Testing the Effectiveness of the “Smelly” Elephant Repellent in Controlled Experiments in Semi-Captive Asian and African Savanna Elephants

Author:

Robertson Marion R.1,Olivier Lisa J.2ORCID,Roberts John3,Yonthantham Laddawan3,Banda Constance2,N’gombwa Innocent B.4,Dale Rachel5ORCID,Tiller Lydia N.67ORCID

Affiliation:

1. WildAid, 220 Montgomery Street #1200, San Francisco, CA 94104, USA

2. Game Rangers International, Plot 2374, The Village, Leopards Hill Road, Lusaka 10101, Zambia

3. Golden Triangle Asian Elephant Foundation, 229 Moo 1, Chiang Saen, Chiang Rai 57150, Thailand

4. Department of National Parks and Wildlife, Ministry of Tourism, Chilanga 10101, Zambia

5. Department for Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, University for Continuing Education Krems, 3500 Krems an der Donau, Austria

6. Amboseli Trust for Elephants, Langata, Nairobi 15135, Kenya

7. Durrell Institute of Conservation and Ecology, University of Kent, Canterbury CT2 7NZ, UK

Abstract

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.

Funder

WildAid

Publisher

MDPI AG

Subject

General Veterinary,Animal Science and Zoology

Reference69 articles.

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3