Advertisement

Spatiotemporal identification of roadkill probability and systematic conservation planning

  • Yu-Pin LinEmail author
  • Johnathen Anthony
  • Wei-Chih Lin
  • Wan-Yu Lien
  • Joy R. Petway
  • Te-En Lin
Research Article
  • 39 Downloads

Abstract

Context

Accurate spatiotemporal modeling of roadkill hotspots is essential for the assessment of high risk roadkill locations. Increasing the spatiotemporal resolution of models may facilitate greater cost-effective solutions for roadkill mitigation strategies.

Objective

This study develops a novel spatiotemporal roadkill distribution model to simulate roadkill probability. Moreover, we systematically identify top prioritized road segments by the most frequent roadkill occurrence for multiple focal species.

Methods

Based on the theory of the Poisson process, the proposed spatiotemporal roadkill distribution model with seasonal effects is validated with four focal reptilian species. The model simulates spatiotemporal roadkill patterns and addresses uncertainty by referencing ensemble species distribution models. Finally, we systematically prioritize road segments by the most frequent roadkill occurrence for multiple focal species.

Results

The efficacy of the proposed spatiotemporal roadkill distribution model which is validated in terms of the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and accurate proportions. The AUC values based independent roadkill data tests ranged from 0.73 to 0.84. Both the efficacy of the proposed model, and the increases in uncertainty are attributable to decreasing seasonal sampling size and variation. Based on the independent roadkill data, more than 70% of roadkill events occurred within the top 30% priority segments by our approaches.

Conclusions

The proposed model is successfully applied in simulation of spatiotemporal roadkill probability. The seasonal effects benefit identification of high roadkill probability. Through the systematic identification and the proposed model, our approach provides useful information for the design of cost-effective surveys and appropriate conservation planning and mitigation strategies.

Keywords

Spatiotemporal road kill modeling Hotspot Species distribution Uncertainty Systematic conservation planning 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the Ministry of Science and Technology of the Republic of China, Taiwan, for financially supporting this research under Contract Nos. 103-2119-M-002-012, 104-2119-M-002-026- and NSC 101-2119-M-002-016. The first author leads a National Taiwan University team as an associate partner of the projects EU BON and a partner of the SCALES. The EU BON (Project No. 308454) and SCALES Projects (No. 226852) are funded by the European Commission (EC) under the 7th Framework Programme. The authors would like to acknowledge Profs Tsun-Su Ding and Pei-Fan Lee for their partial data support.

Supplementary material

10980_2019_807_MOESM1_ESM.docx (741 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 741 kb)

