Less charismatic animals are more likely to be “road killed”: human attitudes towards small animals in Brazilian roads

Roads are long and intermittent sources of wildlife loss due to their indirect effects, such as fragmentation of habitat, or their direct effects, such as constant mortality by run-over. Thus, some studies indicate that a portion of these run-over incidents may be intentional and could be avoided. We investigated whether various groups of small animals had different run-over rates and how “charisma” affects the survival chances of an animal on the roads. During our experiment, we quantiied run-over rates for models of spiders, snakes, chicks, and tree leaves (control) on three roads with different trafic volumes. We found out that snakes and spiders were consistently ran over with a higher frequency than chicks and leaves. We also observed that chicks were the only models rescued by human beings. We concluded that the survival chances of chicks are the highest among

Several field biologists observe during their expeditions that a portion of the dead fauna is found at less traficked areas of roads, something which suggests that a number of run-over incidents may be intentional (ASHLEY et al., 2007;BECKMANN;SHINE, 2012).Although intuitive, there is still little evidence supporting such a suggestion (LANGLEY et al., 1989;ASHLEY et al., 2007).
Here, we study a potential intentionality factor that inluences on run-over rate in various groups of small animals, in order to discuss possible measures to increase public awareness and knowledge.

Field experiment
To test drivers' reaction to animals, we used realistic plastic models of spiders, snakes, and chicks, and a real tree leaf, aimed at serving as a control (Figure 1).We chose the tree leaf because this is a usual object on the road, i.e. it presumably does not change drivers' perception and behavior, thus run-over incidents involving the tree leaf were regarded as merely accidental.
We regarded as "valid vehicles" those travelling by themselves, around 250 m away from the next vehicle, using criteria adapted from Ashley et al. (2007), and all stretches chosen were straight lines, in order to allow viewing the models with no implication on the safety of drivers who intentionally steered their vehicles to hit the models.During daytime, each model was individually placed in less traficked areas of roads (lane center and

Discussion
In our experiment, we observed no signiicant difference regarding run-over rates between the roads.Even when comparing a slower and less used route, such as RS-511, with a route with heavier trafic volume, such as BR-286.These inding indicates that, in addition to accidental run-over incidents, a drivers' behavioral factor is also involved.Although Ashley et al. (2007) have recorded a lower run-over rate, they also identiied a behavioral factor inluencing on reptile run over.
However, we already expected that the rate of accidents per unit time were different between roads, with higher rates on the road that has a heavier low of vehicles, even considering the increased number of vehicles that were discarded for not meeting our inclusion criteria.This result is consistent with the suggestion by Fahrig et al. (1995) that the higher the volume and trafic speed, the greater the probability that an animal cannot complete the crossing, because this relation clearly increases the probability of accidental run-over incidents.Our results do not conirm the suggestion by Beckmann and Shine (2012) that on the slower roads intentional run-over incidents may be more frequent.It is likely that our inclusion criterion, i.e. "valid vehicles", reveals a clearer pattern than considering all vehicles.
The spider and snake models, i.e. animals culturally regarded as less charismatic (CZECH et al., 1998;DAVEY et al., 1998), were hit by vehicles more frequently than the tree leaf (control) and chicks.This result also highlights the existence of an intentionality degree among drivers who seem to deliberately run over small animals on the roads.This is consistent with the results reported by Knight (2008) and suggests that populations of less charismatic animals are at a higher risk on the roads because, in addition to accidental run-over incidents, they also face negative attitudes of drivers.
This behavior towards some animals was clearly observed during ieldwork, although we tested only drivers' reaction; the snake models were approached twice by pedestrians who tried to kill the "animal" by using stones and wood pieces.
In our study, we used chicks as representatives of a culturally charismatic animal (COURSEY, 1997).In most cases, these models were accidentally hit, since the run-over rates were lower than those of tree leaves (control) and they were also the only models with rescue attempts, when some drivers stopped their cars and turned back to remove animals from the area with potential risk.This indicates that rather "charismatic" animals may be at lower risk on the roads, as they are often actively avoided and occasionally rescued.
We also observed, with no quantitative data, that drivers frequently steered their vehicles to avoid hitting the chicks and they rarely tried to avoid snakes and spiders.
Our results indicate that, in addition to the risks of accidental run-over incidents, there is also an intentionality factor that increases the risk for "less charismatic" species and decreases the risk for more charismatic species.
The reasons for this negative attitude towards some animal groups may derive from a cultural prejudice against the species.We agree with the suggestions by Merckelbach et al. (1993) and Ceríaco (2012) that folklore and negative perceptions are effective predictors of persecution and anti-conservationist attitudes towards less charismatic animals.
A irst step to promote conservation is broadcasting campaigns in the media to increase public awareness and knowledge; this is a cost-effective way to reach a high number of people with a relatively low investment (SALAFSKY et al., 2002).
Most public policy campaigns around the world regarding run-over incidents on the roads refers to large animals (HUIJSER et al., 2009), mainly aiming Less charismatic animals are more likely to be road killed at trafic safety instead of conservation (CONOVER et al., 1995;PUTMAM, 1997;GARRETT;CONWAY, 1999;D'ANGELO et al., 2006;POKORNY, 2006;BISSONETTE;ROSA, 2012).Thus, small animals, which do not pose immediate risk to trafic safety, suffer an even more critical threat, since there seems to have no conservation campaigns to mitigate damage to small wildlife, especially when considering the rates of intentional run-over incidents.
We agree that, even with mitigation efforts, roads tend to be a persistent source of animal mortality in time and space, due to the proximity to natural areas and the constant low of vehicles; they will invariably cause negative impacts on the fauna (TROMBULAK;FRISSELL, 2000).Aiming public campaigns to wildlife conservation, by increasing awareness and knowledge on the importance of the various animal species, constitutes a signiicant way to reduce the rate of intentional runover incidents and, therefore, minimize the negative effects of roads on animal populations.
We conclude that there is an intentionality factor in relation to run-over incidents involving less charismatic animals, something which leads us to suggest the broadcasting of campaigns in the media aimed at the conservation of wildlife.

TABLE 1 :
Results of the post-hoc Tukey's paired test.