Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Do well-connected landscapes promote road-related mortality?

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
European Journal of Wildlife Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Cost surface (CS) models have emerged as a useful tool to examine the interactions between landscapes patterns and wildlife at large-scale extents. This approach is particularly relevant to guide conservation planning for species that show vulnerability to road networks in human-dominated landscapes. In this study, we measured the functional connectivity of the landscape in southern Portugal and examined how it may be related to stone marten road mortality risk. We addressed three questions: (1) How different levels of landscape connectivity influence stone marten occurrence in montado patches? (2) Is there any relation between montado patches connectivity and stone marten road mortality risk? (3) If so, which road-related features might be responsible for the species’ high road mortality? We developed a series of connectivity models using CS scenarios with different resistance values given to each vegetation cover type to reflect different resistance to species movement. Our models showed that the likelihood of occurrence of stone marten decreased with distance to source areas, meaning continuous montado. Open areas and riparian areas within open area matrices entailed increased costs. We found higher stone marten mortality on roads in well-connected areas. Road sinuosity was an important factor influencing the mortality in those areas. This result challenges the way that connectivity and its relation to mortality has been generally regarded. Clearly, landscape connectivity and road-related mortality are not independent.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adriaensen F, Chardon JP, De Blust G, Swinnen E, Villalba S, Gulinck H, Matthysen E (2003) The application of ‘least-cost’ modelling as a functional landscape model. Landsc Urban Plan 64:233–247

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bissonette JA (1997) Scale-sensitive properties: historical context, current meaning. Chapter 1. In: Bissonette JA (ed) Wildlife and landscape ecology: effects of pattern and scale. Springer, NewYork, pp 3–31

    Google Scholar 

  • Bissonette JA (2003) Linking landscape patterns to biological reality. In: Bissonette JA, Storch I (eds) Landscape theory and resource management: linking theory to practice. Island Press, Covelo, CA, pp 15–34

    Google Scholar 

  • Bissonette JA (2007) Resource acquisition and animal response in dynamic landscapes: keeping the books. In: Bissonette JA, Storch I (eds) 2007 Temporal dimensions of landscape ecology: wildlife responses to variable resources. Springer, New York, pp 13–29

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Broquet T, Ray N, Petit E, Fryxell JM, Burel F (2006) Genetic isolation by distance and landscape connectivity in the American marten (Martes americana). Landscape Ecol 21:877–889

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2002) Model selection and multi-model inference: a practical information-theoretic approach. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Chetkiewicz CB, St C, Clair C, Boyce MS (2006) Corridors for conservation: integrating pattern and process. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 37:317–342

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chevan A, Sutherland M (1991) Hierarchical partitioning. Am Stat 45:90–96

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark PJ, Evans FC (1954) Distance to nearest neighbor as a measure of spatial relationships in population. Ecology 35:445–453

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crooks KR (2002) Relative sensitivities of mammalian carnivores to habitat fragmentation. Conserv Biol 16:488–502

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davison AC, Hinkley DV (1997) Bootstrap methods and their application, chapter 5. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Deleo JM (1993) Receiver operating characteristic laboratory (ROCLAB): software for developing decision strategies that account for uncertainty. Proceedings of the Second International Symposium on Uncertainty Modelling and Analysis. IEEE, Computer Society Press, College Park, MD, pp 318–325

  • D’Eon RG, Glenn SM, Parfitt I, Fortin M (2002) Landscape connectivity as a function of scale and organism vagility in a real forested landscape. Conserv Ecol 6 2 10. http://www.consecol.org/vol6/iss2/art10

  • Dixon JD, Oli MK, Wooten MC, Eason TH, McCown JW, Paetkau D (2006) Effectiveness of a regional corridor in connecting two Florida black bear populations. Conserv Biol 20:155–162

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dunning JB, Danielson BJ, Pulliam HR (1992) Ecological processes that affect populations in complex landscapes. Oikos 65:169–175

