Cited by 174Wildlife-Road Interactions and ConservationWildlife Ecology and ConservationTraffic and Road Safety

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

An assessment of wildlife road casulties – the potential discrepancy between numbers counted and numbers killed

Open access
Slater, F. M.·2002·Web Ecology

Abstract

Abstract. By artificially baiting roads, it is shown that simple counts of wildlife corpses found on roads are severe underestimate of the actual road casualty rate. The death rate can be 12–16 times that observed by simply counting corpses particularly from a moving vehicle. Removal rates depend on a range of factors including species of predator, species of prey, type and topography of road, road traffic, season, time of day and weather conditions. It is suggested that a greater importance should be afforded, than has previously been the case to the “gross” casualty rate rather than accept the “net” number of casualties as an indicator of loss.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.5194/we-3-33-2002

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. Beadnell, C. M. 1937. The toll of animal life exacted by modern civilisation. -Proc. Zool. Soc. Lond. 107: 173-182.
  2. Forman, R. T. T. and Hersperger, A. M. 1996. Road ecology and road density in different landscapes, with international plan- ning and landscape solutions. -In: Evink, G. L. et al. (eds), Tr ends in addressing transportation related wildlife mortali- ty. Harvard Univ., Cambridge, USA, pp. 1-24.
  3. Illner, H. 1992. Road deaths of Westphalian owls: methodologi- cal problems, influence of road type and possible effects on population levels. -In: Glabraith, C. A. et al. (eds), The ecolo- gy and conservation of European Owls. JNCCP, pp. 94-110.
  4. Reijnen, R. 1995. Disturbance by car traffic as a threat to breed- ing birds in the Netherlands. -Ph.D. thesis, Wageningen, The Netherlands.
  5. Tr ombulak, S. C. and Frissell, C. A. 2000. Review of ecological effects of roads on terrestrial and aquatic communities. - Conserv. Biol. 14: 18-30.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Slater, F. M.
Affiliations
Cardiff University (GB)
Corresponding author
Slater, F. M.
Venue
Web Ecology
Published
2002-05-24
Volume
3
Issue
1
Pages
33-42
ISSN
1399-1183 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2012950880
Cited by
174
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 9
FWCI
1.32
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Web Ecology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • ORCA Online Research @Cardiff (Cardiff University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Wildlife-Road Interactions and Conservation
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Wildlife Ecology and Conservation
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Safety, Risk, Reliability and Quality › Traffic and Road Safety
Keywords
roadkill, mortality underestimation, predator-prey interactions, road traffic, road topography

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