Efficacy of beehive fences as barriers to African elephants: a case study in Tanzania

Abstract

Non-lethal mitigation of crop use by elephants Loxodonta africana is an increasingly important part of protected area management across Africa and Asia. Recently, beehive fences have been suggested as a potential mitigation strategy. We tested the effectiveness of this method in a farming community adjacent to Udzungwa Mountains National Park in southern Tanzania. Over a .-year period (-) a beehive fence was introduced and subsequently extended along the Park boundary. The probability that one or more farms experienced crop loss from elephants on a given day was reduced in the presence of the fence and was reduced further as the fence was extended. The number of hives occupied by bees along the fence was the best predictor of elephants' visits to farms. Farms closest to the fence experienced a greater likelihood of damage, particularly during the initial period when the fence was shorter. The number of farms affected by elephants declined when the fence was extended. There was a higher probability of damage on farms that were closer to the Park boundary and further from a road. Our mixed results suggest that the shape, length and location of fences need to be carefully planned because changes in a farm's long-term susceptibility to elephant damage vary between individual farms; fences need to be long enough to be effective and ensure that decreasing crop loss frequency is not outweighed by an increasing number of farms damaged per visit.

An experimental test of community‐based strategies for mitigating human–wildlife conflict around protected areas

“…Beehive fences were especially effective in our study, and hive occupancy reached 94% in the first 7 weeks following fence construction, likely aided by the proximity of a stable water source (i.e., the Pungue River) (King et al, ). These results are similar to those of previous studies that evaluated the use of beehive fences (e.g., King et al, ; King et al, ; King et al, ; Scheijen et al, ) or chili fences (e.g., Chang'a et al., ; Gunaryadi, Sugiyo, & Hedges, ) around individual farms. Our work builds on those studies by demonstrating the efficacy of using discontinuous fencing to block key corridors used by elephants to access crops rather than fencing individual farms or erecting continuous fences along entire protected‐area boundaries (at great expense).…”

“…Parameter estimates in (A) indicate the predicted number of river crossings per crossing location at treatment sites with each fence type, relative to unfenced locations (all p < .05), whereas parameter estimates in (B) indicate the predicted proportion of fence approaches that resulted in a river crossing at locations with each treatment fence type, relative to control fences that lacked the putative deterrence mechanisms (i.e., chilies and/or bees; all p > .15) of a stable water source (i.e., the Pungue River) (King et al, 2017). These results are similar to those of previous studies that evaluated the use of beehive fences (e.g., King et al, 2009;King et al, 2011;King et al, 2017;Scheijen et al, 2018) or chili fences (e.g., Chang'a et al, 2016;Gunaryadi, Sugiyo, & Hedges, 2017) around individual farms. Our work builds on those studies by demonstrating the efficacy of using discontinuous fencing to block key corridors used by elephants to access crops rather than fencing individual farms or erecting continuous fences along entire protected-area boundaries (at great expense).…”

“…The goal of our project was simultaneously to reduce the frequency of crop‐raiding by elephants and to improve attitudes toward elephants by working with community members to develop and test multiple mitigation techniques with the potential to produce profitable byproducts. We evaluated the efficacy of three techniques for reducing elephant crop‐raiding: (1) beehive fences (Karidozo & Osborn, ; King, Lawrence, Douglas‐Hamilton, & Vollrath, ; King, Douglas–Hamilton, & Vollrath, ; King et al, ; Scheijen, Richards, Smit, Jones, & Nowak, ); (2) chili‐pepper fences (Hedges & Gunaryadi, ; Wiafe & Sam, ); and (3) a combination of the two that we termed “spicy beehive” fences. We conducted a manipulative experiment in which we used two independent data streams (movement data from GPS‐collared elephants, and daily reports from community members about the presence of elephants at each fence location) to compare: (1) use of crossing points by GPS‐collared elephants between years with (year 2) and without (year 1) fences; and (2) use of crossing points with treatment, procedural‐control, or no fences during year 2.…”

“…The goal of our project was simultaneously to reduce the frequency of crop-raiding by elephants and to improve attitudes toward elephants by working with community members to develop and test multiple mitigation techniques with the potential to produce profitable byproducts. We evaluated the efficacy of three techniques for reducing elephant crop-raiding: (1) beehive fences (Karidozo & Osborn, 2005;King, Lawrence, Douglas-Hamilton, & Vollrath, 2009;King, Douglas-Hamilton, & Vollrath, 2011;King et al, 2017;Scheijen, Richards, Smit, Jones, & Nowak, 2018);…”

Assessing tolerance for wildlife: human-elephant conflict in Chimanimani, Mozambique

“…Several other field experiments have revealed similar doubts. Although most studies showed that elephants tend to avoid occupied beehives (e.g., Ngama et al, 2016;Scheijen et al, 2019), they are not always effective and the construction and maintenance of long stretches of beehive fences is a demanding task (Hoare, 2015;Karidozo & Osborn, 2005). In the study area, in situ inspection of both beehive fences set inside the forest indicated a lack of maintenance that had reduced their effectiveness considerably.…”