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dytham C (2003) Choosing and using statistics: a biologist’s guide, 2nd edn. Blackwell, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Eigenbrod F, Hecnar SJ, Fahrig L (2008) Accessible habitat: an improved measure of the effects of habitat loss and roads on wildlife populations. Landscape Ecol 23:159–168

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ESRI (1999) ArcView GIS 3.2. Environmental Systems Research Institute, Redlands, California

    Google Scholar 

  • ESRI (2006) ArcGIS 9.2. Environmental Systems Research Institute Ltd., USA

    Google Scholar 

  • Fahrig L, Merriam G (1985) Habitat patch connectivity and population survival. Ecology 66:1762–1768

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferreras P (2001) Landscape structure and asymmetrical inter-patch connectivity in a metapopulation of the endangered Iberian lynx. Biol Conserv 100:125–136

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fielding AH, Bell JF (1997) A review of methods for the assessment of prediction errors in conservation presence/absence models. Environ Conserv 24:38–49

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • FitzGibbon SI, Putland DA, Goldizen AW (2007) The importance of functional connectivity in the conservation of a ground-dwelling mammal in an urban Australian landscape. Landscape Ecol 22:1513–1525

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forman RTT, Sperling D, Bissonette JA, Clevenger A, Cutshall C, Dale V, Fahrig L, France R, Goldman C, Heanue K, Jones J, Swanson F, Turrentine T, Winter T (2003) Road ecology: science and solutions. Island Press, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • Genovesi P, Secchi M, Boitani L (1996) Diet of stone marten an example of ecological flexibility. J Zool 238:545–555

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gonzales EK, Gergel SE (2007) Testing assumptions of cost surface analysis—a tool for invasive species management. Landscape Ecol 22:1155–1168

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodwin BJ, Fahrig L (2002) How does landscape structure influence landscape connectivity? Oikos 99:552–570

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goszczyński J, Posłuszny M, Pilot M, Gralak B (2007) Patterns of winter locomotion and foraging in two sympatric marten species: Martes martes and Martes foina. Can J Zool 85:239–249

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grilo C, Bissonette JA, Santos-Reis M (2009) Spatial–temporal patterns in Mediterranean carnivore road casualties: consequences for mitigation. Biol Conserv 142:301–313

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hale ML, Lurz PWW, Shirley MDF, Rushton S, Fuller RM, Wolff K (2001) Impact of landscape management on the genetic structure of red squirrel populations. Science 293(5538):2246–2248

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hames RS, Rosenberg KV, Lowe JD, Dhondt AA (2001) Site reoccupation in fragmented landscapes: testing predictions of metapopulation theory. J Anim Ecol 70:182–190

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herr J, Schley L, Roper TJ (2009) Socio-spatial organisation of urban stone martens. J Zool 277:54–62

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hines J (2006) PRESENCE 2—software to estimate patch occupancy and related parameters. USGS-PWRC

  • Hunter RD, Fisher RN, Crooks KR (2003) Landscape-level connectivity in southern California as assessed through carnivore habitat suitability. Nat Areas J 23:302–314

    Google Scholar 

  • Iuell B, Bekker GJ, Cuperus R, Dufek J, Fry G, Hicks C, HlavÁč V, Keller VB, Rossel C, Sangwine T, Torslov N, Wandall BM (eds) (2003) Wildlife and traffic: an European handbook for identifying conflicts and designing solutions. KNNV Publishers, UK

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaeger JAG, Bowman J, Brennan J, Fahrig L, Bert D, Bouchard J, Charbonneau N, Frank K, Gruber B, Tluk von Toschanowitz K (2005) Predicting when animal populations are at risk from roads: an interactive model of road avoidance behavior. Ecol Model 185:329–348

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jepsen JU, Baveco JM, Topping CJ, Verboom J, Vós CC (2005) Evaluating the effect of corridors and landscape heterogeneity on dispersal probability: a comparison of three spatially explicit modelling approaches. Ecol Model 181:445–459

