Review of terrestrial temporarily conserved areas in Canada, the United States, and Mexico.

The establishment of protected areas is a cornerstone of conservation, but permanent protection could be inefficient or even impossible in some situations. We synthesized the literature on temporarily conserved areas (TCAs) across Canada, the United States, and Mexico. We used a comprehensive search string to retrieve peer-reviewed articles published from 2000 to 2021 from the Web of Science. We identified 27 relevant peer-reviewed articles that examined the potential benefits of TCAs in the study area, indicating TCA is a relatively understudied area of research in the peer-reviewed literature. The TCA studies were highly clustered; 77% of studies focused on protecting a single life stage of migratory species and 61% of studies related to temporary conservation of breeding or staging habitats for migratory birds. Ninety-three percent of studies focused on preventing human-driven threats, mainly on public lands of coastal areas, the Great Plains, and the Mississippi Valley in the central United States. Short-term and experimental studies were the dominant study types. TCAs have the potential to complement permanently protected areas and provide protection when permanent protection is difficult. Some included studies examined their conservation value, but the ecological, social, and economic outcomes of TCAs are unclear. More TCA research is needed to determine the role they could play in conservation worldwide. Embracing the concept of TCAs as conservation tool could lead to more comprehensive and consistent reporting of the outcomes of temporary area-based conservation measures. However, a global review and analysis of effectiveness of TCAs will be required if they are to play a formal role in meeting international targets for biodiversity conservation.

Revisión de áreas terrestres conservadas temporalmente en Canadá, Estados Unidos y México Resumen La creación de áreas protegidas es una piedra angular de la conservación, aunque en algunos casos la protección permanente podría ser ineficiente o incluso imposible. Condensamos la literatura sobre las áreas de conservación temporal (ACT) en Canadá, Estados Unidos y México. Usamos una cadena completa de búsqueda para obtener artículos revisados por pares publicados del 2000 al 2021 en Web of Science. Identificamos 27 artículos relevantes que analizaban el potencial de las ACT en el área de estudio, lo que indica que las ACT es un área poco estudiada en la literatura revisada por pares. Los estudios sobre ACT estaban muy agrupados: el 77% se enfocaban en la protección de un solo estadio de vida de las especies migratorias y el 61% se relacionaban con la conservación temporal de los hábitats de reproducción o de descanso de las aves migratorias. El 93% de los estudios se enfocó en la prevención de amenazas causadas por humanos, principalmente en los terrenos públicos de las áreas costeras, las Grandes Llanuras y el valle del Mississippi en el centro de los Estados Unidos. Los estudios experimentales y a corto plazo fueron el tipo de estudio dominante. Las áreas de conservación temporal tienen el potencial para complementar las áreas de protección permanente y proporcionar protección cuando es complicado proporcionarla permanentemente. Algunos de los estudios incluidos analizaron el valor para la conservación de las ACT, pero aún no están claros sus resultados ecológicos, sociales y económicos. Se necesita más investigación sobre las ACT para determinar el papel que podrían tener en la conservación mundial. Si se acepta el concepto de ACT como una herramienta de conservación, se podrían reportar los resultados de las medidas de conservación basadas en las ACT de forma más completa y consistente. Sin embargo, se requerirá una revisión y análisis global de la eficiencia de las ACT si se espera que tengan un papel formal en el cumplimiento de los objetivos internacionales de la conservación de la biodiversidad.

Patterns and Pitfalls of Short-cuts Used in Environmental Management Rapid Reviews.

