European Journal of Wildlife Research

, Volume 57, Issue 4, pp 707–716

Do well-connected landscapes promote road-related mortality?

  • Clara Grilo
  • Fernando Ascensão
  • Margarida Santos-Reis
  • John A. Bissonette
Original Paper

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.

Keywords

Carnivores Stone marten Habitat fragmentation Hierarchical partitioning Montado Roadkill 

References

  1. 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 64:233–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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 3–31Google Scholar
  3. 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 15–34Google Scholar
  4. 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 13–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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 21:877–889CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2002) Model selection and multi-model inference: a practical information-theoretic approach. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  7. Chetkiewicz CB, St C, Clair C, Boyce MS (2006) Corridors for conservation: integrating pattern and process. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 37:317–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chevan A, Sutherland M (1991) Hierarchical partitioning. Am Stat 45:90–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Clark PJ, Evans FC (1954) Distance to nearest neighbor as a measure of spatial relationships in population. Ecology 35:445–453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Crooks KR (2002) Relative sensitivities of mammalian carnivores to habitat fragmentation. Conserv Biol 16:488–502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Davison AC, Hinkley DV (1997) Bootstrap methods and their application, chapter 5. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  12. 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 318–325Google Scholar
  13. 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
  14. 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 20:155–162PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dunning JB, Danielson BJ, Pulliam HR (1992) Ecological processes that affect populations in complex landscapes. Oikos 65:169–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dytham C (2003) Choosing and using statistics: a biologist’s guide, 2nd edn. Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  17. 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 23:159–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. ESRI (1999) ArcView GIS 3.2. Environmental Systems Research Institute, Redlands, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  19. ESRI (2006) ArcGIS 9.2. Environmental Systems Research Institute Ltd., USAGoogle Scholar
  20. Fahrig L, Merriam G (1985) Habitat patch connectivity and population survival. Ecology 66:1762–1768CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ferreras P (2001) Landscape structure and asymmetrical inter-patch connectivity in a metapopulation of the endangered Iberian lynx. Biol Conserv 100:125–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fielding AH, Bell JF (1997) A review of methods for the assessment of prediction errors in conservation presence/absence models. Environ Conserv 24:38–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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 22:1513–1525CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  25. Genovesi P, Secchi M, Boitani L (1996) Diet of stone marten an example of ecological flexibility. J Zool 238:545–555CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gonzales EK, Gergel SE (2007) Testing assumptions of cost surface analysis—a tool for invasive species management. Landscape Ecol 22:1155–1168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Goodwin BJ, Fahrig L (2002) How does landscape structure influence landscape connectivity? Oikos 99:552–570CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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 85:239–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Grilo C, Bissonette JA, Santos-Reis M (2009) Spatial–temporal patterns in Mediterranean carnivore road casualties: consequences for mitigation. Biol Conserv 142:301–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 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):2246–2248PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hames RS, Rosenberg KV, Lowe JD, Dhondt AA (2001) Site reoccupation in fragmented landscapes: testing predictions of metapopulation theory. J Anim Ecol 70:182–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Herr J, Schley L, Roper TJ (2009) Socio-spatial organisation of urban stone martens. J Zool 277:54–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hines J (2006) PRESENCE 2—software to estimate patch occupancy and related parameters. USGS-PWRCGoogle Scholar
  34. Hunter RD, Fisher RN, Crooks KR (2003) Landscape-level connectivity in southern California as assessed through carnivore habitat suitability. Nat Areas J 23:302–314Google Scholar
  35. 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, UKGoogle Scholar
  36. 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 185:329–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 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 181:445–459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Johnson ML, Gaines MS (1985) Selective basis for emigration of the prairie vole, Microtus ochrogaster: open field experiment. J Anim Ecol 54:399–410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. LaRue MA, Nielsen CK (2008) Modelling potential dispersal corridors for cougars in midwestern North America using least-cost path methods. Ecol Model 212:372–381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 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, DCGoogle Scholar
  41. Lindenmayer DB, Fischer J (2006) Habitat fragmentation and landscape change. Island Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  42. 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 9:655–671CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Mac Nally R (2002) Multiple regression and inference in ecology and conservation biology: further comments on identifying important predictor variables. Biodivers Conserv 11:1397–1401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. MacKenzie DI, Nichols JD, LachmanGB DS, Royle AJ, Langtimm CA (2002) Estimating site occupancy rates when detection probabilities are less than one. Ecology 83:2248–2255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Malo JE, Suarez F, Diez A (2004) Can we mitigate animal–vehicle accidents using predictive models? J Appl Ecol 41:701–710CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Manly BFJ, McDonald LL, Thomas DL (2002) Resource selection by animals: statistical design and analysis for field studies, 2nd edn. Chapman & Hall, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  47. Matos HM, Santos MJ, Palomares F, Santos-Reis M (2008) Does riparian habitat condition influence mammalian carnivore abundance in Mediterranean ecosystems? Biodivers Conserv 18:373–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 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 14:1965–1977PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Michalski F, Peres CA (2005) Anthropogenic determinants of primate and carnivore local extinctions in a fragmented forest landscape of southern Amazonia. Biol Conserv 124:383–396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Moilanen A, Nieminen M (2002) Simple connectivity measures in spatial ecology. Ecology 83:1131–1145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 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 23:285–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Nagelkerke N (1991) A note on a general definition of the coefficient of determination. Biometrika 78:691–692CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 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 17:1276–1289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Palomares F, Delibes M (1994) Spatio-temporal ecology and behaviour of European genets in southwestern Spain. J Mammal 75:714–724CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 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
  56. Pimm SL, Askins RA (1995) Forest losses predict bird extinctions in eastern North America. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 92:9343–9347PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Quinn GP, Keough MJ (2002) Experimental design and data analysis for biologists. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  58. 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 126:474–490CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Ray N, Lehmann A, Joly P (2002) Modeling spatial distribution of amphibian populations: a GIS approach based on habitat matrix permeability. Biodivers Conserv 11:2143–2165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Rödel H, Stubbe M (2006) Shifts in food availability and associated shifts in space use and diet in stone marten. Lutra 49:67–72Google Scholar
  61. Rondinini C, Boitani L (2002) Habitat use by beech martens in a fragmented landscape. Ecography 25:257–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 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 147–172Google Scholar
  63. Sargeant GA, Johnson DH, William EB (2003) Sampling designs for carnivore scent station surveys. J Wildl Manage 67:289–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 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 399–418Google Scholar
  65. Taylor PD, Fahrig L, Henein K, Merriam G (1993) Connectivity is a vital element of landscape structure. Oikos 68:571–573CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Tischendorf L, Fahrig L (2000) How should we measure landscape connectivity? Landscape Ecol 15:633–641CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 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 123:507–519CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 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 28:381–389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 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 23:231–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 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 11:1063–1079CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 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 22:1303–1314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. With KA, Gardner RH, Turner MG (1997) Landscape connectivity and population distributions in heterogeneous environments. Oikos 78:151–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Clara Grilo
    • 1
    • 2
  • Fernando Ascensão
    • 1
  • Margarida Santos-Reis
    • 1
  • John A. Bissonette
    • 3
  1. 1.Universidade de Lisboa, Centro de Biologia Ambiental/Departamento de Biologia AnimalLisbonPortugal
  2. 2.Departamento de Biología de la ConservaciónEstación Biológica de Doñana (EBD-CSIC) Calle Américo Vespucio s/nSevilleSpain
  3. 3.U.S. Geological Survey, Utah Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Department of Wildland Resources, College of Natural ResourcesUtah State UniversitySalt Lake CityUSA

Personalised recommendations