Recommendations for the establishment of a trans-island canopy bridge network to support primate movement across Langkawi Island, Malaysia
B ENJAMIN GAL EA 1 , 2 ,I RSHAD MOBARAK3,NUR AFIQAH I ZZATI 4,MAY YIN FONG 4 MUHAMMAD F IRDAUS DEV ABDULLAH4,AZMIL MUNIF MOHD B UKHARI5 CHEN KIM L IM 6 and NADINE RUPP E RT * 1 , 2
Abstract The expansion of transportation and service cor- ridors has numerous, well-documented adverse effects on wildlife. However, little research on this topic has been translated into mitigating the effects of habitat frag- mentation caused by road development on primates. The establishment of canopy bridges has proven to be an effective conservation intervention. Of the completed primate canopy bridge projects reported in the literature, to our knowledge, all attempt to mitigate the impacts caused by singular, linear infrastructure routes. Here we provide recommendations for the establishment of a network of natural and artificial canopy bridges over roads throughout Langkawi Island, Malaysia, to reduce rates of roadkill and support the movement of primates and other arboreal animals across the island by identifying suitable sites and appropriate tree species to be planted (including Ficus racemosa and Ficus fistulosa), bridge materials and post- installation monitoring. The establishment of this pioneer- ing trans-island canopy bridge network could function as a model to enhance connectivity for arboreal animals in other important wildlife habitat sites in Malaysia and beyond that are affected by fragmentation from linear infrastructure. We have begun discussions with relevant authorities, partners and other pertinent parties, focusing on the initiation of construction of the canopy bridge network in 2024.
Keywords Canopy bridges, connectivity, Ficus, Langkawi Island, Malaysia, primates, roadkill, wildlife corridors
he expansion of transportation and service networks and their threats to wildlife are relatively well docu- mented (Fahrig & Rytwinski, 2009; Barrientos et al., 2021).
T
*Corresponding author,
n.ruppert@
usm.my 1School of Biological Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang, Malaysia 2Malaysian Primatological Society, Kulim, Malaysia 3JungleWalla, Langkawi, Malaysia 4The Datai Langkawi, Langkawi, Malaysia 5Langkawi Development Authority, Langkawi, Malaysia 6Langkawi Research Centre, Tuanku Abdul Halim Mu’adzam Shah Campus,
Institute for Environment and Development, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Langkawi, Malaysia
Received 15 May 2023. Revision requested 14 July 2023. Accepted 21 August 2023. First published online 20 November 2023.
The consequences of this for arboreal animals, particularly primates, have been increasingly explored but little of this research has been translated into effective and sustainable mitigation measures (Ascensão et al., 2021; Galea & Humle, 2022). Of the measures implemented to mitigate the effects of transportation-related habitat fragmentation on primates, canopy bridges (both natural and artificial) have so far been the most widely utilized, and they have proven to be effective (Galea & Humle, 2022). Existing literature on primate canopy bridges primarily focuses on mitigating the impacts of linear infrastructure routes. Numerous initiatives have successfully utilized canopy bridges as a means of facilitating primate movement and dispersal by maintaining canopy connectivity or reconnect- ing fragmented habitats (Gregory et al., 2017; Cunneyworth et al., 2022). Similarly, artificial canopy bridges have been established to prevent or reduce primate–vehicle collisions and powerline electrocutions (Teixeira et al., 2013; Linden et al., 2020; Yap et al., 2022). The science of artificial crossing structures is faced
with knowledge gaps and implementation challenges that require attention. Despite being a promising conservation intervention, the impacts of these structures on mortality and survival rates of most primate populations remain poorly known because of the difficulty of measuring these rates both before and after bridge implementation. Furthermore, some species, such as spider monkeys Ateles spp. (Aureli et al., 2022), exhibit avoidance behaviour towards certain artificial crossing structures. Further research is necessary to address these gaps, overcome implementation challenges and improve knowledge of the effectiveness of artificial crossing structures for primate conservation. Here we propose establishing a network of canopy bridges over roads in Langkawi Island, Malaysia, to facilitate primate and arboreal animal movement across an increasingly fragmented landscape and to reduce roadkill and negative human–primate interactions (e.g. food provisioning) along roadsides. Our approach aligns closely with the concept of corridor networks, which involves assessing the spatial arrangements of habitat patches and connecting them to facilitate wildlife move- ments across fragmented landscapes (Rayfield et al., 2016). In this case we propose the development of the first trans-island canopy bridge network in Malaysia (possibly
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited. Oryx, 2024, 58(2), 187–191 © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S0030605323001333
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140
