had no influence on genetic differentiation, probably because of their low traffic flow
and the presence of wildlife passes. A similar result was found for roe deer
(Capreolus capreolus) in Switzerland, although in this case, the authors suggested
that the differences could be due to highways being fenced and railways not, as traffic
flow was similar (Hepenstrick et al. 2012). In Canada, Tremblay and St. Clair (2009)
showed that railways were more permeable to forest song bird movements than were
roads, likely due to their narrower width and lower traffic. Indeed, the authors found
that the gap size in the vegetation was the most important factor constraining forest
bird movement, especially when the gap was larger than 30 m. As a final example, in
their study of New England cottontails (Sylvilagus transitionalis) in the USA,
Fenderson et al. (2014) concluded that major highways limited dispersal, whereas
railways and power lines corridors acted as dispersal facilitators.
Railways are more environmentally friendly than road vehicle transportation, but
this does not mean that their negative impacts should be ignored. Therefore, while
acknowledging that there is a wide range of situations where priority should be
given to the development of railways, or to the maintenance of existing ones, it is
also crucial to take into account the impacts on the habitats transversed by these
infrastructures, and on the wildlife populations occurring therein. However, we
believe that these impacts can be considerably reduced once they are identified, and
once the decision-makers are willing to pursue the required mitigation measures. In
the next chapters, we will first review the impacts of railways on biodiversity
(mortality, exclusion and barrier effects, introduction and dispersal of exotic species
and pollution) and then present several case studies with a view to identifying
problems and proposing strategies to mitigate railways negative effects.
References
Arens, P., van der Sluis, T., van’t Westende, W. P. C., Vosman, B., Vos, C. C., & Smulders,
M. J. M. (2007). Genetic population differentiation and connectivity among fragmented Moor
frog (Rana arvalis) populations in The Netherlands. Landscape Ecology, 22, 1489–1500.
Chandra, S., & Agarwal, M. M. (2007). Railway engineering. New Delhi: Oxford University
Press.
Clauzel, C., Girardet, X., & Foltête, J.-C. (2013). Impact assessment of a high-speed railway line
on species distribution: Application to the European tree frog (Hyla arborea) in
Franche-Comté. Journal of Environmental Management, 127, 125–134.
Clevenger, A. P., & Waltho, N. (2005). Performance indices to identify attributes of highway
crossing structures facilitating movement of large mammals. Biological Conservation, 121,
453–464.
Cserkész, T., & Farkas, J. (2015). Annual trends in the number of wildlife-vehicle collisions on the
main linear transport corridors (highway and railway) of Hungary. North-Western Journal of
Zoology, 11, 41–50.
Dorsey, B., Olsson, M., & Rew, L. J. (2015). Ecological effects of railways on wildlife. In R. van
der Ree, D. J. Smith, & C. Grilo (Eds.), Handbook of Road ecology (pp. 219–227). West
Sussex: Wiley.
1 Railway Ecology
7
and the presence of wildlife passes. A similar result was found for roe deer
(Capreolus capreolus) in Switzerland, although in this case, the authors suggested
that the differences could be due to highways being fenced and railways not, as traffic
flow was similar (Hepenstrick et al. 2012). In Canada, Tremblay and St. Clair (2009)
showed that railways were more permeable to forest song bird movements than were
roads, likely due to their narrower width and lower traffic. Indeed, the authors found
that the gap size in the vegetation was the most important factor constraining forest
bird movement, especially when the gap was larger than 30 m. As a final example, in
their study of New England cottontails (Sylvilagus transitionalis) in the USA,
Fenderson et al. (2014) concluded that major highways limited dispersal, whereas
railways and power lines corridors acted as dispersal facilitators.
Railways are more environmentally friendly than road vehicle transportation, but
this does not mean that their negative impacts should be ignored. Therefore, while
acknowledging that there is a wide range of situations where priority should be
given to the development of railways, or to the maintenance of existing ones, it is
also crucial to take into account the impacts on the habitats transversed by these
infrastructures, and on the wildlife populations occurring therein. However, we
believe that these impacts can be considerably reduced once they are identified, and
once the decision-makers are willing to pursue the required mitigation measures. In
the next chapters, we will first review the impacts of railways on biodiversity
(mortality, exclusion and barrier effects, introduction and dispersal of exotic species
and pollution) and then present several case studies with a view to identifying
problems and proposing strategies to mitigate railways negative effects.
References
Arens, P., van der Sluis, T., van’t Westende, W. P. C., Vosman, B., Vos, C. C., & Smulders,
M. J. M. (2007). Genetic population differentiation and connectivity among fragmented Moor
frog (Rana arvalis) populations in The Netherlands. Landscape Ecology, 22, 1489–1500.
Chandra, S., & Agarwal, M. M. (2007). Railway engineering. New Delhi: Oxford University
Press.
Clauzel, C., Girardet, X., & Foltête, J.-C. (2013). Impact assessment of a high-speed railway line
on species distribution: Application to the European tree frog (Hyla arborea) in
Franche-Comté. Journal of Environmental Management, 127, 125–134.
Clevenger, A. P., & Waltho, N. (2005). Performance indices to identify attributes of highway
crossing structures facilitating movement of large mammals. Biological Conservation, 121,
453–464.
Cserkész, T., & Farkas, J. (2015). Annual trends in the number of wildlife-vehicle collisions on the
main linear transport corridors (highway and railway) of Hungary. North-Western Journal of
Zoology, 11, 41–50.
Dorsey, B., Olsson, M., & Rew, L. J. (2015). Ecological effects of railways on wildlife. In R. van
der Ree, D. J. Smith, & C. Grilo (Eds.), Handbook of Road ecology (pp. 219–227). West
Sussex: Wiley.
1 Railway Ecology
7