Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24614538›Full record

ArticlePloS one2014

Detusking fence-breaker elephants as an approach in human-elephant conflict mitigation.

Matthew Mutinda, Geoffrey Chenge, Francis Gakuya, Moses Otiende, Patrick Omondi, Samuel Kasiki, Ramón C Soriguer, Samer Alasaad

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Elephant barrier behaviors in response to conflict mitigation fences.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Male African Elephant (Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2022
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Matthew MutindaKenya Wildlife Service, Nairobi, Kenya.
Geoffrey ChengeLewa Wildlife Conservancy, Private Bag Isiolo, Kenya.
Francis GakuyaKenya Wildlife Service, Nairobi, Kenya.
Moses OtiendeKenya Wildlife Service, Nairobi, Kenya.
Patrick OmondiKenya Wildlife Service, Nairobi, Kenya.
Samuel KasikiKenya Wildlife Service, Nairobi, Kenya.
Ramón C SoriguerEstación Biológica de Doñana, Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (CSIC), Sevilla, Spain.
Samer AlasaadEstación Biológica de Doñana, Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (CSIC), Sevilla, Spain; Institute of Evolutionary Biology and Environmental Studies (IEU), University of Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHuman-elephant conflict (HEC) is a recurring problem that appears wherever the range of elephants and humans overlap. Different methods including the use of electric fences are used worldwide to mitigate this conflict. Nonetheless, elephants learn quickly that their tusks do not conduct electricity and use them to break down fences (fence-breakers). METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL

findingsIn Lewa Wildlife Conservancy, Kenya, destructive elephants (Loxodonta africana) were monitored between 2010 and 2013. The fence-breaking rate reached four incidents (fence-breaking) per elephant per 100 days. Ten bull males and 57 females were identified as fence-breakers. The bulls were involved in 85.07% and the females in 14.93% of incidents. The Kenya Wildlife Service approved detusking (partial cutting of tusks) in four of the 10 fence-breakers as a way of preventing them from breaking down fences, thereby mitigating HEC in the Conservancy. The result of the detusking was a drastic six-fold reduction in damage to fences (range: 1.67 to 14.5 times less fence-breaking) by the four worst fence-breaker elephants, because with trimmed tusks elephants lack the tools to break down fences. Detusking could not totally eliminate fence destruction because, despite lacking their tools, elephants can still destroy fences using their heads, bodies and trunks, albeit less effectively. On the other hand, apart from inherent aesthetic considerations, the detusking of elephants may have certain negative effects on factors such as elephants' social hierarchies, breeding, mate selection and their access to essential minerals and food.

conclusionsElephant detusking seems to be effective in drastically reducing fence-breaking incidents, nonetheless its negative effects on behaviour, access to food and its aesthetical consequences still need to be further studied and investigated.

Indexed as

Conflict, PsychologicalAnimalsAnimal StructuresConservation of Natural ResourcesElephantsFemaleHumansKenyaMaleTime Factors

Identifiers

PMID24614538
PMCPMC3948880

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.