Wildlife corridor

A wildlife corridor, habitat corridor, or green corridor^[1] is an area of habitat connecting wildlife populations separated by human activities or structures (such as roads, development, or logging). This allows an exchange of individuals between populations, which may help prevent the negative effects of inbreeding and reduced genetic diversity (via genetic drift) that often occur within isolated populations. Corridors may also help facilitate the re-establishment of populations that have been reduced or eliminated due to random events (such as fires or disease). This may potentially moderate some of the worst effects of habitat fragmentation,^[2] whereas urbanization can split up habitat areas, causing animals to lose both their natural habitat and the ability to move between regions to access resources. Habitat fragmentation due to human development is an ever-increasing threat to biodiversity,^[3] and habitat corridors serve to manage its effects.

Brazil

Purpose

 

An urban green corridor in Lille.

Habitat corridors can be considered a management tool in places where the destruction of a natural area has greatly affected native species, whether the result of human development or natural disasters. When areas of land are broken up, populations can become unstable or fragmented. Corridors can reconnect fragmented populations and reduce population fluctuations by contributing to three factors that can help to stabilize a population:

• Colonization—animals are able to move and occupy new areas when food sources or other natural resources are lacking in their core habitat.
• Migration—species that relocate seasonally can do so more safely and effectively when it does not interfere with human development barriers.
• Interbreeding—animals can find new mates in neighboring regions, increasing genetic diversity.

Rosenberg et al.^[4] were among the first to define what constitutes a wildlife corridor, developing a conceptual model that emphasized the role of a wildlife corridor as a facilitator of movement that is not restricted by requirements of native vegetation or intermediate target patches of habitat.^[5]

 

Sign on a highway in Qatar, indicating an underpass that allows camels to safely cross

Wildlife corridors additionally have strong indirect effects on plant populations by increasing pollen and seed dispersal from animals, facilitating movement of disparate taxa between isolated patches.^[6] Corridors must be large enough to support minimum critical populations, reduce migration barriers, and maximize connectivity between populations.^[7]

Wildlife corridors may also encompass aquatic habitats (often called riparian ribbons^[8]) and usually come in the form of rivers and streams. Terrestrial corridors can come in the form of wooded strips connecting woodland areas or an urban hedge.^[7]

Users

Species can generally be categorized in one of two groups; passage users and corridor dwellers.

Passage users occupy corridors for brief periods of time. These animals use corridors for such events as seasonal migration, dispersal of juveniles, or moving between parts of a large home range. Animals such as large herbivores, medium to large carnivores, and migratory species are passage users.^[9]

Corridor dwellers can occupy the passage anywhere from several days to several years. Species such as plants, reptiles, amphibians, birds, insects, and small mammals can spend their entire lives in linear habitats. In this case, the corridor must provide sufficient resources to support such species.^[9]

Types

Habitat corridors can be categorized according to their width, with wider corridors generally encouraging more use.^[10] However, overall corridor quality depends more on design when creating an effective corridor.^[7] The following are three divisions in corridor widths:

• Regional – (>500 metres (1,600 ft) wide); connect major ecological gradients such as migratory pathways.
• Sub-regional – (>300 metres (980 ft) wide); connect larger vegetated landscape features such as ridge lines and valley floors.
• Local – (some <50 metres (160 ft)); connect remnant patches of gullies, wetlands, ridge lines, etc.

Habitat corridors can also be divided according to their continuity. Continuous corridors are strips that are not broken up, while "stepping stone" corridors are small patches of suitable habitat. However, stepping stone corridors may be more susceptible to edge effects.

 

Singapore

Corridors can also take the form of wildlife crossings, underpasses or overpasses used for crossing man-made feature such as roads, reducing human-wildlife conflict such as roadkill. Observations have shown that underpasses are actually more successful than overpasses because many times animals are too timid to cross over a bridge in front of traffic and would prefer to be more hidden.^[11]

Monitoring use

Researchers can use mark-recapture techniques and hair snares in order to evaluate genetic flow to observe how a corridor is being used.^[12] Marking and recapturing animals is more useful when keeping a close eye on individual movement.^[13] However, tagging does not give any insight into whether the migrating individuals are successfully breeding with other populations.^{[citation needed]}

