Wildlife crossings are structures that allow animals to cross human-made barriers safely. Wildlife crossings may include: underpass tunnels, viaducts, and overpasses (mainly for large or herd-type animals); amphibian tunnels; fish ladders; Canopy bridge (especially for monkeys and squirrels), tunnels and culverts (for small mammals such as otters, hedgehogs, and badgers); green roofs (for butterflies and birds).
Wildlife crossings are a practice in habitat conservation, allowing connections or reconnections between habitats, combating habitat fragmentation. They also assist in avoiding collisions between vehicles and animals, which in addition to killing or injuring wildlife may cause injury to humans and property damage.
Similar structures can be used for domesticated animals, such as cattle creeps.
|This article needs additional citations for verification. (August 2017) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)|
Roads and habitat fragmentationEdit
Habitat fragmentation occurs when human-made barriers such as roads, railroads, canals, electric power lines, and pipelines penetrate and divide wildlife habitat (Primack 2006). Of these, roads have the most widespread and detrimental impacts (Spellerberg 1998). Scientists estimate that the system of roads in the United States impacts the ecology of at least one-fifth of the land area of the country (Forman 2000). For many years ecologists and conservationists have documented the adverse relationship between roads and wildlife. Jaeger et al. (2005) identify four ways that roads and traffic detrimentally impact wildlife populations: (1) they decrease habitat amount and quality, (2) they increase mortality due to wildlife-vehicle collisions (road kill), (3) they prevent access to resources on the other side of the road, and (4) they subdivide wildlife populations into smaller and more vulnerable sub-populations (fragmentation). Habitat fragmentation can lead to extinction or extirpation if a population's gene pool is restricted enough.
The first three impacts (loss of habitat, road kill, and isolation from resources) exert pressure on various animal populations by reducing available resources and directly killing individuals in a population. For instance, Bennett (1991) found that road kills do not pose a significant threat to healthy populations but can be devastating to small, shrinking, or threatened populations. Road mortality has significantly impacted a number of prominent species in the United States, including white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), Florida panthers (Puma concolor coryi), and black bears (Ursus americanus) (Clevenger et al. 2001). In addition, habitat loss can be direct, if habitat is destroyed to make room for a road, or indirect, if habitat quality close to roads is compromised due to emissions from the roads (e.g. noise, light, runoff, pollution, etc.) (Jaeger et al. 2005). Finally, species that are unable to migrate across roads to reach resources such as food, shelter and mates will experience reduced reproductive and survival rates, which can compromise population viability (Noss et al., 1996).
In addition to the first three factors, numerous studies have shown that the construction and use of roads is a direct source of habitat fragmentation (Spellerberg 1998). As mentioned above, populations surrounded by roads are less likely to receive immigrants from other habitats and as a result, they suffer from a lack of genetic diversity. These small populations are particularly vulnerable to extinction due to demographic, genetic, and environmental stochasticity because they do not contain enough alleles to adapt to new selective pressures such as changes in temperature, habitat, and food availability (Primack 2006).
The relationship between roads and habitat fragmentation is well documented. One study found that roads contribute more to fragmentation in forest habitats than clear cuts (Reed et al. 1996). Another study concluded that road fragmentation of formerly contiguous forest in eastern North America is the primary cause for the decline of forest bird species and has also significantly harmed small mammals, insects, and reptiles in the United States (Spellerberg 1998). After years of research, biologists agree that roads and traffic lead to habitat fragmentation, isolation and road kill, all of which combine to significantly compromise the viability of wildlife populations throughout the world.
In addition to conservation concerns, wildlife-vehicle collisions have a significant cost for human populations because collisions damage property and injure and kill passengers and drivers. Bruinderink & Hazebroek (1996) estimated the number of collisions with ungulates in traffic in Europe at 507,000 per year, resulting in 300 people killed, 30,000 injured, and property damage exceeding $1 billion. In parallel, 1.5 million traffic accidents involving deer in the United States cause an estimated $1.1 billion in vehicle damage each year (Donaldson 2005).
The conservation issues associated with roads (wildlife mortality and habitat fragmentation) coupled with the substantial human and economic costs resulting from wildlife-vehicle collisions have caused scientists, engineers, and transportation authorities to consider a number of mitigation tools for reducing the conflict between roads and wildlife. Of the currently available options, structures known as wildlife crossings have been the most successful at reducing both habitat fragmentation and wildlife-vehicle collisions caused by roads (Knapp et al. 2004, Clevenger, 2006).
