::: Welcome to Conservation Genome Resource Bank for Korean Wildlife :::
 
17_c.gif ¹®ÇåÁ¤º¸
17_c.gif ¾ß»ýµ¿¹°°ü·Ã ÀÚ·á ¹× ¼Ò½Ä
17_c.gif Á¾Á¤º¸
17_c.gif º¸ÀüÀ¯ÀüÇÐ/º¸Àü»ý¹°ÇÐ ÀÚ·á
17_c.gif ¾ß»ýµ¿¹°ÀÇÇÐ ¼Ò½Ä ¹× ÀÚ·á
  - õ¿¬±â³ä¹°ÀÇ ´ë»ó
sound.gif °¶·¯¸®
sound.gif ÀÚÀ¯°Ô½ÃÆÇ (¿¾³¯ °Ô½ÃÆÇ)
sound.gif °ü·Ã»çÀÌÆ®
sound.gif ÀÚ·á½Ç
sound.gif Ã£¾Æ¿À½Ã´Â ±æ
º¸ÀüÀ¯ÀüÇÐ/º¸Àü»ý¹°ÇÐ ÀÚ·á

View Article
Name
  ¿î¿µÀÚ 2006-09-25 11:14:23 | Hit : 24664 | Vote : 8067
Subject   [ÀÚ·á] Cutting the carnage: wildlife usage of road culverts in north-eastern New South Wales
Cutting the carnage: wildlife usage of road culverts in north-eastern New South Wales

Brendan D. Taylor and Ross L. Goldingay

Abstract

Culverts have been used for a number of decades in Europe and the USA to reduce wildlife road-kills. In Australia, culverts have been employed by road authorities only relatively recently. This study used sand-strip surveys to investigate wildlife usage of nine purpose-built culverts along a 1.4-km section of the Pacific Highway at Brunswick Heads, north-east New South Wales. Surveys during two eight-day periods in spring and summer 2000 found 1202 traverses by wildlife through the culverts. Frequent culvert users were bandicoots (25% of traverses), rats (25%), wallabies (13%) and cane toads (14%). All culverts were used by these species, suggesting that at least several individuals of each species were involved. Infrequent users (each <2% of crossings) were possums, echidnas, lizards, birds and introduced carnivores. A koala was recorded crossing on two occasions. The long-nosed potoroo was observed in the surrounding habitat but was not confirmed traversing the culverts. Surveys for road-kills on this road section suggest that the exclusion fence bordering the highway prevented mammal road-kills and channeled mammals to the culverts. A single survey on a wet night found many frogs crossing the road surface and many were killed. This study confirms that culverts and exclusion fencing facilitate safe passage across a road for a range of wildlife species. This suggests that this form of management response to extensive road mortality of wildlife is appropriate and should be adopted more widely. However, this form of mitigation is not effective for frogs.

Wildlife Research 30(5) 529 - 537

Full text doi:10.1071/WR01062


http://www.publish.csiro.au/paper/WR01062.htm
 Prev   [ÀÚ·á] Computer programs for population genetics data analysis: a survival guide
¿î¿µÀÚ
  2006/10/10 
 Next   [ÀÚ·á] Road-kills of the eastern barred bandicoot (Perameles gunnii) in Tasmania: an index of abundance
¿î¿µÀÚ
  2006/09/25 


Copyright 1999-2024 Zeroboard / skin by daerew
151-742 ¼­¿ïƯº°½Ã °ü¾Ç±¸ ½Å¸²9µ¿ »ê56-1 ¼­¿ï´ëÇб³ ¼öÀÇ°ú´ëÇÐ 85µ¿ 802È£
Tel 02-888-2744, Fax 02-888-2754, E-mail cgrb@cgrb.org

Copyright © 2002-2004 CGRB All Rights Reserved