ArticlePDF Available

Crop Foraging, Crop Losses, and Crop Raiding

October 2018
Annual Review of Anthropology 47(1)

October 2018
47(1)

DOI:10.1146/annurev-anthro-102317-050022

Authors:

Oxford Brookes University

Crop foraging or crop raiding concerns wildlife foraging and farmers' reactions and responses to it. To understand crop foraging and its value to wildlife or its implications for humans requires a cross-disciplinary approach that considers the behavior and ecology of wild animals engaging in this behavior; the types and levels of competition for resources between people and wildlife; people's perceptions of and attitudes toward wildlife, including animals that forage on crops; and discourse about animals and their behaviors and how these discourses can be used for expressing dissent and distress about other social conflicts. So, to understand and respond to conflicts about crop damage, we need to look beyond what people lose, i.e., crop loss and economic equivalence, and focusmore on what people say about wildlife and why they say it.

Content uploaded by Catherine M Hill

Content may be subject to copyright.

AN47CH24_Hill ARI 4 September 2018 17:28

Annual Review of Anthropology

Crop Foraging, Crop Losses,

and Crop Raiding

Catherine M. Hill

Department of Social Sciences, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Oxford Brookes

University, Oxford, OX3 0BP, United Kingdom; email: cmhill@brookes.ac.uk

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2018. 47:377–94

First published as a Review in Advance on

August 1, 2018

The Annual Review of Anthropology is online at

anthro.annualreviews.org

https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-anthro- 102317-

050022

2018 by Annual Reviews.

This article is part of a special theme on Food.

For a list of other articles in this theme, see

http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/

annurev-an-47-themes

Keywords

crop damage, crop protection, human–wildlife conﬂict, people–primate

conﬂict, primate foraging strategies

Abstract

Crop foraging or crop raiding concerns wildlife foraging and farmers’ re-

actions and responses to it. To understand crop foraging and its value to

wildlife or its implications for humans requires a cross-disciplinary approach

that considers the behavior and ecology of wild animals engaging in this be-

havior; the types and levels of competition for resources between people

and wildlife; people’s perceptions of and attitudes toward wildlife, including

animals that forage on crops; and discourse about animals and their behav-

iors and how these discourses can be used for expressing dissent and distress

about other social conﬂicts. So, to understand and respond to conﬂicts about

crop damage, we need to look beyond what people lose, i.e., crop loss and

economic equivalence, and focus more on what people say about wildlife and

whytheysayit.

377

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2018.47:377-394. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

Access provided by 161.73.114.34 on 11/06/19. For personal use only.

AN47CH24_Hill ARI 4 September 2018 17:28

INTRODUCTION

The phrase “crop raiding” is commonly used to mean the action of, or results of, wild animals dam-

aging standing crops by feeding on or trampling them (Hill 2017a). Animals that engage in these

activities are often labeled “crop raiders” and their actions as “crop raiding” (Humle & Hill 2016).

To raid is “to attack (a place or group) in a sudden and unexpected way: to enter (a place) suddenly

in a forceful way in order to look for someone or something: to enter (a place) in order to steal

or take something” (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/raid). Yet, as far as we can

tell, when animals forage on crops, they do so to feed and not to steal from, attack, or alarm farmers.

Labeling crop foraging as “crop raiding” or animals that forage on crops as “crop raiders” labels the

foraging animal the “reprobate” and the farmers the “victims” of a “hostile,” “violent,” and “un-

lawful” act. This misuse of language impacts how we understand and research these relationships,

encouraging an emphasis on modifying animal and/or farmer behavior as the appropriate approach

for conﬂict mitigation (Hill 2015). Researchers have increasingly recognized, however, that while

“human–wildlife conﬂicts” can be represented as a mismatch between human and wildlife needs

and activities, they are usually better understood as “conﬂicts between people about wildlife”

(Madden & McQuinn 2017, p. 148) because of their different values, beliefs, and power relations

(Hill 2015, Redpath et al. 2013). A failure to identify and address prevailing social conﬂicts can

mean that, irrespective of how effective or easily applied technical solutions are in reducing the

costs of sharing space with wildlife (for example, crop losses), these solutions will not necessarily

change local conﬂict narratives or experiences (Dickman 2010, Madden 2004). Consequently,

researchers or wildlife managers must bear in mind the social complexities of these situations.

Nonetheless, “raid,” “raiding,” and “raider” may be apt descriptions of farmers’ experiences of

wildlife crop-foraging events. Studies of farmer accounts of crop damage by wildlife indicate that

farmers sometimes describe the behavior of wildlife in terms that imply that they regard these

animals’ actions as antagonistic, aggressive, and intentional (Knight 2003, Webber & Hill 2014).

Alternatively, farmers’ use of these words may echo the terms they hear researchers, conserva-

tionists, and wildlife ofﬁcers using (Hill 2017c).

CROP FORAGING

Primates and elephants are often cited as major crop pests in Africa and Asia and pose particular

problems for farmers because of these animals’ capacity for learning, combined with dietary and

behavioral ﬂexibility (Else 1991, O’Connell-Rodwell et al. 2000, Strum 1994), enabling them

to access and consume a wide range of cultivars (Osborn & Hill 2005). Macaques (Macaca spp.),

baboons (Papio spp.), and vervet and tantalus monkeys (Chlorocebus spp.) dominate the primate crop-

foraging literature (see Supplemental Table 1). Members of these genera, and chimpanzees (Pan),

are overrepresented in the literature on primate responses to anthropogenic factors more generally

(McLennan et al. 2017), which may account in part for their domination of the primate crop-

foraging literature. However, conﬂicts associated with primates have been reported for animals

from two Strepsirrhine families (Lorisidae and Lemuridae) and six Haplorhine families (Atelidae,

Cebidae, Pitheciidae, Cercopithecidae, Hylobatidae, and Hominidae) (Baker et al. 2017; but see

Supplemental Table 1 for a much extended list of species recorded or reported to forage on crops).

Not all these conﬂicts are necessarily crop-foraging incidents, but recent reviews conﬁrm that

many Old World and New World primate species, regardless of their nutritional and locomotor

specializations, forage on ﬁeld and tree crops (Hill 2017b, McKinney et al. 2015, Priston &

McLennan 2013).

Crop foraging is a potentially risky behavior, where risk is deﬁned as “exposure to potentially

unfavorable circumstance” (Smith et al. 2000, p. 1946). Animals engaging in this activity are at risk

378 Hill

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2018.47:377-394. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

Access provided by 161.73.114.34 on 11/06/19. For personal use only.

