Table 1.

Summary of the information required to assess the landscape consequences of traps. This table outlines (a and b) the variables that are likely to determine the landscapes consequences of traps (following [10]); (c) the conditions under which animals are most likely to encounter/select traps, when traps are likely to most reduce fitness, and when animals are most susceptible to these effects; (d) the scale (patch or landscape) at which these variables should be considered; (e) the nine variables evaluated in this study, in terms of the degree to which they have been considered in studies of ecological traps (see main text and electronic supplementary material for further information); and (f) the information required to consider the variables outlined in (b). The top row identifies the section that each column is most relevant to.

introduction				methods	results and discussion
(a) category	(b) variable	(c) worst case scenario/examples	(d) scale (P: patch, L: landscape)	(e) variables evaluated	(f) required information
probability of encounter	proportion of traps in the landscape	large % of habitats are traps [8,10,20,21]	P: is a habitat a trap? L: % of traps in the landscape	T. pro: proportion of habitats that are traps H. avail: habitat availability—distribution of trap/non-trap habitat in study region	—GIS analysis—proportion of traps, distribution of habitats
	landscape topology	likely when traps are large and central	P: Size of traps L: landscape topology	Size: size of trap and non-trap patches	—importance of different patches for connectivity [25]
	dispersal capacity	vagility increases trap encounters [10]	L	n.a.	—parametrized dispersal kernel
	perceptual range	larger perceptual range attracts animals to traps from further away	L	n.a.	—characterize perceptual range (e.g. [26])
likelihood of selection	attractiveness of traps	traps highly attractive [10,11,27]	P	T. att: strength of preference for traps	—tests of habitat preference
	habitat selection	animals use simple/single cues [8]	P	H. sel: do studies consider habitat selection behaviour?	—knowledge of habitat selection behaviour, e.g. which/how many cues used?
	influence of natal experience on habitat selection	natal experience increases probability of selecting poor quality habitats [28,29]	P	Np: does natal experience influence habitat selection?	—test if natal experience influences habitat selection
	disperser physiology	animals become less choosy and more likely to select traps as dispersal progresses	P	Phys: potential influence of disperser condition on preference	—assess if preferences change in relation to condition or dispersal time
fitness costs of selection	fitness costs of traps	traps greatly reduce fitness, especially mortality [16]	P	T. fit: fitness comparison of traps/non-traps	—fitness in traps versus non-traps
susceptibility to costs of selection	intrinsic fitness/life-history traits	animals have ‘slow’ life histories, no capacity for learning/adaptation [8,24]	P	Traits: are traits/intrinsic fitness considered?	—knowledge of life history