Beyond crippling bias: Carcass-location bias in roadkill studies

1Citations
Citations of this article
16Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Wildlife roadkill studies need to cope with a mismatch among recorded carcasses and actual road mortality, because of the existence of three biases: crippling, carcass-persistence, and observer bias. Here, we focused on the often overlooked crippling bias, suggesting that it should be called carcass-location bias and disentangling the related three possible outcomes for affected wildlife: injured animal escaping and dying away from road, animal rebounding off the road after vehicle collision, and animal retained by vehicle. Such outcomes can probably be affected by different species traits, and, in order to make a first evaluation of this hypothesis, we opportunistically collected 150 direct observations on the ultimate fate of roadkilled vertebrates. Approximately one third of them were affected by carcass-location bias, so extremely difficult to be recorded through typical roadkill surveys, entailing a considerable and overlooked source of error for roadkill studies and mitigation actions based on them.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Román, J., Rodríguez, C., García-Rodríguez, A., Diez-Virto, I., Gutiérrez-Expósito, C., Jubete, F., … D’Amico, M. (2024). Beyond crippling bias: Carcass-location bias in roadkill studies. Conservation Science and Practice, 6(4). https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.13103

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free