Cargando…

Comparative Analysis of Three Different Methods for Monitoring the Use of Green Bridges by Wildlife

Green bridges are used to decrease highly negative impact of roads/highways on wildlife populations and their effectiveness is evaluated by various monitoring methods. Based on the 3-year monitoring of four Croatian green bridges, we compared the effectiveness of three indirect monitoring methods: t...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Gužvica, Goran, Bošnjak, Ivana, Bielen, Ana, Babić, Danijel, Radanović-Gužvica, Biserka, Šver, Lidija
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4149566/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25170607
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0106194
_version_ 1782332784535142400
author Gužvica, Goran
Bošnjak, Ivana
Bielen, Ana
Babić, Danijel
Radanović-Gužvica, Biserka
Šver, Lidija
author_facet Gužvica, Goran
Bošnjak, Ivana
Bielen, Ana
Babić, Danijel
Radanović-Gužvica, Biserka
Šver, Lidija
author_sort Gužvica, Goran
collection PubMed
description Green bridges are used to decrease highly negative impact of roads/highways on wildlife populations and their effectiveness is evaluated by various monitoring methods. Based on the 3-year monitoring of four Croatian green bridges, we compared the effectiveness of three indirect monitoring methods: track-pads, camera traps and active infrared (IR) trail monitoring system. The ability of the methods to detect different species and to give good estimation of number of animal crossings was analyzed. The accuracy of species detection by track-pad method was influenced by granulometric composition of track-pad material, with the best results obtained with higher percentage of silt and clay. We compared the species composition determined by track-pad and camera trap methods and found that monitoring by tracks underestimated the ratio of small canids, while camera traps underestimated the ratio of roe deer. Regarding total number of recorder events, active IR detectors recorded from 11 to 19 times more events then camera traps and app. 80% of them were not caused by animal crossings. Camera trap method underestimated the real number of total events. Therefore, an algorithm for filtration of the IR dataset was developed for approximation of the real number of crossings. Presented results are valuable for future monitoring of wildlife crossings in Croatia and elsewhere, since advantages and disadvantages of used monitoring methods are shown. In conclusion, different methods should be chosen/combined depending on the aims of the particular monitoring study.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4149566
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-41495662014-09-03 Comparative Analysis of Three Different Methods for Monitoring the Use of Green Bridges by Wildlife Gužvica, Goran Bošnjak, Ivana Bielen, Ana Babić, Danijel Radanović-Gužvica, Biserka Šver, Lidija PLoS One Research Article Green bridges are used to decrease highly negative impact of roads/highways on wildlife populations and their effectiveness is evaluated by various monitoring methods. Based on the 3-year monitoring of four Croatian green bridges, we compared the effectiveness of three indirect monitoring methods: track-pads, camera traps and active infrared (IR) trail monitoring system. The ability of the methods to detect different species and to give good estimation of number of animal crossings was analyzed. The accuracy of species detection by track-pad method was influenced by granulometric composition of track-pad material, with the best results obtained with higher percentage of silt and clay. We compared the species composition determined by track-pad and camera trap methods and found that monitoring by tracks underestimated the ratio of small canids, while camera traps underestimated the ratio of roe deer. Regarding total number of recorder events, active IR detectors recorded from 11 to 19 times more events then camera traps and app. 80% of them were not caused by animal crossings. Camera trap method underestimated the real number of total events. Therefore, an algorithm for filtration of the IR dataset was developed for approximation of the real number of crossings. Presented results are valuable for future monitoring of wildlife crossings in Croatia and elsewhere, since advantages and disadvantages of used monitoring methods are shown. In conclusion, different methods should be chosen/combined depending on the aims of the particular monitoring study. Public Library of Science 2014-08-29 /pmc/articles/PMC4149566/ /pubmed/25170607 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0106194 Text en © 2014 Gužvica et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are properly credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Gužvica, Goran
Bošnjak, Ivana
Bielen, Ana
Babić, Danijel
Radanović-Gužvica, Biserka
Šver, Lidija
Comparative Analysis of Three Different Methods for Monitoring the Use of Green Bridges by Wildlife
title Comparative Analysis of Three Different Methods for Monitoring the Use of Green Bridges by Wildlife
title_full Comparative Analysis of Three Different Methods for Monitoring the Use of Green Bridges by Wildlife
title_fullStr Comparative Analysis of Three Different Methods for Monitoring the Use of Green Bridges by Wildlife
title_full_unstemmed Comparative Analysis of Three Different Methods for Monitoring the Use of Green Bridges by Wildlife
title_short Comparative Analysis of Three Different Methods for Monitoring the Use of Green Bridges by Wildlife
title_sort comparative analysis of three different methods for monitoring the use of green bridges by wildlife
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4149566/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25170607
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0106194
work_keys_str_mv AT guzvicagoran comparativeanalysisofthreedifferentmethodsformonitoringtheuseofgreenbridgesbywildlife
AT bosnjakivana comparativeanalysisofthreedifferentmethodsformonitoringtheuseofgreenbridgesbywildlife
AT bielenana comparativeanalysisofthreedifferentmethodsformonitoringtheuseofgreenbridgesbywildlife
AT babicdanijel comparativeanalysisofthreedifferentmethodsformonitoringtheuseofgreenbridgesbywildlife
AT radanovicguzvicabiserka comparativeanalysisofthreedifferentmethodsformonitoringtheuseofgreenbridgesbywildlife
AT sverlidija comparativeanalysisofthreedifferentmethodsformonitoringtheuseofgreenbridgesbywildlife