Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 117

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 65 of the 65 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Predicting Hot Spots of Herpetofauna Road Mortality Along Highway Networks

LANGEN, TOM A., OGDEN, KIMBERLY M., SCHWARTING, LINDSAY L.·2009·The Journal of Wildlife Management
DOI 10.2193/2008-017
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

ABSTRACT Road mortality is often spatially aggregated, and there is a need for models that accurately and efficiently predict hot spots within a road network for mitigation. We surveyed 145 points throughout a 353‐km highway network in New York State, USA, for roadkill of reptiles and amphibians. We used land cover, wetland configuration, and traffic volume data to identify features that best predicted hot spots of herpetofauna road mortality. We resampled 40 points an additional 4 times over 4 years to evaluate temporal repeatability. Both amphibian and reptile road mortality were spatially clustered, and road‐kill hot spots of the 2 taxa overlapped. One survey provided a valid snapshot of spatial patterns of road mortality, and spatial patterns remained stable across time. Road‐kill hot spots were located where wetlands approached within 100 m of the road, and the best predictor was a causeway configuration of wetlands (wetlands on both sides of the road). We validated causeways as predictors of road mortality by surveying 180 causeways and 180 random points across 5 regions (17,823 km 2 ) of northeastern New York. Causeways were 3 times more likely than random locations to have amphibian and 12 times more likely to have reptile mortality present, and causeways had a 4 times higher total number of amphibian roadkill and 9 times higher reptile roadkill than did random points. We conclude it is possible to identify valid predictors of hot spots of amphibian and reptile road mortality for use when planning roads or when conducting surveys on existing roads to locate priority areas for mitigation.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2193/2008-017

Cites

65 of 65 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 9

  1. Andrews K. M., 2007, Urban herpetology
  2. Bank F. G., 2002, Wildlife habitat connectivity across European highways, FHWA‐PL‐02‐011
  3. Evink G. L., 2002, Interactions between roadways and wildlife ecology. National cooperative highway research program synthesis
  4. Gibbs J. P., 2007, Amphibians and reptiles of New York
  5. Jackson S. D., 2000, Wildlife and highways: seeking solutions to an ecological and socio‐economic dilemma, 7
  6. Jackson S. D., 2000, Wildlife and highways: seeking solutions to an ecological and socio‐economic dilemma, 143
  7. Kline N. C., 1998, Proceedings of the international conference on wildlife ecology and transportation, 23
  8. Levine E., 1998, The birds of New York State
  9. Steen D. A., 2006, Road surveys for turtles: consideration of possible sampling biases., Herpetological Conservation and Biology, 1, 9

Cited by

See all 117

Metadata

Authors
LANGEN, T. A., OGDEN, K. M., & SCHWARTING, L. L.
Venue
The Journal of Wildlife Management
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2009-01
Volume
73
Issue
1
Pages
104-114
ISSN
  • 0022-541X
  • 1937-2817
DOI
10.2193/2008-017
Cited by
117
References
65
Language
en
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor, 711 d)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.