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson ML, Gaines MS (1985) Selective basis for emigration of the prairie vole, Microtus ochrogaster: open field experiment. J Anim Ecol 54:399–410

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • LaRue MA, Nielsen CK (2008) Modelling potential dispersal corridors for cougars in midwestern North America using least-cost path methods. Ecol Model 212:372–381

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levine N (2004) CrimeStat III: a spatial statistics program for the analysis of crime incident locations (v. 3.0). Ned Levine and Associates: Houston. TX/National Institute of Justice, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindenmayer DB, Fischer J (2006) Habitat fragmentation and landscape change. Island Press, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • Mac Nally R (2000) Regression and model-building in conservation biology, biogeography and ecology: the distinction between—and reconciliation of—‘predictive’ and ‘explanatory’ models. Biodivers Conserv 9:655–671

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mac Nally R (2002) Multiple regression and inference in ecology and conservation biology: further comments on identifying important predictor variables. Biodivers Conserv 11:1397–1401

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacKenzie DI, Nichols JD, LachmanGB DS, Royle AJ, Langtimm CA (2002) Estimating site occupancy rates when detection probabilities are less than one. Ecology 83:2248–2255

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malo JE, Suarez F, Diez A (2004) Can we mitigate animal–vehicle accidents using predictive models? J Appl Ecol 41:701–710

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manly BFJ, McDonald LL, Thomas DL (2002) Resource selection by animals: statistical design and analysis for field studies, 2nd edn. Chapman & Hall, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Matos HM, Santos MJ, Palomares F, Santos-Reis M (2008) Does riparian habitat condition influence mammalian carnivore abundance in Mediterranean ecosystems? Biodivers Conserv 18:373–386

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McRae BH, Beier P, Dewald LE, Huynh LY, Keim P (2005) Habitat barriers limit gene flow and illuminate historical events in a wide-ranging carnivore, the American puma. Mol Ecol 14:1965–1977

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Michalski F, Peres CA (2005) Anthropogenic determinants of primate and carnivore local extinctions in a fragmented forest landscape of southern Amazonia. Biol Conserv 124:383–396

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moilanen A, Nieminen M (2002) Simple connectivity measures in spatial ecology. Ecology 83:1131–1145

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mortelliti A, Boitani L (2008) Interaction of food resources and landscape structure in determining the probability of patch use by carnivores in fragmented landscapes. Landsc Ecol 23:285–298

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nagelkerke N (1991) A note on a general definition of the coefficient of determination. Biometrika 78:691–692

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Naves J, Wiegand T, Revilla E, Delibes M (2003) Endangered species constrained by natural and human factors: the case of brown bears in Northern Spain. Conserv Biol 17:1276–1289

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palomares F, Delibes M (1994) Spatio-temporal ecology and behaviour of European genets in southwestern Spain. J Mammal 75:714–724

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pereira PM, Pires da Fonseca M (2003) Nature vs. nurture: the making of the montado ecosystem. Conserv Ecol 7(3):7. http://www.consecol.org/vol7/iss3/art7/

    Google Scholar 

  • Pimm SL, Askins RA (1995) Forest losses predict bird extinctions in eastern North America. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 92:9343–9347

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Quinn GP, Keough MJ (2002) Experimental design and data analysis for biologists. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramp D, Caldwell J, Edwards KA, Warton D, Croft DB (2005) Modelling of wildlife fatality hotspots along the Snowy Mountain Highway in New South Wales, Australia. Biol Conserv 126:474–490

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ray N, Lehmann A, Joly P (2002) Modeling spatial distribution of amphibian populations: a GIS approach based on habitat matrix permeability. Biodivers Conserv 11:2143–2165

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rödel H, Stubbe M (2006) Shifts in food availability and associated shifts in space use and diet in stone marten. Lutra 49:67–72

