Next Article in Journal
Governance, Values, and Conservation Processes in Multifunctional Landscapes
Next Article in Special Issue
Identifying and Mapping Groups of Protected Area Visitors by Environmental Awareness
Previous Article in Journal
Fit-for-Purpose Land Administration from Theory to Practice: Three Demonstrative Case Studies of Local Land Administration Initiatives in Africa
Previous Article in Special Issue
Impact of Road Fencing on Ungulate–Vehicle Collisions and Hotspot Patterns
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Land
Volume 10
Issue 5
10.3390/land10050477
land-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Roadkill-Data-Based Identification and Ranking of Mammal Habitats

by
Andrius Kučas
1,2 and
Linas Balčiauskas
1,*
1
Nature Research Centre, Akademijos Street 2, LT-08412 Vilnius, Lithuania
2
Joint Research Centre, European Commission, Via Fermi 2749, I-21027 Ispra, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Land 2021, 10(5), 477; https://doi.org/10.3390/land10050477
Submission received: 16 April 2021 / Revised: 29 April 2021 / Accepted: 30 April 2021 / Published: 2 May 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Wildlife Protection and Habitat Management: Practice and Perspectives)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Wildlife–vehicle collisions, as well as environmental factors that affect collisions and mitigation measures, are usually modelled and analysed in the vicinity of or within roads, while habitat attractiveness to wildlife along with risk to drivers remain mostly underestimated. The main goal of this study was the identification, characterisation, and ranking of mammalian habitats in Lithuania in relation to 2002–2017 roadkill data. We identified habitat patches as areas (varying from 1 to 1488 square kilometres) isolated by neighbouring roads characterised by at least one wildlife–vehicle collision hotspot. We ranked all identified habitats on the basis of land cover, the presence of an ecological corridor, a mammalian pathway, and roadkill hotspot data. A ranking scenario describing both habitat attractiveness to wildlife and the risk to drivers was defined and applied. Ranks for each habitat were calculated using multiple criteria spatial decision support techniques. Multiple regression analyses were used to identify the relationship between habitat ranks, species richness, and land cover classes. Strong relationships were identified and are discussed between the habitat patch ranks in five (out of 28) land cover classes and in eight (out of 28) species (97% of all mammal road kills). We conclude that, along with conventional roadkill hotspot identification, roadkill-based habitat identification and characterisation as well as species richness analysis should be used in road safety infrastructure planning.

1. Introduction

Wildlife–vehicle collisions (WVCs) pose a threat to human life and biological diversity and result in damage to property [1,2,3,4,5,6]. Over the last two decades in Lithuania, while the overall number of road traffic accidents has continuously decreased, road accidents involving wildlife have increased [7].
To mitigate mammal–vehicle collisions (MVCs), fencing, underpasses, gates, and jump-out ramps are used as the most common mitigation measures in the country [8]. Additional road safety infrastructure elements such as repellents, reflectors, noise, and natural predators can also be used; these focus on a single and/or multiple wildlife species. They repel, attract, or redirect wildlife with different ecological and financial efficiencies [9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18]. The selection of tangible multi-scale [19], multi-objective, and multi-functional WVC mitigation measures is the focus of a considerable research challenge [20].
The identification of roadkill hotspots (road sections where collisions occur more frequently than expected) is the first step of the highway safety management process. However, erroneous hotspot identification [21] as well as gaps in roadkill data [1] may result in inefficient use of resources for safety improvements [22]. There are many generalised linear models [23] that can be used to identify hotspots, such as ecological niche modelling [24], kernel density estimation [25,26,27], distance-based approaches [28], and methods based on modelling the number of collisions in a road section assuming a Poisson distribution [21,29,30,31,32]. These methods use roadkill data to detect collision hotspots as well as their risk to drivers. In order to assess habitat attractiveness to wildlife and the associated habitat risk to drivers, it is important to understand where mammals cross roads more frequently.
Multiple habitat suitability [33,34,35] is determined by spatial [36,37] and temporal [7,38,39,40,41] factors that might help us to identify and characterise wildlife habitats, animal movement patterns, and corridors [42,43,44,45,46]. Habitat suitability, together with spatial and temporal factors, helps us to obtain knowledge on how and when mammals traverse the landscape.
Field research usually brings disparate results [47] of differential scale and quality [1]. Consequently, the results are frequently not fit for deriving habitat patch characteristics and assessing habitat attractiveness to wildlife. This would require standardised habitat data that are usually lacking.
Habitats can be characterised using behavioural and spatiotemporal events, landscape connectivity and fragmentation, species richness, animal abundance, and other field research data. Large scale, long-term, and accurate data that can characterise habitats usually require methodologically robust and expensive research. Employing the available roadkill data from police reports would decrease (not replace) the amount of field research required in cases when there is insufficient habitat data available. Multiple, long-term, and standardised habitat characteristics (criteria) can help us to identify MVC mitigation measures focused on single or multiple species.
Decision-makers often deal with problems that involve multiple criteria [48,49,50,51]. Identification of the primary sources of MVCs, namely the habitats that are highly attractive to wildlife and simultaneously of high risk to drivers, is also a multiple criteria analysis problem. Therefore, we selected Simple Additive Weighting (SAW) and Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) [49,52] multi-criteria spatial decision support techniques for the ranking of habitats. The habitat ranking outcomes can be considered reliable if both methods generate similar ranking results [8].
Wildlife–vehicle collisions, as well as environmental factors that affect collisions and mitigation measures, are usually modelled and analysed at the level of the roads themselves [7,8,53,54,55,56], while the wider issues of adjacent habitat attractiveness to wildlife and its risk to drivers remain underestimated. MVCs with wild species accounted for about 91% of all WVCs in Lithuania in 2002–2017 [57]. There is a need for a framework that helps us to unify the disparate results emerging from different data sources and field studies on MVC occurrence, which allows for roadkill-based identification, characterisation, and multi-objective ranking of mammalian habitats by their attractiveness to wildlife and their risk to drivers. Here, we understand “risk to the driver” as a derivative of the cluster strength in KDE+ [26,27].
In this study, habitat identification, characterisation, and ranking are based on the definition of habitats as “areas isolated by neighbouring roads that have at least one hotspot (a road section where MVCs occur more frequently than expected)” and the assumptions that (1) highly attractive habitats for wildlife increase the risk of MVCs on adjacent roads; (2) habitats that are surrounded by roads with an abundance of MVC hotspots are of high attractiveness to wildlife movement; and (3) road kills in the hotspots can help us to identify species richness within adjacent habitats. However, the accuracy of such estimations depends on the completeness of MVC data [1].
The overall purpose of this study, therefore, is to:
  • Identify habitat patches that are surrounded by roads with kernel density estimation (KDE+)-based [27] MVC hotspots;
  • Characterise habitat patches using the properties of adjacent habitats, hypothetical corridors and wildlife pathways, hotspots, and land cover data;
  • Define ranking scenarios (criteria utility functions and criteria weights) to detect habitat patches that are highly attractive to wildlife [37] and pose a risk to drivers [27];
  • Rank habitat patches using two different multiple criteria spatial decision support techniques: SAW and TOPSIS; and
  • Find relationships between habitat ranks, species richness, and land cover classes for use in the planning of multispecies MVC mitigation measures using multiple linear regressions.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Area

Our study area covers the entire territory of Lithuania (Figure 1), which can be characterised as mostly a plain. It represents a surface area of 65,286 square kilometres. In 2012, 33% of the surface was covered by arable land and permanent crops, 27% by semi-natural vegetation, 33% by forested land, 3% by developed (artificial) areas, and 4% by water bodies and other land. The land cover change (a 0.48% change rate per year) in the country is slowing, mainly due to a rapid decrease in the intensity of forest conversion [58].
In 2017, there were 21,244 km of State-owned roads of national significance (excluding roads in cities): 1751 km of main roads; 4925 km of national roads; and 14,568 km of regional roads [59]. In this study, we analysed 1784 roads (21 main/highway, 13 national, and 1631 regional) as shown in Figure 1.
In the period 2002–2017, the annual average daily traffic (AADT) increased from 5600 to 11,000 vehicles a day on main roads, from 2200 to 2900 vehicles a day on national roads, and remained at up to 500 vehicles a day on regional roads [60].

2.2. Mammal–Vehicle Collision Data

According to the data from the Lithuanian Police Traffic Supervision Service and the Nature Research Centre, a total of 24,083 WVCs were recorded over the period 2002–2017 in Lithuania [57]. These numbers may, however, have a bias regarding taxonomic groups and not account for all accidents as reporting to the authorities is not mandatory in Lithuania. The Traffic Supervision Service registers only road kills from those accidents that were reported by drivers; therefore, their data are biased to larger species. Small mammals are represented exclusively in the data from the Nature Research Centre, which registered all road kills.
Out of all WVCs, we selected 21,911 WVC reports that involved mammals. A total of 19,622 reports included accurate information relating to 32 wild mammal species (Table 1). Of these reports, we mapped the 18,218 reports that included precise information on location (Figure 1, Table 1).

2.3. Clustering of Collision Data

Using a clustering method, habitats were identified according to the location of hotspots. The literature contains many different spatial techniques for identifying short, significant road segments where collisions occur more frequently than usual [21,27,32,61,62,63,64,65,66]. We utilized the KDE+, which analyses MVCs that are represented as point features and are located along the roads represented as line features (Figure 2a). The KDE+ algorithm finds locations (clusters) with statistically significant concentrations of collisions and assigns strength values (measured from 0 to 1) showing the risk severity to drivers [27,36] (Figure 2b). We performed MVC clustering analysis and created MVC clusters using the KDE+ parameters derived from the road network properties (KDE+ bandwidth—150 metres, Monte Carlo simulations—800, and minimal cluster strength—0.2).

2.4. Definition of Mammalian Habitats and Movement Patterns

Our conceptual model for the identification of mammalian habitats is shown in Figure 2a–c, characterization in Figure 2d,e, and ranking of habitat patches in Figure 2e. MVC reports with different species were mapped on the road network. Road sections where MVCs occurred more frequently were identified using the KDE+ clustering method [27].
We assumed that roadkill clusters are important indicators not only of risk to drivers [27], but also indicate locations where important mammalian pathways and roads intersect. We identified habitat patches as areas that are bounded (surrounded) by neighbouring road sections characterised by at least one cluster. We merged habitats having no clusters with neighbouring habitats iteratively until a merged habitat patch had a road with at least one neighbouring cluster. In our study, urban areas and urban clusters were excluded and not used for the identification of habitats. Identified habitats were used for their characterisation and, later, for ranking.
Hypothetical wildlife pathways were created by connecting the Clementini [67] centroids of habitat patches and cluster centroids using spider lines illustrating the shortest (Euclidean) distances. Hypothetical mammal corridors were created using the triangulated irregular network (TIN) between the Clementini [67] habitat patch centroids as peaks [37,42].

2.5. Characterisation of Mammalian Habitats

The habitat patches (Figure 2c) were characterised using topological relationships between habitat patches, hypothetical pathways, and corridors. Each cluster centroid illustrates a “gateway” that mammals use to traverse from one habitat patch to another.
Following this conceptual framework (Figure 2), we identified and collected the necessary network-based criteria (Table 2) for each habitat patch. Later, the habitat patches were ranked according to their attractiveness to wildlife and risk severity to drivers.

2.6. Objective Functions and Criteria Importance

The objective criterion importance (weights) for all criteria was calculated based on criteria utility (minimisation/maximisation) functions using SortViz for the ESRI inc. ArcGIS desktop software add-in [37,68].
Using the same ArcGIS desktop software add-in, we ranked habitat patches based on criteria derived from the individual (Figure 2) and spatial connectivity properties (Table 2) of the habitat patch. In order to find habitat patches that were simultaneously the most attractive to wildlife and of most severe risk to drivers, modelling assumptions (see Table 2’s footnote) and objective (utility) functions (Table 2) were set.

2.7. Ranking of Habitats and Ecological Corridors

Criterion importance values, defined as weights (Table 2), were then used as an input for ranking the habitat patches using the SAW and TOPSIS [49,52] methods. Both ranking approaches use the same input habitat data (Table 2). The final SAW and TOPSIS values ranged from 0 (worst) to 1 (best) and altogether built the so-called ‘composite indicator’ of habitat attractiveness to wildlife (mammals) and risk to drivers. A higher rank value means higher attractiveness to wildlife and a higher risk to drivers. The SAW and TOPSIS values for each habitat patch were separately calculated and compared with each other (Table 2).
Average SAW and average TOPSIS rank values, derived from the habitat patches connecting the two ends of the corridor, were allocated to each ecological corridor to determine the relative importance of the corridor (Figure 2f, Table 3).
Different average rank values assigned to ecological corridors show different degrees of importance to mammals and drivers. Higher average SAW and TOPSIS rank values (Figure 2f, Table 3) illustrate higher and more intense mammalian locomotion patterns [69] and risk to drivers.

2.8. Identification of Key Habitat Characteristics

We assessed the relationship (a correlation matrix using Pearson’s correlation index) between habitat patch ranks, number of species, and CLC land cover [70,71] classes [72]. Interpretation of r: 0—no association; 0 to 0.25 (0 to −0.25)—weak association; 0.25 to 0.50 (−0.25 to −0.50)—moderate association; 0.50–0.75 (−0.50 to −0.75)—strong association; 0.75 to 1.00 (−0.75 to −1.00)—very strong association; and 1 (−1) perfect association [73].
We analysed land cover classes and species that had a strong (r > 0.50) relationship to habitat ranks (SAW and TOPSIS values). Habitat ranks were used as intercept and land cover classes and species as independent regressors.

3. Results

3.1. Habitats and Habitat Characteristics

We identified 281 state-owned roads with at least one KDE+ cluster (Figure 3): 18 main roads/highways; 107 national roads; and 156 regional roads (85.7%, 81.1%, and 9.6% of all roads in their respective category). The rest of the roads (thin grey lines in Figure 4) were not taken into account.
Using the KDE+ method, we found 1642 mammalian clusters (Figure 3), of which 22 (1.3%) were located in urban areas and therefore were excluded from further analyses. A total of 28 out of the 32 road-killed mammal species were identified within the clusters. Four small-sized mammals (M. glareolus, S. araneus, R. rattus, N. fodiens) were only registered as road kills outside the clusters. However, small numbers of these species registered in the road kills (Table 1) had no impact on the location and number of identified clusters.
We identified 3171 hypothetical mammalian pathways (thin grey lines in Figure 4), 672 corridors (dashed lines in Figure 4), and 243 habitat patches (Figure 4). The hypothetical mammalian pathways (Figure 2d and Figure 4) and corridors (Figure 2e and Figure 4) were used for the characterisation and collection of criteria (Table A1 and Table A2) for habitat patches (Figure 4).

3.2. Criteria Weights, Habitat Ranks, Ecological Corridors, and Movement Patterns

In order to rank the identified habitat patches (Table A1), the criteria weights (Table 4) were calculated using objective functions (Table 2). The most important criterion for assessment was the shortest length of adjacent pathways, while the least important was the number of adjacent corridors.
Following objective functions, the SAW (Figure 5) and TOPSIS (Figure 6) ranks (Table A2) were assigned to each habitat patch. The average rank values were calculated for the corridors as well. The labels (Figure 5 and Figure 6) identify the main roads.
The highest SAW and TOPSIS rank values assigned to the habitat patches were 0.7 and 0.6, respectively. Furthermore, the SAW and TOPSIS ranks of habitats had a very strong correlation (r = 0.86), which means that the ranking results are similar and can be trusted.
The habitat patches contained from 3 to 477 MVCs and from 1 to 20 road-killed mammal species (Table A2). The corridor links (Figure 5 and Figure 6) indicate the most probable movement patterns. The highly ranked corridors that intersect main roads highlight the highest potential risk to drivers and wildlife. Consequently, the MCV clusters that are on the roads with such intersections are of the highest importance for MVC mitigation actions.

3.3. Relationship between Habitat Ranks, Species Richness, and Land Cover Classes

Inside the clusters, MVCs with C. capreolus, S. scrofa, V. vulpes, L. europaeus, E. concolor, N. procyonoides, A. alces, M. putorius, and Martes sp. had strong relationships (r > ~0.5) with habitat patch ranks, showing the high severity risk to drivers and wildlife (Figure 7). All other species had a weak or no relationship with habitat patch ranks. Five of these species, B. bonasus, L. lynx, M. erminea, L. lutra, and L. timidus, are rare in nature (Table 1), while others are small in size and their road kills were most probably under-registered.
Land cover classes such as road and rail networks, transitional woodland–shrub areas, mixed forest, broad-leaved forest, pastures, complex cultivation patterns, and discontinuous urban fabrics showed strong relationships (r > 0.5) with habitat patch ranks (Figure 8). All other land cover classes had a weak or no relationship with habitat patch ranks, indicating that these land cover classes do not pose a severe risk to drivers and wildlife.
The results of multiple linear regression analyses (Table 5) indicate that broad-leaved forests and transitional woodland–shrub areas bordered by road and rail networks are characterised by the highest risk to drivers and wildlife. In the vicinity of such habitats, MVCs mostly occur with C. capreolus and S. scrofa. MVCs with other species such as A. alces, V. vulpes, Martes sp., M. putorius, L. europaeus, and E. concolor are also likely.
Using SAW (Figure 9) and TOPSIS (Figure 10) values, we created heat maps that show the potential risk severity to drivers and wildlife (urban areas were used as a reference). For better visual representation, the maps were created using the inverse distance weighed (IDW) interpolation method. The IDW method is used to interpolate spatial data and is based on the concept of distance weighting [74,75].
The SAW-based habitat patch heat map (Figure 9) shows more severe risk habitat patches than the TOPSIS-based heat map (Figure 10) due to the differences in the ranking methods. However, both heat maps identified the same highly severe locations for drivers and wildlife.
Following the results from both ranking methods (Figure 9 and Figure 10), we identified that the habitat patches with the unique identification numbers 577 and 2248 (Figure 3, Table A1 and Table A2) posed the most severe risk to drivers and wildlife. For instance, around the top-ranked habitat patch (id: 577), which is bordered by the A14 main road and national roads 114, 111, 102, and 108, we found MVC clusters including 20 different mammal species (Figure 11). Most of the MVC clusters were found on A14. Clusters on the roads at the edge and within the habitat patch were also present. Due to the low traffic intensity there, we did not find any cluster on the national road 173, which is within the habitat patch.

4. Discussion

4.1. Habitat Risk Severity to Drivers

In order to plan MVC mitigation measures, spatial habitat characteristics together with MVCs and MVC cluster data are needed [76]. Habitat characteristics and factors that allow us to predict MVCs are important, but are usually the missing component. This can be explained by the disparate character of field research data [47]. Thus, the framework we propose may help to identify and characterise the missing components in a unified form.
Our results on habitat risk severity to drivers and wildlife at the local level are based on a long-term mammal roadkill dataset [77,78]. The main A14 road, delimiting the top-ranked habitat patch (id: 577, see Figure 11), is one of the most frequently checked for roadkill [1]. Because of ongoing long-term reconstruction of the A14 road (until 2030), short-term redirection of traffic onto national road 173 might be foreseen, thereby increasing the traffic intensity on that road, thus also increasing the likelihood of more MVCs than before and a higher risk to drivers.

4.2. Habitat Attractiveness to Mammals

The rates of annual land cover change in Lithuania are decreasing, dropping from 0.48% in 1990 to 0.18% in 2012 [58]. This indicates that the habitat composition has remained stable over time. A growing rate of forest land (woodland) and a rapid decline in active farming [58] has improved habitat attractiveness to different wildlife species, especially for forest dwellers. The increasing MVC numbers in all categories of roads and the increase in annual average daily traffic [79] have coincided with an enlargement of wildlife populations in the country. Species richness (the number of species in Table A2) has a strong relationship (r = 0.72) with the number of MVCs (the number of MVCs within adjacent clusters in Table A1).
We assumed that larger values of species richness indicate higher habitat diversity [80], suitability [81], and attractiveness to wildlife. We found 20 different species within MVC clusters that are adjacent to habitat patch id: 577, which means that road 137 (Figure 11) is more dangerous than the roads adjacent to habitats with a smaller number of species. However, species richness does not take into account the abundances of the species or their relative abundance distributions. The proposed framework allows for the accurate identification of species richness in relation to MVCs that are in the vicinity of the particular habitat. This information is especially useful when wildlife observation data (ground-truth) are not available at all. However, the accuracy of the result is very much dependent on the quality of the available police registered reports and professional field research data [1].
Habitats were defined and characterised across all territory of Lithuania; therefore, the validation of our model is possible: (i) using data from a similar territory, such as a neighbouring country; or (ii) using data from Lithuania from a different time period, e.g., 2018–2021 (our model covered 2002–2017). At the moment, however, such a dataset is not available.
Species richness may be validated by intensive roadkill counts or using wildlife cameras to check for animal movement across roads.

4.3. Multi-Objective Mitigation Measures

The only effective mitigation of road kills in a multi-species animal community is a complex of wildlife fencing (with a sufficient number of wildlife underpasses and overpasses according to the length of the fence) and active driver warning systems on roads without wildlife fences. We did not manage to find tangible research on other effective multi-species and multi-objective mitigation measures for large and small mammal species.
Mitigating MVCs on road 173 (Figure 11) may be challenging, as the MVC-targeting measures are likely to focus de minimis on ungulates, namely C. capreolus, S. scrofa, and A. alces (Table 5 and Table A2), rather than on the other 17 large and small body size mammal species recorded (Table A2). Numbers of carnivore road kills also grow in areas with a higher abundance of small mammal species [55]. MVC clusters found in different locations can help us to select species-specific mitigation measures. However, due to the high cost of the abovementioned complex of measures and the low traffic intensity on roads other than A14 and 102 (Figure 11), implementation of such measures is not possible in the near future. Therefore, our method currently may serve as part of the toolbox to identify the most dangerous roads and the most important habitat patches.
The observation of near misses (road 173 in Figure 11) might provide further input for the task. Field studies should incorporate long-term data collection, before the mitigation measure is applied [18]. Last, but not least, clearing vegetation along roads can also help to lower the MVC risk [54,82]. The mitigation measures for managing the risks to drivers and wildlife may be more challenging when many species are present. This may result in higher road reconstruction costs. The lack of data on the effectiveness of road mitigation measures [18,20] is a further obstacle to decision-making. The most common MVC mitigation measure in Lithuania is fencing. Short wildlife fences may not sufficiently reduce the risk of MVCs, but they are economically more affordable. Long fences are less efficient economically, but may perform better [9,10,11,17] on the roads with the highest traffic intensity. Therefore, we conclude that, even when involving all habitat data, the selection of multi-objective MVC mitigation measures in a dynamic environment still remains a considerable research challenge.

5. Conclusions

This study developed models that allow for the identification, characterisation, and ranking of habitats based on mammal roadkill data. The main conclusions are:
  • Habitats were characterised by connectivity, land cover, roadkill, roadkill cluster, and mammal species and ranked using multiple criteria for the identification of habitat risk severity to drivers and attractiveness to wildlife;
  • Despite the potential limitations of the scope of the roadkill data, our habitat ranking suggests that this procedure can provide information on habitats, habitat locations, species richness, habitat risk severity to drivers, and attractiveness to wildlife;
  • Strong relationships were identified and discussed between the habitat patch ranks, five (out of 28) land cover classes, and eight (out of 28) species (97% of all mammal road kills);
  • This methodology facilitates decision-making on the habitats that must be prioritized to preserve wildlife in the vicinity of roads that are prone to MVCs. It is also suitable for the planning of multi-objective mitigation measures to improve road security in a dynamic environment.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.K. and L.B.; methodology, A.K.; software, A.K.; validation, A.K.; formal analysis, A.K.; investigation, A.K. and L.B.; resources, L.B.; data curation, L.B.; writing—original draft preparation, A.K.; writing—review and editing, L.B.; visualization, A.K.; supervision, L.B.; project administration, L.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Supplementary spatial data for this article can be found online at http://dx.doi.org/10.17632/4c58n345h5.1 (last accessed on 1 May 2021).

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Jos Stratford for linguistic revision of the manuscript as well as the anonymous reviewers for their suggestions and contributions.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A

Table
Table A1. The habitat characterisation data (criteria) used to rank the habitat patches.
Table A1. The habitat characterisation data (criteria) used to rank the habitat patches.
Unique Identification Number of Habitat
(Figure 3)		Total Area of (ha):Number of Adjacent:Total Length of Adjacent (km):Number of Collisions (MVC) within Adjacent ClustersAverage Strength of Adjacent Clusters (KDE+)
Habitat PatchAdjacent Habitat PatchesClustersCorridorsCorridorsPathways to ClustersClusters
6139,650.90200,454.05106202.50214.453.60450.4081
1232,970.44177,828.0334102.8837.150.5960.3919
159886.4182,018.065455.5930.780.84110.3530
2520,544.02293,639.6276140.0053.801.64180.3777
2749,493.57105,316.5325590.43301.537.061070.4034
297746.70110,394.319576.9949.822.67370.4663
3020,756.90133,555.22127114.1495.743.84560.3973
4256,222.0245,595.4719381.38578.923.64440.3999
498263.0878,347.163241.4533.450.5460.3491
6586,540.34287,351.74126168.75267.293.67450.4512
6913,269.35123,512.6611685.7799.303.26430.4903
8140,881.40237,462.40266133.16297.336.901130.3696
8410,394.5888,278.915455.1529.582.31340.3914
10522,220.59153,376.31176106.67142.584.79640.4851
1076097.13295,799.248586.2238.801.81260.3532
10926,971.83141,639.80116135.03125.332.40330.4293
11413,420.71313,371.476472.1240.041.26200.4183
13922,125.14183,833.68166137.47143.624.36630.4556
14581,083.09199,083.28547147.611330.4814.442300.4003
149913.63202,816.1487130.4415.422.82480.4873
15926,302.43156,552.2419591.64177.864.92740.3987
16319,150.25116,087.173591.5422.000.4980.3044
17039,785.55139,555.2326591.86288.086.47770.4501
18210,805.79135,726.798452.2649.212.00200.4316
18520,763.14172,284.99176113.47240.503.85490.3928
19229,897.3865,613.7610454.50103.371.90260.3510
1943369.45237,614.4946130.769.111.46230.5280
2086795.1969,431.175566.6517.481.75270.5321
21011,376.97107,910.327567.5453.891.56160.4786
21228,632.7959,050.928460.4078.051.80200.4757
21432,032.08190,092.7168175.9461.151.31170.4390
21839,940.29212,569.1135596.67532.3410.461770.4332
25015,207.25131,842.62116127.6576.622.11270.4054
25558,086.51285,182.80258202.54375.495.851050.4294
26720,266.12202,654.73186117.49141.775.35760.4140
2948114.69332,292.67129199.4465.722.81320.4470
31354,397.11197,333.56269194.20390.667.771490.3597
3491026.8737,640.642342.034.420.4250.4798
36314,293.6296,397.554572.9328.900.7790.4270
37115,638.2054,135.887451.5637.971.54160.4737
38841,864.5979,652.0486103.0597.751.59170.4521
40716,006.4041,733.8324562.46182.597.091270.4176
4276408.4984,791.012345.2510.000.4240.4930
43053,447.47140,843.94298153.38541.357.491010.4734
4395374.7867,230.936671.8522.701.49250.3304
450406.03161,433.609695.4921.482.35540.4300
45540,050.24279,808.9185152.3397.572.34230.4668
4604956.26159,646.289452.2234.463.78720.3962
4727866.5587,828.8611690.3170.932.88680.4175
4748684.8415,464.0112432.7466.132.91460.3780
4848547.0169,712.6314554.5075.373.92950.3897
4866332.88173,689.792449.399.390.3840.4377
49330,035.2155,487.948455.5570.162.06270.4608
4962851.82126,623.428569.6627.552.50540.3609
5014449.84114,707.355450.5914.771.14140.4892
50259,532.2572,106.47347120.92448.4212.262330.4272
5057099.46232,115.55147107.8467.284.60950.4451
51815,350.47130,369.46137111.5298.474.56720.3834
526551.6765,675.387555.709.241.93420.4503
5301671.0254,468.2711544.2337.723.16780.4152
5334452.12271,067.833583.5615.290.5960.4561
542842.71255,407.8746127.538.531.12230.4925
54716,775.94239,527.33105114.0071.234.50660.4707
577148,761.11139,830.71647180.591623.0219.964770.4834
58731,309.9791,225.4087108.8779.981.73190.4083
58816,143.01250,902.96307143.51265.728.982940.4930
5935028.73167,525.0811689.9678.103.64710.3318
594638.35132,279.964585.217.391.84320.3771
60827,848.1773,135.0617789.06181.173.89500.4399
642120,160.25163,452.54426159.991052.7914.112910.4690
6566828.4197,816.5712557.8187.082.89360.4691
66136,721.46258,703.50145138.30254.923.38440.4192
66822,672.16259,011.5553111.59150.841.22120.4795
6748670.38246,371.53228163.20125.727.851780.5224
68843,933.50109,036.29167123.69203.363.64440.3900
694113.52191,806.3327108.511.710.6280.4044
6971127.4297,322.294545.048.330.9290.4802
7142999.9364,663.825432.2515.650.96110.3500
72135,574.69160,770.09187124.19187.914.90660.4099
72314,918.9851,106.7116444.41132.844.19920.4803
72829,942.9694,841.87196105.29241.894.83820.4239
74559,675.07253,380.91116180.15176.092.19240.4566
74611,572.92276,983.34157144.76109.634.22680.3886
76721,779.78197,364.8515468.84129.113.79540.4355
76873,317.38373,589.09207206.77283.635.231030.3799
770102,723.38298,359.55166178.11326.313.46410.4190
789123,084.90189,787.84336155.53726.819.521300.4333
79196,613.09284,751.11185144.74297.364.47550.4172
7951704.22289,397.8766115.9722.121.51490.4971
8059181.59163,837.5511590.3575.592.35370.4059
81315,330.96122,295.0511696.9582.023.14660.3218
81460,899.32106,904.6813374.10177.673.04310.4411
81710,487.36180,491.338593.2055.641.79260.4502
8278152.71103,750.137449.2339.812.09400.3644
8393269.34257,878.865477.0229.511.21190.3707
85712,897.86111,902.638569.5553.261.82240.3679
8683015.25121,799.884698.0215.750.86170.3900
87822,351.0090,552.9916574.46154.284.221030.4157
88189,590.76150,862.11296135.03500.157.931410.4503
91226,621.53110,432.3712695.02108.573.26490.3266
91381,476.51281,052.45366139.18658.0611.691590.4182
92445,311.39304,598.21207158.74265.975.371200.4233
9451394.92384,991.1626124.123.540.4850.4912
96217,292.37103,458.268798.8878.872.26310.4659
96798,955.66175,763.59247164.13413.746.13940.4509
9883060.79436,613.0757170.7221.791.49230.4690
102828,199.78161,276.22206115.64290.726.781400.3881
103445,987.96427,134.53168222.17193.224.25580.3733
10374155.04181,101.3916590.5099.084.74890.3982
104159,317.61243,963.67125112.18226.552.34250.3946
10678615.61229,667.2477144.1235.622.99510.3589
107612,362.06109,332.1119565.93135.306.331070.3906
108626,082.13205,227.06137148.29114.913.02350.4076
109713,347.14126,268.9113795.2699.403.76590.4014
109832,653.14159,838.18195109.33197.806.16780.4310
110759,695.86212,908.34136153.40189.373.06440.4832
111477,091.89289,196.36227190.06350.436.37830.4176
111586,544.04356,520.16268244.87499.886.05720.4151
1116787.1238,519.263426.585.120.5580.3514
112626,486.94209,006.4215471.82230.053.16440.3920
113322,831.99210,541.1114589.80141.135.171120.3376
113410,165.2288,243.0210561.3652.302.80380.4820
115646,637.37282,819.38169195.23206.973.83570.3521
116314,093.66316,790.6366127.5938.481.23170.2998
11695713.4450,558.897652.5233.051.86250.5095
11832729.2537,035.792538.274.850.3940.4581
118628,020.86254,445.78197142.02176.614.62940.4864
11903864.25247,170.447597.6475.051.97250.4169
122657,029.73166,243.04107127.21199.432.83300.4426
122918,092.33182,645.42136110.6387.645.95920.4375
12306752.07156,443.642697.5512.950.3740.4233
12358685.7833,343.237446.7736.132.12200.4726
12406237.78105,562.836674.0326.952.04340.4520
124532,749.54171,518.38167121.81174.414.65830.3271
125015,274.28176,484.3316580.88131.184.66610.4613
128133,658.1488,145.4814577.94163.873.00340.4529
12837568.01131,088.865795.3126.061.30150.3860
128916,729.4342,515.6812550.8091.013.51520.3805
129424,681.00211,432.774596.2435.941.19170.4695
129518,084.15223,680.12107127.5265.362.81320.4252
130672,066.64151,755.00377154.21669.3611.312170.3624
130711,322.00185,508.447581.8946.771.77260.4137
134626,494.20100,497.638693.2984.912.00340.3864
13583699.6420,747.8514452.69142.233.94840.3620
1361424.0434,852.896340.2027.611.99460.4280
1397670.2167,738.183354.174.270.73130.3525
139971,832.91289,533.30288199.92522.366.20820.3709
140610,441.83236,626.73106106.4064.253.04350.4599
14216521.17199,715.34176111.3495.684.06550.3914
14247075.41127,018.384449.5024.320.80160.4225
143721,446.06278,307.57117153.66100.683.10530.3250
144424,969.18113,672.424587.6941.171.48190.4627
145233,839.26150,121.36216105.84208.666.27840.4571
146215,010.46189,536.4119465.83134.364.49630.3714
147514,808.0282,476.017676.8855.631.97340.5179
14781949.1881,757.016453.7318.191.79320.3442
149240,178.40217,814.35176131.45187.583.75630.3973
14961408.69140,511.549577.5622.372.23420.4113
150521,628.32139,095.96117116.7091.872.92300.4774
1507977.68175,298.3456104.257.711.67380.4843
151828,064.51114,924.57227107.51242.417.621460.3569
151990,703.78241,999.71227174.59389.714.65630.3948
1524279.1722,245.263318.665.400.72120.4726
153249,396.90164,132.83217137.65298.005.93940.3801
153333,873.78110,225.0725462.59284.546.221040.3429
15349535.38101,188.4813566.9684.174.68970.4054
15579936.3698,767.859677.0355.412.47400.4222
155818,251.82109,634.35136100.03106.304.69910.4045
15607908.16214,037.46147128.2680.783.19360.4075
15623397.5613,000.935430.5718.121.39270.5100
15684039.6824,080.896423.8721.961.77260.5915
156939,551.0386,889.6645108.0038.761.43180.4485
15785596.1425,331.209431.7340.502.86510.5361
159447,007.60103,575.45208150.55261.146.321030.4576
159729,272.60100,781.16197118.82203.484.24660.3757
160111,606.9291,238.0310567.7971.713.18550.4186
160820,713.9285,718.9616572.09150.386.101080.3762
161022,556.62173,460.63185103.06149.973.94620.4065
16337985.15104,340.9813683.7767.193.44710.3290
163812,344.12212,857.3910585.9069.942.35360.3649
16391687.87173,026.5835102.579.390.76100.2541
16479878.3695,779.1020560.78112.475.33840.4204
165319,429.28152,497.7756110.4344.901.07110.5182
1654896.17161,786.4566100.729.371.29210.3603
16716958.72128,202.4814577.3196.413.37580.3581
16757633.48121,198.2010568.9662.582.07340.3651
16795533.32275,379.012593.629.750.3940.4524
168148,186.10122,791.4520592.73256.605.16680.4215
170020,889.61189,438.39177131.67194.624.63680.3667
17063085.94111,060.9936101.867.740.81140.4478
171512,195.1794,176.127584.1052.022.35450.3747
173115,219.57165,458.8510796.2976.212.24270.4569
173855,927.96116,427.3928492.87387.478.44990.3379
174530,237.24209,558.5776117.7770.761.84210.4572
174817,446.66279,990.9766131.8845.341.30190.3747
174919,096.6387,371.8714456.83108.102.92370.3756
176430,762.7478,861.4717694.85175.034.13570.3799
17696344.6085,765.727554.0540.601.50160.4538
177721,882.10201,834.33128160.7297.024.22550.4025
177819,362.06112,017.20164104.46212.134.60570.2977
178210,826.89120,203.6910564.0559.332.99460.4271
17904967.14132,758.394692.8217.890.80120.3525
179439,864.90284,582.45116146.02156.822.41320.4017
179851,201.3885,322.0422593.40317.225.45680.4150
181227,755.98164,965.0666113.9364.071.33170.3973
181649,558.70140,839.59196116.25248.765.68720.4426
182610,977.84194,907.8747137.2835.050.77110.3532
183413,150.9251,656.987342.7235.241.56180.4388
185317,579.7198,804.5514354.98195.403.76390.4100
186444,062.02175,180.04236118.97306.206.15700.3894
186673,170.00189,601.82187177.14319.393.99470.4651
187635,035.12161,066.2756122.9346.461.19120.4917
187721,524.06134,671.99337120.46297.697.161050.3517
187963,771.53111,222.35155123.75197.725.18690.4853
188225,628.08142,367.8911584.92114.242.41290.4335
191318,601.09133,829.94206100.98190.265.72730.4415
191626,067.0297,119.2820570.92195.935.52720.3984
196624,889.1648,516.3213459.28142.073.81500.4004
198610,376.30157,970.9547153.8324.500.9690.4402
200418,419.25172,357.9075119.2565.551.63250.5463
20142410.14105,994.531693.613.550.3530.4506
203724,718.8063,830.6710364.44216.472.25360.4385
203816,391.9025,383.0412342.24127.443.04400.3997
205232,113.69189,372.89176172.21198.684.09530.3576
205512,596.6093,551.4111464.2481.573.93470.5472
20602450.68282,984.7847177.3414.430.6680.3172
210511,678.01229,612.3135164.3728.760.9090.5434
210618,325.7572,309.408487.0768.231.63190.4210
2224513.57155,393.823561.125.000.61100.4559
222933,511.2167,059.0713472.74158.393.01420.3636
223319,071.18124,934.739587.4667.432.16280.4049
2237469.96169,750.8225106.253.050.3960.3960
224415,623.8476,303.437449.9450.121.38200.4367
22461381.0259,689.663328.5510.640.67100.3596
22474885.9670,126.788351.2652.321.95380.3126
224895,297.89122,224.14587158.06980.1617.593340.4143
2249119,258.39141,390.65426128.49861.5110.651600.4427
225012,055.54258,374.60167153.61119.024.74960.4157
225163,561.74366,751.45317209.27592.778.38920.4794
225216,490.07148,897.075492.8038.481.51210.4779
225322,467.48141,782.6597118.8988.742.16320.5217
225438,634.75170,998.75156130.44223.513.45410.4515
2255117,246.63145,041.02356159.50897.398.291000.4424
Table
Table A2. List of all identified habitats, their ranks, and wildlife species (species richness) identified within habitats.
Table A2. List of all identified habitats, their ranks, and wildlife species (species richness) identified within habitats.
Unique Identification Number of Habitat
(Figure 3)		RanksSpecies
SAWTOPSISCountLatin Names
60.35080.46907M. meles, V. vulpes, E. concolor, N. procyonoides, A. alces, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
120.20640.41663L. europaeus, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
150.18560.41283A. alces, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
250.25420.42394L. europaeus, V. vulpes, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
270.33290.46839C. fiber, M. meles, M. putorius, C. elaphus, L. europaeus, V. vulpes, A. alces, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
290.22640.42413A. alces, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
300.27050.43636C. fiber, L. europaeus, E. concolor, A. alces, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
420.24980.36866L. europaeus, V. vulpes, E. concolor, A. alces, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
490.16890.40893A. alces, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
650.33940.44146M. meles, L. europaeus, E. concolor, A. alces, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
690.25470.42564C. elaphus, L. europaeus, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
810.34680.46877M. meles, C. elaphus, V. vulpes, N. procyonoides, A. alces, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
840.21120.42404E. concolor, A. alces, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
1050.28430.43964M. putorius, A. alces, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
