Effects of highway fencing and wildlife crossings on moose Alces alces movements and space use in southwestern Sweden
-
Published source details
Olsson M.P.O. & Widén P. (2008) Effects of highway fencing and wildlife crossings on moose Alces alces movements and space use in southwestern Sweden. Wildlife Biology, 14, 111-117.
Published source details Olsson M.P.O. & Widén P. (2008) Effects of highway fencing and wildlife crossings on moose Alces alces movements and space use in southwestern Sweden. Wildlife Biology, 14, 111-117.
Actions
This study is summarised as evidence for the following.
| Action | Category | |
|---|---|---|
|
Install overpasses over roads/railways Action Link |
 |
|
|
Install barrier fencing and underpasses along roads Action Link |
|
-
Install overpasses over roads/railways
A before-and-after study in 2002–2004 in mixed forest and farmland in southwestern Sweden (Olsson & Widen 2008, same experimental study site as Olsson et al. 2008) found that following installation of two wildlife overpasses and barrier fencing, moose Alces alces used overpasses and collisions with vehicles decreased, but fencing created a barrier to movements. There were fewer moose-vehicle collisions after overpass and fence construction (zero/year) than before (2.7/year). During construction, 1.8 collisions/year were recorded. Moose were recorded crossing the highway 12 times after overpass and fence installation (during 18 months) and 47 times before installation (eight months). All crossings after construction were via the two wildlife overpasses. Home-range locations changed significantly, with ranges intersected by the highway decreasing to five out of 38 monitored ranges (13%) after fencing from 10 out of 38 (26%) before. Two 6-km sections of the European highway 6 were converted to a fenced four-lane highway in 2000–2004. A third section remained unfenced (3 km). The sections contained two wildlife overpasses, one wildlife underpass, three conventional road tunnels and two conventional bridges that could be crossed. Twenty-four moose were radio-collared. Locations were recorded every two hours before construction (February–September 2002), during construction (October 2002–May 2004) and after construction (June 2004–December 2005).
(Summarised by: Rebecca K. Smith)
-
Install barrier fencing and underpasses along roads
A before-and-after study in 2002–2005 along a highway through mixed forest and farmland in southwestern Sweden (Olsson & Widen 2008; same experimental set-up as Olsson et al. 2008) found that following installation of an underpass, overpasses and barrier fencing, moose Alces alces road casualties declined but moose did not use the underpass. There were fewer moose-vehicle collisions after fence construction (zero/year) than before (2.7/year). During construction, 1.8 collisions/year were recorded. Moose were recorded crossing the highway 47 times before construction of crossing features, 76 during and 12 times after features were installed. All crossings after fencing prevented direct road access were via the two wildlife overpasses. Two 6-km sections of a highway were converted to a fenced four-lane highway in 2000–2004. The sections contained one wildlife underpass (35 m long, 4.7 m high, 13 m wide), two wildlife overpasses, three conventional road tunnels and two conventional bridges that could be crossed. Twenty-four moose were radio-collared. Locations were recorded every two hours before construction (February–September 2002), during construction (October 2002–May 2004) and after construction (June 2004–December 2005; 8,830 moose days).
(Summarised by: Rebecca K. Smith)
)_2023.JPG)
