Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36038930›Full record

ArticleMovement ecology2022

Is it the road or the fence? Influence of linear anthropogenic features on the movement and distribution of a partially migratory ungulate.

Paul F Jones, Andrew F Jakes, Scott E Vegter, Mike S Verhage

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Movement ecology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
3.7field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Predicting the impact of targeted fence removal on connectivity in a migratory ecosystem.Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Paul F JonesAlberta Conservation Association, #400 817-4th Ave South, Lethbridge, AB, T1J 0P3, Canada. paul.jones@ab-conservation.com.
Andrew F JakesSmithsonian's National Zoo and Conservation Biology Institute, 1500 Remount Road, Front Royal, VA, 22630, USA.
Scott E VegterAlberta Conservation Association, #400 817-4th Ave South, Lethbridge, AB, T1J 0P3, Canada.
Mike S VerhageAlberta Conservation Association, #400 817-4th Ave South, Lethbridge, AB, T1J 0P3, Canada.
Alberta Conservation Association · CASmithsonian Conservation Biology Institute · US

Funding

Alberta Professional Outfitters Society Legacy Fund and Wildlife Management FundSafari Club International Northern Alberta Chapter Hunting Heritage Fund
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAnthropogenic linear features change the behavior and selection patterns of species, which must adapt to these ever-increasing features on the landscape. Roads are a well-studied linear feature that alter the survival, movement, and distribution of animals. Less understood are the effects of fences on wildlife, though they tend to be more ubiquitous across the landscape than roads. Even less understood are potential indirect effects when fences are found in tandem with roads along transportation corridors.

methodsWe assessed how the spatial configuration of fences and roads effect the movement (crossing effect) and distribution (proximity effect) of a partially migratory pronghorn population (Antilocapra americana) on the grasslands of southern Alberta, Canada. We used data from 55 collared pronghorn within a step-selection function framework to assess the influence of 4 linear features: (1) pasture fences, (2) roads not fenced, (3) roads fenced on one side, and (4) roads fenced on both sides on the selection pattern of migratory and resident animals. We examined whether steps along a movement pathway (i.e., crossing effect) were influenced by the type of linear feature animals attempted to cross and, whether these features affected the distribution of pronghorn (i.e., proximity effect) across the landscape.

resultsThe top model for crossing effect for both movement tactics contained all 4 linear features and land cover. Regression coefficients were negative for all linear features, indicating that individuals were less likely to chose steps that crossed linear features. For the proximity effect, migrant animals avoided all linear features except roads fenced on both sides, where they selected areas closer to this feature. Resident animals, on the other hand, were found closer to pasture fences but further from roads without fences.

conclusionsOur results indicate that both fences and roads are indirectly affecting pronghorn resource use spatially and behaviorally, whether each linear feature is found separately or in tandem. Modifying existing fences and roads to account for responses to these distinct linear features could facilitate more successful crossing opportunities and/or shifts in distribution. Allowing pronghorn to freely move across the landscape will maintain functional connectivity to ensure population persistence of this endemic ungulate.

Indexed as

AlbertaAnthropogenic linear featureBarrier effectCrossing effectFencesMovement tacticPronghornProximity effectRelative selection strengthRoads

Identifiers

PMID36038930
PMCPMC9422137
OpenAlexW4293761487

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.