1070.25030.42905V. vulpes, E. concolor, A. alces, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
1090.26910.42389R. norvegicus, M. putorius, Martes sp., L. europaeus, V. vulpes, E. concolor, N. procyonoides, A. alces, C. capreolus
1140.25580.42855V. vulpes, E. concolor, N. procyonoides, A. alces, C. capreolus
1390.29350.43917T. europaea, L. europaeus, V. vulpes, E. concolor, A. alces, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
1450.49940.46879C. elaphus, Martes sp., L. europaeus, V. vulpes, E. concolor, N. procyonoides, A. alces, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
1490.26460.43083L. europaeus, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
1590.29430.44778M. putorius, C. elaphus, Martes sp., L. europaeus, V. vulpes, A. alces, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
1630.19060.41364Martes sp., L. europaeus, V. vulpes, A. alces,
1700.31710.44936C. elaphus, L. europaeus, V. vulpes, A. alces, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
1820.22240.42083A. alces, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
1850.26930.41635C. elaphus, L. europaeus, A. alces, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
1920.22400.42206Martes sp., L. europaeus, V. vulpes, E. concolor, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
1940.25940.42053L. europaeus, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
2080.23320.42195T. europaea, E. concolor, A. alces, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
2100.21470.41462L. europaeus, C. capreolus
2120.22170.41954Martes sp., E. concolor, N. procyonoides, C. capreolus
2140.27050.42096L. europaeus, E. concolor, N. procyonoides, A. alces, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
2180.40730.499110M. putorius, C. elaphus, Martes sp., L. europaeus, V. vulpes, E. concolor, N. procyonoides, A. alces, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
2500.23420.41925L. europaeus, E. concolor, A. alces, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
2550.39370.45849C. elaphus, Martes sp., L. europaeus, V. vulpes, E. concolor, N. procyonoides, A. alces, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
2670.29920.45016Martes sp., E. concolor, N. procyonoides, A. alces, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
2940.31090.43105M. meles, L. europaeus, E. concolor, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
3130.39800.481210N. vison, M. putorius, Martes sp., L. europaeus, V. vulpes, E. concolor, N. procyonoides, A. alces, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
3490.22150.41034E. concolor, A. alces, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
3630.20700.41404L. europaeus, V. vulpes, E. concolor, C. capreolus
3710.21030.41793A. alces, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
3880.24630.42086M. meles, L. europaeus, V. vulpes, N. procyonoides, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
4070.32970.481013C. fiber, N. vison, S. vulgaris, M. martes, C. elaphus, Martes sp., L. europaeus, V. vulpes, E. concolor, N. procyonoides, A. alces, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
4270.20100.41052L. europaeus, C. capreolus
4300.37640.43248M. putorius, C. elaphus, V. vulpes, E. concolor, N. procyonoides, A. alces, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
4390.21270.42036L. europaeus, V. vulpes, N. procyonoides, A. alces, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
4500.26910.43749M. putorius, Martes sp., L. europaeus, V. vulpes, E. concolor, N. procyonoides, A. alces, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
4550.27160.42734D. dama, A. alces, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
4600.27250.44939M. putorius, Martes sp., L. europaeus, V. vulpes, E. concolor, N. procyonoides, A. alces, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
4720.28510.444414L. lutra, N. vison, S. vulgaris, M. martes, M. meles, M. putorius, C. elaphus, L. europaeus, V. vulpes, E. concolor, N. procyonoides, A. alces, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
4740.24400.43127C. elaphus, L. europaeus, V. vulpes, E. concolor, A. alces, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
4840.28800.457512C. fiber, M. martes, M. putorius, C. elaphus, Martes sp., L. europaeus, V. vulpes, E. concolor, N. procyonoides, A. alces, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
4860.21520.41311C. capreolus
4930.22080.42283A. alces, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
4960.24810.43659M. putorius, Martes sp., L. europaeus, V. vulpes, E. concolor, N. procyonoides, A. alces, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
5010.22090.41733A. alces, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
5020.42470.552110N. vison, M. putorius, Martes sp., L. europaeus, V. vulpes, E. concolor, N. procyonoides, A. alces, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
5050.33240.464911S. vulgaris, M. meles, M. putorius, Martes sp., L. europaeus, V. vulpes, E. concolor, N. procyonoides, A. alces, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
5180.31290.453714C. fiber, S. vulgaris, M. martes, M. meles, M. putorius, C. elaphus, Martes sp., L. europaeus, V. vulpes, E. concolor, N. procyonoides, A. alces, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
5260.27350.435512L. lutra, N. vison, S. vulgaris, M. martes, M. meles, M. putorius, V. vulpes, E. concolor, N. procyonoides, A. alces, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
5300.27650.448211C. fiber, M. martes, M. putorius, C. elaphus, Martes sp., V. vulpes, E. concolor, N. procyonoides, A. alces, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
5330.22780.41571C. capreolus
5420.28620.42649M. meles, Martes sp., L. europaeus, V. vulpes, E. concolor, N. procyonoides, A. alces, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
5470.28070.44535L. europaeus, N. procyonoides, A. alces, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
5770.69810.585020O. zibethicus, M. erminea, L. lutra, M. foina, T. europaea, C. fiber, N. vison, S. vulgaris, M. martes, M. meles, M. putorius, C. elaphus, Martes sp., L. europaeus, V. vulpes, E. concolor, N. procyonoides, A. alces, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
5870.23070.41743A. alces, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
5880.47620.577919O. zibethicus, M. erminea, L. lutra, M. foina, T. europaea, C. fiber, N. vison, S. vulgaris, M. martes, M. meles, M. putorius, Martes sp., L. europaeus, V. vulpes, E. concolor, N. procyonoides, A. alces, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
5930.29310.449514C. fiber, S. vulgaris, M. martes, M. meles, M. putorius, C. elaphus, Martes sp., L. europaeus, V. vulpes, E. concolor, N. procyonoides, A. alces, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
5940.24870.42699M. putorius, Martes sp., L. europaeus, V. vulpes, E. concolor, N. procyonoides, A. alces, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
6080.28880.43168Martes sp., L. europaeus, V. vulpes, E. concolor, N. procyonoides, A. alces, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
6420.52550.548912L. timidus, M. meles, M. putorius, C. elaphus, Martes sp., L. europaeus, V. vulpes, E. concolor, N. procyonoides, A. alces, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
6560.24570.42475Martes sp., L. europaeus, A. alces, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
6610.29240.41977S. vulgaris, M. martes, L. europaeus, V. vulpes, N. procyonoides, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
6680.21780.40312S. scrofa, C. capreolus
6740.40360.511412L. lutra, M. meles, M. putorius, C. elaphus, Martes sp., L. europaeus, V. vulpes, E. concolor, N. procyonoides, A. alces, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
6880.28070.42706C. elaphus, V. vulpes, E. concolor, A. alces, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
6940.31450.41232E. concolor, C. capreolus
6970.22870.41432S. scrofa, C. capreolus
7140.21280.41554V. vulpes, A. alces, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
7210.31390.44548C. elaphus, Martes sp., V. vulpes, E. concolor, N. procyonoides, A. alces, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
7230.29750.452611L. lutra, M. putorius, C. elaphus, Martes sp., L. europaeus, V. vulpes, E. concolor, N. procyonoides, A. alces, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
7280.30460.441010N. vison, M. putorius, C. elaphus, Martes sp., V. vulpes, E. concolor, N. procyonoides, A. alces, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
7450.30420.42727Martes sp., L. europaeus, V. vulpes, E. concolor, N. procyonoides, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
7460.31550.44799M. putorius, Martes sp., L. europaeus, V. vulpes, E. concolor, N. procyonoides, A. alces, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
7670.27150.43805L. europaeus, N. procyonoides, A. alces, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
7680.41550.482813T. europaea, M. martes, M. meles, M. putorius, C. elaphus, Martes sp., L. europaeus, V. vulpes, E. concolor, N. procyonoides, A. alces, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
7700.35730.44487M. putorius, Martes sp., V. vulpes, E. concolor, N. procyonoides, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
7890.44440.483110L. timidus, C. elaphus, Martes sp., L. europaeus, V. vulpes, E. concolor, N. procyonoides, A. alces, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
7910.35410.45817M. putorius, Martes sp., E. concolor, N. procyonoides, A. alces, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
7950.30920.440612M. foina, N. vison, M. martes, M. meles, C. elaphus, L. europaeus, V. vulpes, E. concolor, N. procyonoides, A. alces, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
8050.24710.42707C. elaphus, Martes sp., E. concolor, N. procyonoides, A. alces, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
8130.26860.442211N. vison, M. meles, M. putorius, Martes sp., L. europaeus, V. vulpes, E. concolor, N. procyonoides, A. alces, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
8140.26010.43206L. europaeus, V. vulpes, N. procyonoides, A. alces, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
8170.23330.42084N. procyonoides, A. alces, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
8270.24490.432310M. meles, M. putorius, Martes sp., L. europaeus, V. vulpes, E. concolor, N. procyonoides, A. alces, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
8390.22720.42195V. vulpes, E. concolor, N. procyonoides, A. alces, C. capreolus
8570.20970.41903C. elaphus, A. alces, C. capreolus
8680.22000.41596Martes sp., V. vulpes, E. concolor, N. procyonoides, A. alces, C. capreolus
8780.29710.456011L. lutra, M. putorius, C. elaphus, Martes sp., L. europaeus, V. vulpes, E. concolor, N. procyonoides, A. alces, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
8810.41910.493613R. norvegicus, T. europaea, M. martes, M. putorius, C. elaphus, Martes sp., L. europaeus, V. vulpes, E. concolor, N. procyonoides, A. alces, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
9120.25800.43468C. elaphus, Martes sp., V. vulpes, E. concolor, N. procyonoides, A. alces, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
9130.46240.509411B. bonasus, L. lutra, M. martes, C. elaphus, Martes sp., L. europaeus, V. vulpes, N. procyonoides, A. alces, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
9240.38400.474011L. lutra, M. putorius, C. elaphus, Martes sp., L. europaeus, V. vulpes, E. concolor, N. procyonoides, A. alces, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
9450.29640.41941C. capreolus
9620.24400.41984N. procyonoides, A. alces, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
9670.39090.46789M. meles, Martes sp., L. europaeus, V. vulpes, E. concolor, N. procyonoides, A. alces, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
9880.30640.43156M. meles, Martes sp., V. vulpes, N. procyonoides, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
10280.36100.476615M. foina, T. europaea, S. vulgaris, M. martes, M. meles, M. putorius, C. elaphus, Martes sp., L. europaeus, V. vulpes, E. concolor, N. procyonoides, A. alces, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
10340.37530.45339M. putorius, C. elaphus, Martes sp., V. vulpes, E. concolor, N. procyonoides, A. alces, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
10370.30750.459713T. europaea, M. martes, M. meles, M. putorius, C. elaphus, Martes sp., L. europaeus, V. vulpes, E. concolor, N. procyonoides, A. alces, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
10410.28200.42225Martes sp., L. europaeus, N. procyonoides, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
10670.26920.43537M. erminea, C. elaphus, Martes sp., N. procyonoides, A. alces, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
10760.30090.46659M. erminea, Martes sp., L. europaeus, V. vulpes, E. concolor, N. procyonoides, A. alces, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
10860.27530.42725V. vulpes, N. procyonoides, A. alces, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
10970.27930.43828C. lupus, M. meles, L. europaeus, V. vulpes, N. procyonoides, A. alces, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
10980.30810.45318C. elaphus, Martes sp., V. vulpes, E. concolor, N. procyonoides, A. alces, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
11070.30300.43325L. europaeus, N. procyonoides, A. alces, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
11140.39510.465510M. meles, C. elaphus, Martes sp., L. europaeus, V. vulpes, E. concolor, N. procyonoides, A. alces, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
11150.42130.44609C. elaphus, Martes sp., L. europaeus, V. vulpes, E. concolor, N. procyonoides, A. alces, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
11160.23670.41304L. europaeus, A. alces, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
11260.27870.42328M. nivalis, Martes sp., L. europaeus, V. vulpes, N. procyonoides, A. alces, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
11330.32240.471313R. norvegicus, S. vulgaris, M. meles, M. putorius, C. elaphus, Martes sp., L. europaeus, V. vulpes, E. concolor, N. procyonoides, A. alces, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
