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

How is the evidence assessed?
  • Effectiveness
    50%
  • Certainty
    55%
  • Harms
    0%

Source countries

Key messages

  • Seven studies evaluated the effects on elephants of using chili to deter crop damage to reduce human-wildlife conflict. Four studies were in Zimbabwe, two were in Kenya and one was in India.

KEY COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)

OTHER (7 STUDIES)

  • Human-wildlife conflict (7 studies): Five of seven studies (including four replicated and two before-and-after studies), in Zimbabwe, Kenya and India, found that chill-based deterrents (chili-spray, chili smoke, chili fences and chili extract in a projectile, in some cases along with other deterrents) repelled elephants at least initially, whist two studies found that chili smoke (and in one case chili fences) did not reduce crop raiding.

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

  1. A replicated study in 1993–1994 of savanna and farmland at two sites in Zimbabwe (Osborn & Rasmussen 1995) found that a chili-based capsicum spray repelled elephants Loxodonta africana. In 19 of 22 tests in a national park, elephants retreated when sprayed with the capsicum aerosol. In three successful tests, elephants reacted to the sound of the spray discharging. Elephants also retreated in 16 of 18 tests carried out on farmland. In two tests, elephants appeared not to inhale the spray. Twenty-two tests were conducted in a national park from 16–22 July 1993, thirteen on bulls and nine on family groups. Capsicum sprays were discharged on foot or from vehicles (average 40 m from elephants) or by remote-control, 250 m from a watering hole. Eighteen tests were conducted on 1–14 elephants on farmland, on moonlit nights, from February–May 1994. Capsicum sprays were administered on foot or by remote-control. In all tests, elephants were settled for 5–20 mins, with staff in place, before testing, so elephants’ responses were not simply a reaction to human presence. A 10% capsicum oleoresin solution was then discharged from an aerosol can, upwind of elephants.

    Study and other actions tested
  2. A replicated study in 1995–1996 in crop fields at a site surrounded by savanna in Sebungwe, Zimbabwe (Osborn 2002) found that a chili-based capsicum spray repelled crop-raiding African elephants Loxodonta africana faster than did scaring by combinations of people, dogs Canis lupus familiaris, slingshots, drums, whips, burning sticks large fires. Elephants were repelled faster when sprayed with capsicum aerosol (2 minutes) than when scared by one person with a small fire (and sometimes with a dog) (14 minutes), by two to three people with dogs and slingshots, drums and burning sticks (10 minutes) or by four to seven people with dogs, drums, whips and large fires (4 minutes). No elephants charged at defenders when sprayed with the capsicum aerosol but defenders were charged on 13–60% of occasions when elephants were scared by other means. Elephants raiding crops were scared 18 times using 10% capsicum oleoresin spray, 15 times by one person with a small fire (and sometimes with a dog), 11 times by 2–3 people with dogs, slingshots, drums and burning sticks and 15 times by 4–7 people with dogs, drums, whips and large fires. Behavioural responses were monitored by watching through a monocular. Distance between elephants and farmers was 20–40 m. Tests were conducted between 18:30 and 06:30 h. The number of fields studied was not specified.

    Study and other actions tested
  3. A replicated study in 2001 of arable land in seven villages in Guruve District, Zimbabwe (Osborn & Parker 2002) found that burning chilies mixed with elephant Loxodonta africana dung, repelled crop-raiding elephants faster than did traditional deterrents of beating drums and throwing rocks. Elephants left faster (average 9 minutes) when chili mixed with dung was burned than they did when traditional repellent methods alone were used (average 65 minutes). Seven villages were studied. At three villages, farmers set fire to bricks made of elephant dung mixed with chili, to deter elephants that were attempting to raid crops, on 34 occasions. Farmers at four villages used traditional methods to scare off elephants that attempted to raid crops, namely banging drums and throwing rocks with catapults, on 27 occasions. The study was conducted from 1 January to 30 June 2001 and data were collected by a team of observers.

    Study and other actions tested
  4. A before-and-after and site comparison study in 2003–2004 of two farming areas in Laikipia, Kenya (Graham & Ochieng 2008) found that using chili fences and chili smoke, along with loud noises, reduced raiding and crop damage by African elephants Loxodonta africana. The study does not distinguish between the effects of chilli deterrents and loud noises. After farmers began using chili fences and chili smoke, along with loud noises, the total number of crop-raiding incidents (26) and the average area of crop damage (375 m2/incident) was lower than before deterrents were used (92 incidents; 585 m2/incident). However, the difference was not tested for statistical significance. At a control site without deterrents, crop-raiding increased (total 17–166 incidents) as did crop damage (average 328 m2–421 m2/incident) during the same time period. A group of farmers within a 0.03-km2 area were provided with training and materials to deter crop-raiding elephants. Deterrents included chili fences (rope and cloth fences with chili and engine grease applied), chili smoke (chili and dung briquettes burned at night) and loud noises (bangers, banger sticks, cow bells). Some farmers also used watchtowers and torches. A second control area, of equal size and within 1 km, used no deterrents. Crop-raiding incidents and crop damage were recorded in each of the two areas before (June–December 2003) and after (June–December 2004) deterrents were introduced.

