Step 6 Select the appropriate sites, both mitigated and control. This includes
choosing the best spatial scale for the evaluation study.
Step 7 Select the best covariates to measure (e.g., railway characteristics, type of
fences, type of culvert, presence of noise barriers, human disturbance,
presence of vegetation on verges, train speed, surrounding landscape
characteristics).
Step 8 Select the most suitable survey methods, namely preferring methods that
monitor several species simultaneously, and choosing ways to reduce bias.
Step 9 Determine the costs and feasibility of the evaluation study, and act in
agreement by implementing the necessary adaptations.
It is crucial to do a research-based evaluation of the success of mitigation
measures, which should be of a broad scope that includes wildlife mortality and
movements, landscape constraints, and safety. Finally, as indirect ecological consequences of many mitigation measures are poorly understood and often neglected,
they should be taken into account in the overall evaluation process of their
effectiveness.
Acknowledgments S.M. Santos and R. Lourenço were supported by post-doctoral Grants of the
Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia (FCT; SFRH/BPD/70124/2010 and SFRH/BPD/78241/2011,
respectively).
References
Ando, C. (2003). The relationship between deer-train collisions and daily activity of the sika deer,
Cervus nippon. Mammal Study, 28, 135–143.
Andreassen, H. P., Gundersen, H., & Storaasthe, T. (2005). The effect of scent-marking, forest
clearing and supplemental feeding on moose-train collisions. Journal of Wildlife Management,
69, 1125–1132.
Babińska-Werka, J., Krauze-Gryz, D., Wasilewski, M., & Jasińska, K. (2015). Effectiveness of an
acoustic wildlife warning device using natural calls to reduce the risk of train collisions with
animals. Transportation Research D, 38, 6–14.
Baofa, Y., Huyin, H., Yili, Z., Le, Z., & Wanhong, W. (2006). Influence of the Qinghai-Tibetan
railway and highway on the activities of wild animals. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 26, 3917–3923.
Bard, A. M., Smith, H. T., Egensteiner, E. D., Mulholland, R., Harber, T. V., Heath, G. W., et al.
(2002). A simple structural method to reduce road-kills of royal terns at bridge sites. Wildlife
Society Bulletin, 30, 603–605.
Barrientos, R., Alonso, J. C., Ponce, C., & Palacín, C. (2011). Meta-analysis of the effectiveness of
marked wire in reducing avian collisions with power lines. Conservation Biology, 25, 893–903.
Becker, E. F., & Grauvogel, C. A. (1991). Relationship of reduced train speed on moose-train
collisions in Alaska. Alces, 27, 161–168.
Belant, J. L. (1995). Moose collisions with vehicles and trains in Northeastern Minnesota. Alces,
31, 1–8.
Bernardino, J., Bispo, R., Costa, H., & Mascarenhas, M. (2013). Estimating bird and bat fatality at
wind farms: A practical overview of estimators, their assumptions and limitations. New Zeland
Journal of Zoology, 40, 63–74.
38
F. Carvalho et al.
choosing the best spatial scale for the evaluation study.
Step 7 Select the best covariates to measure (e.g., railway characteristics, type of
fences, type of culvert, presence of noise barriers, human disturbance,
presence of vegetation on verges, train speed, surrounding landscape
characteristics).
Step 8 Select the most suitable survey methods, namely preferring methods that
monitor several species simultaneously, and choosing ways to reduce bias.
Step 9 Determine the costs and feasibility of the evaluation study, and act in
agreement by implementing the necessary adaptations.
It is crucial to do a research-based evaluation of the success of mitigation
measures, which should be of a broad scope that includes wildlife mortality and
movements, landscape constraints, and safety. Finally, as indirect ecological consequences of many mitigation measures are poorly understood and often neglected,
they should be taken into account in the overall evaluation process of their
effectiveness.
Acknowledgments S.M. Santos and R. Lourenço were supported by post-doctoral Grants of the
Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia (FCT; SFRH/BPD/70124/2010 and SFRH/BPD/78241/2011,
respectively).
References
Ando, C. (2003). The relationship between deer-train collisions and daily activity of the sika deer,
Cervus nippon. Mammal Study, 28, 135–143.
Andreassen, H. P., Gundersen, H., & Storaasthe, T. (2005). The effect of scent-marking, forest
clearing and supplemental feeding on moose-train collisions. Journal of Wildlife Management,
69, 1125–1132.
Babińska-Werka, J., Krauze-Gryz, D., Wasilewski, M., & Jasińska, K. (2015). Effectiveness of an
acoustic wildlife warning device using natural calls to reduce the risk of train collisions with
animals. Transportation Research D, 38, 6–14.
Baofa, Y., Huyin, H., Yili, Z., Le, Z., & Wanhong, W. (2006). Influence of the Qinghai-Tibetan
railway and highway on the activities of wild animals. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 26, 3917–3923.
Bard, A. M., Smith, H. T., Egensteiner, E. D., Mulholland, R., Harber, T. V., Heath, G. W., et al.
(2002). A simple structural method to reduce road-kills of royal terns at bridge sites. Wildlife
Society Bulletin, 30, 603–605.
Barrientos, R., Alonso, J. C., Ponce, C., & Palacín, C. (2011). Meta-analysis of the effectiveness of
marked wire in reducing avian collisions with power lines. Conservation Biology, 25, 893–903.
Becker, E. F., & Grauvogel, C. A. (1991). Relationship of reduced train speed on moose-train
collisions in Alaska. Alces, 27, 161–168.
Belant, J. L. (1995). Moose collisions with vehicles and trains in Northeastern Minnesota. Alces,
31, 1–8.
Bernardino, J., Bispo, R., Costa, H., & Mascarenhas, M. (2013). Estimating bird and bat fatality at
wind farms: A practical overview of estimators, their assumptions and limitations. New Zeland
Journal of Zoology, 40, 63–74.
38
F. Carvalho et al.