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
Abstract
This study compared an experimental community based strategy for protecting crops with current deterrent methods involved 7 villages in a high elephant population area in Guruve District in northern Zimbabwe. The experimental deterrents included warning systems, barriers and active deterrents and were designed to increase the capacity of the farmers to detect and repel elephants. Presently used methods of deterrence of raiding elephants problematic, traditional deterrents used by rural farmers become ineffective over time 'and interventions by NGOs or wildlife authorities tend to be expensive and unsuitable in remote locations'. Individual experimental methods were more effective at deterring elephants than current traditional methods and the 'integrated strategy' which combined two or more of the deterrent significatnly reduced the total crop damage in the study villages. Results suggest elephants can be deterred from crop raiding using relatively inexpensive materials that are locally available and that local communities can administer: buffer zones, watchtowers, fire, alarms and noise makers ( drums, firecrakers, cow bells) burning chilli pepper and dung bricks, rocks and other thrown objects.
... 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. ...
Citation: Tiller, L.N.; Oniba, E.; Opira, G.; Brennan, E.J.; King, L.E.; Ndombi, V.; Wanjala, D.; Robertson, M.R.
... 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.
... The mid-Zambezi Valley is part of the Zimbabwean lowveld and it particularly refers to lands lying north of the Zambezi escarpment bordered by Mozambique to the north and east, and Zambia to the north-west [17]. It consists of an extensive undulating plain averaging 450 m above sea level, descending to 350 m above sea level to the north towards the Zambezi River [18]. Mbire District forms the major part of the low-lying mid-Zambezi Valley in Zimbabwe's Mashonaland Central Province, and it is a semi-arid remote area listed in the country's agro-ecological zones IV and V specifically located 30 • 25″ E and 16 • 30″S, and encompassing an area of 2700 km 2 s [19]. ...
In the face of unprecedented climate change, adaptation has emerged as important for communities and nations to deal with the devastating effects of the phenomenon. It is inevitable that communities must adapt, although evidence in several regions, including Zimbabwe also point towards maladaptation. A plethora of studies have been developed to understand adaptation practices and processes, including the impacts of various adaptive strategies. However, this approach has been limited to particular fields such as livelihoods studies, with clear evidence in Zimbabwe that heath issues vis-à-vis adaptation outcomes have not been taken into consideration at policy, development and research levels. Our study is therefore breaking new research frontiers by exploring the nexus between adaptation strategies and psychosocial and nutritional health outcomes. As an important learning research process into a field where virtually no literature exists in the country, the results are both complex and intriguing. This qualitative study shows positive nutrition benefits such as improved dietary diversity and boost in self –esteem and, improved stress level over food availability as psychosocial health benefits.
... Compensation schemes given to farmers were often cover only a fraction of the actual losses incurred by farmers (Madhusudan, 2003;Rohini et al., 2016). Mitigation startegies adopted or various deterrent methods have been studied, including electric fencing, community-based approaches, and alternative cropping strategies (Osborn & Parker, 2002;Subedi et al., 2020). The effectiveness of guarding crops shows mixed results across studies (Ankur et al., 2017). ...
Wayanad district in Kerala is basically an agrarian economy, but
recently farmers in Wayanad facing many problems including crop
destruction by wild animal attacks. Thisimpaires agriculture
production, lowers income, has negative effects on education, health,
and development in the long run.Human-wildlife strife may be a
contentious issue within Kerala Western Ghats, as well as in other
regions of India. This paper attempts to analyse the crop destruction
due to human-wildlife conflict in agriculture sector and also to assess
human casualties, various techniques adopted by farmers and
government institutions to prevent wild animal attacks in
Panamaram Panchayath of Wayanad district.
... However, as has been found elsewhere (Osborn and Parker, 2002), these methods only provide temporary respite from the problem, as wild animals such as elephants soon become used to the disturbance and therefore either ignore or move on to an adjacent field and continue with the destruction. According to Frost and Bond (2008), the CAMPFIRE program was established in order to protect wildlife and local people, especially those living close to or adjacent to protected areas, hence fostering the human wildlife interaction. ...