Wildlife crossings are structural passages beneath or above roadways that are designed to facilitate safe wildlife movement across roadways (Donaldson 2005). In recent years, conservation biologists and wildlife managers have advocated wildlife crossings coupled with roadside fencing as a way to increase road permeability and habitat connectivity while decreasing wildlife-vehicle collisions. Wildlife crossing is the umbrella term encompassing underpasses, overpasses, ecoducts, green bridges, amphibian/small mammal tunnels, and wildlife viaducts (Bank et al. 2002). All of these structures are designed to provide semi-natural corridors above and below roads so that animals can safely cross without endangering themselves and motorists.
History and locationEdit
Written reports of rough fish ladders date to 17th-century France, where bundles of branches were used to create steps in steep channels to bypass obstructions. A version was patented in 1837 by Richard McFarlan of Bathurst, New Brunswick, Canada, who designed a fishway to bypass a dam at his water-powered lumber mill. In 1880, the first fish ladder was built in Rhode Island, United States, on the Pawtuxet Falls Dam. As the Industrial Age advanced, dams and other river obstructions became larger and more common, leading to the need for effective fish by-passes.
The first overland wildlife crossings were constructed in France during the 1950s (Chilson 2003). European countries including the Netherlands, Switzerland, Germany, and France have been using various crossing structures to reduce the conflict between wildlife and roads for several decades and use a variety of overpasses and underpasses to protect and re-establish wildlife such as: amphibians, badgers, ungulates, invertebrates, and other small mammals (Bank et al. 2002).
The Humane Society of the United States reports that the more than 600 tunnels installed under major and minor roads in the Netherlands have helped to substantially increase population levels of the endangered European badger. The longest "ecoduct" viaduct, near Crailo in the Netherlands, runs 800 m and spans a highway, railway and golf course.
Wildlife crossings are becoming increasingly common in Canada and the United States. Recognizable wildlife crossings are found in Banff National Park in Alberta, where vegetated overpasses provide safe passage over the Trans-Canada Highway for bears, moose, deer, wolves, elk, and many other species (Clevenger 2007). The 24 wildlife crossings in Banff were constructed as part of a road improvement project in 1978 (Clevenger 2007). In the United States, thousands of wildlife crossings have been built in the past 30 years, including culverts, bridges, and overpasses. These have been used to protect mountain goats in Montana, spotted salamanders in Massachusetts, bighorn sheep in Colorado, desert tortoises in California, and endangered Florida panthers in Florida (Chilson 2003).
Costs and benefitsEdit
The benefits derived from constructing wildlife crossings to extend wildlife migration corridors over and under major roads appear to outweigh the costs of construction and maintenance. One study estimates that adding wildlife crossings to a road project is a 7-8% increase in the total cost of the project (Bank et al. 2002). Theoretically, the monetary costs associated with constructing and maintaining wildlife crossings in ecologically important areas are trumped by the benefits associated with protecting wildlife populations, reducing property damage to vehicles, and saving the lives of drivers and passengers by reducing the number of collisions caused by wildlife.
A study completed for the Virginia Department of Transportation estimated that underpasses for wildlife become cost effective, in terms of property damage, when they prevent between 2.6 and 9.2 deer-vehicle collisions per year, depending on the cost of the underpass. Approximately 300 deer crossed through the underpasses in the year the study took place (Donaldson 2005).
A number of studies have been conducted to determine the effectiveness of wildlife corridors at providing habitat connectivity (by providing viable migration corridors) and reducing wildlife-vehicle collisions. The effectiveness of these structures appears to be highly site-specific (due to differences in location, structure, species, habitat, etc.) but crossings have been beneficial to a number of species in a variety of locations. Some of the wildlife crossing success stories are detailed below.