AN47CH24_Hill ARI 4 September 2018 17:28

of being injured or killed by people protecting their crops, and there is documented evidence of

retaliatory killings of elephants and primates (Choudhry 2004, Katsvanga et al. 2006, McLennan

et al. 2012, Priston 2005). Various wildlife species that engage in crop-foraging activities and/or

live close to humans are reported to show elevated levels of glucocorticoid hormones (i.e., stress

hormones). Glucocorticoid hormones are involved in the mammalian stress response (Palme et al.

2005); elevated levels of these hormones indicate physiological stress. For example, chimpanzees

at Kasongoire, Uganda, which forage in sugar cane plantations and crop ﬁelds, where they regu-

larly encounter guards, have higher cortisol levels than do chimpanzees living within the nearby

Budongo Forest Reserve (BFR), which have little contact with villagers. The elevated cortisol

levels in the Kasongoire community probably reﬂect stresses associated with their encounters

with people (Carlitz et al. 2016). Further evidence that sharing space with humans is stressful for

primates comes from a study of vervet monkeys in South Africa. Monkeys at sites identiﬁed as

areas of high anthropogenic impact had higher cortisol levels than did those living in low im-

pact areas (Fourie et al. 2015). Similar results are reported for other species that damage crops,

including elephants in Kenya (Ahlering et al. 2011) and Asiatic black bears (Ursus thibetanus)in

China (Malcom et al. 2014). However, while elevated glucocorticoid hormone levels imply that

animals’ experience of crop-foraging events is stressful, it tells us little about the kinds and levels

of stress that animals are willing to endure to access crops or how or why animals incorporate

crop feeding within their foraging strategies. To understand these points more fully, we must

examine animals’ behavior during crop-foraging events, in tandem with nutritional analyses and

life-history parameters.

Behavior of Animals During Crop-Foraging Events

Engaging in high-risk foraging opportunities is predominantly a male strategy to access high-

quality food to sustain large body size, which confers a reproductive advantage (e.g., for chim-

panzees, Wilson et al. 2007; for Indian elephant, Sukumar 1991). Crop foraging in elephants

appears strongly sex biased; adult males are much more likely to forage on agricultural crops than

are members of female-led family herds (Chiyo et al. 2005, Songhurst 2017, Sukumar & Gadgil

1988), and crop-foraging behavior tends to begin after males leave their natal groups (Lee & Moss

1999 cited in Chiyo et al. 2011). Patterns within the primate crop-foraging literature are less

clear. Adult male chimpanzees at Bossou, Guinea (Pan troglodytes verus) spend more time feeding

on crops (Hockings et al. 2009), yet female Sumatran orangutans (Pongo abelii) feed on tree fruit

crops more frequently than do adult males (Campbell-Smith et al. 2011). Subadult baboons at

Gilgil, Kenya, were more likely to forage on crops than were other age groups (Strum 2010), but

more recent reports from a variety of species indicate that crop foraging is an activity engaged in,

to some degree, by all age and sex classes, though usually initiated by adults of either sex or by

subadult males (Hockings et al. 2009, Priston et al. 2012, Saj et al. 2001, Schweitzer et al. 2017,

Wallace & Hill 2012). However, female primates with infants appear less likely to enter farms than

are other group members (Fairbanks & McGuire 1993, Hockings 2007, Saj et al. 1999, Tweheyo

et al. 2005), are usually the ﬁrst to leave the farm in response to people’s activities, and exhibit

more vigilance behaviors (active watching or scanning the environment) on farms than do other

group members (Wallace & Hill 2012).

Understanding the parameters of crop-foraging activities is central to understanding the dy-

namics of these behaviors, but there are few systematic studies of primate behavior on farms and/or

during crop foraging (Hill 2017c). The majority of primate crop-foraging events, across a range

of species, occur within 0–50 m of the farm edge, and especially where there is a distinct boundary

between croplands and areas of natural vegetation (Hill 2017c). Wallace & Hill (2012) found that

primate groups moved further into farms than did single animals during crop-foraging events.

www.annualreviews.org •Crop Foraging, Crop Losses, and Crop Raiding 379

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2018.47:377-394. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

Access provided by 161.73.114.34 on 11/06/19. For personal use only.

AN47CH24_Hill ARI 4 September 2018 17:28

This ﬁnding is consistent with results from studies of primate foraging in risky environments,

where animals remain near the edge of high-risk habitats (Cowlishaw 1997), and typically are in

larger groups under higher-risk conditions (Hill & Lee 1998). However, studies of crop-foraging

baboons in Nigeria (Warren 2003), Uganda (Wallace & Hill 2012), and Zimbabwe (Schweitzer

et al. 2017) and elephants in Botswana (Songhurst 2017) found that group size was reduced during

crop-foraging events, which counters theories about large group size as a response to predation

threat (Hill & Lee 1998, Van Schaik 1983). Reducing group size during crop foraging could be

a strategy to minimize the likelihood of being detected by farm guards or a consequence of cer-

tain animals choosing not to enter ﬁelds. Other behaviors observed during crop-foraging events

that could reduce farmer detection rates include reduced rates of vocalization (for chimpanzees,

Tweheyo et al. 2005, Wilson et al. 2007; for baboons, Warren 2003), increased group cohesiveness

and vigilance (for chimpanzees, Hockings et al. 2012), and decisions to access farms in the evening

or at night after farmers have left (for orangutan, Campbell-Smith et al. 2011; for chimpanzees,

Krief et al. 2014; for Moor macaques, Zak & Riley 2017). Crop foraging by elephants is pre-

dominantly a nocturnal activity (Chiyo et al. 2005, Sukumar 1990). Elephants at some sites were

observed to further reduce detection risks by avoiding foraging on crops at times of full moon/high

visibility and instead foraging during periods of high rainfall, when visibility is reduced, and farm-

ers are more likely to sleep at home rather than remain on farms overnight (Barnes et al. 2006).

These variable behavior patterns observed across sites and species most likely reﬂect a compromise

between the degree to which animals perceive moving into crop lands to be a risky activity, the

level of risk they will accept, and the value of crops to them (Hill 2017c).

Why Primates Forage on Crops

Why do animals forage on crops, particularly if foraging for crops is a risky strategy? Most primate

species have the capacity and tendency to switch between different food types. This ﬁnding raises

the question of whether they switch in response to scarcity of preferred foods or to optimize

nutritional intake (Lambert & Rothman 2015). The latter suggests that crops are used as fallback

foods; the former suggests that animals are following an optimizing strategy. A key question is

whether primates engage in crop-foraging activities as a response to food shortages or as an optimal

foraging strategy.

