ArticleConservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology2026
Elephant barrier behaviors in response to conflict mitigation fences.
Article in Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Elephant barrier behaviors in response to conflict mitigation fences.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Human-wildlife conflict is a major conservation issue, particularly in lower income countries, where it affects marginalized people and leads to the extirpation of threatened species. Managers increasingly use fences to reduce this conflict but lack evidence on the effectiveness of these barriers, especially on whether this reduces the number of incidents or only shifts the problem elsewhere. We adapted an approach designed to measure how individual animals respond to barriers (barrier behavior analysis) to evaluate a human-wildlife conflict intervention. We used movement data from 20 GPS-collared elephants to assess the extent to which their behavior was influenced by community-managed beehive fences around Gorongosa National Park in Mozambique. We measured the number of times elephants were stopped by the fences and compared this with the number of times elephants were stopped by a natural barrier formed by a major river. Beehive fences blocked elephant movement in 69.3% of encounters, whereas the river barrier blocked 35.9%. Human-elephant conflict levels were lower after construction of the fence, dropping from a mean of 566 crop and infrastructure damage incidents per year in 2018 and 2019 to a mean of 117.5 incidents per year in 2020 and 2021. The mean distance of crop and infrastructure damage incidents from the park boundary increased from 0.98 to 1.97 km, and the number of human injuries and deaths increased from 1 to 8. Our results showed that community-run beehive fences can be effective barriers and reduce overall levels of human-elephant conflict in agricultural landscapes. They also showed how fencing can change the spatial pattern of conflict. This highlights the benefits of understanding how conflict mitigation methods change individual animal behavior and of measuring intervention effectiveness at a landscape scale.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.