The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Effects of Roads on Animal Abundance: an Empirical Review and Synthesis
Open accessAbstract
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 populationlevel 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.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Carrete, M., & Tella, J. L. (2011) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0018859 · Cited by 224
Large Gaps in Canopy Reduce Road Crossing by a Gliding Mammal
van der Ree, R., Cesarini, S., Sunnucks, P., Moore, J. L., & Taylor, A. (2010) · Ecology and Society · doi:10.5751/es-03759-150435 · Cited by 62
Scent-marking strategies of a solitary carnivore: boundary and road scent marking in the leopard
Rafiq, K., Jordan, N. R., Meloro, C., Wilson, A. M., Hayward, M. W., Wich, S. A., & McNutt, J. W. (2020) · Animal Behaviour · doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2019.12.016 · Cited by 50
Metadata
- Authors
- Fahrig, L., & Rytwinski, T.
- Venue
- Ecology and Society
- Publisher
- Resilience Alliance, Inc.
- Published
- 2009
- Volume
- 14
- Issue
- 1
- ISSN
- 1708-3087 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W653200273
- Cited by
- 1,305
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 44.55
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Effects of Roads on Animal Abundance: an Empirical Review and Synthesis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.5751/es-02815-140121
- The paper
- Fahrig, L., & Rytwinski, T. (2009). Effects of Roads on Animal Abundance: an Empirical Review and Synthesis. Ecology and Society. https://doi.org/10.5751/es-02815-140121
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.