Video Surveillance to Assess Highway Underpass Use by Elk in Arizona
We used integrated video systems to compare wildlife use of 2 bridged wildlife underpasses (UPs) on a reconstructed highway in central Arizona, USA, from September 2002 to September 2005. Both UPs opened into the same riparian–meadow complex, were situated 90% of the animals we recorded on videotape...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | The Journal of wildlife management 2007-04, Vol.71 (2), p.637-645 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 645 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 2 |
| container_start_page | 637 |
| container_title | The Journal of wildlife management |
| container_volume | 71 |
| creator | DODD, NORRIS L GAGNON, JEFFREY W MANZO, AMANDA L SCHWEINSBURG, RAYMOND E |
| description | We used integrated video systems to compare wildlife use of 2 bridged wildlife underpasses (UPs) on a reconstructed highway in central Arizona, USA, from September 2002 to September 2005. Both UPs opened into the same riparian–meadow complex, were situated 90% of the animals we recorded on videotape, with 3,708 elk in 1,266 groups recorded at the 2 UPs. We used multiple logistic regression to predict the probability of UP use by elk, incorporating the combined effects of UP, season, and year. Season had the greatest effect on UP use, with the probability of UP use in summer (0.81) higher than in winter (0.58), when migratory elk less habituated to the UPs were present. A pattern of high summer (>0.80) and low winter passage rates ( |
| doi_str_mv | 10.2193/2006-340 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>jstor_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_20359903</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><jstor_id>4495227</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>4495227</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-b4148-4225c38f4fa15d3fd3822b40dd17a1ac29ed06bcd657820250e6095d6cdb73793</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kE9PGzEQxS1UpKaA1A_Aweqh6mVhPLb3zzGlEEC0PUAgN8u79rYOyzrYCRA-fR0tAqkSJ2v8fm_05hHymcEBsoofIkCecQFbZJTGIsOSFR_ICAAxk4LNPpJPMc4BOGNlPiI_rp2xnl6uwoN1Xaf7xtKlp-MYbYz01P35-6jXdNobGxY6_UyjpfWaHne31PV0HNyz7_Uu2W51F-3ey7tDpifHV0en2cXvydnR-CKrBRNlJhBlw8tWtJpJw1vDS8RagDGs0Ew3WFkDed2YXBYlAkqwOVTS5I2pC15UfId8HfYugr9f2bhUdy42dhPb-lVUCFxWFfAEfvkPnPtV6FM2hVwgAwCZoG8D1AQfY7CtWgR3p8NaMVCbLtWmS5W6TOjBgD66zq7f5dT5zc8JE1WZDPuDYR6XPrwahKgkYpHkbJBdXNqnV1mHW5WnS6W6-TVR4nxWfJ_lV-r67fDaed_b94P-A7mZlf8</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>234210005</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Video Surveillance to Assess Highway Underpass Use by Elk in Arizona</title><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><source>Jstor Complete Legacy</source><creator>DODD, NORRIS L ; GAGNON, JEFFREY W ; MANZO, AMANDA L ; SCHWEINSBURG, RAYMOND E</creator><creatorcontrib>DODD, NORRIS L ; GAGNON, JEFFREY W ; MANZO, AMANDA L ; SCHWEINSBURG, RAYMOND E</creatorcontrib><description>We used integrated video systems to compare wildlife use of 2 bridged wildlife underpasses (UPs) on a reconstructed highway in central Arizona, USA, from September 2002 to September 2005. Both UPs opened into the same riparian–meadow complex, were situated <250 m apart, and had different below-span characteristics and dimensions. Our objectives were to compare Rocky Mountain elk (Cervus elaphus nelsoni) response to the UPs and test hypotheses that passage rate (crossing frequency/approach frequency), probability of use, and behavioral response at the 2 UPs did not differ. We related differences in elk use and response to UP design characteristics. Elk accounted for >90% of the animals we recorded on videotape, with 3,708 elk in 1,266 groups recorded at the 2 UPs. We used multiple logistic regression to predict the probability of UP use by elk, incorporating the combined effects of UP, season, and year. Season had the greatest effect on UP use, with the probability of UP use in summer (0.81) higher than in winter (0.58), when migratory elk less habituated to the UPs were present. A pattern of high summer (>0.80) and low winter passage rates (<0.40), regardless of UP, existed in all 3 years of video surveillance. Underpass also had an effect on the probability of elk crossing the UPs; the probability of use of the UP with 2 times the openness ratio, one-half the length for elk to traverse, and sloped earthen sides (0.75) was higher than the neighboring UP with concrete walls (0.66). Proportions of elk displaying behaviors indicative of resistance to crossing were dependent on UP and were higher at the UP with concrete walls. In all cases, elk preferred the more open UP with natural earthen sides. We believe that differences in UP length and the concrete walls contributed to differences in elk use and behavioral response. Continued video surveillance of these and other UPs will allow us to evaluate their efficacy in promoting wildlife permeability and safer highways.