Banff National ParkEdit
Banff National Park offers one of the best opportunities to study the effectiveness of wildlife crossings because the park contains a wide variety of species and is bisected by a large commercial road called the Trans-Canada Highway (TCH). To reduce the effects of the four-lane TCH, 24 wildlife crossings (22 underpasses and two overpasses) were built to ensure habitat connectivity and protect motorists (Clevenger 2007). In 1996, Parks Canada developed a contract with university researchers to assess the effectiveness of the crossings. The past decade has produced a number of publications that analyze the crossings' impact on various species and overall wildlife mortality (see Clevenger & Waltho 2000, Clevenger et al. 2001, and Clevenger 2007).
Using a variety of techniques to monitor the crossings over the last 25 years, scientists report that 10 species of large mammals (including deer, elk, black bear, grizzly bear, mountain lion, wolf, moose, and coyote) have used the 24 crossings in Banff a total of 84,000 times as of January 2007 (Clevenger 2007). The research also identified a "learning curve" such that animals need time to acclimate to the structures before they feel comfortable using them. For example, grizzly bear crossings increased from seven in 1996 to more than 100 in 2006, although the actual number of individual bears using the structures remained constant over this time at between 2 and 4 bears (Parks Canada, unpublished results). A similar set of observations was made for wolves, with crossings increasing from two to approximately 140 over the same 10-year period. However, in this case the actual number of wolves in the packs using the crossings increased dramatically, from a low of two up to a high of over 20 individuals. In continuation with these positive results, Clevenger et al. (2001) reported that the use of wildlife crossings and fencing reduced traffic-induced mortality of large ungulates on the TCH by more than 80 percent. Recent analysis for carnivores showed results were not as positive however, with bear mortality increasing by an average of 116 percent in direct parallel to an equal doubling of traffic volumes on the highway, clearly showing no effect of fencing to reduce bear mortality (Hallstrom, Clevenger, Maher and Whittington, in prep). Research on the crossings in Banff has thus shown mixed value of wildlife crossings depending on the species in question.
Parks Canada is currently planning to build 17 additional crossing structures across the TCH to increase driver safety near the hamlet of Lake Louise. Lack of effectiveness of standard fencing in reducing bear mortality demonstrates that additional measures such as wire 'T-caps' on the fence may be needed for fencing to mitigate effectively for bears (Hallstrom, Clevenger, Maher and Whittington, in prep).
Collier and Lee counties in FloridaEdit
Twenty-four wildlife crossings (highway underpasses) and 12 bridges modified for wildlife have been constructed along a 40-mile stretch of Interstate 75 in Collier and Lee counties in Florida (Scott 2007). These crossings are specifically designed to target and protect the endangered Florida panther, a subspecies of mountain lion found in the southeastern United States. Scientists estimate that there are only 80-100 Florida panthers alive in the wild, making them one of the most endangered large mammals in North America (Foster and Humphrey, 1995). The Florida panther is particularly vulnerable to wildlife-vehicle collisions, which claimed 11 panthers in 2006 and 14 panthers in 2007 (Scott 2007).
The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) has used a number of mitigation tools in an effort to protect Florida panthers and the combination of wildlife crossings and fences have proven the most effective (Scott 2007). As of 2007, no panthers have been killed in areas equipped with continuous fencing and wildlife crossings and the FWC is planning to construct many more crossing structures in the future. The underpasses on I-75 also appeared to benefit bobcats, deer, and raccoons and significantly reduced wildlife-vehicle collisions along the interstate (Foster and Humphrey, 1995).
Underpasses in southern CaliforniaEdit
Wildlife crossings have also been important for protecting biodiversity in several areas of southern California. In San Bernardino County, biologists have erected fences along State Route 58 to complement underpasses (culverts) that are being used by the threatened desert tortoise. Tortoise deaths on the highway declined by 93% during the first four years after the introduction of the fences, proving that even makeshift wildlife crossings (storm-drainage culverts in this case) have the ability to increase highway permeability and protect sensitive species (Chilson 2003). Additionally, studies by Haas (2000) and Lyren (2001) report that underpasses in Orange, Riverside, and Los Angeles Counties have drawn significant use from a variety of species including bobcats, coyotes, gray fox, mule deer, and long-tailed weasels. These results could be extremely important for wildlife conservation efforts in the region's Puente Hills and Chino Hills links, which have been increasingly fragmented by road construction (Haas 2000).