11340.24400.42875L. europaeus, N. procyonoides, A. alces, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
11560.32400.43574L. europaeus, V. vulpes, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
11630.24740.42465M. nivalis, Martes sp., V. vulpes, N. procyonoides, C. capreolus
11690.23580.42064L. europaeus, N. procyonoides, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
11830.22460.40911C. capreolus
11860.35010.45949M. putorius, C. elaphus, Martes sp., L. europaeus, V. vulpes, E. concolor, N. procyonoides, A. alces, C. capreolus
11900.24110.41935C. elaphus, L. europaeus, V. vulpes, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
12260.29790.42537L. europaeus, V. vulpes, E. concolor, N. procyonoides, A. alces, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
12290.32180.466611B. bonasus, M. martes, M. putorius, C. elaphus, Martes sp., L. europaeus, V. vulpes, N. procyonoides, A. alces, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
12300.20940.40982S. scrofa, C. capreolus
12350.20850.41823V. vulpes, A. alces, C. capreolus
12400.23230.42364L. europaeus, A. alces, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
12450.30210.44928L. lynx, D. dama, L. europaeus, V. vulpes, E. concolor, A. alces, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
12500.29410.44408M. meles, C. elaphus, Martes sp., E. concolor, N. procyonoides, A. alces, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
12810.25390.42235C. elaphus, V. vulpes, A. alces, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
12830.22890.41755L. europaeus, E. concolor, A. alces, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
12890.25370.43568C. lupus, M. meles, L. europaeus, V. vulpes, N. procyonoides, A. alces, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
12940.24260.42304Martes sp., E. concolor, A. alces, C. capreolus
12950.27310.43015C. elaphus, N. procyonoides, A. alces, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
13060.42990.51509D. dama, M. foina, C. fiber, L. europaeus, E. concolor, N. procyonoides, A. alces, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
13070.23650.42365L. europaeus, V. vulpes, A. alces, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
13460.23890.42376M. meles, Martes sp., L. europaeus, N. procyonoides, A. alces, C. capreolus
13580.22280.43025C. fiber, V. vulpes, A. alces, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
13610.20860.42385C. fiber, V. vulpes, A. alces, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
13970.21590.41476L. lutra, V. vulpes, N. procyonoides, A. alces, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
13990.39250.43678M. meles, Martes sp., L. europaeus, V. vulpes, N. procyonoides, A. alces, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
14060.28070.43347Martes sp., L. europaeus, E. concolor, N. procyonoides, A. alces, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
14210.27910.44017T. europaea, S. vulgaris, L. europaeus, V. vulpes, A. alces, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
14240.22870.42007C. fiber, L. europaeus, V. vulpes, E. concolor, A. alces, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
14370.30240.441110A. flavicollis, M. putorius, C. elaphus, Martes sp., V. vulpes, E. concolor, N. procyonoides, A. alces, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
14440.22810.42085Martes sp., E. concolor, A. alces, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
14520.32590.45778Martes sp., L. europaeus, V. vulpes, E. concolor, N. procyonoides, A. alces, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
14620.28390.44748T. europaea, S. vulgaris, C. elaphus, L. europaeus, V. vulpes, A. alces, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
14750.25420.42547L. europaeus, V. vulpes, E. concolor, N. procyonoides, A. alces, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
14780.21010.42346Martes sp., V. vulpes, N. procyonoides, A. alces, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
14920.31910.445710M. putorius, C. elaphus, Martes sp., L. europaeus, V. vulpes, E. concolor, N. procyonoides, A. alces, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
14960.22900.42794V. vulpes, A. alces, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
15050.26150.42394V. vulpes, A. alces, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
15070.26580.42686L. europaeus, E. concolor, N. procyonoides, A. alces, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
15180.35130.486312L. lynx, T. europaea, C. fiber, M. meles, M. putorius, C. elaphus, Martes sp., L. europaeus, E. concolor, A. alces, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
15190.36840.44618C. elaphus, L. europaeus, V. vulpes, E. concolor, N. procyonoides, A. alces, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
15240.27100.41444L. europaeus, E. concolor, A. alces, C. capreolus
15320.34460.455310A. flavicollis, T. europaea, C. elaphus, Martes sp., V. vulpes, E. concolor, N. procyonoides, A. alces, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
15330.30890.45929C. fiber, M. meles, C. elaphus, L. europaeus, E. concolor, N. procyonoides, A. alces, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
15340.25930.45025D. dama, V. vulpes, A. alces, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
15570.24290.42746C. elaphus, Martes sp., N. procyonoides, A. alces, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
15580.26080.44554M. putorius, A. alces, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
15600.25510.42602N. procyonoides, C. capreolus
15620.24190.42136T. europaea, V. vulpes, E. concolor, A. alces, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
15680.27080.42295L. europaeus, E. concolor, A. alces, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
15690.21610.42113E. concolor, A. alces, C. capreolus
15780.26640.43387T. europaea, L. europaeus, V. vulpes, E. concolor, A. alces, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
15940.34170.45728Martes sp., L. europaeus, V. vulpes, E. concolor, N. procyonoides, A. alces, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
15970.28990.43548M. meles, C. elaphus, L. europaeus, E. concolor, N. procyonoides, A. alces, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
16010.24340.43276C. elaphus, L. europaeus, E. concolor, A. alces, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
16080.29600.463810T. europaea, C. fiber, C. elaphus, Martes sp., L. europaeus, V. vulpes, E. concolor, A. alces, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
16100.27510.43846C. elaphus, V. vulpes, E. concolor, A. alces, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
16330.25510.44218M. meles, C. elaphus, L. europaeus, E. concolor, N. procyonoides, A. alces, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
16380.25890.43188M. meles, C. elaphus, V. vulpes, E. concolor, N. procyonoides, A. alces, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
16390.18980.41173M. meles, V. vulpes, C. capreolus
16470.29440.45759M. meles, C. elaphus, L. europaeus, V. vulpes, E. concolor, N. procyonoides, A. alces, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
16530.22370.41301C. capreolus
16540.22230.41803E. concolor, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
16710.25850.43689M. meles, Martes sp., L. europaeus, V. vulpes, E. concolor, N. procyonoides, A. alces, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
16750.22410.42325C. elaphus, E. concolor, A. alces, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
16790.23530.41552S. scrofa, C. capreolus
16810.28660.43834V. vulpes, A. alces, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
17000.30520.43849C. elaphus, Martes sp., L. europaeus, V. vulpes, E. concolor, N. procyonoides, A. alces, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
17060.23000.41415L. europaeus, E. concolor, A. alces, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
17150.22220.42636M. meles, C. elaphus, L. europaeus, A. alces, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
17310.25800.42304C. elaphus, A. alces, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
17380.32030.46177C. elaphus, L. europaeus, V. vulpes, N. procyonoides, A. alces, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
17450.25210.42283N. procyonoides, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
17480.25670.42456Martes sp., L. europaeus, V. vulpes, E. concolor, N. procyonoides, C. capreolus
17490.23750.42776M. meles, E. concolor, N. procyonoides, A. alces, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
17640.26540.43276M. meles, V. vulpes, N. procyonoides, A. alces, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
17690.21050.41502S. scrofa, C. capreolus
17770.28910.43705V. vulpes, N. procyonoides, A. alces, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
17780.22720.42035C. elaphus, N. procyonoides, A. alces, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
17820.25470.43407C. elaphus, L. europaeus, V. vulpes, E. concolor, N. procyonoides, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
17900.22660.41798M. meles, C. elaphus, L. europaeus, V. vulpes, E. concolor, N. procyonoides, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
17940.30970.432510M. meles, C. elaphus, Martes sp., L. europaeus, V. vulpes, E. concolor, N. procyonoides, A. alces, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
17980.30360.43738C. elaphus, Martes sp., V. vulpes, E. concolor, N. procyonoides, A. alces, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
18120.24720.42187C. elaphus, L. europaeus, V. vulpes, E. concolor, A. alces, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
18160.32700.45009T. europaea, M. meles, C. elaphus, V. vulpes, E. concolor, N. procyonoides, A. alces, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
18260.22270.41274V. vulpes, A. alces, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
18340.20180.41803L. europaeus, A. alces, C. capreolus
18530.23930.41756M. meles, L. europaeus, N. procyonoides, A. alces, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
18640.32120.44237M. meles, C. elaphus, V. vulpes, N. procyonoides, A. alces, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
18660.34080.43108C. elaphus, L. europaeus, V. vulpes, E. concolor, N. procyonoides, A. alces, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
18760.24660.42104C. elaphus, N. procyonoides, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
18770.33950.46399M. meles, Martes sp., L. europaeus, V. vulpes, E. concolor, N. procyonoides, A. alces, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
18790.30140.45026D. dama, L. europaeus, N. procyonoides, A. alces, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
18820.24700.42255C. elaphus, Martes sp., N. procyonoides, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
19130.29830.44387L. europaeus, V. vulpes, E. concolor, N. procyonoides, A. alces, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
19160.29110.44658C. elaphus, L. europaeus, V. vulpes, E. concolor, N. procyonoides, A. alces, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
19660.24550.43027C. elaphus, L. europaeus, V. vulpes, E. concolor, N. procyonoides, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
19860.22290.41073M. meles, L. europaeus, C. capreolus
20040.25800.42207N. vison, M. putorius, C. elaphus, E. concolor, N. procyonoides, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
20140.23590.40752S. scrofa, C. capreolus
20370.24020.410510N. vison, M. putorius, C. elaphus, Martes sp., V. vulpes, E. concolor, N. procyonoides, A. alces, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
20380.22980.42297C. elaphus, L. europaeus, V. vulpes, N. procyonoides, A. alces, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
20520.28750.42998C. elaphus, Martes sp., L. europaeus, E. concolor, N. procyonoides, A. alces, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
20550.25830.43346D. dama, L. europaeus, N. procyonoides, A. alces, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
20600.22950.41293V. vulpes, N. procyonoides, C. capreolus
21050.22640.41072S. scrofa, C. capreolus
21060.20400.41545C. elaphus, L. europaeus, N. procyonoides, A. alces, C. capreolus
22240.24830.41604L. europaeus, E. concolor, A. alces, C. capreolus
22290.25320.429610R. norvegicus, M. putorius, C. elaphus, Martes sp., V. vulpes, E. concolor, N. procyonoides, A. alces, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
22330.22020.42103C. elaphus, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
22370.23980.40912A. alces, C. capreolus
22440.22490.42066L. europaeus, V. vulpes, E. concolor, N. procyonoides, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
22460.22040.41526Martes sp., L. europaeus, V. vulpes, E. concolor, N. procyonoides, C. capreolus
22470.18090.41883A. alces, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
22480.55430.601412S. vulgaris, M. meles, M. putorius, C. elaphus, Martes sp., L. europaeus, V. vulpes, E. concolor, N. procyonoides, A. alces, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
22490.46190.492410M. meles, C. elaphus, Martes sp., L. europaeus, V. vulpes, E. concolor, N. procyonoides, A. alces, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
22500.34010.461812C. fiber, N. vison, S. vulgaris, M. martes, Martes sp., L. europaeus, V. vulpes, E. concolor, N. procyonoides, A. alces, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
22510.44260.450311D. dama, M. meles, C. elaphus, Martes sp., L. europaeus, V. vulpes, E. concolor, N. procyonoides, A. alces, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
22520.21880.41914L. europaeus, A. alces, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
22530.28190.42628C. fiber, M. putorius, V. vulpes, E. concolor, N. procyonoides, A. alces, S. scrofa, C. capreolus
22540.28080.41975C. elaphus, V. vulpes, E. concolor, A. alces, C. capreolus
22550.42620.431511T. europaea, M. meles, C. elaphus, Martes sp., L. europaeus, V. vulpes, E. concolor, N. procyonoides, A. alces, S. scrofa, C. capreolus

