↓ Skip to main content

Do Bat Gantries and Underpasses Help Bats Cross Roads Safely?

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, June 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
policy
1 policy source
twitter
86 X users
patent
1 patent
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
video
1 YouTube creator

Citations

dimensions_citation
54 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
237 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Do Bat Gantries and Underpasses Help Bats Cross Roads Safely?
Published in
PLOS ONE, June 2012
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0038775
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anna Berthinussen, John Altringham

Abstract

Major roads can reduce bat abundance and diversity over considerable distances. To mitigate against these effects and comply with environmental law, many European countries install bridges, gantries or underpasses to make roads permeable and safer to cross. However, through lack of appropriate monitoring, there is little evidence to support their effectiveness. Three underpasses and four bat gantries were investigated in northern England. Echolocation call recordings and observations were used to determine the number of bats using underpasses in preference to crossing the road above, and the height at which bats crossed. At gantries, proximity to the gantry and height of crossing bats were measured. Data were compared to those from adjacent, severed commuting routes that had no crossing structure. At one underpass 96% of bats flew through it in preference to crossing the road. This underpass was located on a pre-construction commuting route that allowed bats to pass without changing flight height or direction. At two underpasses attempts to divert bats from their original commuting routes were unsuccessful and bats crossed the road at the height of passing vehicles. Underpasses have the potential to allow bats to cross roads safely if built on pre-construction commuting routes. Bat gantries were ineffective and used by a very small proportion of bats, even up to nine years after construction. Most bats near gantries crossed roads along severed, pre-construction commuting routes at heights that put them in the path of vehicles. Crossing height was strongly correlated with verge height, suggesting that elevated verges may have some value in mitigation, but increased flight height may be at the cost of reduced permeability. Green bridges should be explored as an alternative form of mitigation. Robust monitoring is essential to assess objectively the case for mitigation and to ensure effective mitigation.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 86 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 237 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Switzerland 2 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Israel 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Mexico 1 <1%
Romania 1 <1%
Thailand 1 <1%
Other 3 1%
Unknown 224 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 43 18%
Student > Bachelor 36 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 31 13%
Other 30 13%
Student > Master 29 12%
Other 28 12%
Unknown 40 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 128 54%
Environmental Science 47 20%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 5 2%
Social Sciences 4 2%
Engineering 2 <1%
Other 6 3%
Unknown 45 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 88. 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 07 December 2021.
All research outputs
#493,471
of 25,840,929 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#6,815
of 225,329 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,314
of 181,900 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#95
of 3,859 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,840,929 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 225,329 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its peers.
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 181,900 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3,859 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.