A roads meta-analysis found an average wildlife cost—and big uncertainty
WHAT THE EVIDENCE SAYS
Reviewers fitted three-level models to 643 effect estimates from 160 studies. On the log-response-ratio scale, wildlife outcomes near roads averaged about 32% lower, but the standardized mean difference and correlation estimates had confidence intervals crossing zero. Prediction intervals spanned positive and negative responses; traffic volume was reported for only 91 effects.
WHY IT MATTERS / OUR READ
An average road effect is not an adequate crossing-location or mitigation design. Species, outcome type, traffic exposure and nearby habitat all matter; mixed effect scales should not be silently collapsed into a single universal loss percentage.
CAVEATS / UNCERTAINTY
Effects were heterogeneous and most studies did not supply standardized traffic-volume information. This synthesis is observational across studies and does not prove a single causal road response for all taxa or habitats.
SOURCE
Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution — primary systematic review and meta-analysis
View original evidence ↗
A synthesis of 160 studies found a roughly 32% reduction on one effect scale, while other effect metrics were uncertain and site results varied greatly.
Read the Wild Lands assessment →