Impact of drought and development on the effectiveness of beehive fences as elephant deterrents over 9 years in Kenya

IF 2.8 2区 环境科学与生态学 Q1 BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION
Lucy E. King, Lydia Tiller, Emmanuel Mwambingu, Esther Serem, Hesron Nzumu, Gloria Mugo, Naiya Raja, Ewan Brennan, Derick Kisiang'ani Wanjala, Victor Ndombi, Kennedy Leneuyia, Harry Williams, Fredrick Lala, Frank Pope, Iain Douglas-Hamilton
{"title":"Impact of drought and development on the effectiveness of beehive fences as elephant deterrents over 9 years in Kenya","authors":"Lucy E. King,&nbsp;Lydia Tiller,&nbsp;Emmanuel Mwambingu,&nbsp;Esther Serem,&nbsp;Hesron Nzumu,&nbsp;Gloria Mugo,&nbsp;Naiya Raja,&nbsp;Ewan Brennan,&nbsp;Derick Kisiang'ani Wanjala,&nbsp;Victor Ndombi,&nbsp;Kennedy Leneuyia,&nbsp;Harry Williams,&nbsp;Fredrick Lala,&nbsp;Frank Pope,&nbsp;Iain Douglas-Hamilton","doi":"10.1111/csp2.13242","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Human–elephant conflict is growing in Africa as human populations and development increases, creating disturbance to elephant habitats. Beehive fences have been trialed as a coexistence tool with some success but all studies have looked at small sample sizes over a short time period. Our study analyses the behavior of African elephants (<i>Loxodonta africana</i>) that approached a network of beehive fence protected farms in two conflict villages over 9 years next to Tsavo East National Park. We compare differences in elephant raids and beehive occupation rates annually, during a drought, and during peak crop production seasons. Out of 3999 elephants approaching our study farms 1007 elephants broke the beehive fence and entered the protected farm areas (25.18%). This was significantly less than the 2649 encounters where elephants remained either outside the farm boundary or broke into the control farms (66.24%). A further 343 elephants entered the farm by walking through a gap at the end of a fence (8.56%). The annual beehive fence break-through rates averaged 23.96% (±SE 3.15) resulting in a mean of 76.04% elephants deterred from beehive fences protected farm plots. Over six peak crop growing seasons the beehive fences kept between 78.3% and 86.3% of elephants out of the farms and crops. The beehive fences produced one ton of honey sold for $2250; however, a drought caused a 75% reduction in hive occupation rates and honey production for 3 years after negatively impacting honey profits and the effectiveness of the fences. Beehive fences are very effective at reducing up to 86.3% of elephant crop-raids during peak crop seasons after good rainfall, but any increase in elephant habitat disturbance or the frequency and duration of droughts could reduce their effectiveness as a successful coexistence tool.</p>","PeriodicalId":51337,"journal":{"name":"Conservation Science and Practice","volume":"6 11","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/csp2.13242","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Conservation Science and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/csp2.13242","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Human–elephant conflict is growing in Africa as human populations and development increases, creating disturbance to elephant habitats. Beehive fences have been trialed as a coexistence tool with some success but all studies have looked at small sample sizes over a short time period. Our study analyses the behavior of African elephants (Loxodonta africana) that approached a network of beehive fence protected farms in two conflict villages over 9 years next to Tsavo East National Park. We compare differences in elephant raids and beehive occupation rates annually, during a drought, and during peak crop production seasons. Out of 3999 elephants approaching our study farms 1007 elephants broke the beehive fence and entered the protected farm areas (25.18%). This was significantly less than the 2649 encounters where elephants remained either outside the farm boundary or broke into the control farms (66.24%). A further 343 elephants entered the farm by walking through a gap at the end of a fence (8.56%). The annual beehive fence break-through rates averaged 23.96% (±SE 3.15) resulting in a mean of 76.04% elephants deterred from beehive fences protected farm plots. Over six peak crop growing seasons the beehive fences kept between 78.3% and 86.3% of elephants out of the farms and crops. The beehive fences produced one ton of honey sold for $2250; however, a drought caused a 75% reduction in hive occupation rates and honey production for 3 years after negatively impacting honey profits and the effectiveness of the fences. Beehive fences are very effective at reducing up to 86.3% of elephant crop-raids during peak crop seasons after good rainfall, but any increase in elephant habitat disturbance or the frequency and duration of droughts could reduce their effectiveness as a successful coexistence tool.

Abstract Image

肯尼亚 9 年间干旱和发展对蜂箱围栏阻遏大象效果的影响
随着非洲人口和发展的增加,人象冲突日益加剧,对大象的栖息地造成了干扰。蜂巢栅栏作为一种共存工具已被试用过,并取得了一些成功,但所有研究都是在短时间内进行的小规模抽样调查。我们的研究分析了非洲大象(Loxodonta africana)的行为,这些大象在 9 年时间里接近了位于东察沃国家公园附近两个冲突村庄的蜂箱围栏保护农场网络。我们比较了每年、干旱期间和作物生产旺季大象袭击和蜂箱占领率的差异。在接近我们研究农场的 3999 头大象中,有 1007 头大象冲破蜂箱围栏进入农场保护区(25.18%)。这明显少于大象停留在农场边界外或闯入对照农场的 2649 次(66.24%)。另有 343 头大象通过栅栏末端的缺口进入农场(8.56%)。蜂箱围栏的年平均突破率为 23.96%(±SE 3.15),因此平均有 76.04% 的大象被阻挡在蜂箱围栏保护的农场地块之外。在六个作物生长旺季中,蜂箱围栏将 78.3% 至 86.3% 的大象挡在了农场和作物之外。蜂箱围栏生产的一吨蜂蜜售价为 2250 美元;然而,一场干旱导致蜂箱占用率和蜂蜜产量下降了 75%,连续 3 年的干旱对蜂蜜利润和围栏的有效性造成了负面影响。蜂巢围栏在降雨充足后的作物生长旺季能有效减少高达 86.3% 的大象袭扰作物行为,但大象栖息地干扰的增加或干旱频率和持续时间的增加都会降低蜂巢围栏作为成功共存工具的有效性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Conservation Science and Practice
Conservation Science and Practice BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION-
CiteScore
5.50
自引率
6.50%
发文量
240
审稿时长
10 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信