References

  1. Baker PJ, Harris S, Robertson CPJ, Saunders G, White PCL (2004) Is it possible to monitor mammal population changes from counts of road traffic casualties? An analysis using Bristol’s red foxes Vulpes vulpes as an example. Mammal Rev 34(1–2):115–130Google Scholar
  2. Barthelmess EL (2014) Spatial distribution of road-kills and factors influencing road mortality for mammals in Northern New York State. Biodivers Conserv 23(10):2491–2514Google Scholar
  3. Bean WT, Prugh LR, Stafford R, Butterfield HS, Westphal M, Brashares JS (2014) Species distribution models of an endangered rodent offer conflicting measures of habitat quality at multiple scales. J Appl Ecol 51(4):1116–1125Google Scholar
  4. Bellan SE, Gimenez O, Choquet R, Getz WM (2013) A hierarchical distance sampling approach to estimating mortality rates from opportunistic carcass surveillance data. Methods Ecol Evol 4(4):361–369Google Scholar
  5. Coffin AW (2007) From roadkill to road ecology: a review of the ecological effects of roads. J Transp Geogr 15(5):396–406Google Scholar
  6. Colino-Rabanal VJ, Bosch J, Munoz MJ, Peris SJ (2012) Influence of new irrigated croplands on wild boar (Sus scrofa) road kills in NW Spain. Anim Biodiv Conserv 35(2):247–252Google Scholar
  7. Cosentino BJ, Marsh DM, Jones KS, Apodaca JJ, Bates C, Beach J, Beard KH, Becklin K, Bell JM, Crockett C, Fawson G, Fjelsted J, Forys EA, Genet KS, Grover M, Holmes J, Indeck K, Karraker NE, Kilpatrick ES, Langen TA, Mugel SG, Molina A, Vonesh JR, Weaver RJ, Willey A (2014) Citizen science reveals widespread negative effects of roads on amphibian distributions. Biol Conserv 180:31–38Google Scholar
  8. Costa AS, Ascensão F, Bager A (2015) Mixed sampling protocols improve the cost-effectiveness of roadkill surveys. Biodivers Conserv 24(12):2953–2965Google Scholar
  9. D’Amico M, Roman J, de los Reyes L, Revilla E (2015) Vertebrate road-kill patterns in Mediterranean habitats: who, when and where. Biol Conserv 191:234–242Google Scholar
  10. de Souza JC, Da Cunha VP, Markwith SH (2015) Spatiotemporal variation in human–wildlife conflicts along highway BR-262 in the Brazilian Pantanal. Wetlands Ecol Manag 23(2):227–239Google Scholar
  11. Denny M, Gaines S (2002) Chance in biology: using probability to explore nature. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  12. Dias MP, Oppel S, Bond AL, Carneiro APB, Cuthbert RJ, González-Solís J, Wanless RM, Glass T, Lascelles B, Small C, Phillips RA, Ryan PG (2017) Using globally threatened pelagic birds to identify priority sites for marine conservation in the South Atlantic Ocean. Biol Conserv 211:76–84Google Scholar
  13. Eberhardt E, Mitchell S, Fahrig L (2013) Road kill hotspots do not effectively indicate mitigation locations when past road kill has depressed populations. J Wildl Manag 77(7):1353–1359Google Scholar
  14. Elith J, Leathwick JR (2009) Species distribution models: ecological explanation and prediction across space and time. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 40:677–697Google Scholar
  15. Farmer RG, Brooks RJ (2012) Integrated risk factors for vertebrate roadkill in southern Ontario. J Wildl Manag 76(6):1215–1224Google Scholar
  16. Fielding AH, Bell JF (1997) A review of methods for the assessment of prediction errors in conservation presence/absence models. Environ Conserv 24(1):38–49Google Scholar
  17. Forman RTT, Sperling D, Bissonette JA, Clevenger AP, Cutshall CD, Dale VH, Fahrig L, France RL, Heanue K, Goldman CR, Jones J, Swanson F, Turrentine T, Winter TC (2003) Road ecology: science and solutions. Island Press, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  18. Garriga N, Franch M, Santos X, Montori A, Llorente GA (2017) Seasonal variation in vertebrate traffic casualties and its implications for mitigation measures. Landsc Urban Plan 157:36–44Google Scholar
  19. Gibbons JW (1987) Activity patterns. In: Seigel RA, Collins JT, Novak SS (eds) Snakes, ecology and evolutionary biology. Macmilla, New York, pp 396–421Google Scholar
  20. Goovaerts P (2001) Geostatistical modelling of uncertainty in soil science. Geoderma 103(1–2):3–26Google Scholar
  21. Grenouillet G, Buisson L, Casajus N, Lek S (2011) Ensemble modelling of species distribution: the effects of geographical and environmental ranges. Ecography 34(1):9–17Google Scholar