Human interactions with wildlife, both positive and negative, have defined the nature of human wildlife relations throughout history. Along with human wildlife interaction, Climate change exacerbates the complexity and consequences of human wildlife interactions, particularly those that rely on flora and fauna for tourism and development. This study assesses the interrelatedness and causes of human wildlife interactions and climate variability and the impact they have on livelihood. Two hundred and fourteen people randomly selected from four wards in the Nyaminyami community in Mashonaland West, Zimbabwe were interviewed. Four focus group discussion sessions with randomly selected residents were also conducted in each ward. Results from the study show that respondents were concerned that human wildlife interactions resulted in human wildlife conflict, and that anthropogenic factors contributed immensely to an increase in the problems faced by local communities. Most of these concerns stemmed from specific areas (wards) where factors such as competition for resources, settlement in wildlife corridors, agricultural activities, tourism and increasing human induced climate change are accelerating human wildlife conflict. Results also show that human related practices contributed to human wildlife interaction in all the four wards. Discussants reported climate change, competition over resources and living close to protected areas as the major factors influencing human-wildlife conflict. It is recommended that communities be educated on, and need to embrace climate change and adapt to it. It is also important that any tourism ventures in the district involve the communities so that they directly benefit from and see the value of living with wildlife and learn to coexist. Proper land use planning is also paramount before any settlements are allocated to avoid living close to protected areas.
... The high cost of constructing and maintaining electric fences is unrealistic for many elephant-conflict sites in Africa. Disturbance shooting has been widely applied since the colonial era despite suggestions that it also is only minimally successful in mitigating crop raiding (Ayigsi 1997;Osborn and Parker 2002). ...
Crop raiding behaviour of elephants that seasonally migrate into the Red Volta Valley was monitored as part of a project assessing conflict mitigation. Betrween 1999-2003 farmers in the project area were organized into associations. Whenever crops of the registered farmers were raided by elephant the field location and size, the area of the field damaged, the crops grown and the date of the damage were recorded. 2-3% of the farmers were affected by raiding elephants annually. In 2002 the damaged area per farm averaged .98 ha. The time period with the highest raiding incidents was the preharvest and harvest August - November period, which coincides with the time that elephants migrate into the study area from from Burkina Faso. The geographical pattern of destruction mirrored the sequence of the migration, and those most affected were located along the route in the Red Volta valley forest area. Planting alternative crops that mature prior to the migration period is advisable as is locating feilds away from the forest reserves.
... Lu-Br : Torches + Bruit, Ba-Lu-Br : Barrière + Torches + Bruit, Lu-Br-G : Torches + Bruit + Gardiennage, Ba-Lu-Br-G : Barrière + Torches + Bruit + Gardiennage, Ba-Lu : Barrière + Torches Une organisation de l'espace agricole selon les techniques de refoulement serait nécessaire afin de réduire les dégâts d'éléphants. Une zone défrichée entre la forêt et les cultures définit clairement la frontière entre les deux zones et permet une plus grande visibilité des éléphants qui s'approchent(OSBORN ET PARKER, 2002). En Indonésie, ce type de zone tampon a été mis à l'essai et a permis de réduire le nombre d'attaques aux cultures(NYHUS et al., 2000). ...
Pour limiter les pertes de cultures causées par les éléphants durant les saisons agricoles, cette étude se propose d'évaluer la contribution du karité (Vitellaria paradoxa C. F. Gaertn.) dans la réduction des dégâts d'éléphants dans un environnement agricole autour de la forêt classée de Niangoloko (FCN). Pour ce faire, nous avons estimé les superficies cultivées et celles détruites, en parcourant les limites des champs victimes et sa portion détruite à l'aide du GPS. Les coordonnées ont été traitées avec le logiciel QGIS 2.18. Dans les cas où les éléphants sont revenus plus d'une fois, le rendement de la culture a servi de référence pour le calcul des pertes. Dans les différents champs, nous avons compté les pieds de karité présents. Sur un total de 664 champs repartis sur une superficie cumulée totale de 2496,4 ha, une perte due aux éléphants de 54% a été enregistrée entre 2016 et 2018. Les pieds de karité étaient présents dans 29% des champs. Les résultats du test GLM ont montré que le taux de dégât était corrélé négativement au pourcentage de karité déracinés. Cette étude révèle que l'existence de V. paradoxa dans les corridors des éléphants pourraient aider à réduire les dégâts de cultures.
... Lu-Br : Torches + Bruit, Ba-Lu-Br : Barrière + Torches + Bruit, Lu-Br-G : Torches + Bruit + Gardiennage, Ba-Lu-Br-G : Barrière + Torches + Bruit + Gardiennage, Ba-Lu : Barrière + Torches Une organisation de l'espace agricole selon les techniques de refoulement serait nécessaire afin de réduire les dégâts d'éléphants. Une zone défrichée entre la forêt et les cultures définit clairement la frontière entre les deux zones et permet une plus grande visibilité des éléphants qui s'approchent(OSBORN ET PARKER, 2002). En Indonésie, ce type de zone tampon a été mis à l'essai et a permis de réduire le nombre d'attaques aux cultures(NYHUS et al., 2000). ...
