Home | Archives | About | Login | Submissions | Notify | Contact | Search

 E&S Home > Vol. 14, No. 1 > Art. 21

Copyright © 2009 by the author(s). Published here under license by The Resilience Alliance.
Go to the pdf version of this article

The following is the established format for referencing this article:
Fahrig, L., and T. Rytwinski. 2009. Effects of roads on animal abundance: an empirical review and synthesis. Ecology and Society 14(1): 21. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss1/art21/

Synthesis, part of Special Feature on Effects of Roads and Traffic on Wildlife Populations and Landscape Function

Effects of Roads on Animal Abundance: an Empirical Review and Synthesis

Lenore Fahrig 1 and Trina Rytwinski 1

1Carleton University, Geomatics and Landscape Ecology Laboratory, Department of Biology


We attempted a complete review of the empirical literature on effects of roads and traffic on animal abundance and distribution. We found 79 studies, with results for 131 species and 30 species groups. Overall, the number of documented negative effects of roads on animal abundance outnumbered the number of positive effects by a factor of 5; 114 responses were negative, 22 were positive, and 56 showed no effect. Amphibians and reptiles tended to show negative effects. Birds showed mainly negative or no effects, with a few positive effects for some small birds and for vultures. Small mammals generally showed either positive effects or no effect, mid-sized mammals showed either negative effects or no effect, and large mammals showed predominantly negative effects. We synthesized this information, along with information on species attributes, to develop a set of predictions of the conditions that lead to negative or positive effects or no effect of roads on animal abundance. Four species types are predicted to respond negatively to roads: (i) species that are attracted to roads and are unable to avoid individual cars; (ii) species with large movement ranges, low reproductive rates, and low natural densities; and (iii and iv) small animals whose populations are not limited by road-affected predators and either (a) avoid habitat near roads due to traffic disturbance or (b) show no avoidance of roads or traffic disturbance and are unable to avoid oncoming cars. Two species types are predicted to respond positively to roads: (i) species that are attracted to roads for an important resource (e.g., food) and are able to avoid oncoming cars, and (ii) species that do not avoid traffic disturbance but do avoid roads, and whose main predators show negative population-level responses to roads. Other conditions lead to weak or non-existent effects of roads and traffic on animal abundance. We identify areas where further research is needed, but we also argue that the evidence for population-level effects of roads and traffic is already strong enough to merit routine consideration of mitigation of these effects in all road construction and maintenance projects.

Key words: environmental impact; landscape connectivity; mortality; population density; road network; road density; road effect zone; road mitigation; species distribution; species richness; traffic density; traffic volume


In their research agenda for road ecology, Roedenbeck et al. (2007) identify the most pressing research question as: “Under what circumstances do roads affect population persistence?” They argue that this question remains unanswered because “very few studies evaluate the effects of roads at the population level.” In support of this claim, Roedenbeck et al. (2007) cite review papers published in 2000 and earlier. In one of these review papers, Underhill and Angold (2000) state that “[h]ard information is still lacking for the effect of roads and traffic at the population level,” and in support of this statement they cite a review paper published in 1991. So, the claim that there are only a few road ecology studies at the population level (Roedenbeck et al. 2007) is based on reviews and assertions that are now 8–17 years old.

Meanwhile, over the past 10 years “road ecology” has emerged as a bona fide subdiscipline within ecology, as evidenced by road-ecology sessions at ecology conferences and transportation conferences, a dedicated biennial road-ecology scientific meeting (International Conference on Ecology and Transportation), the emergence of road-ecology research centers (e.g., Road Ecology Center, University of California at Davis; Center for Transportation and the Environment, North Carolina State University; Western Transportation Institute, Montana State University), and a textbook on road ecology (Forman et al. 2003). This interest in the ecological effects of roads has increased along with the ever-expanding transportation network. The main concern among conservationists and environmental planners is that roads and traffic may be reducing or even eliminating wildlife populations (Trombulak and Frissell 2000, Forman et al. 2003). Is this concern backed up by empirical evidence? A current review of the state of population-level research into road effects is clearly needed. Therefore, the first objective of this paper is to conduct a complete review of the empirical literature on effects of roads on animal population abundance and distribution, to provide an up-to-date summary of the state of knowledge in this area.

Our second objective is to develop a set of working hypotheses and predictions in answer to Roedenbeck et al.’s (2007) question above: under what circumstances do roads affect population persistence? Our approach was to compare the findings of our literature review with hypotheses that have been proposed as explanations for road effects. These hypotheses fall into two main sets: hypotheses based on species behavioral responses to roads and traffic and hypotheses based on species attributes that are correlated with body size.

In the first set, Jaeger et al. (2005) proposed that there are three behavioral responses to roads and traffic: (i) avoidance of the road surface, (ii) avoidance of traffic emissions and disturbance (noise, lights, chemical emissions), and (iii) the ability of the animal to move out of the path of an oncoming vehicle (labeled “car avoidance” by Jaeger et al. (2005)). Avoidance of the road surface reduces animal mortality on roads but also reduces accessibility of habitats and other resources. Note that road-surface avoidance also includes situations where the animal may not behaviorally avoid the road, but the road design represents a physical barrier to animal movement (e.g., a fenced road). Jaeger and Fahrig (2004) referred to complete road avoidance as the “fence effect,” emphasizing its functional equivalency to a physical barrier. Avoidance of traffic disturbance and emissions reduces habitat quality within the vicinity of roads; the higher the amount of traffic on the road, the more habitat is effectively lost to the species. Car avoidance, on the other hand, allows the animal to cross the road without being killed on it. An additional behavioral response to roads is attraction to the road, which increases the frequency with which animals enter the road and, therefore, increases the mortality risk (Forman et al. 2003).

