Content uploaded by Ferrel V Osborn
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Ferrel V Osborn on Sep 06, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
Community-based methods to reduce crop loss to elephants: Experiments in the communal lands of Zimbabwe
... Farm-based mitigation measures can be broadly grouped into four classes: acoustic, visual, physical and olfactory interventions. Testing mitigation methods is key to ensuring effectiveness and feasibility, as it is widely recognised that placing the responsibility with communities and assisting them with application may be the most sustainable option [22]. ...
... Various studies have trialled chilli-based methods, including fences of chilli oil-soaked cloths and briquettes, to test the efficacy of the chemical compound capsaicin in chilli to deter crop raiding [22,[33][34][35]. Positive efficacy of these methods has been realised in some contexts (e.g., [36]), but in others has shown low efficacy when compared with easier and cheaper methods such as community guarding [37]. ...
... However, for expansion into other sites and countries, costs may vary, and this could hinder the uptake. For example, chilli is an effective deterrent [22,49] but can be expensive in some places and is unlikely to be adopted by communities unless it is affordable or grown locally [22,52]. Neem (Azadirachta indica) is a particular tree native to the Indian subcontinent and is commonly found in East Africa, but is not widespread in West Africa or parts of Southern Africa. ...
Human–elephant conflict is increasing across many parts of Asia and Africa. Mitigating elephant crop raiding has become a major focus of conservation intervention, however, many existing methods for tackling this problem are expensive and difficult to execute. Thus, there is a need for more affordable, farm-based methods. Testing these methods is key to ensuring their effectiveness and feasibility. In this study, we tested a novel olfactory deterrent, the “smelly elephant repellent”, a foul-smelling organic liquid, on 40 farms in Uganda and Kenya. Our results show that the repellent was effective at deterring elephants from crop raiding. Over the study period, 82% of 309 elephant crop raids were deterred in Uganda. In Kenya, the repellent deterred 63% of 24 crop raiding incidents, and there was a significant effect of the repellent on test sites compared with control sites. The smelly repellent could be a helpful crop raiding mitigation tool for farmers, as this study showed it to be effective, relatively cheap, quick to produce from locally available ingredients, and communities have a positive attitude towards using it. Ongoing work is exploring the potential for a market-based approach to take this to scale in a financially sustainable way.
Citation: Tiller, L.N.; Oniba, E.; Opira, G.; Brennan, E.J.; King, L.E.; Ndombi, V.; Wanjala, D.; Robertson, M.R.
... Current sensory-based mitigation techniques often promote the use of deterrents or repellents to prevent elephants from coming into close contact with human development [75,132,[138][139][140]. One technique with evidence of success both in Asia and Africa is the use of burning chilies (Capsicum spp. ...
... One technique with evidence of success both in Asia and Africa is the use of burning chilies (Capsicum spp. [132,[139][140][141]). These chilies emit a strong and unpleasant smell via their activated capsaicin compound. ...
... Capsaicin is an unattractive and repelling scent to elephants [142]. There are differing methods of applying capsaicin; grease from chilis, tobacco, and engine oil is spread across rope fences [132] or burned in briquettes of chilies and elephant dung around fences [139]. The smoke produced by igniting capsaicin causes a burning sensation in the trunk and stimulates the cranial nerve [142,143], likely deterring the elephant from further foraging. ...
Elephants are well known for their socio-cognitive abilities and capacity for multi-modal sensory perception and communication. Their highly developed olfactory and acoustic senses provide them with a unique non-visual perspective of their physical and social worlds. The use of these complex sensory signals is important not only for communication between conspecifics, but also for decisions about foraging and navigation. These decisions have grown increasingly risky given the exponential increase in unpredictable anthropogenic change in elephants’ natural habitats. Risk taking often develops from the overlap of human and elephant habitat in Asian and African range countries, where elephants forage for food in human habitat and crop fields, leading to conflict over high-quality resources. To mitigate this conflict, a better understanding of the elephants’ sensory world and its impact on their decision-making process should be considered seriously in the development of long-term strategies for promoting coexistence between humans and elephants. In this review, we explore the elephants’ sensory systems for audition and olfaction, their multi-modal capacities for communication, and the anthropogenic changes that are affecting their behavior, as well as the need for greater consideration of elephant behavior in elephant conservation efforts.
