ArticlePloS one2025
Assessing the effects of design modifications on the use of wildlife exits designed for endangered Texas ocelots.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Understanding Sex-Specific Behavioral States of Bobcats in Response to Highway Proximity in South Texas.Ecology and evolution · 2026Article
- Claws in the Capital: Human-Leopard Conflict Hotspots and Community Perceptions in Kathmandu Valley, Nepal.Ecology and evolution · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.