Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39868640›Full record

ArticleEcological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America2025

Predicting the impact of targeted fence removal on connectivity in a migratory ecosystem.

Imogen A Schwandner, Thomas A Morrison, J Grant C Hopcraft, Jake Wall, Lacey Hughey, Randall B Boone, Joseph O Ogutu, Andrew F Jakes, Shem C Kifugo, Campaign Limo and 10 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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
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

20 authors.

Imogen A SchwandnerSchool of Biodiversity, One Health and Veterinary Medicine, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0007-6168-4345
Thomas A MorrisonSchool of Biodiversity, One Health and Veterinary Medicine, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7262-1402
J Grant C HopcraftSchool of Biodiversity, One Health and Veterinary Medicine, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
Jake WallMara Elephant Project, Lemek Conservancy, Kenya.
Lacey HugheySmithsonian National Zoo and Conservation Biology Institute, Conservation Ecology Center, Front Royal, Virginia, USA.
Randall B BooneDepartment of Ecosystem Science and Sustainability and the Natural Resource Ecology Laboratory, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA.
Joseph O OgutuBiostatistics Unit, Institute of Crop Science, University of Hohenheim, Stuttgart, Germany.
Andrew F JakesWyoming Migration Initiative, Wyoming Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Dept 3166, University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming, USA.
Shem C KifugoGroningen Institute for Evolutionary Life Sciences, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Campaign LimoKenya Wildlife Service, Nairobi, Kenya.
Stephen Ndambuki MwiuDepartment of Wildlife Populations and Habitat Dynamics, Wildlife Research and Training Institute, Naivasha, Kenya.
Vasco NyagaDepartment of Wildlife Populations and Habitat Dynamics, Wildlife Research and Training Institute, Naivasha, Kenya.
Han OlffGroningen Institute for Evolutionary Life Sciences, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Gordon O OjwangGroningen Institute for Evolutionary Life Sciences, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Wilson SairowuaMara Elephant Project, Lemek Conservancy, Kenya.
Jackson SasinePardamat Community Conservation Area, Maasai Mara Wildlife Conservancies Association, Narok, Kenya.
Jully S SenteuGroningen Institute for Evolutionary Life Sciences, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Daniel SopiaMaasai Mara Wildlife Conservancies Association, Narok, Kenya.
Jeffrey WordenWWF International, Nairobi, Kenya.
Jared A StabachSmithsonian National Zoo and Conservation Biology Institute, Conservation Ecology Center, Front Royal, Virginia, USA.

Funding

European Union 641918Paul Jones Family TrustSmithsonian's Movement of Life InitiativeUniversity of GlasgowZurich Zoo
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Fencing is one of the most widely utilized tools for reducing human-wildlife conflict in agricultural landscapes. However, the increasing global footprint of fencing exceeds millions of kilometers and has unintended consequences for wildlife, including habitat fragmentation, movement restriction, entanglement, and mortality. Here, we present a novel and quantitative approach to prioritize fence removal within historic migratory pathways of white-bearded wildebeest (Connochaetes taurinus) across Kenya's Greater Masai Mara Ecosystem. Our approach first assesses historic and contemporary landscape connectivity of wildebeest between seasonal ranges by incorporating two sets of GPS tracking data and fine-scale fencing data. We then predict connectivity gains from simulated fence removal and evaluate the impact of different corridor widths and locations on connectivity and removal costs derived from locally implemented interventions. Within the study system, we found that modest levels of fence removal resulted in substantial connectivity gains (39%-54% improvement in connectivity for 15-140 km of fence line removed). By identifying the most suitable corridor site, we show that strategically placed narrow corridors outperform larger, more expensive interventions. Our results demonstrate how and where targeted fence removal can enhance connectivity for wildlife. Our framework can aid in identifying suitable and cost-effective corridor restoration sites to guide decision-makers on the removal of fences and other linear barriers. Our approach is transferable to other landscapes where the removal or modification of fences or similar barriers is a feasible mitigation strategy to restore habitat and migratory connectivity.

Indexed as

Animal MigrationAntelopesConservation of Natural ResourcesEcosystemAnimalsKenyaModels, BiologicalCircuitscapeconnectivitycorridorsEast Africafencinggrassland restorationland‐use changelinear barriersmigrationpastoralismungulateswildebeest

Identifiers

PMID39868640
PMCPMC11771689

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.