... The use of chilli pepper (Capsicum spp.) is one of the most widely tested olfactory-based mitigation methods. Various studies have trialled chilli-based methods, including fences of chilli oil-soaked cloths and chilli briquettes [41,[45][46][47]. Chilli has been effective in some contexts (e.g., [48]), but in others has shown a low efficiency when compared to easier and cheaper methods such as community guarding [49]. ...
... Moreover, the repellent is relatively cheap and quick to produce from ingredients readily available in most countries that elephants inhabit. It is important that mitigation methods are cheap, effective, and have community buy-in, as without this, uptake will not be successful [14,45,51,52]. ...
Crop-raiding by elephants is one of the most prevalent forms of human–elephant conflict and is increasing with the spread of agriculture into wildlife range areas. As the magnitude of conflicts between people and elephants increases across Africa and Asia, mitigating and reducing the impacts of elephant crop-raiding has become a major focus of conservation intervention. In this study, we tested the responses of semi-captive elephants to the “smelly” elephant repellent, a novel olfactory crop-raiding mitigation method. At two trial sites, in Zambia and Thailand, African elephants (Loxodonta africana) and Asian elephants (Elephas maximus) were exposed to the repellent, in order to test whether or not they entered an area protected by the repellent and whether they ate the food provided. The repellent elicited clear reactions from both study groups of elephants compared to control conditions. Generalised linear models revealed that the elephants were more alert, sniffed more, and vocalised more when they encountered the repellent. Although the repellent triggered a response, it did not prevent elephants from entering plots protected by the repellent or from eating crops, unlike in trials conducted with wild elephants. Personality played a role in responses towards the repellent, as the elephants that entered the experimental plots were bolder and more curious individuals. We conclude that, although captive environments provide controlled settings for experimental testing, the ecological validity of testing human–elephant conflict mitigation methods with captive wildlife should be strongly considered. This study also shows that understanding animal behaviour is essential for improving human–elephant coexistence and for designing deterrence mechanisms. Appreciating personality traits in elephants, especially amongst “problem” elephants who have a greater propensity to crop raid, could lead to the design of new mitigation methods designed to target these individuals.
... By incorporating local communities in decision-making processes, diverse perspectives and ideas can be leveraged. Taking into account social, cultural, and economic factors specific to the community enables the customization of mitigation strategies to local contexts (Osborn and Parker, 2002;Treves et al., 2006). Such collaborations not only enhance the effectiveness of HEC management but also deepen understanding of local concerns, thus fostering improved trust between the public and governing bodies. ...
... Moreover, community engagement mitigates the marginalization of local stakeholders, ensuring their voices are heard and their concerns addressed. This inclusivity leads to more comprehensive and culturally relevant conflict resolution strategies (Osborn and Parker, 2002;Treves et al., 2006). ...
... Determining effective, long-term solutions to HEC has become increasingly challenging as human populations increase and HMLs expand. Many of the non-invasive mitigation tactics currently implemented aim to passively exclude, (e.g., electric fences, trenches, and other physical barriers) or actively deter, (e.g., fires, loud sounds, and chemical repellents) elephants from human settlements [32,46,97]. However, these strategies do not always adequately treat underlying causes of HEC [32] or incorporate elephant life history patterns and behavioral motivations [6,33,34]. ...
... Traditional HEC deterrent methods that rely on eliciting a fear response in elephants are often prone to habituation [97], problems of individual recognition, and sex-dependent responses [20]. Elephants are capable of learning and adjusting their behavior rapidly, especially in a social context. ...
