Dear Zsolt Torok,

I did not come across such hypothesis before. Can not exclude it - but that would be only a case in a landscape / agricultural areas that are used with rather low intensity and still host pretty high biodiversity related to low-intensity agricultural areas of Europe (as still large part of Central and eastern Europe is). You would for sure find some animals than on such road sides - but not because they are such a good habitats - but because these animals are wide-spread in the surroundings anyway. If the agricultural activity is intensive- than such road edges are small, polluted, (fertilizers, pesticides) and often disturbed (driven flat by mega large tractors). Looking from the point of view of (very intensive) use of land in the Netherlands - there is virtually no space left - even in such " marginal land" for small mammals, reptiles, or even insects (Carabidae, spiders, etc) . Some attempts are made to re-create a buffer strips (eg not productive and managed less often, seeded with flower-rich seed mixtures) among others for such fauna - but this has nothing to do with wind miles and the effectiveness of it is questioned. In Netherlands the intensive land use and the wind parks can be easily combined (and are -as alternative income sources for farmers) - often with (proven) negative effect : because of negative impact on beds, breeding birds and migrating birds. So you get even less species there , and no positive effects on other fauna groups. In the context of low-intensity agriculture land: there is many (rare and endangered) species that are actually related to large-scale, open areas (former steppe, living in a replacement, sub-optimal habitat of agricultural land = typical birds, Great Bustard e.g.? rodents), with spots of bare soil, maybe some bushes, other small scale natural elements in the landscape etc. - these species would probably not be happy with wind miles and new roads? You also make an assumptions that these road sides would be somehow managed and managed in an ecologically-friendly way, but not so much used (otherwise you have a problem with the road kills). This may very well not be the case - because it cost money. I guess creating enclaves - stripes of bare soil, anti-erosion stripes of bushes / hedgerows , small water holes or mini-wetlands in a lower parts of landscapes (and pay for it as for "environmental services" ) etc. would be much better for species maintenance (probably for small mammals and reptiles as well) . I think ecologists should be careful here - such arguments (positive effect of new roads on some species) can be easily missuses by developers-lobby and farmers: "see new roads and wind miles are good for nature ! " to avoid nature -protection regulations (e.g. ban of constructing such new infrastructure in or near of Natura 2000 areas or other areas of special interests etc. ) or used than in every case and any time, without any critical thinking. best regards, dr. Agata Klimkowska, the Netherlands

Dear Agata Klimkowska,

"You would for sure find some animals than on such road sides - but not because they are such a good habitats - but because these animals are wide-spread in the surroundings anyway."

Of course, this is happening in most of the cases. But, for example, the Sand Lizards (Lacerta agilis) are not a very common species on the mainland, even if the species has dense populations on the marine levees (sand-spits) of the Razim-Sinoe lagoons (a region located southward of the proper Danube Delta). So, the populations on the mainland have stripe-like distribution-areas, along the rivlets (small rivers) and roads (practically the populate the vegetation stripes along the side of the roads, because in many cases the surrounding areas are agricultures).

That is why I was wandering if the newly created roads, that are crossing the monocultures, are not representing for this species - and probably, for others, too - good opportunities to expand their range?

P.S. in many cases the lizards, mammals (like Meles meles) are present only on some small hills, in the middle of monocultures (most of those hills were burial sites, built by Scythians, and probably other ancient people, and usually they are declared archaeological heritage sites, consequently it is forbidden to use agricultural practices on them - which is good for the wild flora and fauna, even if this sites are representing only some natural "islands" in the middle of anthropic "oceans").

The SLOSS debate may add to your argument

Carlos Matorell: "The SLOSS debate"

What means "SLOSS"?

Probably is an abbreviation... but of what expression?

It means "single large or several small". It is an old debate related to reserve design. The debate was over whether one large reserve would hold a greater species diversity (as predicted by island biogeography theory) or this goal could be better achieved with a set of smaller reserves. There are some datasets that support each idea. As expected, each small reserve sustains a small number of species (alpha diversity) but due to the increased beta diversity they frequently hold a greater number of species when considered together. I guess that fragmentation due to roads may lead to such scenario, specially if small vertebrates that do not have large home ranges are considered. Unfortunately I am not so much into this debate, so I cannot suggest any specific readings.

Carlos Martorell: "Unfortunately I am not so much into this debate, so I cannot suggest any specific readings"

Dear Carlos,

Magurran's and MacArthur's works (related to those subjects) were probably of great help for many researchers...

Anyway, in quite many cases seems to be a little bit to much the designation of huge areas as protected sites for conservation of species nowadays present in quite fragmented habitats.

OK, in our country I know quite many cases when - just as example - instead of 100 hectares "worthwhile" to include into a network of protected areas (either the national network or the Natura 2000 European network) there were proposed 10,000 or more hectares - in the idea that "no matter, because the decision makers (in most of the cases "experts" from he ministry) will cut at least - in best case - half of the surface, depending on the interest they have in certain development projects from the respective area"

The irony of the fate is that the same technique used in a period with economic crisis (when there were not very many investments in development) most of the proposals are accepted as they were submitted to the decision makers.

As a result, at about 20% of he country was transformed into "protected area" of EU Community Interest, in spite of the fact that there are no man-power, financial support or technical/logistic background to manage at least one of the (roughly) 1000 protected sites officially declared in the last few years... :LOL:

I was at a feral hog presentation about a month ago where US Fish and Wildlife and Louisiana Wildlife and Fisheries were presenting GPS tracking data for feral hog movements. The feral hogs showed avoidance of roads once they became 2 lane paved roads, and no avoidance for gravel or dirt roads. I can't remember the names of the presenters. I would imagine a road is a highly dangerous area for small animals due to aerial predation, but again I don't know the literature.

Daniel Kroes: " I would imagine a road is a highly dangerous area for small animals due to aerial predation"

Well, in case of the wind-farms, also due to the road-killings (especially in the weeks of building the mills).

In the period when the wind-turbines are functioning, the cars are there only at bigger intervals.

In the western United States the wind farms have killed large numbers of birds with the death rate highest during migration patterns.. Environmental groups are currently contesting the "taking" of birds of prey, golden eagles and hawks (various spp). Oil companies have been heavily fined for verification on an occasional taking of an endangered sp. by the Fish and Wildlife Service.

The wind farms create habitats suitable for small rodents and ground nesting birds, making the area more conducive for aerial predators.

Robert Stryker: "The wind farms create habitats suitable for small rodents and ground nesting birds, making the area more conducive for aerial predators."

well, the birds flying under 50 m (measured from the ground level...) are lucky

those flying between 50 and 150 m above the ground are exposed to collisions... at least in this region

When building wind farm infrastructure in the UK, one of the planning requirements can be habitat enhancement. It would be quite acceptable to provide habitat improvement at the road sides to create niches for amphibians. It usually consist of a weighted board of impervious material around 600mm x 300mm under which they can shelter. they can then forage in the road areas and get heat from the higher temperature on the road surfaces. It is advisable to make sure that no physical traps are created during construction and operation. The correct placement and design is usually overseen here by the appointed ECoW (Ecological Clerk of Works)