English   español  
Por favor, use este identificador para citar o enlazar a este item: http://hdl.handle.net/10261/116589
COMPARTIR / IMPACTO:
Estadísticas
logo share SHARE logo core CORE   Add this article to your Mendeley library MendeleyBASE

Visualizar otros formatos: MARC | Dublin Core | RDF | ORE | MODS | METS | DIDL
Exportar a otros formatos:
Título

General versus specific surveys: Estimating the suitability of different road-crossing structures for small mammals

AutorD'Amico, Marcello ; Clevenger, Anthony P.; Román, Jacinto ; Revilla, Eloy
Palabras claveBanff National Park
Barrier effect
Landscape conectivity
Meadow vole Microtus pennsylvanicus
North American deer mouse Peromyscus maniculatus
Southern red-backed vole Myodes [Clethrionomys] gapper
Track tubes
Traffic mitigation measures
Wildlife road-crossing structures
Fecha de publicación2015
EditorWildlife Society
CitaciónJournal of Wildlife Management, 79(5): 854-860 (2015)
ResumenThe use of wildlife road-crossing structures (WCS hereafter) is less monitored for small mammals than for more emblematic species. Furthermore, because of the undeniable difficulty of small-mammal track identification, most biologists usually carry out general surveys without species recognition. We hypothesized that general surveys traditionally used for monitoring WRC by small mammals may be biased because the degraded habitats along roads are mainly used by generalist and not specialist species. For this reason, we compared the results of a general small-mammal survey with those from a species-specific one, focusing on 3 study species: 1 habitat generalist (North American deer mouse [Peromyscus maniculatus]), 1 forest specialist (southern red-backed vole [Myodes gapperi]), and 1 prairie specialist (meadow vole [Microtus pennsylvanicus]). We sampled along 4 types of WCS (overpasses, open-span underpasses, and both elliptical and box culverts) in Banff National Park (Canada), by placing footprint track tubes along the WCS, and as a reference in front of their entrances (mainly located in roadside grasslands) and in the surrounding woodlands. Using the traditional general survey, we did not detect significant differences in small-mammal presence among WCS and reference sites. In contrast, species-specific surveys showed that only the deer mouse (a generalist species) consistently used the WCS. The deer mice did not show preferences for any WCS type, whereas the specialist species (voles) used only overpasses. Therefore, general surveys used without species identification can underestimate the value of WCS for specialist small mammals, with relevant conservation implications. As a consequence, we recommend species-specific surveys of WCS suitability for small mammals. We also suggest improving the habitat (or at least the cover availability) in the WCS and along the space between them and the surrounding environments to increase WCS suitability for specialist species
Versión del editorhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.900
URIhttp://hdl.handle.net/10261/116589
DOI10.1002/jwmg.900
Aparece en las colecciones: (EBD) Artículos
Ficheros en este ítem:
Fichero Descripción Tamaño Formato  
accesoRestringido.pdf15,38 kBAdobe PDFVista previa
Visualizar/Abrir
Mostrar el registro completo
 

Artículos relacionados:


NOTA: Los ítems de Digital.CSIC están protegidos por copyright, con todos los derechos reservados, a menos que se indique lo contrario.