Driven by reproductive motives, male African elephants (Loxodonta africana) in musth often expand their home ranges to locate estrous females. This extended range, coupled with heightened aggression often observed in musth males, can be particularly problematic in regions where human-modified landscapes and elephant territories increasingly overlap. Several mitigation tools have been tested to resolve a wide range of human–elephant conflicts with varying degrees of success due to geographical disparities and habituation. We present findings on the potential application of estrous call playbacks in manipulating the behavior and movement of male elephants non-invasively, particularly mature musth adults and younger post-dispersal males, in Etosha National Park. Estrous vocalizations were presented across 26 experimental trials to mature musth adults (n = 5), mature non-musth adults (n = 6), and non-musth males belonging to younger, post-dispersal age classes (n = 8), with behavioral responses scored on a gradient scale from 0–1. Both mature musth adults and younger non-musth elephants were significantly more likely to respond with the highest intensity by approaching the acoustic source compared to mature non-musth adults that avoided the call. However, younger males tested in the presence of an older, higher-ranking male tended to react with a lower intensity than those tested alone. This result likely demonstrates the influence of social hierarchy and associations on male elephant behavior. We also observed a significant increase in physiological response, measured by defecation rate, across all male groups in response to the estrous call playbacks. Our findings suggest that using estrous calls as acoustic deterrents may effectively and non-invasively aid in reducing tension at the human–elephant interface, depending on the age, social context, and reproductive status of the male elephant.
... Chili peppers have been deployed as buffer crops around fields, in sprays, burned as part of dung briquettes, and as a solvent-based mixture for fences. A capsicum oleoresin was shown to be effective at deterring elephants (Osborn & Rasmussen, 1995;Osborn, 2002) and also when mixed with dung and burned (Osborn & Parker, 2002), as well as when released as a cloud of gas near elephants (Le Bel & Taylor, 2010;Le Bel, 2015). The solvent-based mixtures is applied to cloth and rope fences erected around crop fields to prevent raiding by elephants in a chili fence (Shaffer et al., 2019;Snyder & Rentsch, 2020;Montgomery et al., 2022) (Fig. 1). ...
As human–elephant coexistence is challenged across Africa and Asia, conservationists seek methods to mitigate elephant crop raiding. Farmers rely on their crops for sustenance, and crop raiding events can destroy harvests. To mitigate these conflicts, deterrent fences continue to be developed. Modern deterrent techniques incorporate improved understanding of elephant biology, including their reliance on chemical signals. The construction of deterrent fences with cloths soaked in chili pepper extracts with high Scoville heat units (SHU) and used engine oil has become widespread but with variable effectiveness. However, the active levels of capsaicinoids in these mixtures and the rate of degradation of these compounds remain largely unexplored. In Kenya, our field experiments found that chili fences performed less effectively than desired possibly due to environmental conditions. In the lab, we evaluated SHU from chili peppers in three preparation recipes (vodka, water, and oil) and found that mixing with oil was crucial for increased solubility. We simulated a chili fence in the lab and detected no significant SHU loss over 7 days, which has positive implications for fence maintenance. Continuous exploration of the applications of chemical ecology to major conservation issues such as crop raiding can benefit humans and wildlife globally.
... Several conservationists have advocated for the use of toxic/allergic crops along forest borders that are not lethal to elephants. Elephants detest oxalic acid-containing crops such as taro (Savage and Dubois, 2006); chilli and garlic generate volatile irritants (Osborn and Parker, 2002). In Assam, India, citrus plants and the oil-producing fragrant plant Patchouli were also tried for the first time. ...
Human-wildlife conflict is when interaction between humans and wildlife lead to negative results, such as loss of property, livelihoods, and even life. Defensive and retaliatory killing may eventually drive these species to extinction. There are 981 protected area and 52 tiger reserve area its covers about 5 percent of the land area and home to approximately 4.5 million people. In India, people have been a major component of the landscape for several centuries but widespread poverty, land hunger, predominance of agriculture and animal husbandry, and dependence on plant biomass for food, fodder and shelter have led them to exert tremendous pressures on already fragile protected areas. People in the surrounding protected area used to go inside protected area due to this they may come contact with wild animal and loss their life and livestock and wild animal not able to fulfil their requirement in their particular area so they enter in human settlement and destroyed their crops and killing livestock as well as human. Due to this conflict human tolerating major loss due to human wildlife conflict. Most of the villagers of surrounding protected area depends on forest areas for grazing of their animal and collection of resources like timber, grasses from the protected area. In the vicinity of protected area of Asia and Africa villagers loosing almost 15 percent of their agricultural production due to human wildlife conflict. Considering the above facts, the proposed study entitled “Human Wildlife Conflict in the Vicinity of Ranthambore Tiger Reserve: Farmers Perspective”. The study was carried out in the vicinity of Ranthambore Tiger Reserve due to highest number of villages (304) and human population (1 million) in the Eco-sensitive region of region of Ranthambore Tiger Reserve. Reserve area divided in two zone namely Critical Tiger Habitat Zone/Core Zone (Ranthambore National Park, Sawai Madhopur wildlife sanctuary, Sawai Mansingh wildlife sanctuary) and buffer zone (Kaila Devi wildlife sanctuary) both zone were selected and 18 villages from Critical Tiger Habitat and 12 villages from Buffer zone were selected randomly for this study. From each villages 12 respondents who are engaged with dairy animal and growing crops from last 10 years and 30 forest officials were considered as respondents. Thus, total 390 respondents were selected. Interview schedule was developed to identify the existing dairy practices and document the human wildlife conflict and strategies adopted by the farmers and forest official to minimize the conflict. And to measure the farmer’s perception towards losses and benefit of reserve area index was developed and for opportunity and challenges SWOT analysis by using Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) was used to identify opportunity and challenges for livestock rearing in the vicinity of Ranthambore Tiger Reserve. A study revealed that 41.38 per cent farmers were belong to old age groups (>50 years age) followed by 36.94 per cent farmer belong to middle age group. Average family size among per household is 6.58 and average distance of the villages from the boundary wall of the Ranthambore Tiger Reserve is 1.05 km. Majority (67.22%) of the farmers do not have insurance for their livestock and crops and annual average income of the respondents is 3.58 lakh. Farmers usually recognise the estrus sign like restlessness, bellowing, mounting, reduce feed in take in the buffalo and cattle and inseminated with the selected bull at early heat period. Majority (65.83) of livestock farmers in case of naval cord management of new born they simply cut by available knife/blade and apply dry fresh ash on that. Respondents used to collect non-timber forest product like grasses, fodder, medicinal product etc. and timber product for building material inside the tiger reserve premises. Maize crop (Garret Mean score 74.85) highly preferred crop by wild animals followed by guava and pearl millet. In the Rabi session farmers mostly grown four crops like wheat, mustard, gram and barley and highest 9.16 per cent loss occurred in the wheat crop and in Kharif session highest 17.59 per cent loss occurred in maize crop by wild animals in form of crop eating and crop raiding. In last five year total 335 incidents occurred with livestock among them highest 121 number of incidents happened with goat and in case of human a total 13 incidents happened with them by wild animal like tiger and leopard. Fencing around the crops and guarding to the crops and livestock was ranked first and second strategies to prevent human-wildlife conflict. Respondents having more perception for opinion to solve Human-Wildlife Conflict followed by respondents view towards protected area and in overall perception 40.56 per cent of respondents fall under medium category. SWOT analysis revealed that, ‘Ranthambore Tiger Reserve provides round the year ‘green fodder to the dairy animal within the permissible area’ was the major strength and ‘Human casualties, crop-raiding, and livestock depredation’ are the most serious nature of conflict’ was the major threat. Hence, the findings of the study may help the development agencies to formulate a plan of action to the sustainable development of the farmers as well as to conserve tiger reserve.
... The global populations of Asian (Elephas maximus, Linnaeus, 1758) and African (Loxodonta spp., Anonymous, 1827) elephants are affected by HEC (Blanc et al., 2003), and regions where human settlements are close to elephant habitats tend to have high conflict incidences (Naughton et al., 1999). HEC is most common in areas where former elephant habitats have been reclaimed, encroached, and converted into farmlands (Osborn and Parker, 2002). The Asian elephant is one of Asia's most important flagship species for biodiversity conservation (Venkataraman et al., 2002). ...
