Barbed and woven wire fences, common structures across western North America, act as impediments to wildlife movements. In particular, fencing influences pronghorn (Antilocapra americana) daily and seasonal movements, as well as modifying habitat selection. Because of fencing's impacts to pronghorn and other wildlife, it is a potentially important factor in both wildlife movement and habitat selection models. At this time, no geospatial fencing data is available at regional scales. Consequently, we constructed a regional fence model using a series of land tenure assumptions for the Hi-Line region of northern Montana – an area consisting of 13 counties over 103,400 km2. Randomized 3.2 km long transects (n = 738) on both paved and unpaved roads were driven to collect information on habitat, fence densities and fence type. Using GIS, we constructed a fence location and a density model incorporating ownership, size, neighboring parcels, township boundaries and roads. Local knowledge of land ownership and land use assisted in improving the final models. We predict there is greater than 263,300 km of fencing in the Hi-Line region, with a maximum density of 6.8 km of fencing per km2 and mean density of 2.4 km of fencing per km2. Using field data to assess model accuracy, Cohen's Kappa was measured at 0.40. On-the-ground fence modification or removal could be prioritized by identifying high fence densities in critical wildlife areas such as pronghorn migratory pathways or sage grouse lekking habitat. Such novel fence data can assist wildlife and land managers to assess effects of anthropogenic features to wildlife at various scales; which in turn may help conserve declining grassland species and overall ecological functionality.
References
[1]
Harris G, Thirgood S, Hopcraft JGC, Cromsigt JPGM, Berger J (2009) Global decline in aggregated migrations of large terrestrial mammals. Endang Sp Res 7: 55–76.
[2]
Berger J (2004) The last mile: how to sustain long-distance migration in mammals. Conserv Biol 18: 320–331.
[3]
Whyte IJ, Joubert SCJ (1988) Blue wildebeest population trends in the Kruger National Park and the effects of fencing. S Afr Wildlife Res 18: 78–87.
[4]
Williamson D, Williamson J (1985) Botswana's fences and the depletion of Kalahari wildlife. Parks 10: 5–7.
[5]
Berry HH (1997) Aspects of wildebeest Connochaetes taurinus ecology in the Etosha National Park – a synthesis for future management. Madoqua 20: 137–148.
[6]
Spinage CA (1992) The decline of the Kalahari wildebeest. Oryx 26: 147–150.
[7]
Ben-Shahar R (1993) Does fencing reduce the carrying capacity for populations of large herbivores? J Trop Ecol 9: 249–253.
[8]
Estes R (1967) Territorial behavior of the wildebeest (Connochaetes taurinus Burchell, 1823). Zool Tierpshych 26: 284–370.
[9]
Stevens BS, Connelly JW, Reese KP (2012) Multi-scale assessment of greater sage-grouse fence collision as a function of site and broad scale factors. J Wild Manage 76: 1370–1380.
[10]
Baines D, Summers RW (1997) Assessment of bird collisions with deer fences in Scottish forests. J Appl Ecol 34: 941–948.
[11]
Moss R (2001) Second extinction of capercaillie (Tetrao urogallus) in Scotland? Biol Cons 101: 255–257.
[12]
Knick ST, Hanser SE, Miller RF, Pyke DA, Wisdom MJ, et al. (2011) Ecological influence and pathways of land use in sagebrush. Studies in Avian Biology 38: 203–251.
[13]
Hayter EW (1939) Barbed wire fencing: A prairie invention: Its rise and influence in the Western States. Agr Hist 13: 189–207.
[14]
Tufford W (1960) The wire that tamed the west. Montana 10: 62–67.
[15]
Johnson DH (1980) The Comparison of Usage and Availability Measurements for Evaluating Resource Preference. Ecology 6: 65–71.
[16]
Kie JG, Bowyer T, Nicholson MC, Boroski BB, Loft ER (2002) Landscape heterogeneity at differing scales: Effects on spatial distribution of mule deer. Ecology 83: 530–544.
[17]
Schaefer JA, Bergman CM, Luttich SN (2000) Site fidelity of female caribou at multiple spatial scales. Landscape Ecol 15: 731–739.
[18]
Boone RB, Hobbs NT (2004) Lines around fragments: effects of fencing on large herbivores. Afr J of Range For Sci 21: 147–158.
[19]
Harrington JL, Conover MR (2006) Characteristics of ungulate behavior and mortality associated with wire fences. Wildlife Soc B 34: 1295–1305.
[20]
Bolger DT, Newmark WD, Morrison TA, Doak DF (2007) The need for integrative approaches to understand and conserve migratory ungulates. Ecol Lett 10: 1–15.
[21]
Congalton RG (1981) The use of discrete multivariate analysis for the assessment of Landsat classification accuracy. MS Thesis, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA. 111 pp.
[22]
Nakazawa M (2013) Functions for medical statistics book with some demographic data. CRAN. Available: http://minato.sip21c.org/msb. Accessed 2013 May 15.
[23]
Landis J, Koch G (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33: 159–174.
[24]
Berger J, Young JK, Berger KM (2008) Protecting Migration Corridors: Challenges and Optimism for Mongolian Saiga. PLOS Biol 6: 1365–1367.
[25]
Sheldon DP (2005) Pronghorn Movement and Distribution Patterns in Relation to Roads and Fences in Southwestern Wyoming. Department of Zoology and Physiology. Laramie, University of Wyoming. Masters of Science: 126 pp.
[26]
Thirgood S, Mosser A, Tham S, Hopcraft G, Mwangomo E, et al. (2004) Can parks protect migratory ungulates? The case of the Serengeti wildebeest. Anim Conserv 7: 113–120.
[27]
Ockenfels RA, Alexander A, Ticer CLD, Carrel WK (1994) Home ranges, movement patterns, and habitat selection of pronghorn in Central Arizona. Arizona Game and Fish Department Technical Report 13, Phoenix, vi +80 pp.
[28]
Sawyer H, Kauffman MJ, Middleton AD, Morrison TA, Nielson RA, et al. (2013) A framework for understanding semi-permeable barrier effects on migratory ungulates. J Appl Ecol 50: 68–78.
[29]
Laliberte AS, Ripple WJ (2004) Range contractions of North American carnivores and ungulates. Bioscience 54: 123–137.