Environmental managers and policy-makers need reliable evidence to make effective decisions. Systematic reviews are one way to provide this information but are time-consuming and may not meet the needs of decision-makers when faced with rapidly changing management requirements or transient policy-windows. Rapid reviews are one type of knowledge synthesis that follow simplified or truncated methods compared to systematic reviews. Rapid reviews on environmentally-relevant topics are growing in prevalence, but it is unclear if rapid reviews use similar short-cuts or follow available guidelines. In this methodological review, we assess 26 rapid reviews published between 2002 and 2023. Numerous rapid review short-cuts and approaches were identified, with few consistencies among studies. Short-cuts were present in all stages of the review process, with some of the most common short-cuts including not developing an a priori review protocol, not including stakeholder involvement, or not conducting critical appraisal of study validity. Poor quality in reporting of methods was observed. Fewer than half of assessed rapid reviews reported using available guidelines when developing their methods. Future rapid reviews should aim for improved reporting and adherence to published guidelines to help increase the useability and evidence-user confidence. This will also enable readers to understand where short-cuts were made and their potential consequences for the conclusions of the review.

An updated review of cold shock and cold stress in fish.

Temperature is critical in regulating virtually all biological functions in fish. Low temperature stress (cold shock/stress) is an often-overlooked challenge that many fish face as a result of both natural events and anthropogenic activities. In this study, we present an updated review of the cold shock literature based on a comprehensive literature search, following an initial review on the subject by M.R. Donaldson and colleagues, published in a 2008 volume of this journal. We focus on how knowledge on cold shock and fish has evolved over the past decade, describing advances in the understanding of the generalized stress response in fish under cold stress, what metrics may be used to quantify cold stress and what knowledge gaps remain to be addressed in future research. We also describe the relevance of cold shock as it pertains to environmental managers, policymakers and industry professionals, including practical applications of cold shock. Although substantial progress has been made in addressing some of the knowledge gaps identified a decade ago, other topics (e.g., population-level effects and interactions between primary, secondary and tertiary stress responses) have received little or no attention despite their significance to fish biology and thermal stress. Approaches using combinations of primary, secondary and tertiary stress responses are crucial as a research priority to better understand the mechanisms underlying cold shock responses, from short-term physiological changes to individual- and population-level effects, thereby providing researchers with better means of quantifying cold shock in laboratory and field settings.

How do changes in flow magnitude due to hydropower operations affect fish abundance and biomass in temperate regions? A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Altering the natural flow regime, an essential component of healthy fluvial systems, through hydropower operations has the potential to negatively impact freshwater fish populations. Establishing improved management of flow regimes requires better understanding of how fish respond to altered flow components, such as flow magnitude. Based on the results of a recent systematic map on the impacts of flow regime changes on direct outcomes of freshwater or estuarine fish productivity, evidence clusters on fish abundance and biomass responses were identified for full systematic review. The primary goal of this systematic review is to address one of those evidence clusters, with the following research question: how do changes in flow magnitude due to hydropower operations affect fish abundance and biomass? METHODS: This review follows the guidelines of the Collaboration for Environmental Evidence. It examined commercially published and grey literature originally identified during the systematic map process and a systematic search update. All articles were screened using an a priori eligibility criteria at two stages (title and abstract, and full-text) and consistency checks were performed at all stages. All eligible articles were assessed for study validity and specifically designed data extraction and study validity tools were used. A narrative synthesis included all available evidence and meta-analysis using the standardized mean difference (Hedges' g) was conducted where appropriate. REVIEW FINDINGS: A total of 133 studies from 103 articles were included in this systematic review for data extraction and critical appraisal. Most studies were from North America (60%) and were conducted at 146 different hydropower dams/facilities. Meta-analysis included 268 datasets from 58 studies, separated into three analyses based on replication type [temporal (within or between year replication) or spatial]. Fish abundance (226 datasets) and biomass (30 datasets) had variable responses to changes in flow magnitude with estimated overall mean effect sizes ranging from positive to negative and varying by study design and taxa. In studies with temporal replication, we found a detectable effect of alterations to the direction of flow magnitude, the presence of other flow components, sampling methods, season, and fish life stage. However, we found no detectable effect of these moderators for studies with spatial replication. Taxonomic analyses indicated variable responses to changes in flow magnitude and a bias towards salmonid species. CONCLUSIONS: This synthesis did not find consistent patterns in fish abundance or biomass responses to alterations or changes in flow magnitude. Fish responses to flow magnitude alterations or changes were highly variable and context dependent. Our synthesis suggests that biotic responses may not be generalizable across systems impacted by hydroelectric power production and operations, where specific features of the system may be highly influential. Site-specific and adaptive management may be necessary. To improve study validity and interpretability, studies with long-term continuous monitoring, and both temporal and spatial replication are needed. When this gold standard is unfeasible, studies should strive, at minimum, to maximize replication within both intervention and comparator groups for either temporal or spatial designs. To further address knowledge gaps, studies are needed that focus on non-salmonids, multiple seasons, and systems outside of North America. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13750-021-00254-8.

Closing the knowledge-action gap in conservation with open science.

The knowledge-action gap in conservation science and practice occurs when research outputs do not result in actions to protect or restore biodiversity. Among the diverse and complex reasons for this gap, three barriers are fundamental: knowledge is often unavailable to practitioners and challenging to interpret or difficult to use or both. Problems of availability, interpretability, and useability are solvable with open science practices. We considered the benefits and challenges of three open science practices for use by conservation scientists and practitioners. First, open access publishing makes the scientific literature available to all. Second, open materials (detailed methods, data, code, and software) increase the transparency and use of research findings. Third, open education resources allow conservation scientists and practitioners to acquire the skills needed to use research outputs. The long-term adoption of open science practices would help researchers and practitioners achieve conservation goals more quickly and efficiently and reduce inequities in information sharing. However, short-term costs for individual researchers (insufficient institutional incentives to engage in open science and knowledge mobilization) remain a challenge. We caution against a passive approach to sharing that simply involves making information available. We advocate a proactive stance toward transparency, communication, collaboration, and capacity building that involves seeking out and engaging with potential users to maximize the environmental and societal impact of conservation science.

Cierre de la Brecha entre el Conocimiento y la Acción en la Conservación con Ciencia Abierta 21-311 Resumen La brecha entre el conocimiento y la acción en las ciencias de la conservación y en su práctica ocurre cuando los resultados de las investigaciones no derivan en acciones para proteger o restaurar la biodiversidad. Entre las razones complejas y diversas de esta brecha, existen tres barreras que son fundamentales: con frecuencia el conocimiento no está disponible para los practicantes, es difícil de interpretar o difícil de usar, o ambas. Los problemas con la disponibilidad, interpretabilidad y utilidad son solucionables mediante las prácticas de ciencia abierta. Consideramos los beneficios y los obstáculos de tres prácticas de ciencia abierta para su uso por parte de los científicos y practicantes de la conservación. Primero, las publicaciones de acceso abierto hacen que la literatura científica esté disponible para todos. Segundo, los materiales abiertos (métodos detallados, datos, códigos y software) incrementan la transparencia y el uso de los hallazgos de las investigaciones. Tercero, los recursos educativos abiertos permiten que los científicos y practicantes de la conservación adquieran las habilidades necesarias para utilizar los productos de las investigaciones. La adopción a largo plazo de las prácticas de ciencia abierta ayudaría a los investigadores y a los practicantes a lograr los objetivos de conservación mucho más rápido y de manera eficiente y a reducir las desigualdades que existen en la divulgación de información. Sin embargo, los costos a corto plazo para los investigadores individuales (incentivos institucionales insuficientes para participar en la ciencia abierta y en la movilización del conocimiento) todavía son un reto. Advertimos sobre las estrategias pasivas de divulgación que simplemente hacen que la información esté disponible. Abogamos por una postura proactiva hacia la transparencia, la comunicación, la colaboración y la construcción de las capacidades que incluyen la búsqueda de y la interacción con los usuarios potenciales para maximizar el impacto ambiental y social de las ciencias de la conservación.

Mapping the premigration distribution of eastern Monarch butterflies using community science data.

Knowing the distribution of migratory species at different stages of their life cycle is necessary for their effective conservation. For the Monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus), although its overwintering distribution is well known, the available information on premigration distribution is limited to the studies estimating the natal origins of overwintering Monarchs in Mexico (i.e., postmigration data). However, the premigration distribution and the natal origins of overwintering Monarchs can be equivalent only if we assume that migrating Monarchs have the same mortality rate irrespective of their origins. To estimate Monarchs' premigration distribution, we used data reported by community scientists before Monarchs start their fall migration, that is, before migration mortality, and controlled for sampling bias. Our premigration distribution map indicated that Minnesota, Texas, and Ontario are the states/provinces with the highest abundance of Monarch in North America. Although this higher estimated abundance can be related to the large sizes of these states/provinces, this information is still important because it identifies the management jurisdictions with the largest responsibility for the conservation of the premigration population of Monarchs. Our premigration distribution map will be useful in future studies estimating the rates, distribution, and causes of mortality in migrating Monarchs.

Ten principles for generating accessible and useable COVID-19 environmental science and a fit-for-purpose evidence base.

1. The 'anthropause', a period of unusually reduced human activity and mobility due to COVID-19 restrictions, has serendipitously opened up unique opportunities for research on how human activities impact the environment. 2. In the field of health, COVID-19 research has led to concerns about the quality of research papers and the underlying research and publication processes due to accelerated peer review and publication schedules, increases in pre-prints and retractions. 3. In the field of environmental science, framing the pandemic and associated global lockdowns as an unplanned global human confinement experiment with urgency should raise the same concerns about the rigorousness and integrity of the scientific process. Furthermore, the recognition of an 'infodemic', an unprecedented explosion of research, risks research waste and duplication of effort, although how information is used is as important as the quality of evidence. This highlights the need for an evidence base that is easy to find and use - that is discoverable, curated, synthesizable, synthesized. 4. We put forward a list of 10 key principles to support the establishment of a reproducible, replicable, robust, rigorous, timely and synthesizable COVID-19 environmental evidence base that avoids research waste and is resilient to the pressures to publish urgently. These principles focus on engaging relevant actors (e.g. local communities, rightsholders) in research design and production, statistical power, collaborations, evidence synthesis, research registries and protocols, open science and transparency, data hygiene (cleanliness) and integrity, peer review transparency, standardized keywords and controlled vocabularies.

Inference in road ecology research: what we know versus what we think we know.

Roads and traffic impacts on wildlife populations are well documented. Three major mechanisms can cause them: reduced connectivity, increased mortality and reduced habitat quality. Researchers commonly recommend mitigation based on the mechanism they deem responsible. We reviewed the 2012-2016 literature to evaluate authors' inferences, to determine whether they explicitly acknowledge all possible mechanisms that are consistent with their results. We found 327 negative responses of wildlife to roads, from 307 studies. While most (84%) of these responses were consistent with multiple mechanisms, 60% of authors invoked a single mechanism. This indicates that many authors are over-confident in their inferences, and that the literature does not allow estimation of the relative importance of the mechanisms. We found preferences in authors' discussion of mechanisms. When all three mechanisms were consistent with the response measured, authors were 2.4 and 2.9 times as likely to infer reduced habitat quality compared to reduced connectivity or increased mortality, respectively. When both reduced connectivity and increased mortality were consistent with the response measured, authors were 5.2 times as likely to infer reduced connectivity compared to increased mortality. Given these results, road ecologists and managers are likely over-recommending mitigation for improving habitat quality and connectivity, and under-recommending measures to reduce road-kill.

Environmental sciences benefit from robust evidence irrespective of speed.

Discussions around the "slow science movement" abound in environmental sciences, yet they are generally counterproductive. Researchers must focus on producing robust and transparent knowledge, regardless of speed. Slow versus fast science is irrelevant - what we need is reproducible research to support evidence-based decision making and tackle urgent and costly environmental problems.

Meta-analysis is not an exact science: Call for guidance on quantitative synthesis decisions.

Meta-analysis is becoming increasingly popular in the field of ecology and environmental management. It increases the effective power of analyses relative to single studies, and allows researchers to investigate effect modifiers and sources of heterogeneity that could not be easily examined within single studies. Many systematic reviewers will set out to conduct a meta-analysis as part of their synthesis, but meta-analysis requires a niche set of skills that are not widely held by the environmental research community. Each step in the process of carrying out a meta-analysis requires decisions that have both scientific and statistical implications. Reviewers are likely to be faced with a plethora of decisions over which effect size to choose, how to calculate variances, and how to build statistical models. Some of these decisions may be simple based on appropriateness of the options. At other times, reviewers must choose between equally valid approaches given the information available to them. This presents a significant problem when reviewers are attempting to conduct a reliable synthesis, such as a systematic review, where subjectivity is minimised and all decisions are documented and justified transparently. We propose three urgent, necessary developments within the evidence synthesis community. Firstly, we call on quantitative synthesis experts to improve guidance on how to prepare data for quantitative synthesis, providing explicit detail to support systematic reviewers. Secondly, we call on journal editors and evidence synthesis coordinating bodies (e.g. CEE) to ensure that quantitative synthesis methods are adequately reported in a transparent and repeatable manner in published systematic reviews. Finally, where faced with two or more broadly equally valid alternative methods or actions, reviewers should conduct multiple analyses, presenting all options, and discussing the implications of the different analytical approaches. We believe it is vital to tackle the possible subjectivity in quantitative synthesis described herein to ensure that the extensive efforts expended in producing systematic reviews and other evidence synthesis products is not wasted because of a lack of rigour or reliability in the final synthesis step.

How experimental biology and ecology can support evidence-based decision-making in conservation: avoiding pitfalls and enabling application.

Policy development and management decisions should be based upon the best available evidence. In recent years, approaches to evidence synthesis, originating in the medical realm (such as systematic reviews), have been applied to conservation to promote evidence-based conservation and environmental management. Systematic reviews involve a critical appraisal of evidence, but studies that lack the necessary rigour (e.g. experimental, technical and analytical aspects) to justify their conclusions are typically excluded from systematic reviews or down-weighted in terms of their influence. One of the strengths of conservation physiology is the reliance on experimental approaches that help to more clearly establish cause-and-effect relationships. Indeed, experimental biology and ecology have much to offer in terms of building the evidence base that is needed to inform policy and management options related to pressing issues such as enacting endangered species recovery plans or evaluating the effectiveness of conservation interventions. Here, we identify a number of pitfalls that can prevent experimental findings from being relevant to conservation or would lead to their exclusion or down-weighting during critical appraisal in a systematic review. We conclude that conservation physiology is well positioned to support evidence-based conservation, provided that experimental designs are robust and that conservation physiologists understand the nuances associated with informing decision-making processes so that they can be more relevant.

How Effective Is Road Mitigation at Reducing Road-Kill? A Meta-Analysis.

Road traffic kills hundreds of millions of animals every year, posing a critical threat to the populations of many species. To address this problem there are more than forty types of road mitigation measures available that aim to reduce wildlife mortality on roads (road-kill). For road planners, deciding on what mitigation method to use has been problematic because there is little good information about the relative effectiveness of these measures in reducing road-kill, and the costs of these measures vary greatly. We conducted a meta-analysis using data from 50 studies that quantified the relationship between road-kill and a mitigation measure designed to reduce road-kill. Overall, mitigation measures reduce road-kill by 40% compared to controls. Fences, with or without crossing structures, reduce road-kill by 54%. We found no detectable effect on road-kill of crossing structures without fencing. We found that comparatively expensive mitigation measures reduce large mammal road-kill much more than inexpensive measures. For example, the combination of fencing and crossing structures led to an 83% reduction in road-kill of large mammals, compared to a 57% reduction for animal detection systems, and only a 1% for wildlife reflectors. We suggest that inexpensive measures such as reflectors should not be used until and unless their effectiveness is tested using a high-quality experimental approach. Our meta-analysis also highlights the fact that there are insufficient data to answer many of the most pressing questions that road planners ask about the effectiveness of road mitigation measures, such as whether other less common mitigation measures (e.g., measures to reduce traffic volume and/or speed) reduce road mortality, or to what extent the attributes of crossing structures and fences influence their effectiveness. To improve evaluations of mitigation effectiveness, studies should incorporate data collection before the mitigation is applied, and we recommend a minimum study duration of four years for Before-After, and a minimum of either four years or four sites for Before-After-Control-Impact designs.

Experimental study designs to improve the evaluation of road mitigation measures for wildlife.

An experimental approach to road mitigation that maximizes inferential power is essential to ensure that mitigation is both ecologically-effective and cost-effective. Here, we set out the need for and standards of using an experimental approach to road mitigation, in order to improve knowledge of the influence of mitigation measures on wildlife populations. We point out two key areas that need to be considered when conducting mitigation experiments. First, researchers need to get involved at the earliest stage of the road or mitigation project to ensure the necessary planning and funds are available for conducting a high quality experiment. Second, experimentation will generate new knowledge about the parameters that influence mitigation effectiveness, which ultimately allows better prediction for future road mitigation projects. We identify seven key questions about mitigation structures (i.e., wildlife crossing structures and fencing) that remain largely or entirely unanswered at the population-level: (1) Does a given crossing structure work? What type and size of crossing structures should we use? (2) How many crossing structures should we build? (3) Is it more effective to install a small number of large-sized crossing structures or a large number of small-sized crossing structures? (4) How much barrier fencing is needed for a given length of road? (5) Do we need funnel fencing to lead animals to crossing structures, and how long does such fencing have to be? (6) How should we manage/manipulate the environment in the area around the crossing structures and fencing? (7) Where should we place crossing structures and barrier fencing? We provide experimental approaches to answering each of them using example Before-After-Control-Impact (BACI) study designs for two stages in the road/mitigation project where researchers may become involved: (1) at the beginning of a road/mitigation project, and (2) after the mitigation has been constructed; highlighting real case studies when available.

BIOFRAG - a new database for analyzing BIOdiversity responses to forest FRAGmentation.

Habitat fragmentation studies have produced complex results that are challenging to synthesize. Inconsistencies among studies may result from variation in the choice of landscape metrics and response variables, which is often compounded by a lack of key statistical or methodological information. Collating primary datasets on biodiversity responses to fragmentation in a consistent and flexible database permits simple data retrieval for subsequent analyses. We present a relational database that links such field data to taxonomic nomenclature, spatial and temporal plot attributes, and environmental characteristics. Field assessments include measurements of the response(s) (e.g., presence, abundance, ground cover) of one or more species linked to plots in fragments within a partially forested landscape. The database currently holds 9830 unique species recorded in plots of 58 unique landscapes in six of eight realms: mammals 315, birds 1286, herptiles 460, insects 4521, spiders 204, other arthropods 85, gastropods 70, annelids 8, platyhelminthes 4, Onychophora 2, vascular plants 2112, nonvascular plants and lichens 320, and fungi 449. Three landscapes were sampled as long-term time series (>10 years). Seven hundred and eleven species are found in two or more landscapes. Consolidating the substantial amount of primary data available on biodiversity responses to fragmentation in the context of land-use change and natural disturbances is an essential part of understanding the effects of increasing anthropogenic pressures on land. The consistent format of this database facilitates testing of generalizations concerning biologic responses to fragmentation across diverse systems and taxa. It also allows the re-examination of existing datasets with alternative landscape metrics and robust statistical methods, for example, helping to address pseudo-replication problems. The database can thus help researchers in producing broad syntheses of the effects of land use. The database is dynamic and inclusive, and contributions from individual and large-scale data-collection efforts are welcome.

Do roads reduce painted turtle (Chrysemys picta) populations?

