Cited by 111Wildlife Ecology and ConservationRangeland and Wildlife ManagementWildlife-Road Interactions and Conservation

Detusking Fence-Breaker Elephants as an Approach in Human-Elephant Conflict Mitigation

Open access
Mutinda, Matthew, Chenge, Geoffrey, Gakuya, Francis, Otiende, Moses, Omondi, Patrick, Kasiki, Samuel, Soriguer, Ramón C., Alasaad, Samer·2014·PLoS ONE

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Human-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 FINDINGS: In 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. CONCLUSIONS: Elephant 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.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1371/journal.pone.0091749

Cites

32 of 32 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 34 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [5]Ngene S (2010) Why elephants roam? PHD Thesis University of Twente. The Netherlands; accessed on 03/20/2013.
  2. [16]Nelson A, Bidwell P, Sillero-Zubiri C (2003) A review of human-elephant conflict management strategies. People & Wildlife, A Wildlife Conservation Research Unit, Born Free Foundation Partnership.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mutinda, M., Chenge, G., Gakuya, F., Otiende, M., Omondi, P., Kasiki, S., Soriguer, R. C., & Alasaad, S.
Affiliations
  • Kenya Wildlife Service (KE)
  • Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (ES)
Corresponding author
Alasaad, Samer
Venue
PLoS ONE
Published
2014-03-10
Volume
9
Issue
3
Pages
e91749
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2054351282
Cited by
111
References
34
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 2
FWCI
9.84
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DIGITAL.CSIC (Spanish National Research Council (CSIC)) (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Greater South Information System
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Wildlife Ecology and Conservation
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Rangeland and Wildlife Management
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Wildlife-Road Interactions and Conservation
Keywords
human-elephant conflict, elephant tusks, electric fences, Loxodonta africana, social hierarchy
MeSH terms
Animals, Animal Structures, Conflict, Psychological, Conservation of Natural Resources, Elephants, Female, Humans, Kenya, Male, Time Factors

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review