The Netherlands has over 66 wildlife crossings (overpasses and ecoducts) that have been used to protect the endangered European badger, as well as populations of wild boar, red deer, and roe deer. As of 2012, the Veluwe, 1000 square kilometers of woods, heathland and drifting sands, the largest lowland nature area in North Western Europe, contains nine ecoducts, 50 meters wide on average, that are used to shuttle wildlife across highways that transect the Veluwe. The first two ecoducts on the Veluwe were built in 1988 across the A50 when the highway was constructed. Five of the other ecoducts on the Veluwe were built across existing highways, one was built across a two lane provincial road. The two ecoducts across the A50 were used by nearly 5,000 deer and wild boar during a one-year period (Bank et al. 2002). The Netherlands also boasts the world's longest ecoduct-wildlife overpass called the Natuurbrug Zanderij Crailoo (sand quarry nature bridge at Crailo) (Danby 2004). The massive structure, completed in 2006, is 50 m wide and over 800 m long and spans a railway line, business park, river, roadway, and sports complex (Danby 2004). Monitoring is currently underway to examine the effectiveness of this innovative project combining wildlife protection with urban development. The oldest wildlife passage is Zeist West - A 28, opened in 1988.
Slaty Creek Wildlife Underpass, Calder Freeway, Black Forest, AustraliaEdit
Another case study of the effectiveness of wildlife crossings comes from an underpass built to minimize the ecological impact of the Calder Freeway as it travels through the Black Forest in Victoria, Australia. In 1997, the Victorian Government Roads Corporation built Slaty Creek wildlife underpass at a cost of $3 million (Abson & Lawrence 2003). Scientists used 14 different techniques to monitor the underpass for 12 months in order to determine the abundance and diversity of species using the underpass (Abson & Lawrence 2003). During the 12-month period, 79 species of fauna were detected in the underpass (compared with 116 species detected in the surrounding forest) including amphibians, bats, birds, koalas, wombats, gliders, reptiles, and kangaroos (Abson & Lawrence 2003). The results indicate that the underpass could be useful to a wide array of species but the authors suggest that Slaty Creek could be improved by enhanced design and maintenance of fencing to minimise road kill along the Calder Freeway and by attempting to exclude introduced predators such as cats and foxes from the area.
The ARC International Wildlife Crossing Infrastructure Design CompetitionEdit
In 2010, ARC Solutions - an interdisciplinary partnership - initiated the International Wildlife Crossing Infrastructure Design Competition for a wildlife crossing over Interstate 70 near Denver, Colorado., and designers had to account for many challenges unique to the area, including snow and severe weather, high elevation and steep grades, a six-lane roadway, a bike path, and high traffic volumes, as well as multiple species of wildlife, including lynx.
After receiving 36 submissions from nine countries, a jury of internationally acclaimed experts in landscape architecture, engineering, architecture, ecology and transportation selected five finalists in November 2010 to further develop their conceptual designs for a wildlife crossing structure. In January 2011, the team led by HNTB with Michael Van Valkenburgh & Associates (New York) were selected as the winners. The design features a single 100 m (328 ft) concrete span across the highway that is planted with a variety of vegetation types, including a pine-tree forest and meadow grasses, to attract different species to cross. A modular precast concrete design means that much of the bridge can be constructed offsite and moved into place.
Canopy Bridge in Anamalai Tiger ReserveEdit
Many endangered lion-tailed macaques used to get killed while crossing the highway at Puduthotam in Valparai, South India. Thanks to the efforts of NGOs and the forest department, several canopy bridges were installed, connecting trees on either side of the road. This helped to lower the numbers of lion-tailed macaques killed in the region. The Environment Conservation Group had initiated a national mission to increase awareness on the importance of adopting roadkill mitigation methods through their mission PATH traveling more than 17,000 kilometers across twenty-two states. 
- "About Green Roofs: Advantages". Scandinavian Green Roof Association. Retrieved 20 July 2012.
In the places where there isn’t enough ground space for green space, the green corridors, and the habitats for animals don’t have to be discontinued, if the flat roofs are used.
- Forman, Richard T. T. (2000-02-01). "Estimate of the Area Affected Ecologically by the Road System in the United States". Conservation Biology. 14 (1): 31–35. ISSN 1523-1739. doi:10.1046/j.1523-1739.2000.99299.x.
