A systematic review of global road ecology camera trap studies that monitored animals’ use of wildlife crossings in road-fragmented landscapes

Hlatshwayo, Thabo1 ; Zungu, Manqoba1 ; Collinson-Jonker, Wendy2 ; Downs, Colleen1

Published Mar 18, 2024 on Dryad. https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.qz612jmp4

Cite this dataset

Hlatshwayo, Thabo; Zungu, Manqoba; Collinson-Jonker, Wendy; Downs, Colleen (2024). A systematic review of global road ecology camera trap studies that monitored animals’ use of wildlife crossings in road-fragmented landscapes [Dataset]. Dryad. https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.qz612jmp4

Abstract

Much research has emphasised the importance of incorporating wildlife crossing-structures in the design of road networks to facilitate connectivity of wildlife crossings in road-fragmented landscapes. Although camera traps have been effective in monitoring wildlife crossing structures, limited studies explore camera trap protocol to monitor wildlife use of crossing structures, particularly in Africa. Our study reviewed and assessed camera trap peer-reviewed research that monitored the use of crossing-structures by wildlife to navigate landscapes fragmented by roads. We found 70 camera trap peer-reviewed publications from 2001 to 2022 that monitored wildlife use of crossing-structures in landscapes intersected by roads, and these were from 22 countries and six continents. The included peer-reviewed studies varied significantly globally, with geographical trends indicating that most studies were conducted in North America. However, the methods used varied considerably between studies, especially in terms of camera trap placement protocol (placement height of camera trap, survey length, and camera multi-shot settings). This showed that camera trap usage for monitoring animal use of crossing structures is still an emerging area of research, and there is a potential for developing a standardised protocol for each type of crossing structure design and size. Future camera trap studies exploring wildlife use of crossing-structures should consider monitoring existing crossing structures (culverts, bridges, and tunnels) as this provides a less costly method of restoring landscape connectivity. We recommend that further research develop a standardised camera trap protocol for monitoring wildlife using crossing-structures to reduce the threats to biodiversity.

README

This README file was generated on 2024-03-09 by Colleen T.Downs.

GENERAL INFORMATION

Title of Dataset: A systematic review of global road ecology camera trap studies that monitored animals? use of wildlife crossings in road-fragmented landscapes
Author Information
A. Principal Investigator Contact Information
Name: Thabo I Hlatshwayo
Institution: University of KwaZulu-Natal
Address: Pietermaritzburg, KZN ZA
Email: mhayiseinnocent@gmail.com

B. Associate or Co-investigator Contact Information
Name: Colleen T. Downs
Institution: University of KwaZulu-Natal
Address: Pietermaritzburg, KZN ZA
Email:downs@ukzn.ac.za
Date of data collection (single date, range, approximate date): 1 July and 1 September 2023
Geographic location of data collection: University of KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa
Information about funding sources that supported the collection of the data: University of KwaZulu-Natal (ZA), National Research Foundation (ZA), Trans African Concessions (TRAC N4, ZA), Rufford Foundation (UK), Endangered Wildlife Trust (EWT, ZA), Ford Wildlife Foundation (ZA)

SHARING/ACCESS INFORMATION

Licenses/restrictions placed on the data: CC0 1.0 Universal (CC0 1.0) Public Domain
Links to publications that cite or use the data:

Hlatshwayo, T., Zungu, M.M., Collinson-Jonker, W., Downs, C.T. (Forthcoming 2024). A systematic review of global road ecology camera trap studies that monitored animals? use of wildlife crossings in road-fragmented landscapes. Ecology and Evolution

Links to other publicly accessible locations of the data: None
Links/relationships to ancillary data sets: None
Was data derived from another source? Yes
A. If yes, list source(s): Systematic review
Recommended citation for this dataset:

DATA & FILE OVERVIEW

File List:

A) 2023 12d Supplementary information S1_ Summary of road ecology camera trap publications reviews in the study

Relationship between files, if important: None
Additional related data collected that was not included in the current data package: None
Are there multiple versions of the dataset? No
A. If yes, name of file(s) that was updated: NA
i. Why was the file updated? NA
ii. When was the file updated? NA

#########################################################################

DATA-SPECIFIC INFORMATION FOR: 2023 12d Supplementary information S1_ Summary of road ecology camera trap publications reviews in the study

Number of variables: 30
Number of cases/rows: 70
Variable List:

* Reference: Authors of paper

* Year: Year of study

* Continent: Continent for study

* Country: Country of study

* Economic status: Economic status of country

* Region: Region of study

* Conservation priority of the area: Conservation priority of the area of study

* Type of road (paved/unpaved): Type of road (paved/unpaved) in the study

* Type of structure monitored:Type of structure monitored in the study

* Focal species: Focal species in the study

* Monitoring start date: Monitoring start date of study

* Monitoring end date: Monitoring end date of study

* Period of monitoring: Period of monitoring of study

* Economic status: Economic status of country

* Main research findings: Main research findings of study

* Recommendations: Recommendations of study

* Conclusions: Conclusions of study

* Camera Make and Model: Camera Make and Model used in the study

* Fencing design: Fencing design in the study

* Height (m): Height (m) used in the study

* Length (m): Length (m) used in the study

* Interval delay (S): Interval delay (S) used in the study

* Camera Multishot: Camera Multishot if used in study

* Camera Photo / Video: Camera Photo / Video used in the study

* Camera Height Placed (m): Camera Height Placed (m) in the study

* Camera Mounting angle: Camera Mounting angle used in the study

* Number of cameras per underpass: Number of cameras per underpass used in the study

* Structure width (m): Structure width (m) used in the study

* Structure height (m): Structure height (m) used in the study

* Structure length (m): Structure length (m) used in the study

* Notes: Further notes about the study

Missing data codes: NA (data not available)
Specialized formats or other abbreviations used: None

#########################################################################

Methods

We conducted a systematic literature search and review of peer-reviewed journal articles between 1 July and 1 September 2023 using Google Scholar (https://scholar.google.co.za/) and Semantic Scholar databases with the programme Publish or Perish (Harzing, 2022). The review comprised only peer-reviewed literature spanning the years 2001 to 2022 that examined the use of camera traps as a tool to assess the efficacy of wildlife crossing-structures as a mitigation strategy for restoring landscape connectivity and reducing wildlife-road-mortality. The search string used the following words to identify each publication: camera traps, wildlife crossings, cameras underneath underpasses, cameras under culverts, undercrossings, overcrossings, canopy bridges, crossing corridors, and connectivity. We used a Microsoft Excel© spreadsheet to collate the data from each publication.

Funding

University of KwaZulu-Natal

National Research Foundation, Award: 98404

Trans African Concessions

Rufford Foundation