Hypotheses in the second set argue that larger animals are more vulnerable to roads because they are more mobile, have lower reproductive rates, and occur naturally at lower densities than do small animals (Gibbs and Shriver 2002). Individuals of highly mobile species, i.e., species that move frequently and/or over large distances, are more likely to interact with a given road network, thus increasing the chance of road mortality (Carr and Fahrig 2001). Because of their lower reproductive rates and lower natural densities (larger home ranges), populations of large animals are less able than populations of small animals to rebound from low numbers resulting from road mortality, or to persist at low numbers due to the animal’s avoidance of areas with high road density (Gibbs and Shriver 2002). In addition, roads could indirectly cause increases in populations of smaller animals, if these animals are prey for larger animals whose populations are reduced by roads, i.e., the road effect could cause release from predation (Rytwinski and Fahrig 2007).

In this paper, we review the empirical literature on effects of roads and traffic on animal abundance and distribution. In addition, we synthesize this information, in the context of the ideas above, to develop what we believe to be the state-of-the-science on the circumstances under which roads affect population abundance and distribution.


The purpose of the literature review was to collect and synthesize all published empirical information on the effects of roads and traffic on animal abundance. We used “animal abundance” as a rather general term to include population size (or relative size), population density (or relative density), species presence or absence, or species richness (i.e., species presence or absence summed across species). The studies in our review fall into three general categories. The first category includes studies that document animal abundances at different distances from a road. Some of these studies considered only two distances: adjacent to the road vs. farther from the road. The second general category includes studies comparing animal abundances in different landscapes or regions with different road densities. Studies that compare road densities within individual animals’ territories (presence) with road densities in areas outside animal territories (absence) are a subset within this category. The third general category includes studies that document the effects of roads and traffic on animal reproduction or mortality, along with calculations of the consequences of these effects for animal abundance.

We attempted a complete literature review, with the following restrictions. First, the papers had to present a quantitative analysis relating animal abundance to roads and traffic. We did not include studies of road or traffic effects on animal mortality, reproduction, movement, or genetic differentiation, unless the authors quantitatively demonstrated the impact of the effect(s) on animal abundance. For example, Hels and Buchwald (2001) estimated that 5%–25% of some frog populations are killed by traffic mortality. However, as they did not determine the effect of this mortality on population abundance, we did not include the study in our review. We included all studies showing negative or positive effects of roads and traffic on animal abundance except when the road effect and habitat were completely confounded. For example, studies of species that preferentially live in or on road verges and studies comparing population sizes in grassy roadside verges vs. neighboring forest patches completely confound a habitat effect with the road effect, so were not included. Note, however, that many of the studies included in our review did contain correlations or likely correlations between roads and traffic and other variables that could have been fully or partly responsible for the patterns attributed to roads, or could have masked real effects of roads. We discuss the implications of these correlations in the Discussion. We included studies showing no effect of roads or traffic on animal abundance, except when statistical power was very low, i.e., very low sample sizes or very high variance around abundance estimates.


Altogether we found 79 studies, with results for 131 species and 30 species groups, documenting effects of roads and traffic on animal abundance (Table 1). The studies included animals from a wide range of taxa (invertebrates, herptiles, birds, and mammals), trophic levels (herbivores, carnivores, omnivores, and scavengers) and habitats (forests, grasslands, and wetlands). Studies were located predominantly in Europe and North America, but there were also studies in Australia, Africa, and India.

Some general patterns are evident from Table 1. First, the number of documented negative effects of roads on animal abundance outnumbered the number of positive effects by a factor of 5; overall, 114 responses were negative, 22 were positive, and 56 showed no effect. Note, in some cases, there was more than one result for a particular species because some species were included in more than one study (Table 1). Second, there were some clear differences among the groups in Table 1. Amphibians and reptiles tended to show negative effects. Birds showed mainly negative or no effects, with a few positive effects for some small birds and for vultures. Small mammals generally showed either positive effects or no effect, mid-sized mammals showed either negative effects or no effect, and large mammals showed predominantly negative effects. General patterns for invertebrates were not apparent, because of the small number of studies for this group.

In the following three sections, we synthesize the information in Table 1 into a set of hypotheses predicting species responses to roads and traffic. This is based on the patterns in Table 1 and information on: (i) species behavioral responses to roads and traffic, (ii) species reproductive rates, movement ranges, and natural densities, and (iii) trophic interactions.


There are two general categories of species or species groups showing negative effects of roads on animal abundance: species that are vulnerable to traffic disturbances (noise, lights, pollution, traffic motion) and species that are vulnerable to road mortality. Vulnerability to traffic disturbance likely explains many of the bird responses and some of the mid- and large-sized mammal responses in Table 1. Traffic noise seems to be a problem for communication among songbirds (Reijnen et al. 1996, Forman et al. 2002, Rheindt 2003), possibly leading to low abundances near roads, and direct observations and radiotelemetry studies of large mammals have documented behavioral avoidance of roads for some species (Brody and Pelton 1989, Lovallo and Anderson 1996, Dyer et al. 2002).

Vulnerability to road mortality likely explains most of the amphibian and reptile responses, as well as some of the mid-sized and large mammal responses. Several factors combine to make a species vulnerable to road mortality. Species that are either attracted to roads or do not avoid roads, and that show low car avoidance (e.g., slow-moving species) are particularly vulnerable (van Langevelde and Jaarsma 2005). This combination is most likely responsible for the frequent negative effects of roads and traffic on abundances of amphibians and reptiles. For example, some snakes use the road surface for thermoregulation (Sullivan 1981), some turtles lay their eggs in gravel roads or road shoulders (Aresco 2005, Steen et al. 2006; pers. obs., Fig. 1), and natterjack toads (Bufo calamita) apparently equate roads with open sandy habitats to which they are naturally attracted (Stevens et al. 2006). Other studies have found that some frogs and snakes, although not necessarily attracted to roads, do not behaviorally avoid them (Row et al. 2007; J. Bouchard, A. T. Ford, F. Eigenbrod, and L. Fahrig, unpublished manuscript). Therefore, these animals are likely to enter the road surface and, in combination with their need for seasonal migrations between breeding and overwintering sites, as well as their slow movement across the road, experience very high mortality rates (Hels and Buchwald 2001; J. Bouchard, A. T. Ford, F. Eigenbrod, and L. Fahrig, unpublished manuscript). Further exacerbating this low car avoidance is the fact that some species, including frogs (Mazerolle et al. 2005), actually respond to traffic on the road by stopping, thus increasing the time spent on the road and making them even more likely to be killed.

As discussed above, a second group of species that is particularly vulnerable to road mortality are species that have large movement ranges and low reproductive rates, and do not avoid roads or traffic (Gibbs and Shriver 2002, Forman et al. 2003). These attributes interact with the animal’s behavioral responses to roads to affect animal abundances. If animals with very large movement ranges do not avoid roads, their high frequency of road crossing leads to a high overall probability of being killed at some point. Because animals with large movement ranges typically have low reproductive rates (e.g., large carnivores), they cannot quickly compensate for higher mortality through higher reproduction, so the mortality leads to population declines. For example, in California, Dickson and Beier (2002) showed that cougars readily cross roads within their territories, i.e., they do not avoid roads. However, cougar territories contain lower road densities than areas without cougars. In Florida, it was shown that road mortality killed over 20% of all cougars (Florida panthers (Puma concolor)) (Land and Lotz 1996). Therefore, it seems likely that cougars are absent from areas of high road density because of the high probability of mortality in those areas.

It is important to note that to determine whether a particular negative effect of roads on animal abundance is due to mortality or traffic disturbance, we need information on per capita traffic mortality rates and/or behavioral responses to roads and traffic (preferably both). If we only have information on the distribution of animals with respect to roads, we cannot distinguish between these two causes. Animal numbers may be low near roads and/or in landscapes with high road density either because the mortality rate is high in these areas, which depresses the populations, or because animals avoid these locations because of the traffic disturbance. Higher mortality rates in roaded areas would support the former (e.g., Fahrig et al. 1995), and analyses of movement paths showing deviations away from roads would support the latter (e.g., Whittington et al. 2004). Note that Roedenbeck et al. (2007) state that distinguishing between these is a priority for road-ecology research: their fourth research question is “What is the relative importance of the different mechanisms by which roads affect population persistence?”


When animals are attracted to roads for a resource but have the cognitive ability and movement speed to allow them to avoid being killed by vehicles (i.e., car avoidance), there can be a net positive effect of roads on animal abundance. For example, some vultures have high densities near roads, presumably because of the availability of food (road-killed animals) (Table 1) and their ability to lift themselves off the road in time to avoid oncoming traffic (pers. obs.).

Species showing no effect of roads on abundance are those with the inverse of the factors above (“Reasons for negative effects”). Species that avoid going onto roads but are not disturbed by road traffic, and have small movement ranges, small territory sizes, and high reproductive rates are unlikely to be affected by roads because road mortality is low and viable populations can exist within areas bounded by roads. This combination of conditions likely explains the lack of effect or weak effects for several small birds and small mammals (Table 1).

Finally, if such a species is prey for other species that are negatively affected by roads, the abundance of the prey species may actually be positively related to roads, due to the release from predation in roaded areas. This combination of factors is most likely the cause of the predominantly positive effects of roads on small mammal abundances in Table 1. Several studies have shown that small mammals avoid going onto roads, presumably because of the lack of protective cover (Ford and Fahrig 2008, McGregor et al. 2008), and several predators of small mammals have been shown to be negatively affected by roads, including foxes, badgers, and snakes (Table 1).


The results of the literature review (Table 1) and the information and ideas discussed above are summarized in Fig. 2. This figure represents a set of predictions of the conditions that lead to strong or weak negative or positive effects or no effect of roads and traffic on animal abundance.

Strong negative effects of roads are predicted in four situations. First, any species that is attracted to roads and is unable to avoid individual cars (e.g., species that are too slow moving) should be negatively affected by roads. Second, all species with large movement ranges, low reproductive rates, and low natural densities should be negatively affected by roads and traffic, irrespective of their behavioral response to roads. Those that do not avoid roads and traffic are susceptible to high mortality effects and those that do avoid roads or traffic disturbance or emissions are susceptible to habitat loss, i.e., otherwise suitable habitat becomes inaccessible or underused. Third, smaller animals whose populations are not limited by road-affected predators but who avoid habitat near roads are negatively affected by roads through habitat loss. Finally, small animals whose populations are not limited by road-affected predators, have no road or traffic avoidance, and are not able to avoid oncoming cars show negative responses to roads due to traffic mortality.

Strong positive effects of roads on animal abundance are predicted in two situations. First, roads should produce a net increase in abundance for species that are attracted to roads for an important resource (e.g., food) and are able to avoid oncoming cars. Second, roads should produce a net increase in abundance for species that do not avoid traffic disturbance or emissions (low habitat loss) but do avoid roads (low road mortality), and whose main predators show negative population-level responses to roads (predator release).

The four conditions leading to negative road effects are likely much more common than the two conditions leading to positive road effects, which most likely is the reason that there are five times as many recorded negative road effects as positive road effects (Table 1). Note, however, that this estimate may be biased if researchers purposefully select study species and situations in which they expect a negative effect of roads a priori. The remaining four (of 10) conditions in Fig. 2 lead to either no effect or only a weak positive or negative effect of roads. We hypothesize that this is the reason for the 35% of effects in Table 1 that are neutral or weak.


Probably the most surprising result of this study, at least to us, is the very large number of studies, 79 in all, that quantified the relationships between animal abundance and roads or traffic. Before completing this review, we had been under the apparently mistaken impression that very few such studies existed. There are several reasons for this discrepancy. First, 71% (56 of 79) of the studies were published within the last 8 years (since 2000; Table 1), so the impression that there are few population-level studies (see Introduction) is simply outdated. Second, many of the studies we found were not primarily “about” road effects. Roads were included in a set of possible predictor variables, but the author(s) did not focus on roads as the main “story” in the paper, so these papers are not widely known among road ecologists. We found these papers mainly by reading papers that cited well-known, older road-ecology papers. It is possible that there are still more papers in this category that we have missed in our review. The third reason for the discrepancy is that, although papers showing a lack of animals in roaded areas are in fact evidence for effects of roads on animal abundance, the authors sometimes do not present the work in this way. Rather, it is fairly common to interpret such studies as evidence for a behavioral avoidance of roads by these animals. As discussed above, this inference is not valid; the mechanism (mortality or avoidance) for reduced abundance cannot be inferred without additional information. Finally, it may not be widely appreciated that studies of road density in animal territories are actually studies of road effects on animal abundance: if territories have lower road densities than control areas, the corollary is that areas with high road densities have lower abundances (or lower probability of occurrence) than areas with low road densities.

Although our literature review revealed many more studies than we anticipated, the evidence for population-level effects of roads in many of these studies is compromised because of weaknesses in study design. Studies where road effects were not the main interest of the author were typically not designed a priori with the intention of quantifying the effects of roads independent of other variables. Roads or areas of high road density are, therefore, frequently correlated with other variables. For example, if areas of high road density typically have lower habitat amounts, it is not possible to state conclusively that the negative effects of roads are real, i.e., they could be effects of habitat loss. This problem is recognized by some authors (e.g., Houlahan and Findlay 2003, Roedenbeck and Köhler 2006), and is bound to occur in any study in which the sample sites are selected randomly or systematically in space, without attention to the distribution of possible confounding variables. Such correlations are one of the main reasons that road-ecology research generally has low inferential strength (Roedenbeck et al. 2007).

There are three possible solutions to this problem. The first is to select sites while controlling for possible confounding variables. For example, in our study of effects of road density on small mammal abundance, we selected landscapes ranging in road density, but with the constraint that small mammal habitat variables had to be constant across sites and landscapes (Rytwinski and Fahrig 2007). A second approach is to select sites such that road density varies independently of possible confounding variables. For example, Eigenbrod et al. (2008a) purposefully selected landscapes varying widely in traffic density and forest cover such that there was no correlation across landscapes between these two variables. This was accomplished by searching for landscapes with unusual combinations such as both high traffic density and high forest cover. These first two approaches are termed “mensurative experiments.” The final and arguably best solution is to conduct a full “before–after–control–impact” (BACI) experiment in which animal abundance is studied for several years both before and after road construction, at both control and road construction sites (Roedenbeck et al. 2007). This sort of study is extremely rare; we are aware of a few before–after studies of animal use of road mitigation structures, but we are not aware of any road BACI studies on animal abundance. Therefore, despite the large number of studies in Table 1, there is still an urgent need for well-designed studies of road effects on animal abundance.

Although derived from the existing literature, the predictions in Fig. 2 still need to be tested with independent data. This requires obtaining not only information on road effects on population abundance, but also information on the species’ movement range and its behavioral responses to roads, traffic emissions, and oncoming vehicles, and in some cases, information on the population responses of its major predators to roads and traffic. Although some of this information is available for some species, usually the full set is not available for a particular species. In addition, we emphasize that information on behavioral responses to roads needs to be clearly distinguished from information on road mortality (Karlsson et al. 2007). For example, deMaynadier and Hunter (2000) showed reduced salamander movements and Noordijk et al. (2006) showed reduced ground beetle movements across roads, but their sampling methods did not allow them to determine whether this reduction was due to mortality or avoidance, so this information cannot be used in testing predictions in Fig. 2.

On first reading, it may seem that our synthesis and the predictions in Fig. 2 miss one of the main mechanisms proposed for negative population-level effects of roads, namely the movement barrier effect, or reduction in landscape connectivity. If roads are a barrier to animal movement, they should reduce animal abundance by fragmenting habitat, thus increasing local extinction rate and reducing colonization rate, and by reducing animal access to critical resources (Jaeger et al. 2005). These processes are actually subsumed within the main effects of mortality and traffic disturbance because both of these processes result in an underutilization of the available habitat. In fact, Eigenbrod et al. (2008b) showed that “accessible habitat,” defined as the habitat available to pond-dwelling amphibians without individuals needed to cross a major road, was a better predictor of amphibian species richness than simply the amount of habitat within some distance of the ponds. This reduction in species richness is likely caused by lack of immigration to ponds with low amounts of accessible habitat, where the low immigration may be due to either mortality of individuals attempting to cross the road, or avoidance of the road due to traffic noise or other emissions. Note again that when the road presents a physical barrier to movement, e.g., because of fencing along the road, the effect on the population is equivalent to the animal showing an extremely strong behavioral avoidance of the road itself.

