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...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Goran Gužvica, Ivana Bošnjak, Ana Bielen, Danijel Babić, Biserka Radanović-Gužvica, Lidija Šver
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Public Library of Science (PLoS) 2014-01-01
Series:PLoS ONE
Online Access:http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC4149566?pdf=render
id doaj-394cff15b0e641aa89922ae1825fe122
record_format Article
spelling doaj-394cff15b0e641aa89922ae1825fe1222020-11-25T02:11:57ZengPublic Library of Science (PLoS)PLoS ONE1932-62032014-01-0198e10619410.1371/journal.pone.0106194Comparative analysis of three different methods for monitoring the use of green bridges by wildlife.Goran GužvicaIvana BošnjakAna BielenDanijel BabićBiserka Radanović-GužvicaLidija ŠverGreen 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.http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC4149566?pdf=render
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Goran Gužvica
Ivana Bošnjak
Ana Bielen
Danijel Babić
Biserka Radanović-Gužvica
Lidija Šver
spellingShingle Goran Gužvica
Ivana Bošnjak
Ana Bielen
Danijel Babić
Biserka Radanović-Gužvica
Lidija Šver
Comparative analysis of three different methods for monitoring the use of green bridges by wildlife.
PLoS ONE
author_facet Goran Gužvica
Ivana Bošnjak
Ana Bielen
Danijel Babić
Biserka Radanović-Gužvica
Lidija Šver
author_sort Goran Gužvica
title 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_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_sort comparative analysis of three different methods for monitoring the use of green bridges by wildlife.
publisher Public Library of Science (PLoS)
series PLoS ONE
issn 1932-6203
publishDate 2014-01-01
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.
url http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC4149566?pdf=render
work_keys_str_mv AT goranguzvica comparativeanalysisofthreedifferentmethodsformonitoringtheuseofgreenbridgesbywildlife
AT ivanabosnjak comparativeanalysisofthreedifferentmethodsformonitoringtheuseofgreenbridgesbywildlife
AT anabielen comparativeanalysisofthreedifferentmethodsformonitoringtheuseofgreenbridgesbywildlife
AT danijelbabic comparativeanalysisofthreedifferentmethodsformonitoringtheuseofgreenbridgesbywildlife
AT biserkaradanovicguzvica comparativeanalysisofthreedifferentmethodsformonitoringtheuseofgreenbridgesbywildlife
AT lidijasver comparativeanalysisofthreedifferentmethodsformonitoringtheuseofgreenbridgesbywildlife
_version_ 1724911656953184256