Use fire to deter crop damage by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict

Overall effectiveness category Likely to be beneficial
Number of studies: 2
Share Tweet Email

View assessment score

How is the evidence assessed?

Effectiveness

55%
Certainty

40%
Harms

4%

Calculating overall effectiveness category

Background information and definitions

Wild herbivores can cause substantial damage to agricultural crops. Various methods may be used to deter animals from accessing crops or to scare away animals in the area. This intervention covers use of fire for scaring animals away from crop areas. If successful, the intervention could reduce incentives for carrying out lethal control of crop-raiding mammals.

Study locations

Key messages

Two studies evaluated the effects on mammals of using fire to deter crop damage by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict. One study was in Zimbabwe and one was in India.

COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)

OTHER (2 STUDIES)

Human-wildlife conflict (2 studies): A replicated study in Zimbabwe found that a combination of large fires and people with drums and dogs repelled African elephants from crops faster than did a combination of people with dogs and slingshots, drums and burning sticks. A study in India found that fire reduced the chance of Asian elephants damaging crops.

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 replicated study in 1995–1996 in crop fields at a site surrounded by savanna in Sebungwe, Zimbabwe (Osborn 2002) found that when scared by a combination of large fires and people with dogs Canis lupus familiaris, whips and drums, African elephants Loxodonta africana were repelled faster from fields than by a combination of people with dogs, slingshots, drums and burning sticks. Elephants were repelled faster when scared with by large fires and people with dogs, whips and drums (4 minutes) than when scared by people with dogs, slingshots, drums and burning sticks (10 minutes). However, when scared by large fires and people with dogs, whips and drums, elephants charged at defenders during 60% of scaring attempts (9 of 15). Elephants raiding crops were scared 15 times by 4–7 people with multiple large fires, several dogs, whips and drums and 11 times by 2–3 people with dogs, slingshots, drums and burning sticks. Behavioural responses were monitored through a monocular. Elephants and farmers were 20–40 m apart. Tests were conducted between 18:30 and 06:30 h. The number of fields was not specified.
Study and other actions tested
Referenced paper
Osborn F.V. (2002) Capsicum oleoresin as an elephant repellent: field trials in the communal lands of Zimbabwe. Journal of Wildlife Management, 66, 674-677.
A study in 2006–2009, in two areas of Assam, India (Davies et al. 2011) found that using fire to deter crop-raiding Asian elephants Elephas maximus reduced the chance of crop damage occurring. The chance of crop damage occurring was lower when fire was used to deter crop-raiding elephants compared to a range of other interventions or no intervention (results presented as statistic model coefficients). Loud noise, fences and spotlights reduced crop raiding to a greater extent. Using loud noises alongside fire was less effective than using fire alone. Within two study areas, 33 community members trained as monitors, recorded 1,761 crop-raiding incidents, from 1 March 2006 to 28 February 2009. A range of deterrent methods was used, singly or in combination. These were fire (in pits or on hand-held fire torches), chili smoke (from burning dried chilies, tobacco, and straw), spotlights, two-strand electric fences, chili fencing (engine grease and ground chili paste, on a jute or coconut rope), elephant drives (using domesticated elephants to repel wild elephants) and noise.
Study and other actions tested
Referenced paper
Davies T.E., Wilson S., Hazarika N., Chakrabarty J., Das D., Hodgson D.J. & Zimmermann A. (2011) Effectiveness of intervention methods against crop-raiding elephants. Conservation Letters, 4, 346-354.

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	Category
Establish deviation ponds in fish farms to reduce predation of fish stock by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict Action Link	No evidence found (no assessment)	Synopsis Link
Use scarecrows to deter crop damage by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict Action Link	No evidence found (no assessment)	Synopsis Link
Use fencing/netting to reduce predation of fish stock by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict Action Link	No evidence found (no assessment)	Synopsis Link