Pour limiter les pertes de cultures causées par les éléphants durant les saisons agricoles, cette étude se propose d'évaluer la contribution du karité (Vitellaria paradoxa C. F. Gaertn.) dans la réduction des dégâts d'éléphants dans un environnement agricole autour de la forêt classée de Niangoloko (FCN). Pour ce faire, nous avons estimé les superficies cultivées et celles détruites, en parcourant les limites des champs victimes et sa portion détruite à l'aide du GPS. Les coordonnées ont été traitées avec le logiciel QGIS 2.18. Dans les cas où les éléphants sont revenus plus d'une fois, le rendement de la culture a servi de référence pour le calcul des pertes. Dans les différents champs, nous avons compté les pieds de karité présents. Sur un total de 664 champs repartis sur une superficie cumulée totale de 2496,4 ha, une perte due aux éléphants de 54% a été enregistrée entre 2016 et 2018. Les pieds de karité étaient présents dans 29% des champs. Les résultats du test GLM ont montré que le taux de dégât était corrélé négativement au pourcentage de karité déracinés. Cette étude révèle que l'existence de V. paradoxa dans les corridors des éléphants pourraient aider à réduire les dégâts de cultures. Contribution of shea in reducing elephant damage to annual crops around the Niangoloko classified forest, Burkina Faso Abstract In order to limit crop losses caused by elephants during the agricultural season, this study set out to assess the contribution of shea (Vitellaria paradoxa C. F. Gaertn.) in reducing elephant damage in an agricultural environment around the Niangoloko classified forest (FCN). To do this, we estimated the areas cultivated and those destroyed, by tracing the boundaries of the victim fields and the portion destroyed using GPS. The coordinates were processed using QGIS 2.18 software. In cases where elephants returned more than once, the crop yield was used as a reference for calculating losses. In the various fields, we counted the number of shea plants present. Out of a total of 664 fields spread over a total cumulative area of 2496.4 ha, a loss due to elephants of 54% was recorded between 2016 and 2018. Shea trees were present in 29% of the fields. The results of the GLM test showed that the rate of damage was negatively correlated with the percentage of shea trees uprooted. This study shows that the existence of V. paradoxa in elephant corridors could help reduce crop damage.
Evidence‐based interventions designed to reduce wildlife‐caused losses are essential for human–wildlife coexistence. The lack of systematic summarization of research effort and evidence makes it challenging for researchers, managers and policymakers to prioritize interventions for evaluation and implementation.
Here, we compiled experimental case studies of nonlethal technical interventions designed to reduce the losses of crops, livestock and fishery catches caused by terrestrial carnivores, elephants, farmland birds and marine fauna worldwide. Then, we summarized the research effort and the performance of interventions by their sensory stimuli and target animals.
We found that: (i) 54 of 88 interventions included in this study had statistically effective evidence, where only 39% (21/54) were evaluated with more than three experiments; (ii) physical‐, sound‐, chemical‐ and light (or visual) ‐based interventions were the most in numbers and their performance varied greatly; (iii) farmland birds, seabirds and cetaceans were the most studied animal groups while there are only a few experiments for elephants; and (iv) the interventions for marine fauna generally had no impact on the target catch of fisheries.
Syntheses and applications: Our results indicated that collective effort is needed to further evaluate interventions using various sensory stimuli and launch incentive programs to motivate the implementation of interventions, particularly related to marine fauna conservation. Our synthesis could be helpful for stakeholders to tackle the negative human‐wildlife interactions outlined as Target 4 of the Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework.
Wild herbivores eating up crops is a major issue in human wildlife conflict. Although there is substantial literature that identifies the conflict, tries to estimate the extent of economic loss, its consequences and also suggests some mitigation measures, many fundamental issues remain unaddressed. A number of speculations about the root causes behind the problem have been made but they haven’t been tested as alternative hypotheses. We make a list of alternative hypotheses, collected from a wide variety of sources, evaluate their plausibility and logical integrity, suggest differential testable predictions and their differential implications for mitigation measures. It is important to identify the locale specific causes of the conflict because the efficacy of mitigation measures would crucially depend upon the predominant underlying cause. Measures applied without a good understanding of the causal factors might turn out to be ineffective and even counterproductive. Substantial research needs to be focused on differentially testing the predictions of the alternative hypotheses in order to be able to handle the problem and promote healthy coexistence of wildlife with indigenous people.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any references for this publication.