References

  1. Balčiauskas, L.; Stratford, J.; Balčiauskienė, L.; Kučas, A. Importance of professional roadkill data in assessing diversity of mammal roadkills. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2020, 87, 102493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Cherry, C.C.; Dietz, S.; Sauber-Schatz, E.; Russell, S.; Proctor, J.; Buttke, D. Characteristics of animal-related motor vehicle crashes in select National Park Service units—United States, 1990–2013. Traffic Inj. Prev. 2019, 20, 58–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Abra, F.D.; Granziera, B.M.; Huijser, M.P.; Ferraz, K.M.P.M.d.B.; Haddad, C.M.; Paolino, R.M. Pay or prevent? Human safety, costs to society and legal perspectives on animal-vehicle collisions in São Paulo state, Brazil. PLoS ONE 2019, 14, e0215152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  4. Coffin, A.W. From roadkill to road ecology: A review of the ecological effects of roads. J. Transp. Geogr. 2007, 15, 396–406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. González-Gallina, A.; Benítez-Badillo, G.; Rojas-Soto, O.R.; Hidalgo-Mihart, M.G. The small, the forgotten and the dead: Highway impact on vertebrates and its implications for mitigation strategies. Biodivers. Conserv. 2013, 22, 325–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Gilbert, S.L.; Sivy, K.J.; Pozzanghera, C.B.; DuBour, A.; Overduijn, K.; Smith, M.M.; Zhou, J.; Little, J.M.; Prugh, L.R. Socioeconomic Benefits of Large Carnivore Recolonization Through Reduced Wildlife-Vehicle Collisions. Conserv. Lett. 2017, 10, 431–439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Kučas, A.; Balčiauskas, L. Temporal patterns of ungulate-vehicle collisions in Lithuania. J. Environ. Manag. 2020, 273, 111172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Kučas, A.; Balčiauskas, L. Impact of Road Fencing on Ungulate-Vehicle Collisions and Hotspot Patterns. Land 2021, 10, 338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Ford, A.T.; Clevenger, A.P.; Huijser, M.P.; Dibb, A. Planning and prioritization strategies for phased highway mitigation using wildlife-vehicle collision data. Wildl. Biol. 2011, 17, 253–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Huijser, M.P.; Fairbank, E.R.; Camel-Means, W.; Graham, J.; Watson, V.; Basting, P.; Becker, D. Effectiveness of short sections of wildlife fencing and crossing structures along highways in reducing wildlife–vehicle collisions and providing safe crossing opportunities for large mammals. Biol. Conserv. 2016, 197, 61–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Davenport, J.; Davenport, J.L. (Eds.) The Ecology of Transportation: Managing Mobility for the Environment; Environmental Pollution; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2006; Volume 10, ISBN 978-1-4020-4503-5. [Google Scholar]
  12. Ford, A.T.; Clevenger, A.P.; Bennett, A. Comparison of Methods of Monitoring Wildlife Crossing-Structures on Highways. J. Wildl. Manag. 2009, 73, 1213–1222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Clevenger, A.P.; Waltho, N. Factors Influencing the Effectiveness of Wildlife Underpasses in Banff National Park, Alberta, Canada. Conserv. Biol. 2000, 14, 47–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Bager, A.; Fontoura, V. Evaluation of the effectiveness of a wildlife roadkill mitigation system in wetland habitat. Ecol. Eng. 2013, 53, 31–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Ascensão, F.; Clevenger, A.; Santos-Reis, M.; Urbano, P.; Jackson, N. Wildlife–vehicle collision mitigation: Is partial fencing the answer? An agent-based model approach. Ecol. Model. 2013, 257, 36–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Little, S.J.; Harcourt, R.G.; Clevenger, A.P. Do wildlife passages act as prey-traps? Biol. Conserv. 2002, 107, 135–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Plante, J.; Jaeger, J.A.G.; Desrochers, A. How do landscape context and fences influence roadkill locations of small and medium-sized mammals? J. Environ. Manag. 2019, 235, 511–520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Rytwinski, T.; Soanes, K.; Jaeger, J.A.G.; Fahrig, L.; Findlay, C.S.; Houlahan, J.; van der Ree, R.; van der Grift, E.A. How Effective Is Road Mitigation at Reducing Road-Kill? A Meta-Analysis. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0166941. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Spanowicz, A.G.; Teixeira, F.Z.; Jaeger, J.A.G. An adaptive plan for prioritizing road sections for fencing to reduce animal mortality. Conserv. Biol. 2020, 34, 1210–1220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Rytwinski, T.; van der Ree, R.; Cunnington, G.M.; Fahrig, L.; Findlay, C.S.; Houlahan, J.; Jaeger, J.A.G.; Soanes, K.; van der Grift, E.A. Experimental study designs to improve the evaluation of road mitigation measures for wildlife. J. Environ. Manag. 2015, 154, 48–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Borda-de-Água, L.; Ascensão, F.; Sapage, M.; Barrientos, R.; Pereira, H.M. On the identification of mortality hotspots in linear infrastructures. Basic Appl. Ecol. 2019, 34, 25–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Montella, A. A comparative analysis of hotspot identification methods. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2010, 42, 571–581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Gomes, L.; Grilo, C.; Silva, C.; Mira, A. Identification methods and deterministic factors of owl roadkill hotspot locations in Mediterranean landscapes. Ecol. Res. 2009, 24, 355–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Hirzel, A.H.; Hausser, J.; Chessel, D.; Perrin, N. Ecological-Niche Factor Analysis: How to Compute Habitat-Suitability Maps without Absence Data? Ecology 2002, 83, 2027–2036. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Gitman, I.; Levine, M.D. An Algorithm for Detecting Unimodal Fuzzy Sets and Its Application as a Clustering Technique. IEEE Trans. Comput. 1970, 100, 583–593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Bíl, M.; Andrášik, R.; Janoška, Z. Identification of hazardous road locations of traffic accidents by means of kernel density estimation and cluster significance evaluation. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2013, 55, 265–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Bíl, M.; Andrášik, R.; Svoboda, T.; Sedoník, J. The KDE+ software: A tool for effective identification and ranking of animal-vehicle collision hotspots along networks. Landsc. Ecol. 2016, 31, 231–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Kolowski, J.M.; Nielsen, C.K. Using Penrose distance to identify potential risk of wildlife–vehicle collisions. Biol. Conserv. 2008, 141, 1119–1128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Malo, J.E.; Suarez, F.; Diez, A. Can we mitigate animal-vehicle accidents using predictive models? J. Appl. Ecol. 2004, 41, 701–710. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Grilo, C.; Ascensão, F.; Santos-Reis, M.; Bissonette, J.A. Do well-connected landscapes promote road-related mortality? Eur. J. Wildl. Res. 2011, 57, 707–716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Planillo, A.; Kramer-Schadt, S.; Malo, J.E. Transport Infrastructure Shapes Foraging Habitat in a Raptor Community. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0118604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Santos, S.M.; Marques, J.T.; Lourenço, A.; Medinas, D.; Barbosa, A.M.; Beja, P.; Mira, A. Sampling effects on the identification of roadkill hotspots: Implications for survey design. J. Environ. Manag. 2015, 162, 87–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  33. Dussault, C.; Courtois, R.; Ouellet, J.-P. A habitat suitability index model to assess moose habitat selection at multiple spatial scales. Can. J. For. Res. 2006, 36, 1097–1107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  34. Andrén, H.; Andren, H. Effects of Habitat Fragmentation on Birds and Mammals in Landscapes with Different Proportions of Suitable Habitat: A Review. Oikos 1994, 71, 355–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  35. Balčiauskas, L.; Wierzchowski, J.; Kučas, A.; Balčiauskienė, L. Habitat Suitability Based Models for Ungulate Roadkill Prognosis. Animals 2020, 10, 1345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Bíl, M.; Andrášik, R.; Sedoník, J. A detailed spatiotemporal analysis of traffic crash hotspots. Appl. Geogr. 2019, 107, 82–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Kučas, A. Graph-based multi-attribute decision making: Impact of road fencing on ecological network. Balt. J. Road Bridg. Eng. 2015, 10, 105–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. Putzu, N.; Bonetto, D.; Civallero, V.; Fenoglio, S.; Meneguz, P.G.; Preacco, N.; Tizzani, P. Temporal patterns of ungulate-vehicle collisions in a subalpine Italian region. Ital. J. Zool. 2014, 81, 463–470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Zhang, W.; Shu, G.; Li, Y.; Xiong, S.; Liang, C.; Li, C. Daytime driving decreases amphibian roadkill. PeerJ 2018, 6, e5385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Hastings, H.; Barr, J.; Bateman, P.W. Spatial and temporal patterns of reptile roadkill in the north-west Australian tropics. Pac. Conserv. Biol. 2019, 25, 370–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Kammerle, J.-L.; Brieger, F.; Kroschel, M.; Hagen, R.; Storch, I.; Suchant, R. Temporal patterns in road crossing behaviour in roe deer (Capreolus capreolus) at sites with wildlife warning reflectors. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0184761. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Sepp, K.; Kaasik, A. Development of National Ecological Networks in the Baltic Countries in the Framework of the Pan-European Ecological Network; IUCN Office for Central Europe: Warsaw, Poland, 2002; ISBN 2-8317-0679-3. [Google Scholar]
  43. McRae, B.H.; Hall, S.A.; Beier, P.; Theobald, D.M. Where to Restore Ecological Connectivity? Detecting Barriers and Quantifying Restoration Benefits. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e52604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. McRae, B.H. Isolation by resistance. Evolution 2006, 60, 1551–1561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. McRae, B.H.; Dickson, B.G.; Keitt, T.H.; Shah, V.B. Using circuit theory to model connectivity in ecology, evolution, and conservation. Ecology 2008, 89, 2712–2724. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Wierzchowski, J.; Kučas, A.; Balčiauskas, L. Application of Least-Cost Movement Modeling in Planning Wildlife Mitigation Measures along Transport Corridors: Case Study of Forests and Moose in Lithuania. Forests 2019, 10, 831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  47. Clevenger, A.P.; Barrueto, M.; Gunson, K.E.; Caryl, F.M.; Ford, A.T. Context-dependent effects on spatial variation in deer-vehicle collisions. Ecosphere 2015, 6, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  48. Jankowski, P. Integrating geographical information systems and multiple criteria decision-making methods. Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Syst. 1995, 9, 251–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Hwang, C.-L.; Yoon, K. Multiple Attribute Decision Making; Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1981; Volume 186, ISBN 978-3-540-10558-9. [Google Scholar]