  22. Grilo C, Ferreira FZ, Revilla E (2015) No evidence of a threshold in traffic volume affecting road-kill mortality at a large spatio-temporal scale. Environ Impact Asses 55:54–58Google Scholar
  23. Grilo C, Molina-Vacas G, Fernández-Aguilar X, Rodriguez-Ruiz J, Ramiro V, Porto-Peter F, Ascensão F, Román J, Revilla E (2018) Species-specific movement traits and specialization determine the spatial responses of small mammals towards roads. Landsc Urban Plan 169:199–207Google Scholar
  24. Guillera-Arroita G, Lahoz-Monfort JJ, Elith J, Gordon A, Kujala H, Lentini PE, McCarthy MA, Tingley R, Wintle BA (2015) Is my species distribution model fit for purpose? Matching data and models to applications. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 24(3):276–292Google Scholar
  25. Guisan A, Tingley R, Baumgartner JB, Naujokaitis-Lewis I, Sutcliffe PR, Tulloch AIT, Regan TJ, Brotons L, McDonald‐Madden E, Mantyka‐Pringle C, Martin TG, Rhodes JR, Maggini R, Setterfield SA, Elith J, Schwartz MW, Wintle BA, Broennimann O, Austin M, Ferrier S, Kearney MR, Possingham HP, Buckley YM (2013) Predicting species distributions for conservation decisions. Ecol Lett 16(12):1424–1435Google Scholar
  26. Hasan MT, Sneddon G, Ma R (2017) Modeling binomial amphibian roadkill data in distance sampling while accounting for zero-inflation, serial correlation and varying cluster sizes simultaneously. Environ Ecol Stat 24(2):201–217Google Scholar
  27. Hastie T (2011) Gam: generalized additive models. R package version 1.06.2. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=gam
  28. Haxton T (2000) Road mortality of snapping turtles, chelydra serpentina, in central ontario during their nesting period. Can Field Nat 114(1):106–110Google Scholar
  29. Heigl F, Stretz CR, Steiner W, Suppan F, Bauer T, Laaha G, Zaller JG (2016) Comparing road-kill datasets from hunters and citizen scientists in a landscape context. Remote Sens 8(10):832Google Scholar
  30. Heigl F, Horvath K, Laaha G, Zaller JG (2017) Amphibian and reptile road-kills on tertiary roads in relation to landscape structure: using a citizen science approach with open-access land cover data. BMC Ecol 17(1):24Google Scholar
  31. Hijmans RJ, Elith J (2013) Species distribution modeling with R. R package version 0.8-11. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/dismo/index.html
  32. Lee PF, Liao CY, Lee YC, Pan YH, Fu WH, Chen HW (1997) An ecological and environmental GIS database for Taiwan. Council of Agriculture, Executive Yuan, Taipei (in Chinese, English abstract) Google Scholar
  33. Liaw A, Wiener M (2002) Classification and regression by randomForest. R News 2(3):18–22Google Scholar
  34. Lin YP, Deng DP, Lin WC, Lemmens R, Crossman ND, Henle K, Schmeller DS (2015) Uncertainty analysis of crowd-sourced and professionally collected field data used in species distribution models of Taiwanese moths. Biol Conserv 181:102–110Google Scholar
  35. Lin YP, Lin WC, Anthony J, Ding TS, Mihoub JB, Henle K, Schmeller DS (2018) Assessing uncertainty and performance of ensemble conservation planning strategies. Landsc Urban Plan 169:57–69Google Scholar
  36. Lin YP, Lin WC, Li HY, Wang YC, Hsu CC, Lien WY, Anthony J, Petway JR (2017a) Integrating social values and ecosystem services in systematic conservation planning: a case study in Datuan Watershed. Sustain 9(5):718Google Scholar
  37. Lin YP, Lin WC, Lien WY, Anthony J, Petway J (2017b) Identifying reliable opportunistic data for species distribution modeling: a benchmark data optimization approach. Environments 4(4):81Google Scholar
  38. Lin YP, Lin WC, Wang YC, Lien WY, Huang T, Hsu CC, Schmeller DS, Crossman ND (2017c) Systematically designating conservation areas for protecting habitat quality and multiple ecosystem services. Environ Modell Softw 90:126–146Google Scholar
  39. Liu C, White M, Newell G (2013) Selecting thresholds for the prediction of species occurrence with presence-only data. J Biogeogr 40(4):778–789Google Scholar
  40. Lobo JM, Jimenez-Valverde A, Real R (2008) AUC: a misleading measure of the performance of predictive distribution models. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 17(2):145–151Google Scholar
  41. Loraamm RW, Downs JA (2016) A wildlife movement approach to optimally locate wildlife crossing structures. Int J Geogr Inf Sci 30(1):74–88Google Scholar
