Caryl Buton, Nicolas Kaldonski, François Nowicki, Christine Saint‐Andrieux
{"title":"下一步怎么办?对未来栅栏生态学研究的一些实用建议","authors":"Caryl Buton, Nicolas Kaldonski, François Nowicki, Christine Saint‐Andrieux","doi":"10.1002/wlb3.01152","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Practical gaps in knowledge of fence ecology or its specific requirements still exist despite numerous recommendations scattered throughout various articles. We recently carried out two different studies on fences in a French context whose results corroborate this observation, and highlight the need to synthetise and prioritise scientific and technical research. The first study was an exploratory research project on escape devices used to allow ungulates to exit fenced transport infrastructure right‐of‐way. The second study entailed drafting a guide on the mitigation of the fence's ecological impacts, using solar energy plants as a case study. Both were based on different types of information gathering, ranging from bibliographical research to interviews with governments officials, operating companies, engineering offices, naturalists and hunters' associations.Based on the similarities between these two studies, the urgency of certain needs, and the clear potential for these approaches to extend beyond France's borders, we have identified two key categories for future actions. The first category is a series of six research priorities: Diversifying monitoring of exclusion fencing; Developing practice‐oriented fence mapping tools; Further studying the impact of fencing on animal vehicle collisions; Considering animal behaviour in monitoring protocol; Ex‐situ testing of devices' effectiveness; and Studying large‐scale effects of fencing. The second category comprises six method recommendations: Accurately documenting fences; Early planning of scientific monitoring; Contextualising fencing requirements; Defining effectiveness goals and criteria; Taking advantage of opportunistic Animal‐Fence Event observations; and Developing artificial intelligence and computer vision to map fences. All these items are supported by examples drawn from one study or the other.Our conclusions indicate that, in the context of major expansion of fences, such recommendations must be integrated at all stages of development work. If this is not implemented, the free movement of animal species will not be adequately protected and the erosion of biodiversity will be further exacerbated.","PeriodicalId":54405,"journal":{"name":"Wildlife Biology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"What next? Some practical suggestions for future studies on fence ecology\",\"authors\":\"Caryl Buton, Nicolas Kaldonski, François Nowicki, Christine Saint‐Andrieux\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/wlb3.01152\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Practical gaps in knowledge of fence ecology or its specific requirements still exist despite numerous recommendations scattered throughout various articles. We recently carried out two different studies on fences in a French context whose results corroborate this observation, and highlight the need to synthetise and prioritise scientific and technical research. The first study was an exploratory research project on escape devices used to allow ungulates to exit fenced transport infrastructure right‐of‐way. The second study entailed drafting a guide on the mitigation of the fence's ecological impacts, using solar energy plants as a case study. Both were based on different types of information gathering, ranging from bibliographical research to interviews with governments officials, operating companies, engineering offices, naturalists and hunters' associations.Based on the similarities between these two studies, the urgency of certain needs, and the clear potential for these approaches to extend beyond France's borders, we have identified two key categories for future actions. The first category is a series of six research priorities: Diversifying monitoring of exclusion fencing; Developing practice‐oriented fence mapping tools; Further studying the impact of fencing on animal vehicle collisions; Considering animal behaviour in monitoring protocol; Ex‐situ testing of devices' effectiveness; and Studying large‐scale effects of fencing. The second category comprises six method recommendations: Accurately documenting fences; Early planning of scientific monitoring; Contextualising fencing requirements; Defining effectiveness goals and criteria; Taking advantage of opportunistic Animal‐Fence Event observations; and Developing artificial intelligence and computer vision to map fences. All these items are supported by examples drawn from one study or the other.Our conclusions indicate that, in the context of major expansion of fences, such recommendations must be integrated at all stages of development work. If this is not implemented, the free movement of animal species will not be adequately protected and the erosion of biodiversity will be further exacerbated.\",\"PeriodicalId\":54405,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Wildlife Biology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Wildlife Biology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"99\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/wlb3.01152\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"生物学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ECOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Wildlife Biology","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/wlb3.01152","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
What next? Some practical suggestions for future studies on fence ecology
Practical gaps in knowledge of fence ecology or its specific requirements still exist despite numerous recommendations scattered throughout various articles. We recently carried out two different studies on fences in a French context whose results corroborate this observation, and highlight the need to synthetise and prioritise scientific and technical research. The first study was an exploratory research project on escape devices used to allow ungulates to exit fenced transport infrastructure right‐of‐way. The second study entailed drafting a guide on the mitigation of the fence's ecological impacts, using solar energy plants as a case study. Both were based on different types of information gathering, ranging from bibliographical research to interviews with governments officials, operating companies, engineering offices, naturalists and hunters' associations.Based on the similarities between these two studies, the urgency of certain needs, and the clear potential for these approaches to extend beyond France's borders, we have identified two key categories for future actions. The first category is a series of six research priorities: Diversifying monitoring of exclusion fencing; Developing practice‐oriented fence mapping tools; Further studying the impact of fencing on animal vehicle collisions; Considering animal behaviour in monitoring protocol; Ex‐situ testing of devices' effectiveness; and Studying large‐scale effects of fencing. The second category comprises six method recommendations: Accurately documenting fences; Early planning of scientific monitoring; Contextualising fencing requirements; Defining effectiveness goals and criteria; Taking advantage of opportunistic Animal‐Fence Event observations; and Developing artificial intelligence and computer vision to map fences. All these items are supported by examples drawn from one study or the other.Our conclusions indicate that, in the context of major expansion of fences, such recommendations must be integrated at all stages of development work. If this is not implemented, the free movement of animal species will not be adequately protected and the erosion of biodiversity will be further exacerbated.
期刊介绍:
WILDLIFE BIOLOGY is a high-quality scientific forum directing concise and up-to-date information to scientists, administrators, wildlife managers and conservationists. The journal encourages and welcomes original papers, short communications and reviews written in English from throughout the world. The journal accepts theoretical, empirical, and practical articles of high standard from all areas of wildlife science with the primary task of creating the scientific basis for the enhancement of wildlife management practices. Our concept of ''wildlife'' mainly includes mammal and bird species, but studies on other species or phenomena relevant to wildlife management are also of great interest. We adopt a broad concept of wildlife management, including all structures and actions with the purpose of conservation, sustainable use, and/or control of wildlife and its habitats, in order to safeguard sustainable relationships between wildlife and other human interests.