Erratum to: Elephants also like coffee: Trends and drivers of human-elephant conflicts in coffee agroforestry landscapes of Kodagu, Western Ghats, India

Negative human-wildlife interactions in traditional agroforestry systems in Assam, India

Traditional agroforestry systems are designed to provide maximum and diverse yield (ranging from agricultural crops, forest trees, livestock and fish) to people.  They also act as sources of food and shelter to wild animals leading to crop destruction, livestock depredation and injuries to people giving rise to negative human-wildlife interactions.  The present study was carried out in three different agroforestry systems namely tea gardens, homegardens, and agrisilvicultural systems in Assam to document the attitude of people towards wild animals which damage the crops and livestock, through questionnaire surveys.  In agroforestry systems, 13 animals were reported as destructive; rodents at 13% followed by Indian Hare at 12%.  The least destructive were birds and bats with 4% each.  In tea gardens majority of the people killed animals for meat (95%) and the most common method for killing was the use of catapults (77%).  In homegardens and agrisilvicultural systems, owners chased the animals away (82%) by using catapults (68%).  Hunting of animals and intolerance of people towards crop destruction and livestock depredation done by wild animals were the two main reasons causing negative human-wildlife interactions in agroforestry systems.  The present study concludes that wildlife species found in the agroforestry system in Assam were threatened by local inhabitants and thus, a suitable conservation awareness and policy action plan should be developed in consultation with the owners of agroforestry systems by considering the ecological significance of the wildlife species found therein.

Human-elephant conflict in western Thailand: Socio-economic drivers and potential mitigation strategies

Understanding human-wildlife conflict is an important first step in the conservation of highly endangered species that can have adverse effects on human communities, such as elephants. To gain insights into variables that shape attitudes toward elephant conservation in Asia, we surveyed 410 households and 46 plantation owners in seven villages around the Salakpra Wildlife Sanctuary in western Thailand, an area of high human-elephant conflict. We sought to evaluate how past experiences with elephants (positive or negative), as well as socio-economic variables (age, income level, gender, and employment type) affect attitudes toward elephant conservation and coexistence in this area. In addition, we quantified deterrence methods currently used and identify potential mitigation strategies supported by community members. In general, less supportive attitudes toward elephant conservation and coexistence were held by individuals older than 35 years of age, those who had previously had experienced negative interactions with elephants, those with lower incomes, and those working in the agricultural sector. Conversely, those who had received benefits from living near elephants (e.g., supplemental income or feelings of pride from hosting volunteers or participating in conservation work) had more supportive views of elephant coexistence. Plantation owners reported using a variety of deterrence methods with varying success, with firecrackers being the most commonly utilized method. Community members identified several potentially beneficial mitigation strategies including forest restorations and patrol teams, adding water sources to wild elephant habitat, and education of local school and community groups. Overall, our results highlight the value of community members receiving benefits from living near elephants and suggest that special incentives may be needed for demographic groups disproportionately affected by elephants (e.g. those at lower income levels, those working in agriculture). A combination of these and other approaches will be required if human-elephant coexistence in western Thailand is to be realized.

Elephant (Elephas maximus) Health and Management in Asia: Variations in Veterinary Perspectives

There is a need to identify strategic investments in Asian elephant (Elephas maximus) health that will yield maximal benefits for overall elephant health and conservation. As an exploratory first step, a survey was administered to veterinarians from Asian elephant range countries at a workshop and via email to help prioritize health-related concerns that will mostly benefit elephants. Responses were received from 45 veterinarians from eight countries that had a range of experience with captive and wild elephants. The occurrence of medical conditions and responses to treatment varied among responses. However, injuries, parasitism, and gastrointestinal disease were reported as the most common syndromes responsible for elephant morbidity, whereas injury and infectious disease not due to parasitism were the most commonly reported sources of elephant mortality. Substandard nutrition, water quality and quantity deficiencies, and inadequate or absent shelter were among the factors listed as barriers to optimal elephant health. While this survey's results do not support definitive conclusions, they can be used to identify where and how subsequent investigations should be directed. Rigorous assessment of the relative costs and benefits of available options is required to ensure that investments in individual and population health yield the maximal benefits for elephants.