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0022-541X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1937-2817</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.2193/2006-340</identifier><identifier>CODEN: JWMAA9</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Oxford, UK: The Wildlife Society</publisher><subject>Animal behavior ; Animals ; Arizona ; behavior ; Cervus elaphus ; Cervus elaphus nelsoni ; Confidence intervals ; Conservation biology ; Design ; Elk ; Elks ; Federal funding ; highway impact ; Highways ; Management ; Managers ; Permeability ; Summer ; Surveillance ; Techniques and Technology ; Underpasses ; video surveillance ; Wildlife ; Wildlife conservation ; Wildlife ecology ; Wildlife management ; wildlife passage ; Winter</subject><ispartof>The Journal of wildlife management, 2007-04, Vol.71 (2), p.637-645</ispartof><rights>Copyright 2007 The Wildlife Society</rights><rights>2007 The Wildlife Society</rights><rights>Copyright Alliance Communications Group, A Division of Allen Press, Inc. Apr 2007</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-b4148-4225c38f4fa15d3fd3822b40dd17a1ac29ed06bcd657820250e6095d6cdb73793</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-b4148-4225c38f4fa15d3fd3822b40dd17a1ac29ed06bcd657820250e6095d6cdb73793</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/4495227$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/4495227$$EHTML$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,799,1411,27903,27904,45553,45554,57995,58228</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>DODD, NORRIS L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>GAGNON, JEFFREY W</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>MANZO, AMANDA L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>SCHWEINSBURG, RAYMOND E</creatorcontrib><title>Video Surveillance to Assess Highway Underpass Use by Elk in Arizona</title><title>The Journal of wildlife management</title><description>We used integrated video systems to compare wildlife use of 2 bridged wildlife underpasses (UPs) on a reconstructed highway in central Arizona, USA, from September 2002 to September 2005. Both UPs opened into the same riparian–meadow complex, were situated <250 m apart, and had different below-span characteristics and dimensions. Our objectives were to compare Rocky Mountain elk (Cervus elaphus nelsoni) response to the UPs and test hypotheses that passage rate (crossing frequency/approach frequency), probability of use, and behavioral response at the 2 UPs did not differ. We related differences in elk use and response to UP design characteristics. Elk accounted for >90% of the animals we recorded on videotape, with 3,708 elk in 1,266 groups recorded at the 2 UPs. We used multiple logistic regression to predict the probability of UP use by elk, incorporating the combined effects of UP, season, and year. Season had the greatest effect on UP use, with the probability of UP use in summer (0.81) higher than in winter (0.58), when migratory elk less habituated to the UPs were present. A pattern of high summer (>0.80) and low winter passage rates (<0.40), regardless of UP, existed in all 3 years of video surveillance. Underpass also had an effect on the probability of elk crossing the UPs; the probability of use of the UP with 2 times the openness ratio, one-half the length for elk to traverse, and sloped earthen sides (0.75) was higher than the neighboring UP with concrete walls (0.66). Proportions of elk displaying behaviors indicative of resistance to crossing were dependent on UP and were higher at the UP with concrete walls. In all cases, elk preferred the more open UP with natural earthen sides. We believe that differences in UP length and the concrete walls contributed to differences in elk use and behavioral response. Continued video surveillance of these and other UPs will allow us to evaluate their efficacy in promoting wildlife permeability and safer highways.</description><subject>Animal behavior</subject><subject>Animals</subject><subject>Arizona</subject><subject>behavior</subject><subject>Cervus elaphus</subject><subject>Cervus elaphus nelsoni</subject><subject>Confidence intervals</subject><subject>Conservation biology</subject><subject>Design</subject><subject>Elk</subject><subject>Elks</subject><subject>Federal funding</subject><subject>highway impact</subject><subject>Highways</subject><subject>Management</subject><subject>Managers</subject><subject>Permeability</subject><subject>Summer</subject><subject>Surveillance</subject><subject>Techniques and Technology</subject><subject>Underpasses</subject><subject>video surveillance</subject><subject>Wildlife</subject><subject>Wildlife conservation</subject><subject>Wildlife ecology</subject><subject>Wildlife management</subject><subject>wildlife passage</subject><subject>Winter</subject><issn>0022-541X</issn><issn>1937-2817</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2007</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kE9PGzEQxS1UpKaA1A_Aweqh6mVhPLb3zzGlEEC0PUAgN8u79rYOyzrYCRA-fR0tAqkSJ2v8fm_05hHymcEBsoofIkCecQFbZJTGIsOSFR_ICAAxk4LNPpJPMc4BOGNlPiI_rp2xnl6uwoN1Xaf7xtKlp-MYbYz01P35-6jXdNobGxY6_UyjpfWaHne31PV0HNyz7_Uu2W51F-3ey7tDpifHV0en2cXvydnR-CKrBRNlJhBlw8tWtJpJw1vDS8RagDGs0Ew3WFkDed2YXBYlAkqwOVTS5I2pC15UfId8HfYugr9f2bhUdy42dhPb-lVUCFxWFfAEfvkPnPtV6FM2hVwgAwCZoG8D1AQfY7CtWgR3p8NaMVCbLtWmS5W6TOjBgD66zq7f5dT5zc8JE1WZDPuDYR6XPrwahKgkYpHkbJBdXNqnV1mHW5WnS6W6-TVR4nxWfJ_lV-r67fDaed_b94P-A7mZlf8</recordid><startdate>200704</startdate><enddate>200704</enddate><creator>DODD, NORRIS L</creator><creator>GAGNON, JEFFREY W</creator><creator>MANZO, AMANDA L</creator><creator>SCHWEINSBURG, RAYMOND E</creator><general>The Wildlife Society</general><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7ST</scope><scope>7T7</scope><scope>7U6</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88A</scope><scope>88I</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>BKSAR</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M2P</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PADUT</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PCBAR</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>R05</scope></search><sort><creationdate>200704</creationdate><title>Video Surveillance to Assess Highway Underpass Use by Elk in Arizona</title><author>DODD, NORRIS L ; GAGNON, JEFFREY W ; MANZO, AMANDA L ; SCHWEINSBURG, RAYMOND E</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-b4148-4225c38f4fa15d3fd3822b40dd17a1ac29ed06bcd657820250e6095d6cdb73793</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2007</creationdate><topic>Animal behavior</topic><topic>Animals</topic><topic>Arizona</topic><topic>behavior</topic><topic>Cervus elaphus</topic><topic>Cervus elaphus nelsoni</topic><topic>Confidence intervals</topic><topic>Conservation biology</topic><topic>Design</topic><topic>Elk</topic><topic>Elks</topic><topic>Federal funding</topic><topic>highway impact</topic><topic>Highways</topic><topic>Management</topic><topic>Managers</topic><topic>Permeability</topic><topic>Summer</topic><topic>Surveillance</topic><topic>Techniques and Technology</topic><topic>Underpasses</topic><topic>video surveillance</topic><topic>Wildlife</topic><topic>Wildlife conservation</topic><topic>Wildlife ecology</topic><topic>Wildlife management</topic><topic>wildlife passage</topic><topic>Winter</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>DODD, NORRIS L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>GAGNON, JEFFREY W</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>MANZO, AMANDA L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>SCHWEINSBURG, RAYMOND E</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Industrial and Applied Microbiology Abstracts (Microbiology A)</collection><collection>Sustainability Science Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Biology Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Agricultural & Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Earth, Atmospheric & Aquatic Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Science Database</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Research Library