    Google Scholar 

  • Rondinini C, Boitani L (2002) Habitat use by beech martens in a fragmented landscape. Ecography 25:257–264

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Santos-Reis M, Santos M, Lourenço S, Marques J, Pereira I, Pinto B (2004) Relationships between stone martens, genets and cork oak woodlands in Portugal. In: Harrison DJ, Fuller AK, Proulx G (eds) Martens and fishers (Martes) in human-altered environments. Springer, New York, pp 147–172

    Google Scholar 

  • Sargeant GA, Johnson DH, William EB (2003) Sampling designs for carnivore scent station surveys. J Wildl Manage 67:289–299

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sunquist M, Sunquist F (2001) Changing landscapes: consequences for carnivores. In: Gittleman J, Funk S, MacDonald D, Wayne R (eds) Carnivore conservation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 399–418

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor PD, Fahrig L, Henein K, Merriam G (1993) Connectivity is a vital element of landscape structure. Oikos 68:571–573

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tischendorf L, Fahrig L (2000) How should we measure landscape connectivity? Landscape Ecol 15:633–641

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Uezu A, Metzger JP, Viellard JME (2005) Effects of structural and functional connectivity and patch size on the abundance of seven Atlantic Forest bird species. Biol Cons 123:507–519

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Virgós E (2001) Role of isolation and habitat quality in shaping species abundance: a test with badgers (Meles meles L.) in a gradient of forest fragmentation. J Biogeogr 28:381–389

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Virgós E, García FJ (2002) Patch occupancy by stone martens Martes foina in fragmented landscapes of central Spain: the role of fragment size, isolation and habitat structure. Acta Oecol 23:231–237

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Virgós E, Telleria JL, Santos T (2002) A comparison on the response to forest fragmentation by medium-sized Iberian carnivores in central Spain. Biodivers Conserv 11:1063–1079

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walker RS, Novaro AJ, Branch LC (2007) Functional connectivity defined through cost-distance and genetic analysis: a case study for the rock-dwelling mountain vizcacha (Lagidium viscacia) in Patagonia, Argentina. Landscape Ecol 22:1303–1314

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • With KA, Gardner RH, Turner MG (1997) Landscape connectivity and population distributions in heterogeneous environments. Oikos 78:151–169

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Funds for this study were provided by the Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (FCT) under the project POCTI/MGS/47435/2002. Additional funding was provided by Brisa Auto-Estradas de Portugal S.A. C. Grilo and F. Ascensão were supported by FCT Ph.D. grants (SFRH/BD/10600/2002 and SFRH/BD/38053/2007, respectively). We would like to thank Marta Cruz for the field assistance and also Carla Baltazar, Luis Gomes, Clara Silva, Marco Lusquiños, João Rosário, and many other volunteers who helped with the road monitoring.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Universidade de Lisboa, Centro de Biologia Ambiental/Departamento de Biologia Animal, Faculdade de Ciências C2 5º, 1749-016, Lisbon, Portugal

    Clara Grilo, Fernando Ascensão & Margarida Santos-Reis

  2. Departamento de Biología de la Conservación, Estación Biológica de Doñana (EBD-CSIC) Calle Américo Vespucio s/n, 41092, Seville, Spain

    Clara Grilo

  3. U.S. Geological Survey, Utah Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Department of Wildland Resources, College of Natural Resources, Utah State University, Salt Lake City, UT, 84322-5290, USA

    John A. Bissonette

Authors
  1. Clara Grilo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Fernando Ascensão
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Margarida Santos-Reis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. John A. Bissonette
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Clara Grilo.

Additional information

Communicated by: C. Gortázar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Grilo, C., Ascensão, F., Santos-Reis, M. et al. Do well-connected landscapes promote road-related mortality?. Eur J Wildl Res 57, 707–716 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10344-010-0478-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10344-010-0478-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation