No abstract

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.

Summary1. The successful movement of individuals is fundamental to life. Facilitating these movements by promoting ecological connectivity has become a central theme in ecology and conservation. Urban areas contain more than half of the world's human population, and their potential to support biodiversity and to connect their citizens to nature is increasingly recognized. Promoting ecological connectivity within these areas is essential to reaching this potential. However, our current understanding of ecological connectivity within urban areas appears limited. 2. We reviewed the published scientific literature to assess the state-of-the-art of ecological connectivity research in urban areas, summarized trends in study attributes and highlighted knowledge gaps. 3. We found 174 papers that investigated ecological connectivity within urban areas. These papers addressed either structural (48) or functional connectivity (111), and some addressed both (15), but contained substantial geographic and taxonomic biases. These papers rarely defined the aspect of connectivity they were investigating and objective descriptions of the local urban context were uncommon. Formulated hypotheses or a priori predictions were typically unstated and many papers used suboptimal study designs and methods. 4. We suggest future studies explicitly consider and quantify the landscape within their analyses and make greater use of available and rapidly developing tools and methods for measuring functional connectivity (e.g. biotelemetry or landscape genetics). We also highlight the need for studies to clearly define how the terms 'urban' and 'connectivity' have been applied. 5. Knowledge gaps in ecological connectivity in urban areas remain, partly because the field is still in its infancy and partly because we must better capitalize on the state-of-the-art technological and analytical techniques that are increasingly available. Well-designed studies that employed high-resolution data and powerful analytical techniques highlight our abilities to quantify ecological connectivity in urban areas. These studies are exemplary, setting the standards for future research to facilitate data-driven and evidence-based biodiversity-friendly infrastructure planning in urban areas.