Genetic techniques can be more effective when evaluating migration and mating patterns. By looking at a population's gene flow, researchers can understand the genetic consequences of corridors using information about the migration patterns of a population over time.^[13]

Design

Wildlife corridors are most effective when they are designed with the ecology of their target species in mind. Other factors like seasonal movement, avoidance behavior, dispersal, and habitat requirements can be considered.^[14]

Generally, corridors are best built with a certain degree of randomness or asymmetry, and when oriented perpendicular to habitat patches.^[15][7] Wildlife corridors are susceptible to edge effects; habitat quality along the edge of a habitat fragment is often much lower than in core habitat areas. Habitat corridors are important for large species requiring significant sized ranges; however, they are also vital as connection corridors for smaller animals and plants as well as ecological connectors to provide a ‟rescue effect’’.^[16] Wildlife corridors are additionally designed to reduce human-wildlife conflicts.^[17]

Examples

In Alberta, Canada, an overpass was constructed to keep animals off the busy highway which crosses a national park. The top of the bridge is planted with native grasses, and fences were put on either side to help guide animals.^[18]

 

Florida

In Southern California, 15 underpasses and drainage culverts were observed to see how many animals used them as corridors. They proved to be especially effective on wide-ranging species such as carnivores, mule deer, small mammals, and reptiles, even though the corridors were not intended specifically for animals. Researchers also learned that factors such as surrounding habitat, underpass dimensions, and human activity also played a role in the frequency of usage.^[19]

In South Carolina, five remnant areas of land were monitored; one was put in the center and four were surrounding it. Then, a corridor was put between one of the remnants and the center. Butterflies that were placed in the center habitat were two to four times more likely to move to the connected remnant rather than the disconnected ones. Furthermore, male holly plants were placed in the center region, and female holly plants in the connected region increased by 70 percent in seed production compared to those plants in the disconnected region. Plant seeds dispersal through bird droppings was noted to be the dispersal method with the largest increase within the corridor-connected patch of land.^[20]

There have also been positive effects on the rates of transfer and interbreeding in vole populations. A control population in which voles were confined to their core habitat with no corridor was compared to a treatment population in their core habitat with passages that they could use to move to other regions. Females typically stayed and mated within their founder population, but the rate of transfer through corridors in the males was very high.^[21]

In 2001, a wolf corridor was restored through a golf course in Jasper National Park, Alberta, which successfully altered wildlife behavior and showed frequent use by the wolf population.^[22][23]

 

NH 44, Pench Tiger Reserve

Major wildlife corridors

• The Paséo Pantera (also known as the Mesoamerican Biological Corridor or Paséo del Jaguar)^[24]
• The Eastern Himalayan Corridor^[25]
• China-Russia Tiger Corridor^[26]
• Tandai Tiger Corridor^[27]
• The European Green Belt^[28]
• The Siju-Rewak Corridor, located in the Garo Hills of India, protects an important population of elephants (thought to be approximately 20% of all the elephants that survive in the country). This corridor project links together the Siju Wildlife Sanctuary and the Rewak Reserve Forest in Meghalaya State, close to the India-Bangladesh border. This area lies within the meeting place of the Himalayan Mountain Range and the Indian Peninsula and contains at least 139 other species of mammals, including tigers, clouded leopards and the Himalayan black bear.^[29]
• The Ecologische Hoofdstructuur is a network of corridors and habitats created for wildlife in the Netherlands^[30]
• The 16 kilometres (9.9 mi) long Kanha-Pench elevated corridor on NH 44.^[31]
• Two elephant passes and two minor bridges on NH 54 in Assam’s Lumding Reserve Forest.^[32][33]
• Three elephant underpasses, each with 6 metres (20 ft) of vertical clearance on NH 72 and NH 58 in Uttarakhand, India.^[34]
• Terai Arc Landscapes, Lower Himalayan Region.^[35]

Evaluation

Some species are more likely to utilize habitat corridors depending on migration and mating patterns, making it essential that corridor design is targeted towards a specific species.^[36][37]

There is usually a very limited amount of space available for corridors, so buffers are not usually added in.^[4] Without a buffer zone, corridors can become affected by disturbances from human land use change. There is a possibility that corridors could aid in the spread of invasive species, threatening multiple populations.^[38]