Crops as fallback foods. If animals are using crops as fallback foods, i.e., “foods whose use

is negatively correlated with the availability of preferred foods” (Marshall & Wrangham 2007

cited in Lambert & Rothman 2015, p. 500), then we would expect to see heavier use of crops

either where natural habitat is lost or severely degraded or during seasons of reduced wild food

availability. Indeed, a common assumption within the conservation literature is that animals,

including primates, are forced to feed on crops because of the signiﬁcant loss of natural habitats

(Choudhury 2004, Mekonnen et al. 2012, Singh et al. 2011). Primates are thought to have switched

to include more crop foods within their diets as a response to rapid habitat degradation (McLennan

2013) or when wild food was suddenly less available because of a natural event such as a cyclone

(LaFleur & Gould 2009). Furthermore, many primates exhibit seasonal patterns in their crop-

foraging activities, increasing their reliance on crop foods during periods of reduced availability

of wild foods, as predicted. For example, tufted capuchins (Sapajus nigritus), in southern Brazil,

forage on pine sap intensively during periods of wild fruit and seed shortage (Mikich & Liebsch

2014), and bearded capuchins (Sapajus libidinosus) use crop foods more extensively during periods of

reduced wild fruit availability (de Freitas et al. 2008). Chimpanzees at Bossou, Guinea, and Bulindi,

Uganda, also spend more time feeding on crops during periods of wild fruit scarcity (Hockings et al.

2009, McLennan 2013). At Kibale National Park (KNP), Uganda, crop foraging on bananas was

380 Hill

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2018.47:377-394. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

Access provided by 161.73.114.34 on 11/06/19. For personal use only.

AN47CH24_Hill ARI 4 September 2018 17:28

associated with forest fruit shortages, speciﬁcally Mimusops bagshawei. Different species targeted

different plant parts; chimpanzees fed on banana pith more often during periods of reduced forest

fruit availability, whereas baboons (Papio cynocephalus) targeted banana fruits. However, primate-

foraging activity on maize crops at this site was unrelated to forest fruit availability (Naughton

Treves et al. 1998). In some instances, crop use by primates is more likely a response to crop

availability or perhaps even food preferences. Seiler & Robbins (2016) report a positive association

between the number of days that mountain gorillas (Gorilla beringei beringei) foraged outside Bwindi

Impenetrable National Park, Uganda, and the availability of palatable crops, and they found no

evidence that crop foraging was a response to reduced food availability within the park. Studies of

elephant crop-foraging activities also report that elephants foraged on crops even when wild foods

were plentiful (in southern India, Sukumar 1990; in Sumatra, Nyhus &Tilson 2000). Therefore,

while some animals may resort to increased crop foraging to cope with shortfalls in wild food

availability, evidence has clearly indicated that wild food shortfall is neither the only nor the main

reason why primates or other wildlife engage in this activity.

Crop foraging as an optimizing strategy. An optimal foraging lens provides an alternative

explanation of why primates engage in crop foraging. If primates include crops in their diets as

a way of optimizing foraging strategies, then they should experience some overall beneﬁt from

this activity, as reﬂected by nutritional status and/or reproductive success (Hill 2017c). Crops are

usually highly clumped in space and time (Strum 1994), require less processing or handling time

compared with many wild foods, contain lower levels of nondigestible ﬁber (Rode et al. 2006), and

may also be calorically more dense than wild foods (Forthman-Quick & Demment 1988, Riley

et al. 2013). These features are all likely to improve animals’ foraging efﬁciency (Strum 1994),

whereby energetic beneﬁts of using crop foods outweigh energy expenditure required to locate,

consume, and digest them. By contrast, the costs to animals of engaging in crop-foraging activities

comprise increased risk of injury or death and ampliﬁed risk of exposure to pathogens of human

and/or livestock origin (Hill 2017c).

To date, there are few studies of primate crop foraging that are easily analyzed within an

optimal foraging framework. However, studies of baboons in Kenya and Nigeria indicate that these

animals are probably incurring energetic and reproductive beneﬁts by engaging in crop-foraging

activities. Strum compared life-history variables of baboons that fed on crops and garbage with

those of animals who fed exclusively on wild foods at Gilgil, Kenya. The group that accessed crop

and garbage foods had a smaller home range, rested more, spent less time feeding, and displayed

shorter interbirth intervals than did those who ate only wild foods (Strum 2010). Furthermore,

there was no evidence to indicate that the group with access to anthropogenic foods experienced

either higher mortality rates (Strum 2010) or higher parasite loads (Eley et al. 1989), as might

be expected as a consequence of increased risk of contact with human, livestock, and food waste.

Available evidence indicates that the beneﬁts associated with crop and garbage foraging outweigh

potential costs associated with these activities at this site, at least in part because immune response

to pathogen attack is more effective under conditions of good nutrition (Coop & Kyriazakis 1999,

cited in Weyher et al. 2006). Similarly, olive baboons in Nigeria, who had access to crops, exhibited

higher energy intake and energy balance (Lodge et al. 2013), higher fertility and lower mortality

(Higham et al. 2009, Lodge et al. 2013), and reduced gastrointestinal parasite loads (Weyher et al.

2006) compared with groups that did not have access to crops. Again, the nutritional beneﬁts of

foraging on crops appear to outweigh the costs associated with the activity, and crop foraging may

even provide a buffer against seasonal nutritional stress at this site (MacLarnon et al. 2015).

Elephants that crop forage also gain nutritional beneﬁts that appear to confer reproductive

beneﬁts. Observations of elephants at Amboseli National Park, Kenya, indicate that animals that

www.annualreviews.org •Crop Foraging, Crop Losses, and Crop Raiding 381

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2018.47:377-394. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

Access provided by 161.73.114.34 on 11/06/19. For personal use only.

AN47CH24_Hill ARI 4 September 2018 17:28

crop forage can get 38% of their daily food intake in 10% of the time that it would require to

achieve the equivalent intake of wild foods (Chiyo et al. 2005), and thus crop foraging substantially

enhances foraging efﬁciency. Male elephants that forage on crops achieve a larger body size

compared with males of a similar age who do not eat crops. However, they achieve larger body

sizes only once they begin utilizing crops within their diets; i.e., crop foraging affects body size

rather than larger body size allowing animals to crop forage (Chiyo et al. 2011). These results are

consistent with the theory that high-risk foraging behavior, such as crop foraging, has an energetic

payoff. Additionally, larger body size confers reproductive advantages on male elephants: They

experience early onset of musth (Lee et al. 2011), and longer periods of musth, meaning they have

a longer reproductive life span than do their smaller peers. Furthermore, annual reproductive

performance shows a positive correlation with musth duration, and some evidence shows that

female elephants may preferentially select larger-bodied mates (Hollister-Smith et al. 2007, Moss

1983, Poole 1989, all cited in Chiyo et al. 2011).

