麻豆app

In a largely rural and heavily forested state like New Hampshire, the consequences of collisions can be severe for both animals and drivers when the preferred routes of medium-sized and large animals intersect with roads. Efforts to reduce the approximately 1,500 wildlife-vehicle collisions (WVCs) reported annually in the Granite State have been limited by a lack of understanding of WVC hotspots, sections of road where WVC rates are particularly high. New research by scientists with the New Hampshire Agricultural Experiment Station (NHAES) at the 麻豆app shows that while knowing where WVC hotspots occur is critical to tailoring better management practices, accounting for adjacent wildlife habitats and differences in animals鈥� interactions with roads is also key to lowering WVC risks.

鈥淩educing WVCs in New Hampshire is a two-part effort,鈥� says Station scientist Rem Moll. 鈥淲e first need to identify the sites that present the biggest problems for drivers and wildlife. We then need to prioritize the most effective actions we can take with limited resources, such as making existing structures like culverts and bridge underpasses more usable for animals, to reduce the number of collisions.鈥�

Recent research, published in Environmental Management, focused on the role of connectivity鈥攍inkages that allow animals to move easily between habitats鈥攊n predicting WVC hotspot locations. Subsequent work is underway to monitor hotspots and assess WVC mitigation strategies. Moll, associate professor of wildlife ecology in the College of Life Sciences and Agriculture, and Clara Dawson, a graduate student in his research group, are leading the work in collaboration with Amy Villamagna of Plymouth State University.

The role of connectivity in collisions

Fueled by New Hampshire鈥檚 recent rapid population growth, wildlife connectivity has been impacted by the development of roads and buildings that can fragment previously continuous habitat. The researchers combined collision data with measures of connectivity across the Granite State to assess hypotheses regarding how connectivity, traffic volume and habitat contribute to WVC frequency.

"Low-cost, easily maintainable and wildlife-friendly crossings are a win-win. They provide more connectivity between habitats and more safety for animals, and they mean that fewer drivers will experience a potentially costly and dangerous collision."

The findings emphasized that generalized connectivity models and maps currently do not provide sufficient nuance for predicting WVC hotspots. In fact, the results indicate that, in New Hampshire, greater connectivity did not lead to more active WVC hotspots as other studies had suggested. Instead, the highest WVC rates were observed at hotspots in areas with moderate connectivity for reasons that are still being investigated.

These differing results suggest that the ecosystem and habitat differences between rural and heavily fragmented landscapes play key roles in shaping hotspot occurrence and activity. Additional complexity can come from the number and diversity of animal species present within a landscape. For example, deer, bobcats and porcupines have different movement behaviors and seek different resources, necessitating species-specific analyses.

Monitoring hotspots and avoiding collisions

Once hotspots are identified in existing and planned infrastructure, what can be done to reduce WVC risks? Purpose-built wildlife corridors 鈥� bridges or underpasses constructed with surfaces resembling the surrounding countryside 鈥� are appealing, but their costs and land requirements typically make them unrealistic for New Hampshire. To understand cost-effective, landscape-appropriate strategies, Moll and his team are now investigating known hotspots to learn more about exactly why collisions happen at a high frequency at these specific locations. They are also studying how adjacent culverts and small bridges can be modified and maintained as wildlife-friendly, safe crossing options. 听

听With support from the New Hampshire Department of Transportation, the researchers monitored 14 hotspots throughout the state, including the 125 corridor in Epping and Barrington, I-89 in Concord and highway 110 near Berlin. Through two falls and one spring, they used wildlife cameras to capture deer, moose, gray and red fox, bobcat, coyote, black bear, racoon, porcupine and turkey movements. Prior research usually monitored only the crossing site, such as at the bridges and culverts, but Moll and his team wanted a fuller picture of how wildlife interacts with roads.

鈥淲e developed a new approach that worked well, using cameras at the crossing itself as well as at the roadside and in adjacent habitats,鈥� says Moll. 鈥淲e had cases where we didn鈥檛 record a species at the crossing, but we saw a lot of them at the roadside, and they would have been missed entirely with a single camera. The situation indicates that the crossing needs to be more appealing to wildlife so that they will use it.鈥�

The early results indicate that there are several ways animals can be encouraged to use crossings that avoid putting themselves and vehicles in harm鈥檚 way. In culverts, a 鈥渃ritter shelf鈥� can be added so that smaller animals are able to stay dry while passing through. Under bridges, streams can often be made shallower or the stream bed more easily navigated by various animals.

At some locations, strategically placed fencing can be used to steer animals toward crossings or, at least, to a road location with better sight lines for drivers to spot nearby wildlife. For drivers, seasonal speed limits at WVC hotspots with notable deer and/or moose collision frequency, which tend to be highest in the fall when animals are most active, could raise driver awareness as well as promote safer traveling speeds in the vicinity.

鈥淟ow-cost, easily maintainable and wildlife-friendly crossings are a win-win,鈥� says Moll. 鈥淭hey provide more connectivity between habitats and more safety for animals, and they mean that fewer drivers will experience a potentially costly and dangerous collision.鈥�

Funding acknowledgements

This study was funded by the New Hampshire Department of Transportation Grant No. SPR2 42372P. Partial funding was also provided by the New Hampshire Agricultural Experimental Station under USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture McIntire-Stennis Project 7003422.