Related articles by  
Other versions:

(Verbatim name)

ID

(Catalog Number)

ORG

DES

Invalid DOI was provided, please try again

XML
PDF
 
 
Bluesky
Twitter
Facebook
Telegram
Mendeley
Reddit
Notify a colleague
  • ContentsContents
  • Article InfoArticle Info
  • CiteCite
  • MetricsMetrics
  • CommentComment
  • RelatedRelated
  • FigsFigs
  • TabsTabs
  • MapMap
  • TaxaTaxa
  • RefsRefs
  • CitedCited
  • NanopubsNanopubs
  • Article title
  • Abstract
  • Keywords
  • Introduction
  • Methods
    • Study area
    • Camera trapping
    • Photo analysis
    • Mammal classification
  • Results
    • Which species are using the structures
    • How do the ratios of successful crossing through the structure (full crossings) and aversion to the structure (aversions) differ between species
      • Train underpasses
      • Road underpass
      • Water culvert underpasses
    • How much does the use of existing crossing structures by wildlife and humans vary during the course of the day
    • How does the daily frequency of use by wildlife relate to the daily frequency of human activity
      • Very low or no human co-use
      • Low human co-use
      • Moderate human co-use
      • High human co-use
      • Very high human co-use
  • Discussion
    • Use of existing crossing structures by wildlife: Species distribution and frequencies of use
      • Train underpasses
      • Road underpass
      • Water culverts
      • Species of special interest
      • Species rarely detected
    • Co-use of existing crossing structures by wildlife and humans
      • Very low or no human co-use
      • Low human co-use
      • Moderate human co-use
      • High human co-use
      • Very high human co-use
    • Limitations and future research needs
  • Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • References
  • Appendix 1
Subscribe to email alerts for current Article's categories
Powered by