The examples above focus on crop foraging as an energy maximization strategy. However,

primates and other animals may instead be incorporating crops into their diets to maximize protein

intake, reduce ﬁber intake, avoid plant secondary compounds, or balance micronutrient intake

(Felton et al. 2009, McLennan & Ganzhorn 2017, Riley et al. 2013). For example, Seiler &

Robbins (2016) suggest that mountain gorillas forage on eucalyptus bark because of its high

sodium content, and elephants in KNP, Uganda, reportedly seek out crops for their relatively

high sodium content (Rode et al. 2006). However, there is no evidence that primates at KNP

require crop foods to supplement their mineral intake (Rode et al. 2003).

Understanding why wildlife forage on crops is important when trying to develop effective,

humane, nonlethal ways of protecting crops. If, for example, wild animals forage on crops because

they face acute reduced food availability, then they will likely persist in this behavior even when

faced with signiﬁcant risk while doing so. But, if they do it because it is a more energetically or

nutritionally efﬁcient option compared with using available wild foods, then it should be possible

to increase their perception of risk to the point where the costs of engaging in crop foraging will

outweigh any beneﬁts acquired.

CROP DAMAGE

Few studies have systematically monitored crop damage by primates. However, where data are

available, measured losses vary between farms and seasons, even at the same site (Hill 2000,

Naughton-Treves et al. 1998, Wallace 2010, Warren et al. 2007, Webber 2006). Red-tailed

monkeys (Cercopithecus ascanius schmidti) at KNP, Uganda, were responsible for 15% of crop

damage in one year but only 1% of damage recorded in another year (Baranga et al. 2012).

Farmers living around KNP lost, on average, 4–7% of their crops each growing season to wildlife

(Naughton-Treves 1997); farmers on the edge of the BFR, Uganda, experienced average annual

losses of 10% of maize and 9% of cassava crops to baboon foraging activities, and a few individuals

lost more than 50% of their annual crop (Hill 2000). A few subsistence farmers in Buton, Sulawesi,

lost up to 70% of their crops from foraging by Buton macaques (Macaca ochreata brunnescens)and

wild pigs (Sus scrofa) (Priston 2005, Priston & McLennan 2013). Commercial farmers in Mauritius

reported experiencing crop damage by long-tailed macaques (Macaca fascicularis), worth more than

1 million GBP at the time of investigation (Bertram & Ginsberg 1994 cited in Dickman 2012), and

rhesus macaques (Macaca mulatta) and patas monkeys (Erythrocebus patas) in Puerto Rico (escapees

and their descendants from primate research facilities) were estimated to have caused economic

losses of US$1.13–1.46 million per annum among commercial farmers over the period 2002–2006

(Engeman et al. 2010). By contrast, the Zanzibar red colobus monkey (Procolobus kirkii) appeared

to improve crop productivity when foraging on young coconuts, perhaps through a beneﬁcial

382 Hill

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2018.47:377-394. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

Access provided by 161.73.114.34 on 11/06/19. For personal use only.

AN47CH24_Hill ARI 4 September 2018 17:28

pruning effect (Siex & Struhsaker 1999), and chimpanzees in Guinea-Bissau who fed on cashew

fruits were said to be assisting farmers because farmers harvested the cashew nuts from chimpanzee

feeding remains on the ground rather than having to climb to access the fruits (Hockings & Sousa

2012). Therefore, the amount of crop damage sustained through primate-foraging activities is

highly variable and, in a few cases, somewhat controversially, foraging behavior may be viewed as

potentially beneﬁcial to farmers.

Quantifying crop damage can be problematic. There is little consistency across studies with

regard to methods used to assess crop damage and/or the ways in which it is reported. Factors

other than damage by wildlife can also impact ﬁnal crop yields signiﬁcantly, and yet these variables

are rarely, if ever, built into damage monitoring systems. For example, growing conditions and

yields within a ﬁeld may be highly variable because of spatial variation in soil quality, water

availability, levels of weeds, degree of exposure to light and wind, or vulnerability to plant diseases

and insect/invertebrate damage. Additionally, wildlife, including primates, feed on a variety of

crop plant parts, damage to some of which does not necessarily kill the plant or prevent it from

producing some yield [e.g., bushbuck in Uganda browse on sweet potato vines, which may reduce

the ﬁnal yield of tubers but does not necessarily prevent the plant from producing some yield (C.M.

Hill, unpublished data)]. Therefore, estimates and costings of damage by wildlife are unlikely to

be particularly accurate, despite their widespread use (Hill 2017a). Indeed, quantiﬁcation of crop

damage tells us little about impacts of wildlife damage on farming households because they neither

take into account the indirect or hidden costs of sharing landscapes with wildlife nor reﬂect the

role, value, or cultural signiﬁcance of speciﬁc crops.

CROP “RAIDING”: THE EXPERIENCE OF LOSING CROPS

TO PRIMATES

The underlying motivation for many researchers interested in crop damage or livestock predation

by wildlife is to facilitate animal conservation by reducing the impacts of wildlife on people’s

economic activities and personal safety, thereby removing obstacles to people’s willingness or

capacity to tolerate wildlife. Consequently, many studies of conﬂicts about wildlife focus on the

direct impacts of animal presence or behavior on their human neighbors, such as crop and livestock

losses, damage to property, and human injury or death (Hoare 2000, Thirgood et al. 2005).

These impacts are examined, and understood, as being a consequence of the direct action of

wildlife on human resources. For example, wildlife forage on crops or predate livestock, which

reduces household economic resources and/or food security (Ogra 2008). Many, if not most,

studies of conﬂicts about wildlife have, until recently, focused mainly on exploring these direct

costs of sharing landscapes with problem wildlife (for human–elephant interactions, Hoare 2000,

Songhurst 2017, Wilson et al. 2013; for human–carnivore interactions, Dar et al. 2009, Merrigi &

Lovari 1996; for human–primate interactions, Priston et al. 2012; Strum 1994, 2010; Warren et al.

