Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40554549›Full record

ArticlePloS one2025

Assessing the effects of design modifications on the use of wildlife exits designed for endangered Texas ocelots.

Rupesh Maharjan, Jamie E Langbein, John H Young, Kevin Ryer, Alejandro Fierro-Cabo, Md Saydur Rahman, Richard J Kline

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

7 authors.

Rupesh MaharjanSchool of Earth, Environmental, and Marine Sciences, University of Texas Rio Grande Valley, Brownsville, Texas, United States of America.
Jamie E LangbeinSchool of Earth, Environmental, and Marine Sciences, University of Texas Rio Grande Valley, Brownsville, Texas, United States of America.
John H YoungTexas Department of Transportation, Environmental Affairs Division, Austin, Texas, United States of America.
Kevin RyerSchool of Earth, Environmental, and Marine Sciences, University of Texas Rio Grande Valley, Brownsville, Texas, United States of America.
Alejandro Fierro-CaboSchool of Earth, Environmental, and Marine Sciences, University of Texas Rio Grande Valley, Brownsville, Texas, United States of America.
Md Saydur RahmanSchool of Earth, Environmental, and Marine Sciences, University of Texas Rio Grande Valley, Brownsville, Texas, United States of America.
Richard J KlineSchool of Earth, Environmental, and Marine Sciences, University of Texas Rio Grande Valley, Brownsville, Texas, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-4116-2060

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Roadside exclusionary fencing is commonly used on highways to prevent wildlife-vehicle collisions. Although it can mitigate wildlife road mortality by limiting their access to the road, it can also create a barrier for wildlife stranded within the right-of-way. On State Highway 100 in Texas, the Texas Department of Transportation installed 10 wildlife exits (WEs) to allow endangered ocelots and other wildlife to escape the fenced roadway and minimize wildlife-vehicle collisions. Our study compared three types of WE designs within the same area from 2019 to 2024 to assess their effectiveness. The first design (Design A) was without a door and berm, and the second design (Design B) had a raised berm (10 WE sites) with a door (six WE sites) and no door (four WE sites). Lastly, a third design (Design C) had all the structural features of Design B, except for the raised berm removed from all ten WE sites. We used the approaches of four meso-carnivore target species (coyote, bobcat, northern raccoon, and striped skunk) as a metric and binomial generalized linear model as a statistical method to evaluate the effectiveness between three designs. The statistical analysis showed that the raised berm in Design B was the major cause for a decline in the approaches of meso-carnivore communities toward the WE sites. With the berm removal in Design C, the approaches of target species from road to habitat increased significantly in the sites without a door. Our study indicates that the WE door design might be another structural cause for limiting its effectiveness, where significantly lower approaches were recorded for meso-carnivores in the sites with a door compared to those without a door in Design C.

Indexed as

Animals, WildConservation of Natural ResourcesEndangered SpeciesAnimalsRaccoonsTexas

Identifiers

PMID40554549
PMCPMC12186924

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.