Road mortality is thought to be a leading cause of turtle population decline. However, empirical evidence of the direct negative effects of road mortality on turtle population abundance is lacking. The purpose of this study was to provide a strong test of the prediction that roads reduce turtle population abundance. While controlling for potentially confounding variables, we compared relative abundance of painted turtles (Chrysemys picta) in 20 ponds in Eastern Ontario, 10 as close as possible to high traffic roads (Road sites) and 10 as far as possible from any major roads (No Road sites). There was no significant effect of roads on painted turtle relative abundance. Furthermore, our data do not support other predictions of the road mortality hypothesis; we observed neither a higher relative frequency of males to females at Road sites than at No Road sites, nor a lower average body size of turtles at Road than at No Road sites. We speculate that, although roads can cause substantial adult mortality in turtles, other factors, such as release from predation on adults and/or nests close to roads counter the negative effect of road mortality in some populations. We suggest that road mitigation for painted turtles can be limited to locations where turtles are forced to migrate across high traffic roads due, for example, to destruction of local nesting habitat or seasonal drying of ponds. This conclusion should not be extrapolated to other species of turtles, where road mortality could have a larger population-level effect than on painted turtles.

Why are some animal populations unaffected or positively affected by roads?

In reviews on effects of roads on animal population abundance we found that most effects are negative; however, there are also many neutral and positive responses [Fahrig and Rytwinski (Ecol Soc 14:21, 2009; Rytwinski and Fahrig (Biol Conserv 147:87-98, 2012)]. Here we use an individual-based simulation model to: (1) confirm predictions from the existing literature of the combinations of species traits and behavioural responses to roads that lead to negative effects of roads on animal population abundance, and (2) improve prediction of the combinations of species traits and behavioural responses to roads that lead to neutral and positive effects of roads on animal population abundance. Simulations represented a typical situation in which road mitigation is contemplated, i.e. rural landscapes containing a relatively low density (up to 1.86 km/km(2)) of high-traffic roads, with continuous habitat between the roads. In these landscapes, the simulations predict that populations of species with small territories and movement ranges, and high reproductive rates, i.e. many small mammals and birds, should not be reduced by roads. Contrary to previous suggestions, the results also predict that populations of species that obtain a resource from roads (e.g. vultures) do not increase with increasing road density. In addition, our simulations support the predation release hypothesis for positive road effects on prey (both small- and large-bodied prey), whereby abundance of a prey species increased with increasing road density due to reduced predation by generalist road-affected predators. The simulations also predict an optimal road density for the large-bodied prey species if it avoids roads or traffic emissions. Overall, the simulation results suggest that in rural landscapes containing high-traffic roads, there are many species for which road mitigation may not be necessary; mitigation efforts should be tailored to the species that show negative population responses to roads.

Reproductive rate and body size predict road impacts on mammal abundance.

It has been hypothesized that mobile species should be more negatively affected by road mortality than less-mobile species because they interact with roads more often, and that species with lower reproductive rates and longer generation times should be more susceptible to road effects because they will be less able to rebound quickly from population declines. Taken together, these hypotheses suggest that, in general, larger species should be more affected by road networks than smaller species because larger species generally have lower reproductive rates and longer generation times and are more mobile than smaller species. We tested these hypotheses by estimating relative abundances of 17 mammal species across landscapes ranging in road density within eastern Ontario, Canada. For each of the 13 species for which detectability was not related to road density, we quantified the relationship between road density and relative abundance. We then tested three cross-species predictions: that the slope of the relationship between road density and abundance should become increasingly negative with (1) decreasing annual reproductive rate; (2) increasing home range area (an indicator of movement range); and (3) increasing body size. All three predictions were supported in univariate models, with R2 values of 0.68, 0.50, and 0.52 respectively. The best overall model based on AICc contained both reproductive rate (P = 0.008) and body size (P = 0.072) and explained 77% of the variation in the slope of the relationship between road density and abundance. Our results suggest that priority should be placed on mitigating road effects on large mammals with low reproductive rates.