2007). However, the importance of hidden or indirect costs is increasingly being recognized; and

some researchers are exploring the likely effects on farming households of lost opportunity costs

as a consequence of having to guard crops, forego other income-generation activities (Harrison

et al. 2015, Hill 2004, Naughton-Treves 1997), or withdraw children from school to protect crops

(Harrison et al. 2015, Hill 1997, MacKenzie et al. 2015, Naughton-Treves 1997). Other studies

have examined the impacts of increased risk of, or fear of, injury and disease when guarding crops

(Khumalo & Yung 2013) and have even considered the psychosocial impacts on household health

and well-being ( Jadhav & Barua 2012). Mayberry et al. (2017) report that 72% of participants in

their study in Botswana felt unsafe outside village areas because of the risk and fear of encountering

elephants. Consequently, villagers experienced limited freedom of movement to visit relatives

and collect fuelwood, and they had to curtail farming and herding activities because of actual

www.annualreviews.org •Crop Foraging, Crop Losses, and Crop Raiding 383

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2018.47:377-394. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

Access provided by 161.73.114.34 on 11/06/19. For personal use only.

AN47CH24_Hill ARI 4 September 2018 17:28

encounters with elephants. Such factors affect people’s conjectures about their risk of crop losses,

their decisions about future actions, inclination to accept crop damage, and attitudes towards

wildlife. Such indirect costs can impact signiﬁcantly on people’s economic and social well-being,

and yet hidden costs are difﬁcult to quantify or compare systematically across studies.

Coping with Crop Damage and Protecting Crops

Crop protection methods often fall into one of two broad categories: active methods such as

guarding, hunting, and retribution killing, and passive methods such as barriers, traps, poisons, and

visual and olfactory repellents. Traditional approaches to crop protection against primates include

guarding and chasing animals (using dogs, slingshots, ﬁrecrackers, bells, and other noisemakers),

basic fencing, and even culling. Guarding can be very effective; however, for maximum effective-

ness, guards need to take an active approach to the task, patrolling the ﬁeld boundaries frequently,

making noise, and vigorously chasing away any animals seen approaching the ﬁeld boundary (Hill

& Wallace 2012, Naughton-Treves 1998, Schweitzer et al. 2017). Some studies report guarding

is ineffectual (e.g., Riley 2007), but perhaps in these cases farm guards are combining guarding

activities with other farm-based activities, wrongly assuming human presence on the farm is an

adequate deterrence for foraging primates (Hill & Wallace 2012). However, guarding is costly in

terms of people’s time and labor (Hill 2005) and may conﬂict with other household labor needs.

Many alternate crop protection strategies have been proposed, but few of them have been

systematically evaluated under ﬁeld conditions. Electric fencing has been used effectively in Japan

to protect fruit crops against Japanese macaques (Macaca fuscata) (Honda et al. 2009) but is too

costly for many small-scale/subsistence farmers. Hedges have received mixed reports; some people

suggest that they have little effect on keeping primates out of crops (Wang et al. 2006). However,

ﬁeld trials of various types of barrier in Uganda found that jatropha hedges ( Jatropha curcas), when

positioned to obscure primates’ view of habitat refuges, reduced crop-foraging events by baboons

and guenons by 85%. A crop-foraging event is deﬁned as one or more animals entering a farm and

interacting with one or more crop items. Ocimum (Ocimum kilimandscharicumand) barriers were in-

effective as deterrents but, when combined with mesh fences, reduced primate crop-foraging events

by up to 90%. Barbed wire fences varied in their effectiveness as deterrents to primates entering

ﬁelds; a four-strand fence reduced maize cob losses by 80% during ﬁeld trials, but a three-strand

fence had little impact on crop-foraging activity and associated maize losses (Hill & Wallace 2012).

Planting buffer zones of crops that are unappealing to primates between areas of natural habitat

and ﬁelds, avoiding cultivation of crops that primates prefer, or placing preferred crops in less

vulnerable parts of the farm are common strategies raised in the literature (Hockings & Humle

2009, Hockings & McLennan 2012, Riley 2007). These are all strategies to make farmlands less

attractive to wildlife. However, where farms are small, as is common in many smallholder systems,

putting aside land for buffer crops may cause signiﬁcant hardship if it reduces the land available

for planting key food or cash crops. Therefore, the choice of buffer crops should consider market

value as well as harvesting costs (Riley & Priston 2010) and ﬁt within existing work schedules

to avoid creating labor bottlenecks or additional economic hardship. Likewise, where land hold-

ings are small, maintaining soil fertility through careful crop rotation and fallowing may impede

farmers’ capacity to avoid planting crops that are attractive to primates in vulnerable locations.

Furthermore, crops that are unappealing to one species may be preferred by other wildlife species,

and/or animals may change their food habits over time and begin using crops that were previously

untouched (Hill 2017c).

Enrichment planting/diversionary feeding to encourage animals away from crops is reported

as successful at some sites. Fruit trees were used in Cur ´

u Wildlife Refuge, Costa Rica, to attract

384 Hill

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2018.47:377-394. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

Access provided by 161.73.114.34 on 11/06/19. For personal use only.

AN47CH24_Hill ARI 4 September 2018 17:28

capuchins away from important commercial crops (Baker & Schutt 2005). Kaplan et al. (2011)

found that in Cape Town, South Africa, provisioning urban baboons away from areas in which

they usually accessed anthropogenic foods was effective, provided that baboons were denied access

to their normal feeding areas. A form of diversionary feeding (attracting animals away from crops

by provisioning them at alternate locations) was adopted at various sites in Japan, using diversion-

ary feeding of Japanese macaques (Macaca fuscata) to entice them away from ﬁelds and turning

these events into an opportunity for Japanese tourists to view monkeys (Knight 2011). However,

despite success as a tourism venture, this strategy failed to reduce primate crop-feeding activities;

the macaque population size increased and overhabituation enhanced the animals’ crop-foraging

capacity (Knight 2017).

Taste aversion experiments with baboons initially looked promising as a way of deterring crop-

foraging behaviors, but this approach has been unsuccessful under ﬁeld conditions (Forthman et al.

2005). Preliminary work with captive primates has demonstrated that spent coffee grounds and, to a

lesser extent, neem (Azadirachta indica) and ocimum essential oils act as feeding repellents, though

these have yet to be trialed in the wild (O’Brien & Hill 2018); in addition, concentrated chili

infusions in combination with other techniques have demonstrated an aversive effect for some

primates, including red-tailed and blue monkeys (C. mitis stuhlmanni) (Hill & Wallace 2012).

Finally, translocation of problem animals or groups has been used with varying degrees of success,

but it is costly and potentially risky and may shift the problem to a new site, unless the animals are

very carefully managed (Osborn & Hill 2005).

People’s Perceptions of, and Attitudes Toward, Primates that Damage Crops

Direct and indirect costs of sharing landscapes with wildlife, including primates, inﬂuence peo-

ple’s attitudes toward, and perceptions of, animals and thus lessen people’s acceptance of wildlife

and impede conservation initiatives (Campbell-Smith et al. 2010, Hill 2004, Linkie et al. 2007).

