Height and tension of electric lines: how should an electric fence be installed to effectively mitigate human-wildlife conflict?

Honda, Takeshi

doi:10.1007/s10344-022-01606-6

Cited by 9 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our energiser produced a 4.5‐kV shock that appears to have been effective in combination with the inclusion of an earth wire as one of the horizontal lines. The addition of earth wires increases the likelihood of delivering an electric shock to small mammalian predators when fences are energized with voltages >2.8 kV (Tsukada et al, 2019), and we maintained our fence lines at a relatively high tension which has been shown by Honda (2022) to be twice as likely to electrify animals as low‐tensile fences. Our electric fence design was an efficient, effective and simple method for protecting M. bellii nesting areas from foxes.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…Our lowest lines were placed at 210 mm above the ground, approximately half the shoulder height of an adult fox, with an earth wire 100 mm above. Honda (2022) demonstrated that electric lines placed at approximately half the shoulder height of the target animal maximize the probability of the animal contacting the line. Our energiser produced a 4.5-kV shock that appears to have been effective in combination with the inclusion of an earth wire as one of the horizontal lines.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The earth wire was designed to ensure that a fox investigating the bottom wires of the fence received a strong electric shock when its head or body closed a circuit between one of the live lines and the earth wire. The earth wire was included to avoid reliance on the fox itself earthing the current, as an animal's fur has low conductivity and may act as insulation (Honda, 2022; McKillop & Sibly, 1988) and dry ground may not provide enough conductivity (Friedman, 2005). Fences were supported by 1.8‐m steel posts (‘star‐pickets’) set approximately 0.4 m into the ground at 8–12‐m intervals.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

A shocking result—Electric fences protect western saw‐shelled turtle (Myuchelys bellii) nests from depredation by foxes

Streeting

Dillon²,

Nesbitt³

et al. 2023

Austral Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduced red foxes (Vulpes vulpes) are a major predator of freshwater turtle nests in Australia. We evaluated the effectiveness of electric fences, in combination with individual nest protection, for shielding western saw‐shelled turtle (Myuchelys bellii: Chelidae) nests from predation by foxes. We compared the numbers of raided and intact turtle nests found in paired fenced treatment and unfenced control areas of streambank. We also individually protected all intact nests found in both area types with wire mesh or a steel cage. The total numbers of nests found in treatment and control areas did not significantly differ from parity, but significantly more intact nests were found in treatment areas and significantly more raided nests in control areas. The fences were occasionally damaged by livestock, wildlife and flooding, rendering them inoperative for varying periods of time until repair. However, foxes raided nests inside the fences on only two occasions, despite these breaks in functionality. Our study demonstrates that electric fences can provide an effective method of protecting entire nesting areas from depredation by foxes.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A shocking result—Electric fences protect western saw‐shelled turtle (Myuchelys bellii) nests from depredation by foxes

Streeting

Dillon²,

Nesbitt³

et al. 2023

Austral Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Our results indicate that electric fences and exclosures are more effective against mesopredators than regular fences. Electric fences should be designed to optimize efficiency based on height and tension (Tsukada et al 2019, Honda 2022); however, there are obvious limitations to an electric fence versus a non‐electric fence. Other than the increased cost, the reliability of the electrical system (e.g., faulty wires, limited battery life, insufficient solar power) can potentially reduce their efficacy.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Methods to mitigate human–wildlife conflicts involving common mesopredators: a meta‐analysis

Lazure,

Weladji

2023

J Wildl Manag

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Conflicts between humans and mesopredators are frequent and widespread. Over the last decades, conflicts have led to the development and application of different mitigation methods to diminish the costs and damage caused by such conflicts. We conducted a systematic literature search and meta‐analysis to assess the influence of different mitigation methods on 3 common nuisance species: raccoons (Procyon lotor), red foxes (Vulpes vulpes), and striped skunks (Mephitis mephitis). A majority of the studies, from 1963‒2022, were conducted in North America, followed by Australia and Europe. The predation of wildlife species of conservation concern by nuisance species is the main reported source of conflict in the published literature. Lethal control is the most commonly tested method and is generally effective at reducing conflicts based on the calculated effect size. Barriers have mixed effects, with electric fences and nest exclosures both being effective, whereas conventional fences seem to be less effective. Repellents mimicking predators (e.g., guard animal, predator smell) are also effective. Conditioned taste aversion is a promising approach, but no precise product or chemical has proven to be effective. Many interventions suffered from a lack of validation through experimental approach. Research on human–mesopredator conflict mitigation would benefit from repeated studies using the same methods in similar contexts, thus reducing heterogeneity in the results, and by testing new and innovative methods.

show abstract

“…A plausible solution to control crop damage would be the use of fences. Fencing is highly effective if properly installed and managed (Linhart et al 1982;McKillop and Sibly 1988;VerCauteren et al 2006;Honda 2021Honda , 2022; therefore, unintentional feeding on farmland and semi-domestication could be reduced by installing fences. Without such measures to prevent unintentional feeding on farmland, crop damage would increase just as biological urbanization.…”

Section: Unintentional Feedingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Why Mammals do Not Damage Entire Farmlands Like Insect Pests Do? A Review from a Behavioral Perspective

Honda¹,

Ueda

2023

Mammal Study

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Crop damage caused by mammals is not uniformly distributed and is more localized near the forest; this damage distribution differs from that of insect pests. Species that cause damage are often forest inhabitants and hence the damage sites are also biased toward the forest edge. However, these species do not necessarily use forests as their home ranges for cover or shelter, but may be entirely urban (e.g., urban bears). Forest vegetation cannot be considered essential for these species, as this contradicts the behavior of animals that use urbanized areas only. Our review illustrates why crop damage is uneven, localized at forest edges, and less likely to occur on farmlands away from forests in terms of population density, food availability, personality, habituation, and human behavior. This review reveals the role and risk perception of human disturbances. If risk of farmland is perceived to be greater than the true risk, mammals prefer farmlands near forests with low degrees of human disturbances (perceptual trap). The current damage distribution is a result of this perceptual trap because hunting pressures are not always higher in farmlands than in forests.

show abstract

Height and tension of electric lines: how should an electric fence be installed to effectively mitigate human-wildlife conflict?

Cited by 9 publications

References 38 publications

A shocking result—Electric fences protect western saw‐shelled turtle (Myuchelys bellii) nests from depredation by foxes

A shocking result—Electric fences protect western saw‐shelled turtle (Myuchelys bellii) nests from depredation by foxes

Methods to mitigate human–wildlife conflicts involving common mesopredators: a meta‐analysis

Why Mammals do Not Damage Entire Farmlands Like Insect Pests Do? A Review from a Behavioral Perspective

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About