MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415424539 · doi:10.1111/1365-2664.70190

Mammals with large home ranges, low reproductive rates and small body sizes are most vulnerable to roads: A meta‐analysis

2025· article· en· W4415424539 on OpenAlexafffund
Sean I. Patterson, Lenore Fahrig, Jochen A.G. Jaeger, Oriana Meek‐Sauriol, Fernanda Zimmermann Teixeira, Aurora Torres, Trina Rytwinski

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Ecology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife-Road Interactions and Conservation
Canadian institutionsConcordia UniversityCarleton University
FundersConselleria de Agricultura, Medio Ambiente, Cambio Climático y Desarrollo Rural, Generalitat ValencianaGeneralitat ValencianaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCoordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior
KeywordsMammalRange (aeronautics)Reproductive successAttractionReproductionMarine mammalReproductive behavior

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In a previous meta‐analysis, mammals with large home ranges, low reproductive rates and large body sizes were found to respond most negatively to roads. However, due to correlations among these traits, it is not known whether these responses were due to a subset or all three traits. We conducted a multiple meta‐regression of the effects of species traits on mammal responses to roads, using data from 92 studies, to determine whether an analysis with a larger sample size and controlling for correlations among traits will support the previous findings. The results reinforce the findings that mammals with larger home ranges and lower reproductive rates respond more negatively to roads. Surprisingly, we found that when controlling for the effects of home range size and reproductive rate, larger mammals respond less negatively to roads than smaller mammals. We speculate that the positive effect of body size is due to driver avoidance of collisions with larger mammals and/or differences in road attraction and car avoidance behaviours of larger versus smaller species that allow larger mammals to extract benefits of roads while avoiding oncoming vehicles We also found high variability of individual responses to roads, above what could be explained by the species traits model, most likely due to site‐ and/or species‐specific characteristics. Synthesis and applications. Road mitigation for mammals should ideally be informed by site‐level knowledge and generally involve prioritizing species with the combination of larger home ranges, lower reproductive rates and smaller body sizes. To protect these vulnerable mammals from roads, we should maintain low road densities and instal small‐mesh mitigation fencing along roads. This differs from current road mitigation efforts which are typically targeted towards large mammals (e.g. large‐mesh fencing along roads) and are often ineffective for smaller mammals.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.046

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.029
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.228 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied EcologySame topicWildlife-Road Interactions and ConservationFrench-language works237,207