    Study and other actions tested
  5. A replicated, before-and-after and site comparison study in 2004–2005 at 40 farms in Laikipia, Kenya (Graham & Ochieng 2008) found that using chili fences and chili smoke, along with loud noises, did not result in an overall reduction in crop-raiding by African elephants Loxodonta africana. The study does not distinguish between the effects of chilli deterrents and loud noises. After farmers began using chili fences and chili smoke, along with loud noises, the average number of crop-raiding incidents across all farms (2) was similar to before deterrents were used (2.5). At 10 control farms without deterrents, crop-raiding decreased (from an average of three incidents to one) during the same time period. Ten farmers in each of two areas were provided with training and materials to deter crop-raiding elephants. Deterrents included chili fences (rope and cloth fences with chili and engine grease applied), chili smoke (chili and dung briquettes burned at night) and loud noises (bangers, banger sticks, cow bells). Some farmers also used watchtowers and torches. Uptake of deterrent types varied between farms (see original paper for details). Ten control farms within each of the two areas used no deterrents. Crop-raiding incidents were recorded at all 40 farms before (February–November 2004) and after (February–November 2005) deterrents were introduced.

    Study and other actions tested
  6. A study in 2007 of grassland, thicket, woodland and water holes in a national park in Zimbabwe (Le Bel et al. 2010) found that after being shot at with chili oil extract, most savanna elephants Loxodonta africana either ran away or backed up, but most soon resumed normal behaviour. When shot at, 11 (46%) of 24 elephants ran away, seven (29%) changed their behaviour and walked away and six (25%) did not change their behaviour. After 1 minute, seven (29%) were still running away, one (4%) was walking away and 16 (67%) had resumed normal behaviour. The study was conducted in a remote area of Hwange National Park in October 2007. Between 09:30 and 18:00 h, a professional hunter shot a ping-pong ball filled with chili oil extract at 24 elephants from 15–110 m using a gas-dispenser. Only eight elephants were hit by the balls, of which seven then released chili oil.

    Study and other actions tested
  7. A study in 2006–2009, in two areas of Assam, India (Davies et al. 2011) found that using chili smoke to deter Asian elephants Elephas maximus did not reduce the probability of elephants raiding crops. The chance of crop damage occurring was not lower when chili smoke was used to deter crop-raiding elephants compared to a range of other interventions or to no intervention (results presented as statistic model). Within two study areas, 33 community members were trained as monitors to record the 1,761 crop-raiding incidents, from 1 March 2006 to 28 February 2009. A range of deterrents were used, singly or in combination. These included 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), fire and noise.

    Study and other actions tested
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

Terrestrial Mammal Conservation

This Action forms part of the Action Synopsis:

Terrestrial Mammal Conservation
Terrestrial Mammal Conservation

Terrestrial Mammal Conservation - Published 2020

Terrestrial Mammal Conservation

What Works in Conservation

What Works in Conservation provides expert assessments of the effectiveness of actions, based on summarised evidence, in synopses. Subjects covered so far include amphibians, birds, terrestrial mammals, forests, peatland and control of freshwater invasive species. More are in progress.

More about What Works in Conservation

Download free PDF or purchase
The Conservation Evidence Journal

The Conservation Evidence Journal

An online, free to publish in, open-access journal publishing results from research and projects that test the effectiveness of conservation actions.

Read latest volume: Volume 17

Go to the CE Journal

Subscribe to our newsletter

Please add your details if you are interested in receiving updates from the Conservation Evidence team about new papers, synopses and opportunities.

Who uses Conservation Evidence?

Meet some of the evidence champions

Endangered Landscape Programme Red List Champion - Arc Kent Wildlife Trust The Rufford Foundation Save the Frogs - Ghana Bern wood Supporting Conservation Leaders National Biodiversity Network Sustainability Dashboard Frog Life The international journey of Conservation - Oryx British trust for ornithology Cool Farm Alliance UNEP AWFA Butterfly Conservation People trust for endangered species Vincet Wildlife Trust