  50. Mardani, A.; Jusoh, A.; Zavadskas, E.K. Fuzzy multiple criteria decision-making techniques and applications—Two decades review from 1994 to 2014. Expert Syst. Appl. 2015, 42, 4126–4148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Malczewski, J. GIS-based multicriteria decision analysis: A survey of the literature. Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci. 2006, 20, 703–726. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Wira Trise Putra, D.; Agustian Punggara, A. Comparison Analysis of Simple Additive Weighting (SAW) and Weigthed Product (WP) In Decision Support Systems. MATEC Web Conf. 2018, 215, 01003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  53. Keken, Z.; Sedoník, J.; Kušta, T.; Andrášik, R.; Bíl, M. Roadside vegetation influences clustering of ungulate vehicle collisions. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2019, 73, 381–390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Ascensão, F.; Clevenger, A.P.; Grilo, C.; Filipe, J.; Santos-Reis, M. Highway verges as habitat providers for small mammals in agrosilvopastoral environments. Biodivers. Conserv. 2012, 21, 3681–3697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  55. Silva, C.; Simões, M.P.; Mira, A.; Santos, S.M. Factors influencing predator roadkills: The availability of prey in road verges. J. Environ. Manag. 2019, 247, 644–650. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Bíl, M.; Andrášik, R.; Duľa, M.; Sedoník, J. On reliable identification of factors influencing wildlife-vehicle collisions along roads. J. Environ. Manag. 2019, 237, 297–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Lithuanian Road Administration under the Ministry of Transport and Communications. Web Map of Animal-Vehicle Collision Distributions in Lithuania. Available online: http://gissrv.eismoinfo.lt/server/rest/services/LAKIS/su_gyvunais/MapServer?f=jsapi (accessed on 16 March 2020).
  58. European Environmental Agency. Lithuania Land Cover Country Fact Sheet 2012. Available online: https://www.eea.europa.eu/ds_resolveuid/1ca731f33d0c48a0a4ed60abe67fa6bf (accessed on 16 March 2020).
  59. Jakimavičius, M. Analysis and Assessment of Lithuanian Road Accidents by AHP Method. Balt. J. Road Bridg. Eng. 2018, 13, 238–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Lithuanian Road Administration under the Ministry of Transport and Communications. Web Map of Annual Average Daily Traffic Data in Lithuania. Available online: http://gissrv.eismoinfo.lt/server/rest/services/LAKD/VMPEI/MapServer?f=jsapi (accessed on 16 March 2020).
  61. Clevenger, A.P.; Wierzchowski, J.; Chruszcz, B.; Gunson, K. GIS-Generated, Expert-Based Models for Identifying Wildlife Habitat Linkages and Planning Mitigation Passages. Conserv. Biol. 2002, 16, 503–514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Gunson, K.E.; Mountrakis, G.; Quackenbush, L.J. Spatial wildlife-vehicle collision models: A review of current work and its application to transportation mitigation projects. J. Environ. Manag. 2011, 92, 1074–1082. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Santos, R.A.L.; Mota-Ferreira, M.; Aguiar, L.M.S.; Ascensão, F. Predicting wildlife road-crossing probability from roadkill data using occupancy-detection models. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 642, 629–637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Seiler, A. Predicting locations of moose-vehicle collisions in Sweden. J. Appl. Ecol. 2005, 42, 371–382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Okabe, A.; Okunuki, K.; Shiode, S. SANET: A Toolbox for Spatial Analysis on a Network. Geogr. Anal. 2006, 38, 57–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Okabe, A.; Satoh, T.; Sugihara, K. A kernel density estimation method for networks, its computational method and a GIS-based tool. Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci. 2009, 23, 7–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Clementini, E.; Di Felice, P.; van Oosterom, P. A small set of formal topological relationships suitable for end-user interaction. In International Symposium on Spatial Databases; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1993; pp. 277–295. [Google Scholar]
  68. Kučas, A. Location prioritization by means of multicriteria spatial decision-support systems: A case study of forest fragmentation-based ranking of forest administrative areas. J. Environ. Eng. Landsc. Manag. 2010, 18, 312–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Kušta, T.; Keken, Z.; Ježek, M.; Holá, M.; Šmíd, P. The effect of traffic intensity and animal activity on probability of ungulate-vehicle collisions in the Czech Republic. Saf. Sci. 2017, 91, 105–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Feranec, J.; Jaffrain, G.; Soukup, T.; Hazeu, G. Determining changes and flows in European landscapes 1990–2000 using CORINE land cover data. Appl. Geogr. 2010, 30, 19–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. European Environmental Agency. CORINE Land Cover—Copernicus Land Monitoring Service. Available online: https://land.copernicus.eu/pan-european/corine-land-cover (accessed on 16 March 2020).
  72. European Environmental Agency. CORINE Land Cover Nomenclature Guidelines. Available online: https://land.copernicus.eu/user-corner/technical-library/corine-land-cover-nomenclature-guidelines/html (accessed on 12 November 2020).
  73. Akoglu, H. User’s guide to correlation coefficients. Turk. J. Emerg. Med. 2018, 18, 91–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Maleika, W. Inverse distance weighting method optimization in the process of digital terrain model creation based on data collected from a multibeam echosounder. Appl. Geomat. 2020, 12, 397–407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Chen, F.-W.; Liu, C.-W. Estimation of the spatial rainfall distribution using inverse distance weighting (IDW) in the middle of Taiwan. Paddy Water Environ. 2012, 10, 209–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Luque, S.; Saura, S.; Fortin, M.-J. Landscape connectivity analysis for conservation: Insights from combining new methods with ecological and genetic data. Landsc. Ecol. 2012, 27, 153–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Kučas, A. Web Map of Ungulate-Vehicle Collision Hotspots in Lithuania 2002–2017. Available online: https://www.arcgis.com/apps/MapJournal/index.html?appid=d81195212a4b4bcc9c5aab34a0037609 (accessed on 16 March 2020).
  78. Kučas, A.; Balčiauskas, L. Mammal Roadkill Clusters, Corridors, Pathways and Habitats. [WWW Document]. Mendeley Data, V1. Available online: https://doi.org/10.17632/4c58n345h5.1 (accessed on 1 May 2021).
  79. Lithuanian Road Administration under the Ministry of Transport and Communications. Annual Average Daily Traffic Volumes in Lithuania. Available online: https://lakd.lrv.lt/en/sector-activities/traffic-volumes (accessed on 16 March 2020).
  80. Hortal, J.; Triantis, K.A.; Meiri, S.; Thébault, E.; Sfenthourakis, S. Island Species Richness Increases with Habitat Diversity. Am. Nat. 2009, 174, E205–E217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  81. Hernández-Quiroz, N.S.; Badano, E.I.; Barragán-Torres, F.; Flores, J.; Pinedo-Álvarez, C. Habitat suitability models to make conservation decisions based on areas of high species richness and endemism. Biodivers. Conserv. 2018, 27, 3185–3200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Ramp, D.; Wilson, V.K.; Croft, D.B. Assessing the impacts of roads in peri-urban reserves: Road-based fatalities and road usage by wildlife in the Royal National Park, New South Wales, Australia. Biol. Conserv. 2006, 129, 348–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Land 10 00477 g001 550
Figure 1. The study area, roads (main roads/highways, national and regional), and locations of MVCs in 2002–2017.
Figure 1. The study area, roads (main roads/highways, national and regional), and locations of MVCs in 2002–2017.
Land 10 00477 g001
Land 10 00477 g002 550
Figure 2. Roadkill-data-based identification, characterisation, and ranking of mammalian habitats: (a) MVC reports (small dots) with different species (dots marked as X and Y) placed within a road network (double-arrowed and labelled lines); (b) KDE+ clusters (short thick lines) labelled with underlined integer numbers show the length and non-integer numbers the strength of a cluster, small grey and white dots represent MVCs that did not form a cluster, and dashed lines represent the roads without clusters that did not form habitat patches; (c) Numbers show areas of habitat patches; (d) Numbers represent the length of hypothetical wildlife pathways (single-arrowed lines); (e) Numbers represent the length of hypothetical mammal corridors (double-arrowed lines); (f) Larger dots (habitat patches), darker colours of habitat patches, and thicker lines (corridors) represent a higher risk to drivers and higher attractiveness to wildlife, red lines (roads) highlight the highly ranked adjacent habitat patches, white- and black-coloured bars illustrate the share of species richness (for species X and Y), and labels show the number of mammals involved in MVCs (within the clusters); (b–d) Red dots represent the centre points of clusters; (c–f) Habitat patches (large green dots and polygons) labelled as ABCDE are represented by centre points.
Figure 2. Roadkill-data-based identification, characterisation, and ranking of mammalian habitats: (a) MVC reports (small dots) with different species (dots marked as X and Y) placed within a road network (double-arrowed and labelled lines); (b) KDE+ clusters (short thick lines) labelled with underlined integer numbers show the length and non-integer numbers the strength of a cluster, small grey and white dots represent MVCs that did not form a cluster, and dashed lines represent the roads without clusters that did not form habitat patches; (c) Numbers show areas of habitat patches; (d) Numbers represent the length of hypothetical wildlife pathways (single-arrowed lines); (e) Numbers represent the length of hypothetical mammal corridors (double-arrowed lines); (f) Larger dots (habitat patches), darker colours of habitat patches, and thicker lines (corridors) represent a higher risk to drivers and higher attractiveness to wildlife, red lines (roads) highlight the highly ranked adjacent habitat patches, white- and black-coloured bars illustrate the share of species richness (for species X and Y), and labels show the number of mammals involved in MVCs (within the clusters); (b–d) Red dots represent the centre points of clusters; (c–f) Habitat patches (large green dots and polygons) labelled as ABCDE are represented by centre points.
