Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36359089›Full record

ReviewAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2022

Current and Future Approaches to Mitigate Conflict between Humans and Asian Elephants: The Potential Use of Aversive Geofencing Devices.

Surendranie Judith Cabral de Mel, Saman Seneweera, Ruvinda Kasun de Mel, Ashoka Dangolla, Devaka Keerthi Weerakoon, Tek Maraseni, Benjamin Lee Allen

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Animals : an open access journal from MDPI, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
3.6field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

7 authors at 5 institutions in 4 countries.

Surendranie Judith Cabral de MelInstitute for Life Sciences and the Environment, University of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba, QLD 4350, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-5045-2716
Saman SeneweeraNational Institute of Fundamental Studies, Kandy 20000, Sri Lanka.
Ruvinda Kasun de MelCentre for Behavioural and Physiological Ecology, Zoology, University of New England, Armidale, NSW 2351, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-9869-165X
Ashoka DangollaDepartment of Veterinary Clinical Sciences, University of Peradeniya, Peradeniya 20400, Sri Lanka.
Devaka Keerthi WeerakoonDepartment of Zoology and Environmental Sciences, University of Colombo, Colombo 00300, Sri Lanka.ORCID 0000-0002-3473-4972
Tek MaraseniInstitute for Life Sciences and the Environment, University of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba, QLD 4350, Australia.
Benjamin Lee AllenInstitute for Life Sciences and the Environment, University of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba, QLD 4350, Australia.
University of Southern Queensland · AUThe University of Melbourne · AUUniversity of Colombo · LKUniversity of New England · AUUniversity of Peradeniya · LK

Funding

National Institute of Fundamental Studies, Kandy, Sri Lanka in-kind supportNational Research Council 19-046University of Southern Queensland International PhD fees scholarship
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Asian elephants are a principal cause of human-wildlife conflict. This results in the death/injury of elephants and humans and large-scale crop and property damage. Most current human-elephant conflict (HEC) mitigation tools lack the flexibility to accommodate the ecological needs of elephants and are ineffective at reducing HEC in the long-term. Here we review common HEC mitigation tools used in Asia and the potential of Aversive Geofencing Devices (AGDs) to manage problem elephants. AGDs can be configured to monitor animal movements in real-time and deliver auditory warnings followed by electric stimuli whenever animals attempt to move across user-specified virtual boundaries. Thus, AGDs are expected to condition elephants to avoid receiving shocks and keep them away from virtually fenced areas, while providing alternative routes that can be modified if required. Studies conducted using AGDs with other species provide an overview of their potential in conditioning wild animals. We recommend that the efficacy and welfare impact of AGDs be evaluated using captive elephants along with public perception of using AGDs on elephants as a means of addressing the inherent deficiencies of common HEC mitigation tools. If elephants could be successfully conditioned to avoid virtual fences, then AGDs could resolve many HEC incidents throughout Asia.

Indexed as

aversive conditioningElephas maximushuman-wildlife conflictvirtual fencingwildlife management

Identifiers

PMID36359089
PMCPMC9653792
OpenAlexW4307944463

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.