Developing recommendations for monitoring wildlife underpass usage using trail cameras

  • Dorian Pomezanski
  • Lorne Bennett


The growing rate of wildlife underpass use for the mitigation of road-induced wildlife mortality necessitates the development of low-cost monitoring tools for determination of mitigation success. Trail cameras are one such tool that can provide valuable insight into the usage patterns and effectiveness of wildlife underpasses. We deployed trail cameras in wildlife underpasses in Guelph, ON, to develop recommendations for camera monitoring protocols. The trail cameras used high interval time lapse and motion sensors from April to October of 2016 to capture crossing by a variety of species through two slotted, small animal underpasses. Daily and seasonal underpass usage patterns of 21 species and species groups suggest that to comprehensively monitor underpass usage, cameras must be active continuously and utilize high frequency time lapse and motion sensors simultaneously to capture crossing events by both endothermic and ectothermic species. Although these recommendations are dependent on the specific objectives and target conservation species, these results can be used to guide a range of underpass monitoring programs.


Road mortality Time lapse Motion sensors Camera trap Herptile monitoring 



The authors would like to thank A. McLaren for his technical assistance, as well as S. Hughes, C. Parent, and S. Spitale of North-South Environmental Inc. for their commitment, enthusiasm, and insight.


  1. Aresco, M. J. (2005). Mitigation measures to reduce highway mortality of turtles and other herpetofauna at a north Florida lake. Journal of Wildlife Management, 69(2), 549–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ascensão, F., & Mira, A. (2007). Factors affecting culvert use by vertebrates along two stretches of road in southern Portugal. Ecological Research, 22, 57–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baxter-gilbert, J. H., Riley, J. L., Lesbarrères, D., & Litzgus, J. D. (2015). Mitigating reptile road mortality: fence failures compromise ecopassage effectiveness. PLoS One, 10(3), 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beebee, T. J. C. (2013). Effects of road mortality and mitigation measures on amphibian populations. Conservation Biology, 27(4), 657–668.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dodd, C. K., Barichivich, W. J., & Smith, L. L. (2004). Effectiveness of a barrier wall and culverts in reducing wildlife mortality on a heavily traveled highway in Florida. Biological Conservation, 118(5), 619–631.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ford, A. T., Clevenger, A. P., & Bennett, A. (2009). Comparison of methods of monitoring wildlife crossing-structures on highways. Journal of Wildlife Management, 73(7), 1213–1222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Forman, R. T. T., & Alexander, L. E. (1998). Roads and their major ecological effects. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 29(1), 207–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Glista, D. J., DeVault, T. L., & DeWoody, J. A. (2007). Vertebrate road mortality predominantly impacts amphibians. Herpetological Conservation and Biology, 3(1), 77–87.Google Scholar
  9. Glista, D. J., DeVault, T. L., & DeWoody, J. A. (2009). A review of mitigation measures for reducing wildlife mortality on roadways. Landscape and Urban Planning, 91(1), 1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Lesbarrères, D., & Fahrig, L. (2012). Measures to reduce population fragmentation by roads: what has worked and how do we know? Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 27(7), 374–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Lesbarrères, D., Lodé, T., & Merilä, J. (2004). What type of amphibian underpass could reduce road kills? Oryx, 38(2), 220–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Malt, J. (2012). Assessing the effectiveness of amphibian mitigation on the sea to sky highway: Population-level effects and best management practices for minimizing highway impacts. Final report. Ministry of forests, lands, and natural resources operations, south coast region, British Columbia, Canada.Google Scholar
  13. Pagnucco, K. S., Paszkowski, C. A., & Scrimgeour, G. J. (2011). Using cameras to monitor underpass use by long-toed salamanders (Ambystoma macrodactylum): an informative, cost-efficient technique. Herpetological Conservation and Biology, 6(2), 277–286.Google Scholar
  14. Pagnucco, K. S., Paszkowski, C. A., & Scrimgeour, G. J. (2012). Characterizing movement patterns and spatio-temporal use of under-road underpasses by long-toed salamanders in Waterton Lakes National Park, Canada. Copeia, 2012(2), 331–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Patrick, D. A., Schalk, C. M., Gibbs, J. P., & Woltz, H. W. (2010). Effective culvert placement and design to facilitate passage of amphibians across roads. Journal of Herpetology, 44(4), 618–626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. van der Grift, E. A., van der Ree, R., Fahrig, L., Findlay, S., Houlahan, J., Jaeger, J. A. G., Klar, N., Madrinan, L. F., & Olson, L. (2013). Evaluating the effectiveness of road mitigation measures. Biodiversity and Conservation, 22(2), 425–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Welbourne, D. J., Claridge, A. W., Paull, D. J., & Lambert, A. (2016). How do passive infrared triggered camera traps operate and why does it matter? Breaking down common misconceptions. Remote Sensing in Ecology and Conservation, 2(2), 77–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Woltz, H. W., Gibbs, J. P., & Ducey, P. K. (2008). Road crossing structures for amphibians and reptiles: informing design through behavioral analysis. Biological Conservation, 141(11), 2745–2750.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of GeographyUniversity of GuelphGuelphCanada
  2. 2.BramptonCanada

Personalised recommendations