In conclusion, our review of the empirical literature revealed many more population-level studies on road effects than we were initially expecting based on statements in the literature (Underhill and Angold 2000, Roedenbeck et al. 2007). Studies have been conducted on a wide range of taxa, and overall there is strong evidence for negative effects of roads at the population level. Although more research in this area is still needed because of the issues discussed above, it seems the evidence is certainly strong enough to merit routine consideration of mitigation of these effects in road construction and maintenance projects. The synthesis in Fig. 2 suggests that appropriate mitigation will depend on whether the species of concern in a particular instance are affected mainly through road mortality or through traffic disturbance. Fencing and wildlife crossings (ecopassages) can be used to mitigate road effects for species affected mainly through mortality (amphibians, reptiles, some mammals), whereas road and traffic effects on species affected mainly through traffic disturbance (birds, some large mammals) can likely only be mitigated by reducing road and traffic density in the landscape. Finally, we note that the large base of research on population-level effects is sufficient to justify increased research attention to the other questions raised in the Rauischholzhausen agenda (Roedenbeck et al. 2007) such as: what is the relative importance of road effects vs. other impacts on population persistence (e.g., Eigenbrod et al. 2008a) and under what circumstances can road effects be mitigated (van der Ree et al. 2007)?


Responses to this article are invited. If accepted for publication, your response will be hyperlinked to the article. To submit a response, follow this link. To read responses already accepted, follow this link.


This work was supported by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) and the Canada Foundation for Innovation. We thank two anonymous reviewers for their helpful suggestions.


Adams, L. W., and A. D. Geis. 1983. Effects of roads on small mammals. Journal of Applied Ecology 20:403–415.

Altrichter, M., and G. I. Boaglio. 2004. Distribution and relative abundance of peccaries in the Argentine Chaco: associations with human factors. Biological Conservation 116:217–225.

Anthongy, R. G., and F. B. Isaacs. 1989. Characteristics of bald eagle nest sites in Oregon. Journal of Wildlife Management 53:148–159.

Aresco, M. J. 2005. The effect of sex-specific terrestrial movements and roads on the sex ratio of freshwater turtles. Biological Conservation 123:37–44.

Barnes, R. F. W., K. L. Barnes, P. T. Alers, and A. Blom. 1991. Man determines the distribution of elephants in the rain forests of north-eastern Gabon. African Journal of Ecology 29:54–63.

Boarman, W. I., and M. Sazaki. 2006. A highway's road-effect zone for desert tortoises (Gopherus agassizii). Journal of Arid Environments 65:94–101.

Brody, A. J., and M. R. Pelton. 1989. Effects of roads on black bear movements in western North Carolina. Wildlife Society Bulletin 17:5–10.

Carr, L. W., and L. Fahrig. 2001. Effect of road traffic on two amphibian species of differing vagility. Conservation Biology 15:1071–1078.

Ciarniello, L. M., M. S. Boyce, D. C. Heard, and D. R. Seip. 2007. Components of grizzly bear habitat selection: density, habitats, roads, and mortality risk. Journal of Wildlife Management 71:1446–1457.

Coleman, J. S., and J. D. Fraser. 1989. Habitat use and home ranges of black and turkey vultures. Journal of Wildlife Management 53:782–792.

de Maynadier, P. G., and M. L. Hunter. 2000. Road effects on amphibian movements in a forested landscape. Natural Areas Journal 20:56–65.

Dickson, B. G., and P. Beier. 2002. Home-range and habitat selection by adult cougars in southern California. Journal of Wildlife Management 66:1235–1245.

Dyer, S. J., J. P. O’Neill, S. M. Wasel, and S. Boutin. 2001. Avoidance of industrial development by woodland caribou. Journal of Wildlife Management 65:531–542.

Dyer, S. J., J. P. O’Neill, S. M. Wasel, and S. Boutin. 2002. Quantifying barrier effects of roads and seismic lines on movements of female woodland caribou in northeastern Alberta. Canadian Journal of Zoology 80:839–845.

Eigenbrod, F., S. J. Hecnar, and L. Fahrig. 2008a. The relative effects of road traffic and forest cover on anuran populations. Biological Conservation 141:35–46.

Eigenbrod, F., S. J. Hecnar, and L. Fahrig. 2008b. Accessible habitat: an improved measure of the effects of habitat loss and roads on wildlife populations. Landscape Ecology 23:159–168.

Fahrig, L., J. H. Pedlar, S. E. Pope, P. D. Taylor and J. F. Wegner. 1995. Effect of road traffic on amphibian density. Biological Conservation 73:177–182.

Findlay, C. S., and J. Bourdages. 2000. Response time of wetland biodiversity to road construction on adjacent lands. Conservation Biology 14:86–94.

Findlay, C. S., and J. Houlahan. 1997. Anthropogenic correlates of species richness in southeastern Ontario wetlands. Conservation Biology 11:1000–1009.

Ford, A. T. and L. Fahrig. 2008. Movement patterns of eastern chipmunks (Tamias striatus) near roads. Journal of Mammalogy 89:895–903.

Forman R. T. T., B. Reineking, and A. M. Hersperger. 2002. Road traffic and nearby grassland bird patterns in a suburbanizing landscape. Environmental Management 29:782–800.

Forman, R. T. T., D. Sperling, J. A. Bissonette, A. P. Clevenger, C. D. Cutshall, V. H. Dale, L. Fahrig, R. France, C. R. Goldman, K. Heanue, J. A. Jones, F. J. Swanson, T. Turrentine, and T. C. Winter. 2003. Road ecology: science and solutions. Island Press, Washington, D.C., USA.

Fowle, S. C. 1990. The painted turtle in the Mission Valley of western Montana. Dissertation, University of Montana, Missoula, Montana, USA.

Fuller, T. K. 1989. Population dynamics of wolves in North-central Minnesota. Wildlife Monographs 105:1–41.

Garland, T., and W. G. Bradley. 1984. Effects of a highway on Mojave Desert rodent populations. American Midland Naturalist 111:47–56.

