Virtual fencing of captive Asian elephants fitted with an aversive geofencing device to manage their movement

Attitudes towards the Potential Use of Aversive Geofencing Devices to Manage Wild Elephant Movement

“…These include ensuring reliability of the technology (e.g., consistency and accuracy of delivering audio and electrical stimuli, maintaining uninterrupted satellite communication), durability of the device (e.g., weather resistance, long lasting battery life), and resolving uncertainties in elephant’s behavioural responses to electric shocks (e.g., individual variations in responses or potential to show aggressive behaviours, possibility to learn through social facilitation and possibility of habituation to the stimuli) ( Table S5 ). These possible challenges have been identified and discussed in Cabral de Mel et al [ 38 , 64 ] and should be further investigated. Given the general support or lack of widespread opposition towards AGDs, the next step would be designing and developing a wearable, prototype AGD and optimising it by further testing with captive elephants to provide evidence on its efficacy in managing elephant movement with minimum impact on elephant wellbeing.…”

“…AGDs used on livestock are also designed to deliver shocks with similar characteristics, but use a much lower voltage (e.g., ~800 V [ 47 , 62 ]) and lower energy than that given from electric fences used for these species [ 63 ]. Similarly, a much milder electric shock than that used in elephant electric fences might be used with AGDs for elephants as well [ 64 ]. However, compared to capturing and attaching collars with AGDs on other smaller or domesticated animals, fitting AGDs on elephants would pose a risk to both elephants and humans involved in the collaring process [ 65 ].…”

“…Understanding the opinions of stakeholders towards potentially controversial but otherwise effective human-wildlife conflict mitigation approaches is important for their successful implementation. We previously conducted pilot studies on AGDs which revealed that electric shocks (~4000 V, ~51.7 µs, with no resistance) from a modified dog-training collar delivered on the neck of captive Asian elephants produces desirable aversive responses, and that there is potential to condition elephants to avoid the shock with a prior audio warning [ 64 ]. Furthermore, our assessment of behavioural and physiological stress responses to electric shocks of these captive elephants showed that the expected increase in acute stress responses returned to normal levels soon afterwards [ 76 ].…”

“…Part of the reason for this debate may be the many nuances associated with the way electric shocks are used with these species, e.g., the strength of the shock, or whether shocks are delivered by humans or if animals can avoid the shock if they choose, and the possible stress that it would cause on the animal. Non-lethal electric fences used for elephants typically deliver electric shocks of 5500-10,000 V with very low amperage (~5 mA) and a pulse duration of about a few milliseconds [25,40,59,60], and are generally perceived as an acceptable HEC mitigation tool [61]. AGDs used on livestock are also designed to deliver shocks with similar characteristics, but use a much lower voltage (e.g., ~800 V [47,62]) and lower energy than that given from electric fences used for these species [63].…”

Path Planning of Mecanum Wheel Chassis Based on Improved A* Algorithm

“…The realization of path planning is a prerequisite for the application of autonomous navigation functions. Therefore, scholars worldwide have realized the application in different environments from the perspectives of communications technology, satellite navigation technology, image processing, visual recognition, SLAM (Simultaneous Localization and Mapping) technology, geo-fencing, and obstacle-avoidance processing [16][17][18][19][20][21].…”