Translocate crop raiders away from crops (e.g. elephants) to reduce human-wildlife conflict

Overall effectiveness category Trade-off between benefit and harms
Number of studies: 2
Share Tweet Email

View assessment score

How is the evidence assessed?

Effectiveness

40%
Certainty

40%
Harms

37%

Calculating overall effectiveness category

Background information and definitions

Where wild mammals cause unacceptable damage to crops, they may be translocated from their point of capture and released some distance away. The release site may be an area away from where agricultural crops are grown. The intervention can fail if translocated animals continue to raid crops or if survival of translocated animals is low. If the intervention succeeds, it may reduce incentives for carrying out lethal control of such animals. Several other interventions cover translocations that are primarily for conservation of rare or threatened species, such as Translocate to re-establish or boost populations in native range.

Study locations

Key messages

Two studies evaluated the effects on mammals of translocating crop-raiding animals away from crops to reduce human-wildlife conflict. One study was in Kenya and one was in the USA.

COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY)

Survival (1 study): A controlled study in Kenya found that translocated crop-raiding African elephants had a lower survival rate after release than did non-translocated elephants at the same site.

BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)

OTHER (1 STUDY)

Human-wildlife conflict (1 study): A study in the USA found that most American black bears translocated from sites of crop damage were not subsequently recaptured at sites of crop damage.

About key messages

Key messages provide a descriptive index to studies we have found that test this intervention.

Studies are not directly comparable or of equal value. When making decisions based on this evidence, you should consider factors such as study size, study design, reported metrics and relevance of the study to your situation, rather than simply counting the number of studies that support a particular interpretation.

Supporting evidence from individual studies

A controlled study in 2005–2006 of savanna in and around a national park in Kenya (Pinter-Wollman et al. 2009) found that translocated crop-raiding African elephants Loxodonta africana had a lower survival rate than non-translocated elephants at the same site. Twenty-four of 150 translocated elephants died within 55 days of translocation; from dying during translocation (six elephants), poaching (one), shooting by problem animal control officers (two) and unknown causes (three), whilst 12 calves went missing and were presumed to have died. Out of 103 elephants that survived this period and were successfully monitored, four (4%) died over year following release, compared to 77 out of 6,395 (1%) during the same time period from the non-translocated population in the same park. One hundred and fifty elephants were translocated 160 km to a national park, in September 2005, to reduce human-elephant conflicts related to crop damage at the source location. Locations of translocated elephants and resident elephants were monitored 4–5 times/week at the receptor site from road transects and 2–3 times/week by aerial surveys.
Study and other actions tested
Referenced paper
Pinter-Wollman N., Isbell L.A. & Hart L.A. (2009) Assessing translocation outcome: Comparing behavioral and physiological aspects of translocated and resident African elephants (Loxodonta africana). Biological Conservation, 142, 1116-1124.
A study in 2006–2007 across a large portion of northern Wisconsin, USA (Shivik et al. 2011) found that most American black bears Ursus americanus translocated away from sites of damage to corn crops were not subsequently recaptured at sites of crop damage. Out of 520 translocated bears, 20 (4%) were recaptured during subsequent capture activities at sites of crop damage (including the original capture site). Average time to recapture was 45 days. Recaptured bears had been moved 40–64 km following initial capture. Of the total of 21 recaptures of 20 recaptured bears (one was recaptured twice), nine (43%) were at the original capture site and 15 (71%) were within 10 km of the original capture site. Bears were captured on 55 farms from 11 August to 9 October 2006 and 50 farms from 3 August to 12 October 2007. Skin samples were taken using a biopsy dart and 541 out of 567 samples produced genetic material that enabled identification of 520 individuals.
Study and other actions tested
Referenced paper
Shivik J.A., Ruid D., Willging R.C. & Mock K.E. (2011) Are the same bears repeatedly translocated from corn crops in Wisconsin? Ursus, 22, 114-119.

Please cite as:

Littlewood, N.A., Rocha, R., Smith, R.K., Martin, P.A., Lockhart, S.L., Schoonover, R.F., Wilman, E., Bladon, A.J., Sainsbury, K.A., Pimm S. and Sutherland, W.J. (2020) Terrestrial Mammal Conservation: Global Evidence for the Effects of Interventions for terrestrial mammals excluding bats and primates. Synopses of Conservation Evidence Series. University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.

Where has this evidence come from?

List of journals searched by synopsis

All the journals searched for all synopses

This Action forms part of the Action Synopsis:

Terrestrial Mammal Conservation

Related Actions

Actions	Effectiveness	Studies	Category
Install metal grids at field entrances to prevent mammals entering to reduce human-wildlife conflict Action Link	Likely to be beneficial	2	Synopsis Link
Play predator calls to deter crop damage by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict Action Link	No evidence found (no assessment)	0	Synopsis Link
Fit livestock with protective collars to reduce risk of predation by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict Action Link	Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)	1	Synopsis Link