Gibbs, J. P., and W. G. Shriver. 2002. Estimating the effects of road mortality on turtle populations. Conservation Biology 16:1647–1652.

Hels, T., and E. Buchwald. 2001. The effect of road kills on amphibian populations. Biological Conservation 99:331–340.

Houlahan, J. E., and C. S. Findlay. 2003. The effects of adjacent land use on wetland amphibian species richness and community composition. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 60:1078–1094.

Huijser, M. P., and P. J. M. Bergers. 2000. The effect of roads and traffic on hedgehogs (Erinaceus europaeus) populations. Biological Conservation 95:111–116.

Jaeger, J. A. G., J. Bowman, J. Brennan, L. Fahrig, D. Bert, J. Bouchard, N. Charbonneau, K. Frank, B. Gruber, and K. Tluk von Toschanowitz. 2005. Predicting when animal populations are at risk from roads: an interactive model of road avoidance behavior. Ecological Modeling 185:329–348.

Jaeger, J. A. G., and L. Fahrig. 2004. Under what conditions do fences reduce the effects of roads on population persistence? Conservation Biology 18:1651–1657.

Jedrzejewski, W., M. Niedzialkowska, S. Nowak, and B. Jedrzejewska. 2004. Habitat variables associated with wolf (Canis lupus) distribution and abundance in northern Poland. Diversity and Distributions 10:225–233.

Jensen, W. F., T. K. Fuller, and W. L. Robinson. 1986. Wolf (Canis lupus) distribution on the Ontario–Michigan border near Sault Ste. Marie. Canadian Field-Naturalist 100:363–366.

Johnson, W. C., and S. K. Collinge. 2004. Landscape effects on black-tailed prairie dog colonies. Biological Conservation 115:487–497.

Karlsson J., H. Brøseth, H. Sand, and H. Andrén. 2007. Predicting occurrence of wolf territories in Scandinavia. Journal of Zoology 272:276–283.

Kerley, L. L., J. M. Goodrich, D. G. Miquelle, E. N. Smirnov, H. B. Quigley, and M. G. Hornocker. 2002. Effects of roads and human disturbance on Amur tigers. Conservation Biology 16:97–108.

King, C. M., J. G. Innes, M. Flux, M. O. Kimberley, J. R. Leathwick, and D. S. Williams. 1996. Distribution and abundance of small mammals in relation to habitat in Pureora Forest Park. New Zealand Journal of Ecology 20:215–240

Koivula, M. J., and H. J. W. Vermeulen. 2005. Highways and forest fragmentation—effects on carabid beetles (Coleoptera, Carabidae). Landscape Ecology 20:911–926.

Kuitunen, M. T., J. Viljanen, E. Rossi, and A. Stenroos. 2003. Impact of busy roads on breeding success in pied flycatchers Ficedula hypoleuca. Environmental Management 31:79–85.

Kunkel, K. E., and D. H. Pletscher. 2000. Habitat factors affecting vulnerability of moose to predation by wolves in southeastern British Columbia. Canadian Journal of Zoology 78:150–157.

Land, D., and M. Lotz. 1996. Wildlife crossing designs and use by Florida panthers and other wildlife in southwest Florida. In G. L. Evink, P. Garrett, D. Zeigler, and J. Berry, editors. Proceedings of the 1996 International Conference on Wildlife Ecology and Transportation. State of Florida Department of Transportation Environmental Management Office, Tallahassee, Florida, USA. [online] URL: http://www.icoet.net/ICOWET/96proceedings.asp.

Loehle, C., T. B. Wigley, P. A. Shipman, S. F. Fox, S. Rutzmoser, R. E. Thill, and M. A. Melchiors. 2005. Herpetofaunal species richness responses to forest landscape structure in Arkansas. Forest Ecology and Management 209:293–308.

Lovallo, M. J., and E. M. Anderson. 1996. Bobcat movements and home ranges relative to roads in Wisconsin. Wildlife Society Bulletin 24:71–76.

Luce, A., and M. Crowe. 2001. Invertebrate terrestrial diversity along a gravel road on Barrie Island, Ontario, Canada. Great Lakes Entomologist 34:55–60.

Mace, R. D., J. S. Waller, T. L. Manley, L. J. Lyon, and H. Zurring. 1996. Relationships among grizzly bears, roads, and habitat in the Swan Mountains, Montana. The Journal of Applied Ecology 33:1395–1404.

Mazerolle, M. J., M. Huot, and M. Gravel. 2005. Behavior of amphibians on the road in response to car traffic. Herpetologica 61:380–388.

McAlpine, C. A., J. R. Rhodes, J. G. Callaghan, M. E. Bowen, D. Lunney, D. L. Mitchell, D. V. Pullar, and H. P. Possingham. 2006. The importance of forest area and configuration relative to local habitat factors for conserving forest mammals: a case study of koalas in Queensland, Australia. Biological Conservation 132:153–165.

McGregor, R. L., D. J. Bender, and L. Fahrig. 2008. Do small mammals avoid roads because of the traffic? Journal of Applied Ecology 45:117–123.

McLellan, B. N., and D. M. Shackleton. 1988. Grizzly bears and resource-extraction industries: effects of roads on behavior, habitat use and demography. Journal of Applied Ecology 25:451–460.

Mech, L. D., S. H. Fritts, G. L. Radde, and W. J. Paul. 1988. Wolf distribution and road density in Minnesota. Wildlife Society Bulletin 16:85–87.

Mladenoff, D. J., T. A. Sickley, R. G. Haight, and A. P. Wydeven. 1995. A regional landscape analysis and prediction of favourable Gray Wolf habitat in the northern Great-Lakes region. Conservation Biology 9:279–294.