See also

•  Environment portal
•  Ecology portal
•  Earth sciences portal
•  Biology portal

• Aquatic organism passage
• Biolink zones
• Emerald network
• Habitat conservation
• Habitat destruction
• Landscape connectivity
• Marine Protected Area
• Natura 2000
• The Pollinator Pathway
• Roadkill
• Gary Tabor, wildlife corridor conservationist
• Tugay
• Wildlife crossing
• Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative

Further reading

• Beier, P., Noss, R.F. (December 1998). "Do Habitat Corridors Provide Connectivity?". Conservation Biology. 12 (6): 1241–1252. Bibcode:1998ConBi..12.1241B. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.1998.98036.x. S2CID 16770640.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
• Bennett, A.F. 1999. Linkages in the Landscape: The Role of Corridors and Connectivity in Wildlife Conservation. The World Conservation Union, Gland, Switzerland.
• De Chant, T. 2007. A Future of Conservation. Northfield Habitat Corridors Community Plan, Northfield, Minnesota.^[39]
• Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC). 2004. Wildlife Corridors. DEC, New South Wales.
• Dole, J.W., Ng, S.J., Sauvajot, R.M. 2004. Use of Highway Undercrossings by Wildlife in Southern California. Biology Conservation, 115 (3):499-507. &Foreman, Dave. Rewilding North America: a Vision for Conservation in the 21st Century. Washington: Island, 2004.
• Fleury, A.M.; Brown, R.D. (1997). "A Framework for the Design of Wildlife Conservation Corridors with Specific Application to Southwestern Ontario". Landscape and Urban Planning. 37 (8): 163–186. doi:10.1016/S0169-2046(97)80002-3. hdl:10214/4617.
• M., S. 2002. Ecology: Insects, Pollen, Seeds, Travel Wildlife Corridors. Science News, 162 (10):269.
• Mech, S.G.; Hallett, J.G. (2001). "Evaluating the Effectiveness of Corridors: a Genetic Approach". Conservation Biology. 15 (2): 467–474. Bibcode:2001ConBi..15..467M. doi:10.1046/j.1523-1739.2001.015002467.x. S2CID 84520743.
• Roach, J. 2006. First Evidence that Wildlife Corridors Boost Biodiversity, Study Says. National Geographic Society, Washington, D.C.^[40]
• Rosenberg, D.K.; Noon, B.R.; Meslow, E.C. (1997). "Biological Corridors: Form, Function, and Efficacy". BioScience. 47 (10): 667–687. doi:10.2307/1313208. JSTOR 1313208.
• Simberloff, D.; Farr, J.A.; Cox, J.; Mehlman, D.W. (1992). "Movement Corridors: Conservation Bargains or Poor Investments?". Conservation Biology. 6 (4): 492–504. Bibcode:1992ConBi...6..493S. doi:10.1046/j.1523-1739.1992.06040493.x.
• Sutcliffe, O.L.; Thomas, C.D. (1996). "Open Corridors Appear to Facilitate Dispersal by Ringlet Butterflies (Aphantopus hyperantus) between Woodland Clearings". Conservation Biology. 10 (5): 1359–1365. Bibcode:1996ConBi..10.1359S. doi:10.1046/j.1523-1739.1996.10051359.x.
• Tewksbury, J.J.; Levey, D.J.; Haddad, N.M.; Sargent, S.; Orrock, J.L.; Weldon, A.; Danielson, B.J.; Brinkerhoff, J.; Damschen, E.I.; Townsend, P. (2002). "Corridors Affect Plants, Animals, and Their Interactions in Fragmented Landscapes". PNAS. 99 (20): 12923–12926. Bibcode:2002PNAS...9912923T. doi:10.1073/pnas.202242699. PMC 130561. PMID 12239344.