- Conover, M. R.; W. C. Pitt; K. K. Kessler; T. J. DuBow; W. A. Sanborn (1995). "Review of Human Injuries, Illnesses, and Economic Losses Caused by Wildlife in the United States". Wildlife Society Bulletin. 23: 407–414. JSTOR 3782947.
- Devlin, Vince (3 October 2010). "Cameras show wildlife use Highway 93 North overpass and tunnels". The Missoulian. Missoula, MT: missoulian.com. Retrieved 28 February 2011.
- Mario Theriault, Great Maritme Inventions 1833–1950, Goose Lane, 2001, p. 45
- Office Of Technology Assessment Washington DC (1995) Fish passage technologies : protection at hydropower facilities Diana Publishing, ISBN 1-4289-2016-1.
- Wildlife crossings - Wild animals and roads, The Humane Society of the United States. Archived from the original on 27 September 2007.
- "Ontario builds first bridge for animals near Sudbury". CBC News, March 20, 2012.
- MJPO annual report 2014
- Allen Best (November 1, 2010). "Wildlife and Highways: New Ideas Sought for Colorado's 'Berlin Wall'". New West. Retrieved March 3, 2013.
- "Finalists". Arc. Retrieved March 3, 2013.
- "ARC International Wildlife Crossing Design Competition". Retrieved March 3, 2013.
- "Designing the Next Generation of Wildlife Crossings". United States Department of Transportation - Federal Highway Administration. March 2011.
- Abson, R. N.; Lawrence, R.E. (2003). Monitoring the use of the Slaty Creek Wildlife Underpass, Calder Freeway, Black Forest, Macedon, Victoria, Australia (PDF). Proceedings of the 2003 International Conference on Ecology and Transportation. Lake Placid, NY. pp. 303–308.
- Bank, F. G.; C. L. Irwin; G. L. Evink; M. E. Gray; S. Hagood; J. R. Kinar; A. Levy; D. Paulson; B. Ruediger; R. M. Sauvajot; D. J. Scott; P. White (2002). Wildlife habitat connectivity across European highways (Report). U. S. Department of Transportation: Federal Highway Administration. pp. 1–45. Retrieved 19 July 2012.
- Beier, P.; Noss, R. F. (1998). "Do habitat corridors provide connectivity?". Conservation Biology. 12: 1241–1252. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.1998.98036.x. Retrieved 18 July 2012.
- Bennett, A. F. (1991), "Roads, roadsides, and wildlife conservation: A review", Nature conservation 2: The role of corridors, pp. 99–118, retrieved 19 July 2012
- Bruinderink, G. W. T. A.; Hazebroek, E. (1996). "Ungulate traffic collisions in Europe". Conservation Biology. 10: 1059–1067. doi:10.1046/j.1523-1739.1996.10041059.x. Retrieved 20 July 2012.
- Chilson, P. (June 2003). "Cutting Edge: Right of way". Audubon. Archived from the original on 2012-07-22. Retrieved 19 July 2012.
- Clevenger, A. P.; Waltho, N. (2000). "Factors influencing the effectiveness of wildlife underpasses in Banff National Park, Alberta, Canada". Conservation Biology. 14: 47–56. doi:10.1046/j.1523-1739.2000.00099-085.x. Retrieved 18 July 2012.
- Clevenger, A. P.; Chruszcz, B.; Gunson, K. E. (2001). "Highway mitigation fencing reduces wildlife-vehicle collisions" (PDF). Wildlife Society Bulletin. 29: 646–653.[permanent dead link]
- Clevenger, T. (2007). "Highways through habitats: The Banff Wildlife Crossings Project" (PDF). Transportation Research News. 249: 14–17. Retrieved 18 July 2012.
- Danby, D. (2004). "A Green Latticework". Worldchanging.com. Archived from the original on 28 July 2012. Retrieved 19 July 2012.
- Donaldson, B. M. (2005). The Use of Highway Underpasses by Large Mammals in Virginia and Factors Influencing their Effectiveness (PDF) (Report). Retrieved 20 July 2012.
- Forman, R. T. T. (2000). "Estimate of the Area Affected Ecologically by the Road System in the United States". Conservation Biology. 14: 31–35. doi:10.1046/j.1523-1739.2000.99299.x. Retrieved 20 July 2012.