However, people do not always regard wildlife that forage on their crops as problematic, accepting

losses when they occur (Alexander 2000, Brightman 2017, Jhala 1993, Naughton-Treves 2002).

In these circumstances, applying a conﬂict framework to analyze crop damage is inaccurate and

might even generate new conﬂicts (Lee & Priston 2005, Riley & Priston 2010). Consequently,

exploring perceptions of risks associated with wildlife, including risk of crop damage, and what in-

ﬂuences people’s beliefs and attitudes is fundamental to understanding the impact of crop damage

by wildlife on local people (Webber & Hill 2014).

People’s perceptions of risk are multifaceted and changeable (Slovic 1987), differing within and

between communities and conﬂict situations (Baird et al. 2009), and do not always concur with

external assessments of risk but can be a “surrogate for other social or ideological concerns” (Slovic

1987, p. 285). For example, farmers in Uganda consider baboons, chimpanzees, and wild pigs

(Potamochoerus sp.) to be a greater threat to crops than is borne out by independent measurement

of crop damage, and yet they underestimate damage caused by monkeys (Cercopithecus and Colobus

spp.) and domestic goats (Capra hircus) (Webber & Hill 2014). Farmers in Sulawesi report that

macaques (Macaca maura) feed on crops most days, and yet camera trap data conﬁrm that they

forage on crops on only 23% of days (Zak & Riley 2017). The reasons for disparities between

measured and perceived risk are not always apparent but are likely to be the result of synergies

between people’s individual experience, wider societal practices, cultural norms, outlooks, and

beliefs (Dickman 2012).

Farmers may respond differently to crop losses depending on the role or value of the crop within

household livelihood strategies. For example, in Hoima and Masindi Districts in Uganda, farmers

have been relatively accepting of chimpanzees because chimpanzees are thought to cause less crop

damage than other species and are of “better character” (Hill & Webber 2010, McLennan & Hill

www.annualreviews.org •Crop Foraging, Crop Losses, and Crop Raiding 385

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2018.47:377-394. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

Access provided by 161.73.114.34 on 11/06/19. For personal use only.

AN47CH24_Hill ARI 4 September 2018 17:28

2012). However, people are much less tolerant of chimpanzees when they forage on cash crops

such as sugar cane, and there are now well-documented cases of retaliatory killing and limited use

of lethal crop protection methods (McLennan et al. 2012, Reynolds 2005, Reynolds et al. 2003).

Animal visibility also appears to inﬂuence which animals that farmers regard as particularly prob-

lematic. Larger body size often renders animals more visible to farmers, and thus larger-bodied

species are often blamed disproportionately for crop damage (Hill 2004, Naughton-Treves &

Treves 2005, Okello 2005). However, body size alone does not adequately explain farmer percep-

tions of primate crop-foraging species around the BFR, Uganda, for example. Chimpanzees are the

largest wild animal at this site, and yet they are viewed much more positively than are baboons and

other smaller-bodied species. Chimpanzees tend to travel in small groups and adopt a cryptic ap-

proach in farmland (Tweheyo et al. 2005). In contrast, baboons typically forage on farms in larger

groups (Wallace 2010). Farmers detect relatively large groups most often and repeatedly fail to dis-

cover solitary animals or groups of 2–3 individuals foraging in ﬁelds (Wallace & Hill 2012). Thus,

animal visibility on ﬁelds is inﬂuenced by animal behavior and group size as well as by body size.

Animals thought to be a threat to human safety may be less well tolerated than are other

species thought to be less threatening. Chimpanzees sometimes threaten or attack people

(Hockings & Humle 2009, McLennan & Hill 2013), and declining tolerance for these animals at

Bulindi, Uganda, is associated with the increased number of aggressive interactions that people

have experienced at this site (McLennan & Hill 2012). Nevertheless, people’s fear of animals is

not always directly related to the animal’s behavior but may be related to cultural beliefs about

the animals or their behavior, particularly where animals are viewed as portents of evil or linked

to ideas of witchcraft and the supernatural (Richards 2000, Simons & Meyers 2001, Sousa et al.

2017). Alternatively, species are sometimes highly valued regardless of whether they engage in

nuisance behaviors. For example, crop damage by domestic animals is often tolerated to a much

greater extent than is damage by wildlife (Hill 2005, Naughton-Treves 1998, Webber & Hill

2014), perhaps because livestock are highly valued and the economic returns of allowing animals

to forage on crops outweigh the costs associated with crop damage (Naughton-Treves 1998).

Tonkean macaques (Macaca tonkeana) are culturally important to the To Lindu people of Central

Sulawesi and are therefore afforded protection, even though they are known to forage on peo-

ple’s crops (Riley 2010). Similarly, in Nigeria, Sclater’s guenon (Cercopithecus sclateri)isknown

to damage crops, but this behavior is tolerated by those for whom the guenon is sacred (Baker

et al. 2014). However, such views can change in response to increased exposure to ideas from

outside, and animals previously tolerated or protected because of their cultural or spiritual status

may become much less well tolerated, as is documented in parts of India for macaques (Anand

et al. 2018).

Farmers’ reactions toward animals, including perceptions of them, may not always be driven by

the experience of crop damage or other nuisance behaviors but may be linked to social tensions or

disputes between different human-interest groups or a ﬁgurative threat (Dickman 2010, Hill 2004,

Knight 1999). For example, wildlife in Uganda are sometimes referred to as “the Government’s

cattle” (Hill 2005). The government is regarded as the owners of the wildlife. When domestic

livestock damage someone’s crops, the owner of the livestock compensates the farmer. However,

there is no compensation for farmers whose crops are damaged by wildlife. In this context, the

government is regarded as a bad neighbor who does not behave responsibly. This viewpoint

contributes to farmers’ sense of outrage, disempowerment, and unfair treatment (Hill 2005, Hiser

2012, Naughton-Treves 2002) and may result in people using narratives of conﬂict to protest

against or resist the imposition of externally mediated conservation agendas. This type of action

could be interpreted as a form of political action, as was theorized by James Scott in his seminal

work Weapons of the Weak: Everyday Forms of Peasant Resistance (Scott 1985). Scott argues that people

386 Hill

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2018.47:377-394. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

Access provided by 161.73.114.34 on 11/06/19. For personal use only.

