| Title |
Developing recommendations for monitoring wildlife underpass usage using trail cameras
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, June 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10661-018-6794-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Dorian Pomezanski, Lorne Bennett |
| Abstract |
The growing rate of wildlife underpass use for the mitigation of road-induced wildlife mortality necessitates the development of low-cost monitoring tools for determination of mitigation success. Trail cameras are one such tool that can provide valuable insight into the usage patterns and effectiveness of wildlife underpasses. We deployed trail cameras in wildlife underpasses in Guelph, ON, to develop recommendations for camera monitoring protocols. The trail cameras used high interval time lapse and motion sensors from April to October of 2016 to capture crossing by a variety of species through two slotted, small animal underpasses. Daily and seasonal underpass usage patterns of 21 species and species groups suggest that to comprehensively monitor underpass usage, cameras must be active continuously and utilize high frequency time lapse and motion sensors simultaneously to capture crossing events by both endothermic and ectothermic species. Although these recommendations are dependent on the specific objectives and target conservation species, these results can be used to guide a range of underpass monitoring programs. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 41 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 41 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 6 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 12% |
| Researcher | 5 | 12% |
| Other | 4 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 3 | 7% |
| Unknown | 16 | 39% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Environmental Science | 9 | 22% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 9 | 22% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 5% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 1 | 2% |
| Psychology | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 3 | 7% |
| Unknown | 16 | 39% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 July 2018.
All research outputs
#21,358,731
of 23,854,458 outputs
Outputs from Environmental Monitoring and Assessment
#2,266
of 2,748 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#291,164
of 331,215 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Environmental Monitoring and Assessment
#32
of 42 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,854,458 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,748 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.8. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 331,215 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 42 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.