Suppr超能文献

壕沟减少了大象的作物觅食:来自乌干达基巴莱国家公园的教训,适用于人口密集的农村景观中的大象保护。

Trenches reduce crop foraging by elephants: Lessons from Kibale National Park, Uganda for elephant conservation in densely settled rural landscapes.

机构信息

Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, United States of America.

Kiko Town Council, Kabarole, Uganda.

出版信息

PLoS One. 2023 Jul 26;18(7):e0288115. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0288115. eCollection 2023.

Abstract

Crop loss to wildlife, particularly elephants, threatens livelihoods and support for conservation around many protected areas in Africa and Asia. Low-cost elephant barriers have been successfully deployed in savannas but seldom tested around isolated forest parks where the stakes are high for local farmers and isolated elephant populations. We measured the effectiveness of a series of ≥3 m deep trenches dug by farmers neighboring Kibale National Park, Uganda. We monitored trench quality and crop loss to elephants weekly for a year across 47 transects in four park-adjacent communities, and conducted controlled, before-and-after comparisons of verified damage. Elephants damaged or destroyed >4 ha of crops during 48 independent foraging events, the majority <220m from the forest boundary. The frequency of damage varied significantly between and within communities. The majority of trenches were not breached by elephants but five suffered ≥4 breaches. Elephant-breached trenches and their neighboring trenches were lower quality than those not breached in the same week (Wilcoxon test: p<0.001). Trenches were also more likely to be breached where people had planted more crops favored by elephants (Wilcoxon test: p = 0.014). Thus, trench quality and the draw of palatable crops both appeared to influence elephant damage. Although trenches may deter elephants, challenges include heavy labor and difficulties of digging in rocky and swampy areas. Trenches alone will not prevent conflict but this strategy holds promise for hot-spots of conflict at forest edges. Given the stakes for farmers and biodiversity, we call for systematic assessment of crop losses and offer recommendations on monitoring and analysis. Such data will allow for stronger inference about effectiveness before investment of effort and resources in interventions.

摘要

野生动物(尤其是大象)造成的作物损失,威胁着非洲和亚洲许多保护区周边的生计和对自然保护的支持。低成本的大象围栏已在热带稀树草原成功部署,但在孤立的森林公园周边很少进行测试,而这些公园对于当地农民和孤立的大象种群来说至关重要。我们测量了乌干达基巴莱国家公园周边的农民挖掘的一系列≥3 米深的沟渠的有效性。我们每周监测沟渠的质量和大象对作物的损失情况,持续了一年,共在四个公园附近社区的 47 个横截面上进行,对经过验证的损害进行了控制、前后对比。在 48 次独立觅食事件中,大象损坏或破坏了>4 公顷的作物,其中大多数距离森林边界<220 米。不同社区和同一社区内的损害频率差异显著。大多数沟渠没有被大象破坏,但有 5 个沟渠遭受了≥4 次破坏。大象破坏的沟渠及其相邻沟渠的质量比同一周内未被破坏的沟渠差(威尔科克森检验:p<0.001)。在同一周内,人们种植了大象更喜欢的更多作物的地方,沟渠更容易被破坏(威尔科克森检验:p = 0.014)。因此,沟渠的质量和可口作物的吸引力似乎都影响了大象的破坏行为。尽管沟渠可能会阻止大象,但仍存在挑战,包括劳动强度大,以及在岩石和沼泽地区挖掘的困难。仅靠沟渠无法防止冲突,但这种策略为森林边缘的热点冲突提供了希望。考虑到农民和生物多样性的利害关系,我们呼吁系统评估作物损失,并就监测和分析提出建议。这些数据将使我们在投入精力和资源进行干预之前,能够更有力地推断干预措施的有效性。

相似文献

2
Do topography and fruit presence influence occurrence and intensity of crop-raiding by forest elephants (Loxodonta africana cyclotis)?
PLoS One. 2019 Mar 22;14(3):e0213971. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0213971. eCollection 2019.
3
Determinants of elephant foraging behaviour in a coupled human-natural system: Is brown the new green?
J Anim Ecol. 2019 May;88(5):780-792. doi: 10.1111/1365-2656.12971. Epub 2019 Mar 26.
4
Beehive fences as a multidimensional conflict-mitigation tool for farmers coexisting with elephants.
Conserv Biol. 2017 Aug;31(4):743-752. doi: 10.1111/cobi.12898. Epub 2017 Feb 21.
5
Local's attitude towards African elephant conservation in and around Chebra Churchura National Park, Ethiopia.
PLoS One. 2023 Oct 26;18(10):e0292641. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0292641. eCollection 2023.
6
The efficacy of interventions to protect crops from raiding elephants.
Ambio. 2022 Mar;51(3):716-727. doi: 10.1007/s13280-021-01587-x. Epub 2021 Jun 25.
7
Spatio-temporal patterns of human-wildlife conflicts and effectiveness of mitigation in Shuklaphanta National Park, Nepal.
PLoS One. 2023 Apr 17;18(4):e0282654. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0282654. eCollection 2023.
8
Predicting Hotspots of Human-Elephant Conflict to Inform Mitigation Strategies in Xishuangbanna, Southwest China.
PLoS One. 2016 Sep 15;11(9):e0162035. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0162035. eCollection 2016.
9
Between forest and croplands: Nocturnal behavior in wild chimpanzees of Sebitoli, Kibale National Park, Uganda.
PLoS One. 2022 May 6;17(5):e0268132. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0268132. eCollection 2022.
10
Drivers of human-megaherbivore interactions in the Eastern and Western Ghats of southern India.
J Environ Manage. 2022 Aug 15;316:115315. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.115315. Epub 2022 May 20.

本文引用的文献

1
The efficacy of interventions to protect crops from raiding elephants.
Ambio. 2022 Mar;51(3):716-727. doi: 10.1007/s13280-021-01587-x. Epub 2021 Jun 25.
2
Rethinking assessment of success of mitigation strategies for elephant-induced crop damage.
Conserv Biol. 2020 Aug;34(4):829-842. doi: 10.1111/cobi.13433. Epub 2020 May 14.
3
Changing perceptions of protected area benefits and problems around Kibale National Park, Uganda.
J Environ Manage. 2017 Sep 15;200:217-228. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.05.078. Epub 2017 Jun 3.
4
Poaching empties critical Central African wilderness of forest elephants.
Curr Biol. 2017 Feb 20;27(4):R134-R135. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2017.01.023.
5
Beehive fences as a multidimensional conflict-mitigation tool for farmers coexisting with elephants.
Conserv Biol. 2017 Aug;31(4):743-752. doi: 10.1111/cobi.12898. Epub 2017 Feb 21.
6
How Bees Deter Elephants: Beehive Trials with Forest Elephants (Loxodonta africana cyclotis) in Gabon.
PLoS One. 2016 May 19;11(5):e0155690. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0155690. eCollection 2016.
7
Devastating decline of forest elephants in central Africa.
PLoS One. 2013;8(3):e59469. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0059469. Epub 2013 Mar 4.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验