Mowat, G. 2006. Winter habitat associations of American martens Martes americana in interior wet-belt forests. Wildlife Biology 12:51–61.

Mumme, R. L., S. J. Schoech, G. E. Woolfenden, and J. W. Fitzpatrick. 2000. Life and death in the fast line: demographic consequences of road mortality in the Florida Scrub-Jay. Conservation Biology 14:501–512.

Munguira, M. L., and J. A. Thomas. 1992. Use of road verges by butterfly and burnet populations, and the effect of roads on adult dispersal and mortality. Journal of Applied Ecology 29:316–329.

Newmark, W. D., J. I. Boshe, H. I. Sariko, and G. K. Makumbule. 1996. Effects of a highway on large mammals in Mikumi National Park, Tanzania. African Journal of Ecology 34:15–31.

Niedziałkowska, M., W. Jedrzejewski, R. W. Mysłajek, S. Nowak, B. Jedrzejewska, and K. Schmidt. 2006. Environmental correlates of Eurasian lynx occurrence in Poland—large scale census and GIS mapping. Biological Conservation 133:63–69.

Noordijk, J., D. Prins, M. de Jonge, and R. Vermeulen. 2006. Impact of a road on the movements of two ground beetle species (Coleoptera: Carabidae). Entomologica Fennica 17:276–283.

Norling, B. S., S. H. Anderson, and W. A. Hubert. 1992. Roost sites used by Sandhill Crane staging along the Platte River, Nebraska. Great Basin Naturalist 52:253–261.

Nyström, P., L. Birkedal, C. Dahlberg, and C. Brönmark. 2002. The declining spadefoot toad Pelobates fuscus: calling site choice and conservation. Ecography 25: 488–498.

Nyström, P., J. Hansson, J. Månsson, M. Sundstedt, C. Reslow, and A. Broström. 2007. A documented amphibian decline over 40 years: possible causes and implications for species recovery. Biological Conservation 138:399–411.

Palma, L., P. Beja, and M. Rodrigues. 1999. The use of sighting data to analyse Iberian lynx habitat and distribution. Journal of Applied Ecology 36:812–824.

Parris, K. M. 2006. Urban amphibian assemblages as metacommunities. Journal of Animal Ecology 75:757–764.

Paruk, J. D. 1987. Habitat utilization by bald eagles wintering along the Mississippi River (USA). Transactions of the Illinois State Academy of Science 80:333–342.

Pellet, J., A. Guisan, and N. Perrin. 2004a. A concentric analysis of the impact of urbanization on the threatened European tree frog in an agricultural landscape. Conservation Biology 18:1599–1606.

Pellet, J., S. Hoehn, and N. Perrin. 2004b. Multiscale determinants of tree frog (Hyla arborea L.) calling ponds in western Switzerland. Biodiversity and Conservation 13:2227–2235.

Peris, S. J., and M. Pescador. 2004. Effects of traffic noise on passerine populations in Mediterranean wooded pastures. Applied Acoustics 65:357–366.

Pocock, Z., and R. E. Lawrence. 2005. How far into a forest does the effect of a road extend? Defining road edge effect in eucalyupt forests of south-eastern Australia. Pages 397–405 in C. L. Irwin, P. Garrett, and K. P. McDermott, editors. Proceedings of the 2005 International Conference on Ecology and Transportation. Center for Transportation and Environment, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina, USA.

Porej, D., M. Micacchion, and T. E. Hetherington. 2004. Core terrestrial habitat for conservation of local populations of salamanders and wood frogs in agricultural landscapes. Biological Conservation 120:399–409.

Reijnen, R., R. Foppen, and H. Meeuwsen. 1996. The effects of traffic on the density of breeding birds in dutch agricultural grasslands. Biological Conservation 75:255–260.

Rheindt, F. E. 2003. The impact of roads on birds: does song frequency play a role in determining susceptibility to noise pollution? Journal für Ornithologie 144: 295–306.

Roedenbeck, I. A., L. Fahrig, C. S. Findlay, J. E. Houlahan, J. A. G. Jaeger, N. Klar, S. Kramer-Schadt, and E. A. van der Grift. 2007. The Rauischholzhausen agenda for road ecology. Ecology and Society 12(1): 11. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss1/art11/.

Roedenbeck, I. A., and W. Köhler. 2006. Effekte der Landschaftszerschneidung auf die Unfallhäufigkeit und Bestandsdichte von Wildtierpopulationen. 2006. Naturschutz und Landschaftsplanung 38:314–322.

Roedenbeck, I. A., and P. Voser. 2008. Effects of roads on spatial distribution, abundance and mortality of brown hare (Lepus europaeus) in Switzerland. European Journal of Wildlife Research 54:425–437.

Rosa, S., and J. Bissonette. 2007. Roads and desert small mammal communities: positive interaction? Pages 562–566 in C. L. Irwin, D. Nelson, and K. P. McDermott, editors. Proceedings of the 2007 International Conference on Ecology and Transportation. Center for Transportation and Environment, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina, USA.

Rost, G. R., and J. A. Bailey. 1979. Distribution of mule deer and elk in relation to roads. Journal of Wildlife Management 43:634–641.

Row, J. R., G. Blouin-Demers, and P. J. Weatherhead. 2007. Demographic effects of road mortality in black ratsnakes (Elaphe obsoleta). Biological Conservation 137:117–124.

Rudolph, D. C., S. J. Burgdorf, R. N. Conner, and R. R. Schaefer. 1999. Preliminary evaluation of the impact of roads and associated vehicular traffic on snake populations in eastern Texas. In G. L. Evink, P. Garrett, and D. Ziegler, editors. Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Wildlife Ecology and Transportation, FL-ER-73-99. Florida Department of Transportation, Tallahassee, Florida, USA. [online] URL: http://www.icoet.net/ICOWET/99proceedings.asp.