China</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>Earth, Atmospheric & Aquatic Science Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>University of Michigan</collection><jtitle>The Journal of wildlife management</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>DODD, NORRIS L</au><au>GAGNON, JEFFREY W</au><au>MANZO, AMANDA L</au><au>SCHWEINSBURG, RAYMOND E</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Video Surveillance to Assess Highway Underpass Use by Elk in Arizona</atitle><jtitle>The Journal of wildlife management</jtitle><date>2007-04</date><risdate>2007</risdate><volume>71</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>637</spage><epage>645</epage><pages>637-645</pages><issn>0022-541X</issn><eissn>1937-2817</eissn><coden>JWMAA9</coden><abstract>We used integrated video systems to compare wildlife use of 2 bridged wildlife underpasses (UPs) on a reconstructed highway in central Arizona, USA, from September 2002 to September 2005. Both UPs opened into the same riparian–meadow complex, were situated <250 m apart, and had different below-span characteristics and dimensions. Our objectives were to compare Rocky Mountain elk (Cervus elaphus nelsoni) response to the UPs and test hypotheses that passage rate (crossing frequency/approach frequency), probability of use, and behavioral response at the 2 UPs did not differ. We related differences in elk use and response to UP design characteristics. Elk accounted for >90% of the animals we recorded on videotape, with 3,708 elk in 1,266 groups recorded at the 2 UPs. We used multiple logistic regression to predict the probability of UP use by elk, incorporating the combined effects of UP, season, and year. Season had the greatest effect on UP use, with the probability of UP use in summer (0.81) higher than in winter (0.58), when migratory elk less habituated to the UPs were present. A pattern of high summer (>0.80) and low winter passage rates (<0.40), regardless of UP, existed in all 3 years of video surveillance. Underpass also had an effect on the probability of elk crossing the UPs; the probability of use of the UP with 2 times the openness ratio, one-half the length for elk to traverse, and sloped earthen sides (0.75) was higher than the neighboring UP with concrete walls (0.66). Proportions of elk displaying behaviors indicative of resistance to crossing were dependent on UP and were higher at the UP with concrete walls. In all cases, elk preferred the more open UP with natural earthen sides. We believe that differences in UP length and the concrete walls contributed to differences in elk use and behavioral response. Continued video surveillance of these and other UPs will allow us to evaluate their efficacy in promoting wildlife permeability and safer highways.</abstract><cop>Oxford, UK</cop><pub>The Wildlife Society</pub><doi>10.2193/2006-340</doi><tpages>9</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0022-541X |
| ispartof | The Journal of wildlife management, 2007-04, Vol.71 (2), p.637-645 |
| issn | 0022-541X 1937-2817 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_20359903 |
| source | Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete; Jstor Complete Legacy |
| subjects | Animal behavior Animals Arizona behavior Cervus elaphus Cervus elaphus nelsoni Confidence intervals Conservation biology Design Elk Elks Federal funding highway impact Highways Management Managers Permeability Summer Surveillance Techniques and Technology Underpasses video surveillance Wildlife Wildlife conservation Wildlife ecology Wildlife management wildlife passage Winter |
| title | Video Surveillance to Assess Highway Underpass Use by Elk in Arizona |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-25T16%3A15%3A56IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Video%20Surveillance%20to%20Assess%20Highway%20Underpass%20Use%20by%20Elk%20in%20Arizona&rft.jtitle=The%20Journal%20of%20wildlife%20management&rft.au=DODD,%20NORRIS%20L&rft.date=2007-04&rft.volume=71&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=637&rft.epage=645&rft.pages=637-645&rft.issn=0022-541X&rft.eissn=1937-2817&rft.coden=JWMAA9&rft_id=info:doi/10.2193/2006-340&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_proqu%3E4495227%3C/jstor_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=234210005&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_jstor_id=4495227&rfr_iscdi=true |