Physical barriers, like solar fences, elephant-proof trenches, stone, or rubble walls, are installed as conflict mitigation interventions in India’s major Asian elephant ( Elephas maximus ) ranges. However, installations lacking a priori scientific assessment of site specificity for reducing elephant incursion in the human settlements often fail in the intended goals of the resource-intensive management interventions. Since humans are central to conflict issues, research focusing on social aspects is essential for devising solutions. Despite the use of barriers in the Golaghat district in Assam, human–elephant conflict (HEC) cases are increasing, which offers an opportunity to evaluate their efficacy. Optimized hotspot analysis of the historic HEC records from 2010 to 2019 was done to check the spatial extent of the conflict and its dispersion in the district. We also assessed the efficiency of a 4.2-km long solar fence and a 2-km long elephant-proof trench through generalized linear modeling. We evaluated the encounter rates of elephant signs and other site covariates at the barrier and non-barrier sites. Multinomial logistic regression was applied to assess the perception of local people on the barriers and overall HEC in their areas based on their willingness to pay (WTP) for maintenance of the barriers. The highest cases occurred between 2016 and 2017, making up 25% of the total conflict cases. It was noticed that the extent of these hotspots was concentrated, and there was no dispersion of the conflict to other areas. Furthermore, a significant difference in the encounter rates of elephant signs between barriers and no barrier sites was observed. Solar fenced areas showed relatively lower encounter rates than areas with the trench, suggesting better efficiency of solar fencing than trench in the landscape. In addition, only five out of seven explanatory variables, viz. , the persistence of HEC cases, amount of ex-gratia compensation, time taken in getting compensation, change in elephant behavior (incursion), and crop-raiding frequency significantly explained people’s perception of the barrier and non-barrier sites. According to local people, physical barriers are essential in managing HEC; hence, installing and maintaining solar fences in the high conflict hotspots is crucial for this landscape.
... Adapting land-use planning to allow access to space and resources by both people and wildlife, and making agricultural choices that are conscious to wildlife behaviour can be a strategy to address crop consumption issues more sustainably (Gunaryadi, Sugiyo, & Hedges, 2017;Hockings & Humley, 2009;Parker et al., 2007;Songhurst, McCulloch, & Coulson, 2015). Examples of these wildlife conscious farming methods are buffer regions around fields (Sitati et al., 2005), cleared vegetation (Osborn & Parker, 2002) and the use of alternative or buffer-crops that are unattractive to consume or move through (Gross et al., 2016(Gross et al., , 2017Hockings & Humley, 2009). But also land-use planning strategies that consider critical wildlife habitat, such as setting aside specific regions or corridors for elephants to roam Jachowski et al., 2013;Songhurst, McCulloch, & Coulson, 2015). ...
Coexistence between wildlife and farmers can be challenging and can endanger the lives of both, prompting the provisioning of mitigation methods by governments and non‐governmental organizations (NGOs). However, provision of materials, demonstration of the effectiveness of methods or willingness to uptake a method do not predict uptake of methods.
We used ethnographic decision models to understand how farmers' work through the decisions of uptake or non‐uptake of methods to mitigate crop consumption by elephants, and how the government and NGOs can either enable or impede the ability of farmers to protect themselves and their crops.
While farmers were motivated to use methods if they received or could afford to buy materials and they believed in the effectiveness of the methods, they still did not use them if they considered a method to be dangerous, or issues with elephants not to be severe enough, or when the supply of materials or income was not sufficient. Methods were not even considered by farmers if they lacked awareness or knowledge of the method. Government departments and NGOs enabled farmers to mitigate elephant crop consumption by providing opportunities for cash income, and providing materials and knowledge. Yet, there was disparity between the materials farmers received and methods they wished to adopt.
One‐off inputs of materials did not result in sustainable use of mitigation methods. We see an opportunity for governmental departments or NGOs to stimulate logistics (e.g. roads and retail) to increase availability of mitigation materials since this promoted farmer autonomy. We also highlight the importance of empowering farmers by facilitating within community sharing of mitigation ideas and increasing knowledge about the effectiveness of promising wildlife conscious farming, as despite promising farmer testimonies, only a few farmers used these techniques.
Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any references for this publication.