  42. Magris RA, Andrello M, Pressey RL, Mouillot D, Dalongeville A, Jacobi MN, Manel S (2018) Biologically representative and well-connected marine reserves enhance biodiversity persistence in conservation planning. Conserv Lett 11(4):e12439Google Scholar
  43. McIntosh EJ, Pressey RL, Lloyd S, Smith RJ, Grenyer R (2017) The impact of systematic conservation planning. Annu Rev Env Resour 42:677–697Google Scholar
  44. Meller L, Cabeza M, Pironon S, Barbet-Massin M, Maiorano L, Georges D, Thuiller W (2014) Ensemble distribution models in conservation prioritization: from consensus predictions to consensus reserve networks. Divers Distrib 20(3):309–321Google Scholar
  45. Meyer D, Dimitriadou E, Hornik K, Weingessel A, Leisch F (2014) e1071: misc functions of the department of statistics (e1071), TU Wien. R package version 1.6-3. http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/e1071/index.html
  46. Moilanen A (2007) Landscape zonation, benefit functions and target-based planning: unifying reserve selection strategies. Biol Conserv 134(4):571–579Google Scholar
  47. Morelle K, Lehaire F, Lejeune P (2013) Spatio-temporal patterns of wildlife-vehicle collisions in a region with a high-density road network. Nat Conserv 5:53–73Google Scholar
  48. Munson MA, Caruana R, Fink D, Hochachka WM, Iliff M, Rosenberg KV, Sheldon D, Sullivan BL, Wood C, Kelling S (2010) A method for measuring the relative information content of data from different monitoring protocols. Methods Ecol Evol 1(3):263–273Google Scholar
  49. Neumann W, Ericsson G, Dettki H, Bunnefeld N, Keuler NS, Helmers DP, Radeloff VC (2012) Difference in spatiotemporal patterns of wildlife road-crossings and wildlife–vehicle collisions. Biol Cons 145(1):70–78Google Scholar
  50. Ng SJ, Dole JW, Sauvajot RM, Riley SPD, Valone TJ (2004) Use of highway undercrossings by wildlife in southern California. Biol Conserv 115(3):499–507Google Scholar
  51. Paul K, Quinn MS, Huijser MP, Graham J, Broberg L (2014) An evaluation of a citizen science data collection program for recording wildlife observations along a highway. J Environ Manag 139:180–187Google Scholar
  52. Pearce J, Ferrier S (2001) The practical value of modelling relative abundance of species for regional conservation planning: a case study. Biol Conserv 98(1):33–43Google Scholar
  53. Périquet S, Roxburgh L, le Roux A, Collinson WJ (2018) Testing the value of citizen science for roadkill studies: a case study from South Africa. Front Ecol Evol 6:15Google Scholar
  54. Pulliam HR (1988) Sources, sinks, and population regulation. Am Nat 132(5):652–661Google Scholar
  55. Pulliam HR (2000) On the relationship between niche and distribution. Ecol Lett 3(4):349–361Google Scholar
  56. Qiao HJ, Soberon J, Peterson AT (2015) No silver bullets in correlative ecological niche modelling: insights from testing among many potential algorithms for niche estimation. Methods Ecol Evol 6(10):1126–1136Google Scholar
  57. Ratton P, Secco H, da Rosa CA (2014) Carcass permanency time and its implications to the roadkill data. Eur J Wildl Res 60(3):543–546Google Scholar
  58. Renner IW, Elith J, Baddeley A, Fithian W, Hastie T, Phillips SJ, Popovic G, Warton DI (2015) Point process models for presence-only analysis. Methods Ecol Evol 6(4):366–379Google Scholar
  59. Renner IW, Warton DI (2013) Equivalence of MAXENT and poisson point process models for species distribution modeling in ecology. Biometrics 69(1):274–281Google Scholar
  60. Santori C, Spencer R-J, Van Dyke JU, Thompson MB (2018) Road mortality of the eastern long-necked turtle (Chelodina longicollis) along the Murray river, Australia: an assessment using citizen science. Aust J Zool 66(1):41–49Google Scholar
  61. Santos RAL, Ascensão F, Ribeiro ML, Bager A, Santos-Reis M, Aguiar LM (2017) Assessing the consistency of hotspot and hot-moment patterns of wildlife road mortality over time. Perspect Ecol Conser 15(1):56–60Google Scholar
  62. Santos SM, Lourenço R, Mira A, Beja P (2013) Relative effects of road risk, habitat suitability, and connectivity on wildlife roadkills: the case of tawny owls (Strix aluco). PLoS ONE 8(11):e79967Google Scholar
  63. Segurado P, Araujo MB (2004) An evaluation of methods for modelling species distributions. J Biogeogr 31(10):1555–1568Google Scholar
