2. Install barriers and crossing structures along roads/railways

    A replicated study in 2001 along a highway in Zamora province, Spain (Mata et al. 2008; same experimental set-up as Mata et al. 2005) found that road underpasses and culverts, in areas with roadside barrier fencing, were used by lizards. Lacertid lizards (Lacerta spp. and Podarcis spp.) were recorded in circular culverts (lacertids: 0.36 crossings/day/structure) and open-span underpasses (0.14) but not adapted culverts or wildlife underpasses. Ophidians (snakes and legless lacertids) were not recorded in any underpasses. Thirty-three crossings were monitored. These comprised 14 circular drainage culverts (2 m diameter, 35–62 m long), seven wildlife-adapted box culverts (2–4 m wide, 2–3 m high, 36–45 m long), seven open-span underpasses (rural tracks/paths, 4–9 m wide, 4–6 m high, 32–72 m long) and five wildlife underpasses (14–20 m wide, 5–8 m high, 30–96 m long). The motorway had barrier fencing along its length. Animal tracks were recorded using marble dust (1 m wide cross) over 10 days in March–June 2001.

    (Summarised by: Maggie Watson, Katie Sainsbury)

  3. Install overpasses over roads/railways

    A replicated study in 2001 in Zamora province, Spain (Mata et al. 2008) found that overpasses were used by mammals. Wildlife overpasses were used by red fox Vulpes vuples (detected on average per overpass on 3.5/10 days), wild boar Sus scofra (2.3/10 days), small mammals (shrews, mice and voles; 0.3/10 days) and rabbits and hares (3.0/10 days). Other overpasses, such as rural tracks, were also used by wild boar (detected on average per crossing on 0.7/10 days), small mammals (1.0/10 days), rabbits and hares (1.8/10 days), red deer Cervus elaphus (0.2/10 days), rats Rattus sp. (1.3/10 days), western hedgehogs Erinaceus europaeus (0.2/10 days), European badger Meles meles (0.2/10 days) and red fox (3.0/10 days). Cat and dog prints were also detected but could not be determined as being from either wild or domestic species. Overall, overpasses (not including wildlife overpasses) were used disproportionately more than were other crossings (which included underpasses and culverts - data presented as indices). Four wildlife overpasses (15–20 m wide, 60–62 m long) and six general overpasses (rural tracks, 7–8 m wide, 58–65 m long) were monitored along the A-52 motorway. The motorway had barrier fencing along its length. Marble dust (1-m-wide cross) was used to record animal tracks daily for 10 days in March–June 2001.

    (Summarised by: Rebecca K. Smith)

  4. Install barrier fencing and underpasses along roads

    A study in 2001 along a highway in Zamora province, Spain (Mata et al. 2008; same experimental set-up as Mata et al. 2005) found that road underpasses and culverts, in areas with roadside barrier fencing, were used by mammals. Wildlife underpasses were the most used out of four structure types, by polecats Mustela putorius (detected on average on 0.2/10 days/underpass), roe deer Capreolus capreolus (0.4/10), red deer Cervus elaphus (0.4/10), wild boar Sus scrofa (0.6/10) and rabbits and hares (1.2/10). Open-span underpasses was the most used structure by small-spotted genets Genetta genetta (0.3/10) and red foxes Vulpes vulpes (4.7/10). European badgers Meles meles (3.1/10) and rats (0.4/10) used wildlife-adapted box culverts more than other structure. Small mammals (1.6/10) were most frequently recorded in circular culverts. Thirty-three crossings were monitored. These comprised five wildlife underpasses (14–20 m wide, 5–8 m high, 30–96 m long), seven open-span underpasses (rural tracks/paths, 4–9 m wide, 4–6 m high, 32–72 m long), seven wildlife-adapted box culverts (2–4 m wide, 2–3 m high, 36–45 m long) and 14 circular drainage culverts (2 m diameter, 35–62 m long). The motorway had barrier fencing along its length. Animal tracks were recorded using marble dust (1-m-wide cross) over 10 days in March–June 2001.

    (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 21

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 ProgrammeRed List Champion - Arc Kent Wildlife Trust The Rufford Foundation Save the Frogs - Ghana Mauritian Wildlife Supporting Conservation Leaders
Sustainability Dashboard National Biodiversity Network Frog Life The international journey of Conservation - Oryx Cool Farm Alliance UNEP AWFA Bat Conservation InternationalPeople trust for endangered species Vincet Wildlife Trust