752 M. Montero‐Botey et al.
district, with beans, sweet potatoes and cassava less pre- ferred. In our research, all study farms were affected by ele- phants and crop selection was based on the relationship between actual use by elephants and crop availability at the scale of the farms. Although further studies are needed, particularly on scarce crops, our findings may be a good proxy of elephant preferences for a variety of crops. Crop damage by elephants was strongly affected by the
abundance (i.e. crop area) of preferred food and, to a lesser extent, by the distance to water supply points and the pres- ence of private investors. Water sources have been found to be associated with spatial patterns of crop damage elsewhere (Smith&Kasiki, 2000). The relationship between the inten- sity of damage and the distance to water supply could be a result of the influence that water availability has on the dis- tribution patterns of elephants, as they tend to stay close to waterholes and rivers (Thomas et al., 2008). The presence of investors in WildlifeManagement Areas showed an impor- tance of 0.41 in explaining crop damage by elephants, and we found a tendency indicating that farms with an investor could have less damage by elephants, but further studies of this are required. Hunting by tourists (the main source of private investment) seemstohave limited effectiveness inredu- cinghuman–wildlife conflicts as private hunters do not usually select problem animals as trophies (Jackson & Nowell, 1996). Some studies (Treves & Karanth, 2003;Wielgus &Peebles, 2014) consider hunting an inadequate management tool for reducing human–carnivore conflicts, which could even in- crease the problem in the case ofwounded animals or destruc- tion of pack dynamics.On the other hand, as most hunters are willing to hunt in areas lacking high densities of viewablewild- life or tourism infrastructure, the potential for trophy hunting to generate incentives for conservation on communally owned lands and, by doing so, support human–wildlife coexistence, shouldnot be ignored (Lindsey et al., 2006;Naidooetal., 2016). Given that the proportion of land on which elephants’
preferred food is grown is a major factor explaining crop damage by elephants, it is important to test and implement a variety of deterrent methods to decrease the attraction of preferred food sources. The use of less preferred crops, such as sesame, tomatoes, tobacco and soy, among others (Table 1), could help reduce the intensity of crop damage. Cultivation of unpalatable crops can be used to mitigate crop damage by elephants (Chiyo et al., 2005; Parker & Osborn, 2006; Gross et al., 2016). The use of non-preferred crops that also require less water would be preferable (e.g. peas, tobacco, sesame). This would be an upheaval for local communities, however, as the main food crops are currently maize and cassava, and livelihoods are often highly dependent on the crops grown. Further studies are required to evaluate the economic and social implica- tions of changing crop types. Previous studies (Sitati & Walpole, 2006; Hoare, 2012) concluded that a combination of strategies may be the
most effective way to minimize crop damage by elephants. It could be particularly useful to focus on methods based on early warning systems (Pozo et al., 2017b). A first step in im- plementing deterrent methods affordably is probably aggre- gation of farmland. If farms are close together, it will be less costly and easier to protect them and to establish the most effective method of deterrence. However, any shifts in crop location have associated difficulties related to the availabil- ity of water and soil fertility. As in any negative interaction between wildlife and peo-
ple, any solution must be implemented in collaboration with local communities. Several approaches could be used to increase community awareness of the potential benefits of wildlife-friendly management. One approach would be to seek investors that make the area valuable. Our results show an apparent contribution of investors to reduce crop damage by elephants. However, further studies are needed, with a larger sample size and more rigorous comparisons between areas with and without investors (i.e. controlling for potentially confounding factors), to improve under- standing of the factors involved in farm and crop selection by elephants and any potential relationship with different management schemes.
Acknowledgements We thank WWF Tanzania for GIS topog- raphy; Tunduru WWF office for sharing their data on human– elephant interactions; the Tanzania Wildlife Research Institute, Tanzanian Commission for Science and Technology and Tanzania Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism for granting permission to conduct the study;
D.Mpanduji (Sokoine University of Agriculture), Mabula Misungwi (Tanzania Wildlife Management Authority), Peter Mtani (District Game Officer, Tunduru) and Ernest Nombo (District Game Officer, Namtumbo) for their help and advice; and the Scouts who collaborated during the data collection
process.MMB received the financial support of Universidad Politécnica de Madrid (programme for pre-doctoral students).
Author contributions Conception of experiments, data collection: MM-B; refining of methods: ASM; data analysis: RP; writing: all authors.
Conflicts of interest None.
Ethical standards This research had the necessary approvals and permits from appropriate institutions and statutory authorities in both the host country and the researchers’ country of origin, and otherwise abided by the Oryx guidelines on ethical standards.
References
BALDUS,R.D.&HAHN,R.(2009) The Selous–NiassaWildlife Corridor in Tanzania: Biodiversity Conservation from the Grassroots. Practical Experiences and Lessons from Integrating Local Communities into Trans-boundary Natural Resources Management. FAO & CIC, Budapest, Hungary.
BUCKLEY, R.C., CASTLEY, J.G., DE VASCONCELLOS PEGAS,F., MOSSAZ, A.C. & STEVEN,R. (2012) A population accounting approach to assess tourism contributions to conservation of IUCN-redlisted mammal species. PLOS ONE, 7,e44134.
Oryx, 2021, 55(5), 747–754 © The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S0030605319000978
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162 |
Page 163 |
Page 164