  64. Seo C, Thorne JH, Choi T, Kwon H, Park CH (2015) Disentangling roadkill: the influence of landscape and season on cumulative vertebrate mortality in South Korea. Landsc Ecol Eng 11(1):87–99Google Scholar
  65. Skórka P, Lenda M, Moroń D, Martyka R, Tryjanowski P, Sutherland WJ (2015) Biodiversity collision blackspots in Poland: separation causality from stochasticity in roadkills of butterflies. Biol Conserv 187:154–163Google Scholar
  66. Snow NP, Porter WF, Williams DM (2015) Underreporting of wildlife-vehicle collisions does not hinder predictive models for large ungulates. Biol Conserv 181:44–53Google Scholar
  67. Snow NP, Williams DM, Porter WF (2014) A landscape-based approach for delineating hotspots of wildlife–vehicle collisions. Landscape Ecol 29(5):817–829Google Scholar
  68. Stevens BS, Dennis B (2013) Wildlife mortality from infrastructure collisions: statistical modeling of count data from carcass surveys. Ecology 94(9):2087–2096Google Scholar
  69. Sullivana BL, Phillips T, Dayer AA, Wood CL, Farnsworth A, Iliff MJ, Davies IJ, Wiggins A, Fink D, Hochachka WM, Rodewald AD, Rosenberg KV, Bonney R, Kelling S (2017) Using open access observational data for conservation action: a case study for birds. Biol Conserv 208:5–14Google Scholar
  70. Teixeira FZ, Coelho AVP, Esperandio IB, Kindel A (2013) Vertebrate road mortality estimates: effects of sampling methods and carcass removal. Biol Conserv 157:317–323Google Scholar
  71. Tracy JL, Kantola T, Baum KA, Coulson RN (2019) Modeling fall migration pathways and spatially identifying potential migratory hazards for the eastern monarch butterfly. Landsc Ecol 34(2):443–458Google Scholar
  72. Tsai TS, Tu MC (2000) Reproductive cycle of male Chinese green tree vipers, Trimeresurus s. stejnegeri, in northern Taiwan. J Herpetol 34(3):424–430Google Scholar
  73. Tsai TS, Tu MC (2001) Reproductive cycle of female Chinese green tree vipers, Trimeresurus stejnegeri stejnegeri, in northern Taiwan. Herpetologica 57(2):157–168Google Scholar
  74. van Strien AJ, van Swaay CA, Termaat T (2013) Opportunistic citizen science data of animal species produce reliable estimates of distribution trends if analysed with occupancy models. J Appl Ecol 50(6):1450–1458Google Scholar
  75. VanDerWal J, Falconi L, Januchowski S, Shoo L, Storlie C (2014) Package ‘SDMTools’: species distribution modelling tools: tools for processing data associated with species distribution modelling exercises. R package version 1.1-221Google Scholar
  76. VanDerWal J, Shoo LP, Johnson CN, Williams SE (2009) Abundance and the environmental niche: environmental suitability estimated from niche models predicts the upper limit of local abundance. Am Nat 174(2):282–291Google Scholar
  77. Vercayie D, Herremans M (2015) Citizen science and smartphones take roadkill monitoring to the next level. Nat Conserv-Bulg 11:29–40Google Scholar
  78. Visintin C, Van Der Ree R, McCarthy MA (2016) A simple framework for a complex problem? Predicting wildlife–vehicle collisions. Ecol Evol 6(17):6409–6421Google Scholar
  79. Waetjen DP, Shilling FM (2017) Large extent volunteer roadkill and wildlife observation systems as sources of reliable data. Front Ecol Evol 5:89Google Scholar
  80. Wang S, Lin HC, Tu MC (2003) Skewed sex ratio of the Chinese green tree viper, Trimeresurus stejnegeri stejnegeri, at Tsaochiao, Taiwan. ZOOL STUD-TAIPEI 42(2):379Google Scholar
  81. Wang YP, Wang X, Ding P (2012) Nestedness of snake assemblages on islands of an inundated lake. Curr Zool 58(6):828–836Google Scholar
  82. Warton DI, Shepherd LC (2010) Poisson point process models solve the “pseudo-absence problem” for presence-only data in ecology. Ann Appl Stat 4(3):1383–1402Google Scholar
  83. Yue S, Bonebrake TC, Gibson L (2019) Informing snake roadkill mitigation strategies in Taiwan using citizen science. J Wildl Manag 83(1):80–88Google Scholar
  84. Zimmermann Teixeira F, Kindel A, Hartz SM, Mitchell S, Fahrig L (2017) When road-kill hotspots do not indicate the best sites for road-kill mitigation. J Appl Ecol 54(5):1544–1551Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Bioenvironmental Systems EngineeringNational Taiwan UniversityTaipeiTaiwan
  2. 2.Geographic Information Technology Co.TaipeiTaiwan
  3. 3.Endemic Species Research InstituteChichi TownshipTaiwan

Personalised recommendations