References

1. . Archived from the original on 1 December 2008.
2. Bond, M. (2003). "Principles of Wildlife Corridor Design. Center for Biological Diversity" (PDF). Biologivaldiversity.org. (PDF) from the original on 6 June 2022. Retrieved 11 August 2015.
3. Fahrig, Lenore (28 November 2003). "Effects of Habitat Fragmentation on Biodiversity". Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics. 34: 487–515. doi:10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.34.011802.132419.
4. Rosenberg, Daniel K.; Noon, Barry R.; Meslow, E. Charles (1995). "Towards a definition of wildlife corridor". Integrating People and Wildlife for a Sustainable Future: 436–9. from the original on 31 March 2022. Retrieved 14 September 2018.
5. . Archived from the original on 13 August 2020.
6. Tewksbury, Joshua (1 October 2002). "Corridors affect plants, animals, and their interactions in fragmented landscapes". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 99 (20): 12923–6. Bibcode:2002PNAS...9912923T. doi:10.1073/pnas.202242699. PMC 130561. PMID 12239344.
7. Allison M. Fleury; Robert D. Brown (1997). "A framework for the design of wildlife conservation corridors With specific application to southwestern Ontario". Landscape and Urban Planning. Elsevier. 37 (3–4): 163–186. doi:10.1016/S0169-2046(97)80002-3. hdl:10214/4617. from the original on 28 October 2022. Retrieved 28 October 2022.
8. Repayment", "Debt (30 August 2021). "The Riparian Ribbon". ArcGIS StoryMaps. from the original on 20 May 2023. Retrieved 20 May 2023.
9. Beier, P.; Loe, S. (1992). "In My Experience: A Checklist for Evaluating Impacts to Wildlife Movement Corridors". Wildlife Society Bulletin. 20 (4): 434–440.
10. "Wildlife, forest, and forestry. Principles of managing forests for biological diversity". Biological Conservation. 63 (3): 271. 1993. doi:10.1016/0006-3207(93)90732-g. ISSN 0006-3207.
11. Sandra J. Ng; Jim W. Dole; Raymond M. Sauvajot; Seth P.D Riley; Thomas J. Valone (2004). "Use of highway undercrossings by wildlife in southern California". Biological Conservation. 115 (3): 499–507. Bibcode:2004BCons.115..499N. doi:10.1016/S0006-3207(03)00166-6. from the original on 31 October 2022. Retrieved 31 October 2022.
12. Dixon, Jeremy D.; Oli, Madan K.; Wooten, Michael C.; Eason, Thomas H.; McCown, J. Walter; Paetkau, David (2006). "Effectiveness of a Regional Corridor in Connecting Two Florida Black Bear Populations". Conservation Biology. 20 (1): 155–162. Bibcode:2006ConBi..20..155D. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2005.00292.x. ISSN 0888-8892. JSTOR 3591161. PMID 16909668. S2CID 15106420. from the original on 19 May 2023. Retrieved 19 May 2023.
13. Mech, Stephen G.; Hallett, James G. (April 2001). "Evaluating the Effectiveness of Corridors: a Genetic Approach". Conservation Biology. 15 (2): 467–474. Bibcode:2001ConBi..15..467M. doi:10.1046/j.1523-1739.2001.015002467.x. ISSN 0888-8892. S2CID 84520743. from the original on 13 August 2023. Retrieved 4 April 2022.
14. Newmark, William D. (1993). "The Role and Design of Wildlife Corridors with Examples from Tanzania". Ambio. 22 (8): 500–504. ISSN 0044-7447. JSTOR 4314138. from the original on 19 May 2023. Retrieved 19 May 2023.
15. "Designing wildlife corridors". Sciencedaily.com. from the original on 2 November 2022. Retrieved 4 August 2015.
16. Julieta Benitez-Malvido; Víctor Arroyo-Rodríguez (2008). "Habitat fragmentation, edge effects and biological corridors in tropical ecosystems". Retrieved 2 November 2022.
17. Maulana, Rheza (1 April 2023). "Architecture for Wildlife: The Possible Solution to Human-Wildlife Conflicts in Indonesia". IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science. 1169 (1): 012046. Bibcode:2023E&ES.1169a2046M. doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1169/1/012046.
18. Semrad 2007
19. Dole et al. 2003
20. Susan Milius (22 October 2002). "Insects, pollen, seeds travel wildlife corridors". Science News. from the original on 4 November 2022. Retrieved 4 November 2022.