- Foster, M. L.; Humphrey, S. R. (1995). "Use of highway underpasses by Florida panthers and other wildlife". Wildlife Society Bulletin. 23: 95–100. JSTOR 3783202.
- Haas, C. D. (2000). Distribution, relative abundance, and roadway underpass responses of carnivores throughout the Puente-Chino Hills (Master Thesis). California State Polytechnic University.
- Hallstrom, W., A. P. Clevenger, A. Maher and J Whittington. 2008. Effectiveness of highway mitigation fencing for ungulates and carnivores. Journal of Applied Ecology - In Review.[verification needed]
- Jaeger, J. A. G.; J. Bowman; J. Brennan; L. Fahrig; D. Bert; J. Bouchard; N. Charbonneau; K. Frank; B. Gruber; K. Tluk von Toschanowitz (2005). "Predicting when animal populations are at risk from roads: an interactive model of road avoidance behavior" (PDF). Ecological Modelling. 185: 329–348. doi:10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2004.12.015. Retrieved 20 July 2012.
- Knapp, K. K.; Yi, X.; Oakasa, T.; Thimm, W.; Hudson, E.; Rathmann, C. (2004). Deer-vehicle crash coutermeasure toolbox: A decision and choice resource (PDF) (Report). Wisconsin Department of Transportation, Madison. Retrieved 19 July 2012.
- Lyren, L. M. (2001). Movement patterns of coyotes and bobcats relative to road underpasses in Chino Hills of southern California (Master Thesis). California State Polytechnic University.
- Primack, R. B. (2006). "Ch. 9: Habitat Destruction". Essentials of Conservation Biology. Sinauer Associates. pp. 189–193.
- Reed, R. A.; Johnson-Barnhard, J.; Baker, W. L. (1996). "Contribution of roads to forest fragmentation in the Rocky Mountains". Conservation Biology. 10: 1098–1106. doi:10.1046/j.1523-1739.1996.10041098.x. Retrieved 19 July 2012.
- Rich, A. S.; Dobkin, D. S.; Niles, L. J. (1994). "Defining forest fragmentation by corridor width: The influence of narrow forest-dividing corridors on forest-nesting birds in Southern New Jersey". Conservation Biology. 8: 1109–1121. doi:10.1046/j.1523-1739.1994.08041109.x. Retrieved 18 July 2012.
- Scott, B. (2007), Florida panther deaths increase from collisions with vehicles, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, archived from the original on 10 May 2008
- Spellerberg, I. F. (1998). "Ecological effects of roads and traffic: A literature review". Global Ecology and Biogeography. 7: 317–333. doi:10.1046/j.1466-822x.1998.00308.x. Retrieved 19 July 2012.
|Wikimedia Commons has media related to Wildlife overpasses.|
|Wikimedia Commons has media related to Wildlife underpasses.|
- Eco-Logical: An Ecosystem Approach to Developing Infrastructure Projects - Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
- Wildlife Crossing Structures - Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative
- Defragmentation in Belgium (Flanders) - Connecting nature, connecting people. Accessed: Jan 22, 2009[dead link]
- Wildlife passages - De-Fragmentation in the Netherlands - How to evaluate their effectiveness? Accessed: Jan 22, 2009[dead link]
- California Roadkill Observation System
- Maine Audubon Wildlife Road Watch
- Safe Passage - A Users Guide to Developing Effective Highway Crossings for Carnivores and Other Wildlife
- Eco-Logical - An Ecosystem Approach to Developing Infrastructure Projects
- The Effects of Highways On Elk Habitat In The Western United States and Proposed Mitigation Approaches
- Management Considerations for Designing Carnivore Highway Crossings
- An Assessment of Wildlife Habitat Linkages and Crossing Locations on US 6
- An Assessment of Wildlife Habitat Linkages on Interstate 70, Utah
- Wildlife Consulting Resources Wildlife Crossing and Linkage Information for New Highway Projects
- Wildlife Crossings Toolkit The Wildlife Crossings Toolkit provides information for terrestrial biologists, engineers, and transportation professionals to assist in maintaining or restoring habitat connectivity across transportation infrastructure on public lands.
- Wildlife Crossings Project - The Wildlife Crossings Project provides information about georreferenced wildlife crossings all around the world, and allow specialists to publish them.