Land 10 00477 g002
Land 10 00477 g003 550
Figure 3. KDE+ cluster centroids, habitats, and their Clementini centroids (corresponding to Figure 2a,c). Labels show unique identifiers (id) used for the identification of the habitats (Table A1 and Table A2).
Figure 3. KDE+ cluster centroids, habitats, and their Clementini centroids (corresponding to Figure 2a,c). Labels show unique identifiers (id) used for the identification of the habitats (Table A1 and Table A2).
Land 10 00477 g003
Land 10 00477 g004 550
Figure 4. Topologically connected hypothetical mammalian pathways (spider lines) and ecological corridors (the triangulated network) used for the characterisation of newly identified habitat patches.
Figure 4. Topologically connected hypothetical mammalian pathways (spider lines) and ecological corridors (the triangulated network) used for the characterisation of newly identified habitat patches.
Land 10 00477 g004
Land 10 00477 g005 550
Figure 5. Habitat centroids, corridor links, and MVC quartiles derived using SAW values (the mapping approach is shown in Figure 2f).
Figure 5. Habitat centroids, corridor links, and MVC quartiles derived using SAW values (the mapping approach is shown in Figure 2f).
Land 10 00477 g005
Land 10 00477 g006 550
Figure 6. Habitat centroids, corridor links, and MVC quartiles derived using TOPSIS values (the mapping approach is shown in Figure 2f).
Figure 6. Habitat centroids, corridor links, and MVC quartiles derived using TOPSIS values (the mapping approach is shown in Figure 2f).
Land 10 00477 g006
Land 10 00477 g007 550
Figure 7. Relationships between different habitat patch ranks and species involved in MVC clusters.
Figure 7. Relationships between different habitat patch ranks and species involved in MVC clusters.
Land 10 00477 g007
Land 10 00477 g008 550
Figure 8. Relationships between different habitat patch ranks and land cover classes.
Figure 8. Relationships between different habitat patch ranks and land cover classes.
Land 10 00477 g008
Land 10 00477 g009 550
Figure 9. Overlay of habitat patch boundaries, roads (all categories), urban areas, the habitat rank (SAW) heat map, and the number of species. Labels within the square show the identification numbers of main roads, while other labels show the total number of species involved in the MVC clusters located in the vicinity of habitat patches.
Figure 9. Overlay of habitat patch boundaries, roads (all categories), urban areas, the habitat rank (SAW) heat map, and the number of species. Labels within the square show the identification numbers of main roads, while other labels show the total number of species involved in the MVC clusters located in the vicinity of habitat patches.
Land 10 00477 g009
Land 10 00477 g010 550
Figure 10. Overlay of habitat patch boundaries, roads (all categories), urban areas, the habitat rank (TOPSIS) heat map, and the number of species. Labels within the square show the identification numbers of main roads, while other labels show the total number of species involved in the MVC clusters located in the vicinity of habitat patches.
Figure 10. Overlay of habitat patch boundaries, roads (all categories), urban areas, the habitat rank (TOPSIS) heat map, and the number of species. Labels within the square show the identification numbers of main roads, while other labels show the total number of species involved in the MVC clusters located in the vicinity of habitat patches.
Land 10 00477 g010
Land 10 00477 g011 550
Figure 11. The habitat patch with id: 577 in the eastern part of Lithuania.
Figure 11. The habitat patch with id: 577 in the eastern part of Lithuania.
Land 10 00477 g011
Table
Table 1. Numbers of MVCs with wild mammals in Lithuania with precise location and species information. Species included in the national Red data list are marked with an asterisk.
Table 1. Numbers of MVCs with wild mammals in Lithuania with precise location and species information. Species included in the national Red data list are marked with an asterisk.
SpeciesMapped (MVC)
Roe deer (Capreolus capreolus)10,741
Wild boar (Sus scrofa)1416
Moose (Alces alces)1340
Raccoon dog (Nyctereutes procyonoides)1331
Eastern European hedgehog (Erinaceus concolor)993
Red fox (Vulpes vulpes)829
European hare (Lepus europaeus)456
Marten (Martes sp.)405
Red deer (Cervus elaphus)248
European polecat (Mustela putorius)160
Badger (Meles meles)89
Pine marten (Martes martes)40
Beaver (Castor fiber)25
Red squirrel (Sciurus vulgaris)30
American mink (Neovison vison)26
European mole (Talpa europaea)19
Stone marten (Martes foina)14
Eurasian otter (Lutra lutra) *13
Fallow deer (Dama dama)11
Norway rat (Rattus norvegicus)6
European bison (Bison bonasus) *6
Grey wolf (Canis lupus)3
Bank vole (Myodes glareolus)3
Lynx (Lynx lynx) *1
Stoat (Mustela erminea) *2
Least weasel (Mustela nivalis)2
Common shrew (Sorex araneus)2
Yellow-necked mouse (Apodemus flavicollis)2
Muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus)2
Water shrew (Neomys fodiens)1
Mountain hare (Lepus timidus) *1
Black rat (Rattus rattus)1
Table
Table 2. Criteria used for ranking the habitat patches described in Figure 2.
Table 2. Criteria used for ranking the habitat patches described in Figure 2.
Criteria Name *VariableHabitat PatchesObjective FunctionWeight (Index) **
ABCDE
Total number of collisions within adjacent clusters i (b)count10.04.07.07.02.0Max0.102
Average strength of adjacent clusters ii (b)index0.80.70.70.70.4Max0.098
Total length of adjacent clusters ii (b)km10.04.07.06.02.0Max0.103
Number of species within adjacent clusters iii (b)count2.02.02.02.02.0Max0.097
Habitat patch area i (c)ha2.01.01.01.02.5Max0.102
Number of adjacent clusters/pathways ii (d)count4.02.03.02.01.0Max0.102
Total length of adjacent pathways ii (d)km7.04.05.04.04.0Min0.098
Number of adjacent corridors i (e)count3.03.04.03.03.0Max0.100
Total length of adjacent corridors i (e)km11.011.012.011.011.0Min0.097
Total area of adjacent habitat patches i (e)ha3.05.56.55.53.0Max0.101
SAW values (f) ***index0.860.720.820.780.64
TOPSIS values (f) ***index0.690.370.580.480.32
* Figure 2, part identifier provided in the brackets. ** A higher weight value shows higher criterion importance. *** The higher the resulting SAW and TOPSIS values are, the larger are the green dots in Figure 2f. i Habitat patches with a larger area connected to other larger habitat patches by very short and abundant ecological corridors show habitat patches that are less fragmented (high component connectivity). They are considered as attractive to wildlife. ii Habitat patches with a higher number of shorter mammalian pathways and longer and stronger KDE+ clusters are characterised by higher numbers of collisions. They are considered as being a more severe risk to drivers. iii The number of species is an important indicator for both (i,ii) modelling assumptions, since a higher number of species within a certain habitat patch (species richness) simultaneously indicates a higher attractiveness to wildlife and a higher risk to drivers.
Table
Table 3. Average SAW and TOPSIS rank values (Figure 2f).
Table 3. Average SAW and TOPSIS rank values (Figure 2f).
Corridor Identification (Figure 2e Cases)Average SAW Value *Average TOSPIS Value *
A–B0.780.53
A–C0.840.63
B–C0.770.47
A–D0.820.59
C–D0.800.53
D–E0.710.40
E–C0.730.45
B–E0.680.35
* The higher the average SAW and TOPSIS values are, the thicker are the lines in Figure 2f.
Table
Table 4. Criteria (Table A1) and criteria weights used for ranking (following the same objective functions as in Table 2) the habitat patches (Figure 3) in Lithuania.
Table 4. Criteria (Table A1) and criteria weights used for ranking (following the same objective functions as in Table 2) the habitat patches (Figure 3) in Lithuania.
Criteria Name *Weight (Index)
Total number of collisions within adjacent clusters i (b)0.107
Average strength of adjacent clusters ii (b)0.085
Total length of adjacent clusters ii (b)0.104
Number of species within adjacent clusters iii (b)0.099
Habitat patch area i (c)0.105
Number of adjacent clusters/pathways ii (d)0.103
Total length of adjacent pathways ii (d)0.109
Number of adjacent corridors i (e)0.088
Total length of adjacent corridors i (e)0.103
Total area of adjacent habitat patches i (e)0.098
* Table 2, footnote identifier provided in the superscript. Figure 2, part identifier provided in the brackets.
Table
Table 5. Relationships between habitat ranks, land cover classes, and species involved in MVC clusters.
Table 5. Relationships between habitat ranks, land cover classes, and species involved in MVC clusters.
Independent ± SE\DependentSAWTOPSIS
Intercept0.208791 ± 0.000 ****0.4098186 ± 0.000 ****
bdiscontinuous urban fabric−0.000003 ± 0.393 NS−0.0000002 ± 0.896 NS
broad and rail networks and associated land0.000019 ± 0.000 ****0.0000043 ± 0.025 **
bpastures−0.000002 ± 0.074 *−0.0000004 ± 0.251 NS
bcomplex cultivation patterns−0.000001 ± 0.481 NS−0.0000004 ± 0.502 NS
bbroad-leaved forest0.000002 ± 0.005 ***0.0000000 ± 0.871 NS
bmixed forest−0.000003 ± 0.053 *0.0000006 ± 0.343 NS
btransitional woodland–shrub0.000015 ± 0.001 ***−0.0000051 ± 0.003 **
bMustela putorius0.003593 ± 0.189 NS0.0023776 ± 0.016 **
bMartes sp.0.000106 ± 0.939 NS0.0011592 ± 0.021 **
bLepus europaeus0.003250 ± 0.041 **0.0000625 ± 0.912 NS
bVulpes vulpes0.001217 ± 0.269 NS0.0010652 ± 0.007 ***
bErinaceus concolor0.001905 ± 0.016 **0.0003457 ± 0.222 NS
bNyctereutes procyonoides−0.000047 ± 0.928 NS0.0003072 ± 0.106 NS
bAlces alces0.000058 ± 0.898 NS0.0005224 ± 0.001 ****
bSus scrofa0.002013 ± 0.001 ***0.0005760 ± 0.006 ***
bCapreolus capreolus0.000803 ± 0.000 ****0.0004290 ± 0.000 ****
F(16,226)98.02606 ± 0.000 ****132.64396 ± 0.000 ****
R20.8740.904
*—p < 0.10, **—p < 0.05, ***—p < 0.01, ****—p < 0.001. NS—not significant.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Kučas, A.; Balčiauskas, L. Roadkill-Data-Based Identification and Ranking of Mammal Habitats. Land 2021, 10, 477. https://doi.org/10.3390/land10050477

AMA Style

Kučas A, Balčiauskas L. Roadkill-Data-Based Identification and Ranking of Mammal Habitats. Land. 2021; 10(5):477. https://doi.org/10.3390/land10050477

Chicago/Turabian Style

Kučas, Andrius, and Linas Balčiauskas. 2021. "Roadkill-Data-Based Identification and Ranking of Mammal Habitats" Land 10, no. 5: 477. https://doi.org/10.3390/land10050477

APA Style

Kučas, A., & Balčiauskas, L. (2021). Roadkill-Data-Based Identification and Ranking of Mammal Habitats. Land, 10(5), 477. https://doi.org/10.3390/land10050477

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop