Search

Menu
Search
in Ecology

Barrier impermeability is associated with migratory ungulate survival rates

40 Views

Abstract

Barriers can affect the movement, migratory patterns, and demographic rates of ungulates. Even in highly remote areas with relatively little development, like northwest Alaska, isolated roads can alter the movements of ungulates such as caribou (Rangifer tarandus). Here, a solitary, 80-km long industrial road connecting a large zinc and lead mine to a port affects caribou migrations. Using location and survival data from 366 GPS collared, adult female caribou representing > 850 caribou-years from 2010 to 2023, we assessed whether caribou whose fall movements were altered by the road experienced higher mortality risk compared to those whose movements were unaltered. Of the 101 caribou-years that came within 20 km of the road, 58% displayed altered movements. The survival rate of caribou whose movements were unaltered by the road was 20% higher than those caribou whose movements were altered by it, though difference was not significant (p > 0.05). Increased movements, delayed migration, and/or changes in habitat selection related to altered movements could still have energetic and demographic consequences. Caribou that crossed or circumvented the road had significantly higher survival rates (78.5% survived until calving) than caribou that did not cross or circumvent the road (i.e., it acted as an impermeable barrier and the caribou wintered north of it; 57.9%). Given our results, we posit that enhancing the permeability of roads could improve the survival of caribou in the region.

Data availability

Survival data used for this analysis will be made available in the NPS’ publicly-accessible database (IRMA; https://irma.nps.gov) upon manuscript acceptance.

References

  1. Fryxell, J. M. & Sinclair, A. R. E. Causes and consequences of migration by large herbivores. Trends Ecol. Evol. 3, 237–241 (1988).

    Google Scholar 

  2. Avgar, T., Street, G. & Fryxell, J. M. On the adaptive benefits of mammal migration. Can. J. Zool. 92, 481–490. https://doi.org/10.1139/cjz-2013-0076 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  3. Mariani, P., Krivan, V., MacKenzie, B. R. & Mullon, C. The migration game in habitat network: the case of tuna. Theoretical Ecol. 9, 219–232 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  4. Van Moorter, B. et al. Consequences of barriers and changing seasonality on population dynamics and harvest of migratory ungulates. Theoretical Ecol. 13, 595–605. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12080-020-00471-w (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  5. Berger, J. The last mile: how to sustain long-distance migration in mammals. Conserv. Biol. 18, 320–331 (2004).

    Google Scholar 

  6. Wilcove, D. S., Wikelski, M. & Going, going, gone: is animal migration disappearing? PLoS Biol. 6, 1361–1364 (2008).

    Google Scholar 

  7. Harris, G., Thirgood, S., Hopcraft, J. G. C., Cromsigt, J. P. G. M. & Berger, J. Global decline in aggregated migrations of large terrestrial mammals. Endanger. Species Res. 7, 55–76 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  8. Ito, T. Y. et al. Fragmentation of the habitat of wild ungulates by anthropogenic barriers in Mongolia. PLoS ONE. 8, e56995. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0056995 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  9. Kauffman, M. J. et al. Mapping out a future for ungulate migrations. Science 372, 566–569. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abf0998 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  10. Klein, D. R. Reaction of reindeer to obstructions and disturbances: experience in Scandinavia May aid in anticipating problems with caribou in Canada and Alaska. Science 173, 393–398 (1971).

    Google Scholar 

  11. Sawyer, H. et al. A framework for Understanding semi-permeable barrier effects on migratory ungulates. J. Appl. Ecol. 50, 68–78 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  12. Beyer, H. L. et al. You shall not pass!’: quantifying barrier permeability and proximity avoidance by animals. J. Anim. Ecol. 85, 43–53 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  13. Xu, W., Gigliotti, L. C., Royauté, R., Sawyer, H. & Middleton, A. D. Fencing amplifies individual differences in movement with implications on survival for two migratory ungulates. J. Anim. Ecol. 92, 677–689. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2656.13879 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  14. Harrington, J. L. & Conover, M. R. Characteristics of ungulate behavior and mortality associated with wire fences. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 34, 1295–1305 (2006).

    Google Scholar 

  15. Rey, A., Novaro, A. J. & Guichón, M. L. Guanaco (Lama guanicoe) mortality by entanglement in wire fences. J. Nat. Conserv. 20, 280–283 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  16. Wilson, R. R., Parrett, L. S., Joly, K. & Dau. J. R Effects of roads on individual caribou movements during migration. Biol. Conserv. 195, 2–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2015.12.035 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  17. Boulanger, J. et al. Estimating the effects of roads on migration: a barren-ground caribou case study. Can. J. Zool. 102, 476–493. https://doi.org/10.1139/cjz-2023-0121 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  18. Eacker, D. R., Jakes, A. F. & Jones, P. F. Spatiotemporal risk factors predict landscape-scale survivorship for a Northern ungulate. Ecosphere 14, e4341. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.4341 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  19. Severson, J. P., Vosburgh, T. C. & Johnson, H. E. Effects of vehicle traffic on space use and road crossings of caribou in the Arctic. Ecol. Appl. 33, e2923. https://doi.org/10.1002/eap.2923 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  20. Bråthen, K. A. et al. Induced shift in ecosystem productivity? Extensive scale effects of abundant large herbivores. Ecosystems 10, 773–789 (2007).

    Google Scholar 

  21. Bernes, C., Bråthen, K. A., Forbes, B. C., Speed, J. D. M. & Moen, J. What are the impacts of reindeer/caribou (Rangifer Tarandus L.) on Arctic and alpine vegetation? A systematic review. Environ. Evid. 4, 4. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13750-014-0030-3 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  22. Joly, K. et al. Longest terrestrial migrations and movements around the world. Sci. Rep. 9, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-51884-5 (2019). Article 15333.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Cameron, M. D., Eisaguirre, J. M., Breed, G. A., Joly, K. & Kielland, K. Mechanistic movement models identify continuously updated autumn migration cues in Arctic caribou. Mov. Ecol. 9, 54. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40462-021-00288-0 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  24. Joly, K. & Cameron, M. D. Early fall and late winter diets of migratory caribou in Northwest Alaska. Rangifer 38, 27–38. https://doi.org/10.7557/2.38.1.4107 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  25. Webber, Q. M. R., Ferraro, K. M., Hendrix, J. G. & Vander Wal, E. What do caribou eat? A review of the literature on caribou diet. Can. J. Zool. 100, 197–207. https://doi.org/10.1139/cjz-2021-0162 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  26. Joly, K., Cameron, M. D. & White, R. G. Behavioral adaptation to seasonal resource scarcity by caribou (Rangifer tarandus) and its role in partial migration. J. Mammal. 106, 96–104. https://doi.org/10.1093/jmammal/gyae100 (2025).

    Google Scholar 

  27. Gordon, B. C. 8000 years of caribou and human seasonal migration in the Canadian barrenlands. Rangifer Special Issue. 16, 155–162 (2005).

    Google Scholar 

  28. Borish, D. et al. Relationships between Rangifer and Indigenous well-being in the North American Arctic and subarctic: a review based on the academic published literature. Arctic 75, 86–104 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  29. Watson, J. E. M. et al. Catastrophic declines in wilderness areas undermine global environment targets. Curr. Biol. 26, 2929–2934 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  30. Bartsch, A. et al. Expanding infrastructure and growing anthropogenic impacts along Arctic Coasts. Environ. Res. Lett. 16, 115013. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ac3176 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  31. Panzacchi, M. et al. Predicting the continuum between corridors and barriers to animal movements using step selection functions and randomized shortest paths. J. Anim. Ecol. 85, 32–42. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2656.12386 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  32. Smith, A. & Johnson, C. J. Why didn’t the caribou (Rangifer Tarandus groenlandicus) cross the winter road? The effect of industrial traffic on the road-crossing decisions of caribou. Biodivers. Conserv. 32, 2943–2959. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-023-02637-4 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  33. Joly, K. & Cameron, M. D. Caribou vital sign annual report for the Arctic Network Inventory and Monitoring Program. Sci. Rep. https://doi.org/10.36967/2306687 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  34. Joly, K. et al. Caribou and reindeer migrations in the changing Arctic. Anim. Migrations. 8, 156–167. https://doi.org/10.1515/ami-2020-0110 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  35. Graham, M. Feds approve key step towards expansion at major Northwest Alaska zinc mine. Northern J. https://www.adn.com/business-economy/2024/12/14/feds-approve-key-step-toward-expansion-at-major-northwest-alaska-zinc-mine/ (2024).

  36. Dau, J. Western Arctic herd. In Caribou Management Report of Survey and Inventory activities, 1 July 2000–30 June 2002. Study 3.0 (ed. Healy, C.) 204–251 (Alaska Department of Fish and Game, 2003).

    Google Scholar 

  37. Gunn, A. Voles, lemmings and caribou-population cycles revisited? Rangifer Special Issue. 14, 105–111 (2003).

    Google Scholar 

  38. Joly, K., Klein, D. R., Verbyla, D. L., Rupp, T. S. & Chapin, F. S. III Linkages between large-scale climate patterns and the dynamics of Alaska caribou populations. Ecography 34, 345–352. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0587.2010.06377.x (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  39. Teck Resources Limited. Red Dog. https://www.teck.com/operations/united-states/operations/red-dog/ (2024).

  40. Macander, M. J., Swingley, C. S., Joly, K. & Raynolds, M. Landsat-based snow persistence map for Northwest Alaska. Remote Sens. Environ. 163, 23–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2015.02.028 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  41. Swanson, D. K. Trends in greenness and snow cover in alaska’s Arctic National Parks, 2000–2016. Remote Sens. 9, 514. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs9060514 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  42. Joly, K., Gurarie, E., Hansen, D. A., Cameron, M. D. & M D Seasonal patterns of Spatial fidelity and Temporal consistency in the distribution and movements of a migratory ungulate. Ecol. Evol. 11, 8183–8200. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.7650 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  43. Prichard, A. K. et al. Achieving a representative sample of marked animals: a Spatial approach to evaluating post-capture randomization. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 47 (1), e1398. https://doi.org/10.1002/wsb.1398 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  44. Fullman, T. J., Gustine, J. K., Cameron, M. D. & D. D. & Behavioral responses of migratory caribou to semi-permeable roads in Arctic Alaska. Sci. Rep. 15, 24712. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-10216-6 (2025).

    Google Scholar 

  45. Xu, W., Dejid, N., Herrmann, V., Sawyer, H. & Middleton, A. D. Barrier behaviour analysis (BaBA) reveals extensive effects of fencing on wide-ranging ungulates. J. Appl. Ecol. 58, 690–698 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  46. Therneau, T. M. & Grambsch, P. M. Modeling Survival Data: Extending the Cox Model. (Springer, 2000).

  47. Therneau, T. M. A package for survival analysis in R. Manual. https://CRAN. R-project.org/package = survival (2022).

  48. R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2024).

  49. Cameron, M. D., Joly, K., Breed, G. A., Parrett, L. S. & Kielland, K. Movement-based methods to infer parturition events in migratory ungulates. Can. J. Zool. 96, 1187–1195. https://doi.org/10.1139/cjz-2017-0314 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  50. Kelsall, J. P. The Migratory Barren-Ground Caribou Of Canada. 339 (Queen’s Printer, 1968).

  51. Bergerud, A. T. Rutting behaviour of Newfoundland caribou. In The Behaviour Of Ungulates And Its Relation To Management. V. Geist and F. Walther, editors. International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources. 395–435 (1974).

  52. Whitten, K. R., Garner, G. W., Mauer, F. J. & Harris, R. B. Productivity and early calf survival in the Porcupine caribou herd. J. Wildl. Manage. 56, 201–212 (1992).

    Google Scholar 

  53. Gurarie, E. et al. Evidence for an adaptive, large-scale range shift in a long-distance terrestrial migrant. Glob. Change Biol. 30, e17589. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.17589 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  54. Miller, F. L., Jonkel, C. J. & Tessier, G. D. Group cohesion and leadership response by barren-ground caribou to man-made barriers. Arctic 25, 193–202 (1972). https://www.jstor.org/stable/40508046

    Google Scholar 

  55. Bart, J., Fligner, M. A. & Notz, W. I. Sampling and Statistical Methods for Behavioral Ecologists. 330 (Cambridge University Press, 1998).

  56. Fancy, S. G. & White, R. G. Energy expenditures for locomotion by barren-ground caribou. Can. J. Zool. 65, 122–128. https://doi.org/10.1139/z87-018 (1987).

    Google Scholar 

  57. Parker, K. L., Barboza, P. S. & Gillingham, M. P. Nutrition integrates environmental responses of ungulates. Funct. Ecol. 23, 57–69. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2435.2009.01528.x (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  58. Wasser, S. K., Keim, J. L., Taper, M. L. & Lele, S. R. The influences of Wolf predation, habitat loss, and human activity on caribou and moose in the Alberta oil sands. Front. Ecol. Environ. 9, 546–551. https://doi.org/10.1890/100071 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  59. Cameron, R. D. & Ver Hoef, J. M. Predicting parturition rate of caribou from autumn body mass. J. Wildl. Manage. 58, 674–679 (1994).

    Google Scholar 

  60. Gerhart, K. L., Russell, D. E., Van DeWetering, D., White, R. G. & Cameron, R. D. Pregnancy of adult caribou (Rangifer tarandus): evidence for lactational infertility. J. Zool. 242, 17–30 (1997).

    Google Scholar 

  61. Johnson, C. J., Venter, O., Ray, J. C. & Watson, J. E. M. Growth-inducing infrastructure represents transformative yet ignored keystone environmental decisions. Conserv. Lett. 13, e12696. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12696 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank A. Hansen (Alaska Department of Fish and Game) for his ongoing collaboration that makes our long-term monitoring program possible. We also thank the many people that have helped deploy GPS collars over the years. Funding for this project was provided by the National Park Service, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, and NSF Navigating the New Arctic grant 212727 (Fate of the Caribou). We thank H. Johnson, A. Hansen, S. Karpovich, and N. Edmison for reviews of a previous draft of this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Arctic Inventory and Monitoring Program, National Park Service, Gates of the Arctic National Park and Preserve, Fairbanks, AK, USA

    Kyle Joly & Matthew D. Cameron

  2. College of Environmental Science and Forestry, State University of New York, Syracuse, NY, USA

    Chloe Beaupré, Nicole Barbour & Eliezer Gurarie

  3. The Wilderness Society, Anchorage, AK, USA

    Timothy J. Fullman

Authors

  1. Kyle Joly
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Chloe Beaupré
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Timothy J. Fullman
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Matthew D. Cameron
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Nicole Barbour
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Eliezer Gurarie
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Data acquisition: KJ and MDC. Data management: KJ, MDC, and CB. Conceptualization and data interpretation: all authors. Data Analysis: CB, EG, TJF, KJ, and MDC. Original draft: KJ. Manuscript review, revision, and submission approval: all authors.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to
Eliezer Gurarie.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Joly, K., Beaupré, C., Fullman, T.J. et al. Barrier impermeability is associated with migratory ungulate survival rates.
Sci Rep (2025). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-31911-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-31911-4

Keywords

  • Alaska
  • Caribou
  • Mortality risk
  • Permeability
  • Rangifer tarandus
  • Roads

Source: Ecology - nature.com

Defensive responses of titan triggerfish to tiger sharks at a provisioned reef

Conventional approaches to indicators and metrics undermine urban climate adaptation

This portal is not a newspaper as it is updated without periodicity. It cannot be considered an editorial product pursuant to law n. 62 of 7.03.2001. The author of the portal is not responsible for the content of comments to posts, the content of the linked sites. Some texts or images included in this portal are taken from the internet and, therefore, considered to be in the public domain; if their publication is violated, the copyright will be promptly communicated via e-mail. They will be immediately removed.

Back to Top
Close