AN47CH24_Hill ARI 4 September 2018 17:28

who feel themselves powerless engage in “everyday forms of resistance,” such as “foot-dragging,

dissimulations, false compliance, feigned ignorance, desertion, pilfering, smuggling, poaching,

arson, slander, sabotage, surreptitious assault and murder, [and] anonymous threats” (Scott 1985,

p. 5) as ways of protesting against externally imposed rules or ideas they consider unfair. Within a

Weapons of the Weak framework, the perpetuation of farmer conﬂict narratives could be understood

as a way of expressing anger, frustration, and a sense of dissolution of autonomy without engaging in

direct conﬂict with potentially threatening authority ﬁgures. Additionally, farmers may use conﬂict

narratives as a strategy for coping with the nuisance of sharing space with wildlife and to resist the

burden of conservation philosophies, schemes, and actors who are frequently incompatible with

their own priorities, agenda, and sense of justice.

CONCLUSIONS

At ﬁrst glance, crop foraging or crop raiding is about animals securing food and people losing crops

from animals’ foraging activities. However, in many instances, human responses to crop damage

by wildlife are more about conﬂictual relationships with other human groups—be they neighbors,

government ofﬁcials, conservationists or even researchers—rather than about the potential impacts

of the animals’ actions on human livelihoods and well-being. Consequently, to understand crop

foraging more fully, we need to consider, it from many angles, exploring the reasons why and

when animals incorporate crops within their diets, the direct and indirect impacts of wildlife crop-

foraging activities on farming households, and the ways in which people understand, articulate

about, and respond to wildlife in and around their farms (see Figure 1). Understanding the level

Direct costs

Indirect/hidden costs

Protect crops

No response to wildlife

Narratives of conict

as social resistance

Crop type

Crop location

Wildlife dietary habits

Time spent foraging

Size of foraging party

Crop protection strategies

Reduced

availability

of wild foods

Optimal foraging

strategy

Nutrient balancing

Taste preference

Figure 1

Schematic representation of the interrelationship between crop foraging by wildlife, crop damage, and

farmer experience and response to crop damage by wildlife.

www.annualreviews.org •Crop Foraging, Crop Losses, and Crop Raiding 387

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2018.47:377-394. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

Access provided by 161.73.114.34 on 11/06/19. For personal use only.

AN47CH24_Hill ARI 4 September 2018 17:28

of risk that animals are willing to take to access crops, and how to manipulate their sense of

risk, enables us to develop effective crop protection strategies and installations. Furthermore,

understanding local people’s perspectives and attitudes can help explain their responses to wildlife

and the degree to which they may be able or willing to tolerate wildlife presence and/or behavior

locally.

DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

The author is not aware of any afﬁliations, memberships, funding, or ﬁnancial holdings that might

be perceived as affecting the objectivity of this review.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I thank the Editorial Committee of the Annual Review of Anthropology for inviting me to write this

review, and especially Karen Strier for her support and feedback. I also thank my colleagues and

students who have provided me with the opportunities to discuss and hone my ideas about people–

primate interactions, and especially Kimberly Hockings, Francine Madden, Matthew McLennan,

Nancy Priston, Joana de Sousa, Graham Wallace, and Amanda Webber.

LITERATURE CITED

Ahlering MA, Millspaugh JJ, Woods RJ, Western D, Eggert LS. 2011. Elevated levels of stress hormones in

crop-raiding male elephants. Anim. Conserv. 14:124–30

Alexander SE. 2000. Resident attitudes towards conservation and black howler monkeys in Belize: the Com-

munity Baboon Sanctuary. Environ. Conserv. 27:341–50

Anand S, Binoy VV, Radhakrishna S. 2018. The monkey is not always God: attitudinal differences

toward crop-raiding macaques and why it matters for conﬂict mitigation. Ambio. https://doi.org/

10.1007/s13280-017-1008-5

Baird TD, Leslie PW, McCabe JT. 2009. The effect of wildlife conservation on local perceptions of risk and

behavioral response. Hum. Ecol. 37:463–74

Baker LR, Oluseun S, Olubode Adebowale AT, Garshelis DL. 2014. Role of local culture, religion and

human attitudes in the conservation of sacred populations of a threatened ‘pest’ species. Biodivers. Conserv.

23:1895–909

Baker M, Pebsworth P, Radhakrishna S. 2017. Conﬂicted primatologists: a survey on primatologists’ views on

conﬂict and resolution between human and nonhuman primates. In Ethnoprimatology: A Practical Guide

to Research at the Human-Nonhuman Primate Interface, ed. KM Dore, EP Riley, A Fuentes, pp. 154–67.

Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press

Baker M, Schutt A. 2005. Managing monkeys and mangoes. See Paterson & Wallis 2005, pp. 445–63

Baranga D, Basuta GI, Teichroeb JA, Chapman CA. 2012. Crop raiding patterns of solitary and social groups

of red-tailed monkeys on cocoa pods in Uganda. Trop. Conserv. Sci. 5:104–11

Barnes RF, Dubiure UF, Danquah E, Boafo Y, Nandjui A, et al. 2006. Crop-raiding elephants and the moon.

Afr. J. Ecol. 45:112–11

Brightman M. 2017. Savage values: conservation and personhood in Southern Suriname. See Hill et al. 2017,

pp. 95–106

Campbell-Smith G, Campbell-Smith M, Singleton I, Linkie M. 2011. Raiders of the lost bark: orangutan

foraging strategies in a degraded landscape. PLOS ONE 6:e20962

Campbell-Smith G, Simanjorang HVP, Leader-Williams N, Linkie M. 2010. Local attitudes and perceptions

towards crop-raiding by orangutans (Pongo abelii) and other non-human primates in northern Sumatra,

Indonesia. Am. J. Primatol. 72:866–76

388 Hill

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2018.47:377-394. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

Access provided by 161.73.114.34 on 11/06/19. For personal use only.

AN47CH24_Hill ARI 4 September 2018 17:28

Carlitz EHD, Miller R, Kirschbaum C, Gao W, H¨

anni DC, van Schaik CP. 2016. Measuring hair cortisol

concentrations to assess the effect of anthropogenic impacts on wild chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). PLOS

ONE 11:e0151870

Chiyo PI, Cochrane EP, Naughton L, Basuta GI. 2005. Temporal patterns of crop raiding by elephants: a

response to changes in forage quality or crop availability? Afr. J. Ecol. 43:48–55

Chiyo PI, Lee PC, Moss CJ, Archie EA, Hollister-Smith JA, et al. 2011. No risk, no gain: effects of crop

raiding and genetic diversity on body size in male elephants. Behav. Ecol. 22:552–58

Choudhury A. 2004. Human-elephant conﬂicts in Northeast India. Hum. Dimens. Wildl. 9:261–70

Cowlishaw G. 1997. Refuge use and predation risk in a desert baboon population. Anim. Behav. 54:241–53

Dar NI, Minhas RA, Zaman Q, Linkie M. 2009. Predicting the patterns, perceptions and causes of human-

carnivore conﬂict in and around Machiara National Park, Pakistan. Biol. Conserv. 142:2076–82

de Freitas CH, Setz EZF, Ara ´

ujo ARB, Gobbi N. 2008. Agricultural crops in the diet of bearded capuchin

monkeys, Cebus libidinous Spix (Primates: Cebidae), in forest fragments in southeast Brazil. Rev. Bras. Zool.