Rytwinski, T., and L. Fahrig. 2007. Effect of road density on abundance of white-footed mice. Landscape Ecology 22:1501–1512.

Semlitsch, R. D., T. J. Ryan, K. Hamed, M. Chatfield, B. Drehman, N. Pekarek, M. Spath, and A. Watland. 2007. Salamander abundance along road edges and within abandoned logging roads in Appalachian forests. Conservation Biology 21:159–167.

Skidds, D. E., F. C. Golet, P. W. C. Paton, and J. C. Mitchell. 2007. Habitat correlates of reproductive effort in wood frogs and spotted salamanders in an urbanizing watershed. Journal of Herpetology 41:439–450.

Steen, D. A., M. J. Aresco, S. G. Beilke, B. W. Compton, E. P. Condon, C. K. Dodd, H. Forrester, J. W. Gibbons, J. L. Greene, G. Johnson, T. A. Langen, M. J. Oldham, D. N. Oxier, R. A. Saumure, F. W. Schueler, J. M. Sleeman, L. L. Smith, J. K. Tucker, and J. P. Gibbs. 2006. Relative vulnerability of female turtles to road mortality. Animal Conservation 9:269–273.

Steen, D. A., L. L. Smith, L. M. Conner, J. C. Brock, and S. K. Hoss. 2007. Habitat use of sympatric rattlesnake species within the Gulf Coastal Plain. Journal of Wildlife Management 71:759–764.

Stevens, V. M., E. Leboulengé, R. A. Wesselingh, and M. Baguette. 2006. Quantifying functional connectivity: experimental assessment of boundary permeability for the natterjack toad (Bufo calamita). Oecologia 150:161–171.

Sullivan, B. K. 1981. Observed differences in body temperature and associated behaviour of four snake species. Journal of Herpetology 15:245–246.

Sullivan, B. K. 2000. Long-term shifts in snake populations: a California site revisited. Biological Conservation 94:321–325.

Suring, L. H., S. D. Farley, G. V. Hilderbrand, M. I. Goldstein, S. Howlin, and W. P. Erickson. 2006. Patterns of landscape use by female brown bears on the Kenia Peninsula, Alaska. Journal of Wildlife Management 70:1580–1587.

Tanner, D., and J. Perry. 2007. Road effects on abundance and fitness of Galápagos lava lizards (Microlophus albemarlensis). Journal of Environmental Management 85:270–278.

Thiel, R. P. 1985. Relationship between road densities and wolf habitat suitability in Wisconsin. The American Midland Naturalist 113:404–407.

Trenham, P. C., W. D. Koenig, M. J. Mossman, S. L. Stark, and L. A. Jagger. 2003. Regional dynamics of wetland-breeding frogs and toads: turnover and synchrony. Ecological Applications 13:1522–1532.

Trombulak, S. C., and C. A. Frissell. 2000. Review of ecological effects of roads on terrestrial and aquatic communities. Conservation Biology 14:18–30.

Underhill, J. E., and P. G. Angold. 2000. Effects of roads on wildlife in an intensively modified landscape. Environmental Reviews 8:21–39.

van der Ree, R., E. van der Grift, C. Mata, and F. Suarez. 2007. Overcoming the barrier effect of roads—how effective are mitigation strategies? An international review of the use and effectiveness of underpasses and overpasses designed to increase the permeability of roads for wildlife. Pages 423–431 in C. L. Irwin, D. Nelson, and K. P. McDermott, editors. Proceedings of the 2007 International Conference on Ecology and Transportation. Center for Transportation and Environment, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina, USA.

van der Zande, A. N., W. J. ter Keurs, and W. J. van der Weijden. 1980. The impact of roads on the densities of four bird species in an open field habitat—evidence of a long-distance effect. Biological Conservation 18:299–321.

van der Zee, F. F., J. Wiertz, C. J. F. ter Braak, and R. C. Apeldoorn. 1992. Landscape change as a possible cause of the badger Meles meles L. decline in the Netherlands. Biological Conservation 61:17–22.

van Dyke, F. G., R. H. Brocke, and H. G. Shaw. 1986. Use of road track counts as indices of mountain lion presence. Journal of Wildlife Management 50:102–109.

van Langevelde, F., and C. F. Jaarsma. 2005. Using traffic flow theory to model traffic mortality in mammals. Landscape Ecology 19:895–907.

Vos, C. C., and J. P. Chardon. 1998. Effects habitat fragmentation and of road density on the distribution pattern of the moor frog Rana arvalis. Journal of Applied Ecology 35:44–56.

Ward, R. L., J. T. Anderson, and J. T. Petty. 2008. Effects of road crossings on stream and streamside salamanders. Journal of Wildlife Management 72:760–771.

Warner, R. E. 1992. Nest ecology of grassland passerines on road rights-of-way in central Illinois. Biological Conservation 59:1–7.

White, P. J. T., and J. T. Kerr. 2007. Human impacts on environment–diversity relationships: evidence for biotic homogenization from butterfly species richness patterns. Global Ecology and Biogeography 16: 290–299.

Whittington, J., C. C. St. Clair, and G. Mercer. 2004. Path tortuosity and the permeability of roads and trails to wolf movement. Ecology and Society 9(1):4. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss1/art4/.

Address of Correspondent:
Lenore Fahrig
Carleton University,
Geomatics and Landscape Ecology Laboratory,
Department of Biology,
1125 Colonel By Drive
Ottawa, Ontario, K1S 5B6,

Home | Archives | About | Login | Submissions | Notify | Contact | Search