Wildlife overpass structure size, distribution, effectiveness, and adherence to expert design recommendations
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
It is now well evidenced that wildlife crossing structures paired with exclusion fencing reduce wildlife vehicles collisions while facilitating wildlife connectivity across roadways. Managing animal mortality and subpopulation connectivity is crucial to successful species and landscape stewardship. Highway mitigation projects are large economic investments that remain on the landscape for many decades. Governments and planning agents thus strive to balance cost and benefit to build cost-effective structures with the greatest positive impact on local wildlife and motorists. Ideal dimensions of overpasses and underpasses vary by species, but scientists generally suggest that overpasses for large mammals should be approximately 50 m wide. Optimal width also depends on structure length, with longer structures requiring additional width. Accordingly, experts have suggested a width to length ratio of 0.8. We sought to assess how these recommendations manifested in practice-where agencies use this information to design and build structures while also balancing cost and logistical challenges-and the degree to which built structures conform to current recommendations. We identified 120 wildlife overpasses across the world that were constructed to reduce the negative impacts of roads. Using a novel measurement technique, we analyzed the dimensions of these 120 overpasses located in North America, Europe, Asia, and Oceania. The average width of the wildlife overpasses was 34 m. Most wildlife overpasses located in North America and Europe did not meet their respective dimensional expert guidelines. We investigate reasons explaining the non-compliance and provide recommendations for future overpass designs. Building on previous evidence showing that wider overpasses have increased crossing rates, we examined crossing rates for multiple large mammal species across 12 overpasses located in western North America. We qualitatively observed that wider North American overpasses (40-60 m), in or near compliance with expert guidelines, were associated with a more diverse set of species use and had nearly twice the average crossing rates when compared to non-compliant, narrow North American overpasses. In reviewing various studies from around the world, we conclude that wide overpasses (~50 m) continue to present ecologically sound and cost-effective solutions for decreasing the barrier of roadways, especially when targeting width-sensitive species and large assemblages of mammals. Future studies, however, are encouraged to further explore the specific instances when underpasses and narrower overpasses present more cost-effective ecological solutions, or how these structures can complement wide overpasses in successful wildlife crossing systems.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,006 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».