21. Jon Aars; Rolf A. Ims (1 July 1999). "The Effect of Habitat Corridors on Rates of Transfer and Interbreeding Between Vole Demes". Ecology. 80 (5): 1648. doi:10.1890/0012-9658(1999)080[1648:TEOHCO]2.0.CO;2. ISSN 0012-9658. from the original on 4 November 2022. Retrieved 4 November 2022.
22. Shepherd, B; J. Whittington (2006). "Response of wolves to corridor restoration and human use management". Ecology and Society. 11 (2). doi:10.5751/ES-01813-110201.
23. Daniel K. Rosenberg; Barry R. Noon; E. Charles Meslow (November 1997). "Biological Corridors: Form, Function, and Efficacy". BioScience. 47 (10): 677–687. doi:10.2307/1313208. JSTOR 1313208.
24. "Paseo Pantera Project". from the original on 9 November 2022. Retrieved 9 November 2022.
25. . Archived from the original on 12 April 2023.
26. "New corridor links Amur tiger habitats in Russia and China". WWF. from the original on 9 November 2022. Retrieved 9 November 2022.
27. . Panthera.org. Archived from the original on 22 November 2011. Retrieved 4 August 2015.
28. "European Green Belt Initiative". from the original on 11 November 2022. Retrieved 9 November 2022.
29. "Siju-Rewak Corridor". CONSERVATION CORRIDOR. 2 May 2012. from the original on 9 November 2022. Retrieved 9 November 2022.
30. Ecologische Hoofdstructuur
31. Gandhi, Divya (7 September 2019). "A wild, wild road". The Hindu. ISSN 0971-751X. from the original on 9 November 2022. Retrieved 17 September 2020.
32. "Why This Elevated Stretch On National Highway 44 Is A Hit With Animals In Pench Tiger Reserve". India Infra Hub. 25 February 2020. from the original on 9 November 2022. Retrieved 17 September 2020.
33. Singh A.P.; Singh A.K.; Mishra D.K.; Bora P.; Sharma A. (2010). Ensuring safe access to wildlife in Lumding Reserve Forest, Assam, India, Mitigating the impacts of up-gradation of Doboka-Silchar National Highway (NH54E) (PDF). WWF-India. (PDF) from the original on 15 December 2021. Retrieved 17 September 2020.
34. SHIVANI AZAD (18 January 2019). "Elephant underpass in Rajaji hanging for 9 yrs, NGT orders NHAI to deposit Rs 2 cr". The Times of India. from the original on 9 November 2022. Retrieved 9 November 2022.
35. Chauhan, Priya (1 April 2021). "26 Important Wildlife Corridors Providing Safe Passage to Species". Planet Custodian. from the original on 23 April 2021. Retrieved 23 April 2021.
36. Fran. "Elephant corridors in Botswana to protect the herds". Your African Safari. from the original on 4 November 2022. Retrieved 4 August 2015.
37. Green, Siân E.; Davidson, Zeke; Kaaria, Timothy; Doncaster, C. Patrick (December 2018). "Do wildlife corridors link or extend habitat? Insights from elephant use of a Kenyan wildlife corridor". African Journal of Ecology. 56 (4): 860–871. Bibcode:2018AfJEc..56..860G. doi:10.1111/aje.12541.
38. Beier, Paul; Noss, Reed F. (December 1998). "Do Habitat Corridors Provide Connectivity?". Conservation Biology. 12 (6): 1241–1252. Bibcode:1998ConBi..12.1241B. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.1998.98036.x. S2CID 16770640. from the original on 13 August 2023. Retrieved 14 May 2022.
39. "Northfield Habitat Corridors". De-chant.com. from the original on 3 August 2007. Retrieved 11 August 2015.
40. . News.nationalgeographic.com. 28 October 2010. Archived from the original on 21 February 2015. Retrieved 11 August 2015.

External links

 

Wikimedia Commons has media related to Wildlife corridors.

• Defragmentation in Belgium (Flanders) - Connecting nature, connecting people. Accessed: 22 January 2009
• Wildlife Corridors Project Regeneration
• Wildlife passages - De-Fragmentation in the Netherlands - How to evaluate their effectiveness? Accessed: 22 January 2009
• CorridorDesign.org - GIS tools for designing wildlife corridors Accessed: 9 March 2010
• ConservationCorridor.org - information, tools and links to connect the science of landscape corridors to conservation in practice. Accessed: 14 September 2012