25:32–39

Dickman AJ. 2010. Complexities of conﬂict: the importance of considering social factors for effectively re-

solving human–wildlife conﬂict. Anim. Conserv. 13:458–66

Dickman AJ. 2012. From cheetahs to chimpanzees: a comparative review of the drivers of human-carnivore

conﬂict and human-primate conﬂict. Folia Primatol. 83:377–87

Eley RM, Strum SC, Muchemi G, Reid GDF. 1989. Nutrition, body condition, activity patterns, and parasitism

of free-ranging troops of olive baboons (Papio anubis) in Kenya. Am. J. Primatol. 18:209–19

Else JG. 1991. Nonhuman primates as pests. In Primate Responses to Environmental Change,ed.HOBox,

pp. 155–65. London: Chapman & Hall

Engeman RM, Laborde JE, Constantin BU, Shwiff SA, Hall P, et al. 2010. The economic impacts to com-

mercial farms from invasive monkeys in Puerto Rico. Crop Prot. 29:401–5

Fairbanks LA, McGuire MT. 1993. Maternal protectiveness and response to the unfamiliar in vervet monkeys.

Am. J. Primatol. 30:119–29

Felton AM, Felton A, Lindenmayer DB, Foley WJ. 2009. Nutritional goals of wild primates. Funct. Ecol.

23:70–78

Forthman DL, Strum SC, Muchemi G. 2005. Applied conditioned taste aversion and the management and

conservation of crop-raiding primates. See Paterson & Wallis 2005, pp. 420–43

Forthman-Quick DL, Demment M. 1988. Dynamics of exploitation: differential energetic adaptations of two

troops of baboons to recent human contact. In Ecology and Behaviour of Food-Enhanced Primate Groups,ed.

JE Fa, CH Southwick, pp. 25–51. New York: Alan R. Liss

Fourie NH, Turner TR, Brown JL, Pampush JD, Lorenz JG, Bernstein RM. 2015. Variation in vervet

(Chlorocebus aethiops) hair cortisol concentrations reﬂect ecological disturbance by humans. Primates

56:365–73

Harrison M, Baker J, Twinamatsiko M, Milner-Gulland EJ. 2015. Proﬁling unauthorized natural resource

users for better targeting of conservation interventions. Conserv. Biol. 29:1636–46

Higham JP, Warren Y, Adunu J, Umaru BN, MacLarnon AM, et al. 2009. Living on the edge: life-history of

olive baboons at Gashaka-Gumti National Park, Nigeria. Am. J. Primatol. 71:293–304

Hill CM. 1997. Crop-raiding by wild vertebrates: the farmer’s perspective in an agricultural community in

western Uganda. Int. J. Pest Manag. 43:77–84

Hill CM. 2000. A conﬂict of interest between people and baboons: crop raiding in Uganda. Int. J. Primatol.

21:299–315

Hill CM. 2004. Farmers’ perspectives of conﬂict at the wildlife-agriculture boundary: some lessons learned

from African subsistence farmers. Hum. Dimens. Wildl. 9:279–86

Hill CM. 2005. People, crops and primates: a conﬂict of interests. See Paterson & Wallis 2005, pp. 40–59

Hill CM. 2015. Perspectives of ‘conﬂict’ at the wildlife-agriculture boundary: 10 years on. Hum. Dimens.

Wildl. 20:296–301

Hill CM. 2017a. Crop raiding. In The International Encyclopedia of Primatology, ed. A Fuentes. Hoboken, NJ:

Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119179313.wbprim0109

www.annualreviews.org •Crop Foraging, Crop Losses, and Crop Raiding 389

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2018.47:377-394. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

Access provided by 161.73.114.34 on 11/06/19. For personal use only.

AN47CH24_Hill ARI 4 September 2018 17:28

Hill CM. 2017b. Introduction. Complex problems: using a biosocial approach to understanding human–

wildlife interactions. See Hill et al. 2017, pp. 1–11

Hill CM. 2017c. Primate crop feeding behaviour, crop protection, and conservation. Int. J. Primatol. 38:385–

400

Hill CM, Wallace GE. 2012. Crop protection and conﬂict mitigation: reducing the costs of living alongside

non-human primates. Biodivers. Conserv. 21:2569–87

Hill CM, Webber AD. 2010. Perceptions of nonhuman primates in human-wildlife conﬂict scenarios. Am. J.

Primatol. 72:912–24

Hill CM, Webber AD, Priston NEC, eds. 2017. Understanding Conﬂicts About Wildlife: A Biosocial Approach.

New York: Berghahn Books

Hill RA, Lee PC. 1998. Predation risk as an inﬂuence on group size in cercopithecoid primates: implications

for social structure. J. Zool. 245:447–56

Hiser KL. 2012. Crop raiding and conﬂict: farmers’ perceptions of human-wildlife interactions in Hoima District,

Uganda. PhD Thesis, Oxford Brookes Univ., Oxford, UK

Hoare R. 2000. African elephants and humans in conﬂict: the outlook for coexistence. Oryx 34:34–38

Hockings KJ. 2007. Human-chimpanzee coexistence at Bossou, the Republic of Guinea: A chimpanzee perspective.

PhD Thesis, Univ. Stirling, Stirling, UK

Hockings KJ, Anderson JR, Matsuzawa T. 2009. Use of wild and cultivated foods by chimpanzees at Bossou,

Republic of Guinea: feeding dynamics in a human-inﬂuenced environment. Am. J. Primatol. 71:636–

Hockings KJ, Anderson JR, Matsuzawa T. 2012. Socioecological adaptations by chimpanzees, Pan troglodytes

verus, inhabiting an anthropogenically impacted habitat. Anim. Behav. 83:801–10

Hockings KJ, Humle T. 2009. Best Practice Guidelines for the Prevention and Mitigation of Conﬂict between Humans

and Great Apes. Gland, Switz.: IUCN/SSC Primate Spec. Group (PSG)

Hockings KJ, McLennan MR. 2012. From forest to farm: systematic review of cultivar feeding by chimpanzees:

management implications for wildlife in anthropogenic landscapes. PLOS ONE 7:e33391

Hockings KJ, Sousa C. 2012. Differential utilization of cashew—a low-conