Roads, while central to the function of human society, create barriers to animal movement through collisions and habitat fragmentation. Barriers to animal movement affect the evolution and trajectory of populations. Investigators have attempted to use traffic volume, the number of vehicles passing a point on a road segment, to predict effects to wildlife populations approximately linearly and along taxonomic lines; however, taxonomic groupings cannot provide sound predictions because closely related species often respond differently. We assess the role of wildlife behavioral responses to traffic volume as a tool to predict barrier effects from vehicle‐caused mortality and avoidance, to provide an early warning system that recognizes traffic volume as a trigger for mitigation, and to better interpret roadkill data. We propose four categories of behavioral response based on the perceived danger to traffic: Nonresponders, Pausers, Speeders, and Avoiders. Nonresponders attempt to cross highways regardless of traffic volume. Pausers stop in the face of danger so have a low probability of successful crossing when traffic volume increases. Hence, highway barrier effects are primarily due to mortality for Nonresponders and Pausers at high traffic volumes. Speeders run away from danger but are unable to do so successfully as traffic volume increases. At moderate to high volume, Speeders are repelled by traffic danger. Avoiders face lower mortality than other categories because they begin to avoid traffic at relatively low traffic volumes. Hence, avoidance causes barrier effects more than mortality for Speeders and Avoiders even at relatively moderate traffic volumes. By considering a species’ risk‐avoidance response to traffic, managers can make more appropriate and timely decisions to mitigate effects before populations decline or become locally extinct.

No abstract

No abstract

Urbanization disrupts landscapes and ecosystem functions, which poses threats to biodiversity, social systems, and human health, particularly among vulnerable populations. Urban land-use planners are faced with competing demands for housing, safety, transportation, and economic development and often lack tools to integrate these with protecting environmental functions. We identify three major barriers to integrating the benefits that flow with connected, functioning ecosystems into land-use planning. The lack of a shared language among planners and stakeholders poses a barrier to the restoration and preservation of ecological features. Methods of incorporating the benefits from connectivity are not standardized because values are not readily available or lack credibility. Ecological restoration tends to be poorly coordinated at broad scales, and thus often fails to achieve landscape-level objectives. To address these challenges, we developed a novel integrated framework, the Connectivity Benefits Framework (CBF), which combines the benefits from three categories of ecosystem connectivity with benefit-and risk-relevant indicators, enabling both monetary and non-monetary valuation of benefits. Moreover, it provides a method to identify and visualize the multiple and overlapping benefits from management actions to aid in prioritizing initiatives that support ecosystem functions. Unlike software tools that incorporate generalized values of ecosystem services at a landscape level, the CBF guides a systematic approach to community-engaged land-use planning that prioritizes localized societal needs while protecting biodiversity and ecosystem function for more equitable, resilient cities. We demonstrate the potential for multiple overlapping benefits from actions that restore and protect ecosystem connectivity by applying the framework to a transit planning project in Portland, Oregon.

Roads are not the only determining factor for wildlife movement across the landscape, but due to the extensive distribution of the road network their impact can be dramatic. Although it has been well documented that roads decrease habitat connectivity for wildlife due to animal-vehicle collisions, habitat fragmentation, and avoidance behavior, approaches for identifying connectivity across the landscape often do not fully examine the barrier effect of roads. Here, we explored the extent of the impact of roadways on wildlife connectivity by using Omniscape to model connectivity including and without the barrier effect of roads, then evaluating the difference between these two models. We created these connectivity models for three organisms that represent different taxa, movement types, and habitat requirements: northern red-legged frog, Pacific-slope flycatcher, and Columbian black-tailed deer. We found that roads had a strong impact on connectivity for all three species. Change in flow was most pronounced on the roads, especially where they ran through permeable habitat for a species. Roads also influenced connectivity well beyond the footprint of the roadway, affecting flows intersecting the roads and diffusely around them. The extent and nature of this impact depended on the species, road density, and surrounding habitat. The different effects across species highlight the importance of considering different taxa simultaneously while planning. Moreover, the ability to assess modeled wildlife habitat connectivity in the absence of existing widespread linear infrastructure allows for critical evaluation of where mitigation activities, such as wildlife crossing structures and fencing, may be most beneficial. Hence, this novel approach has practical application for increasing connectivity for wildlife across roads.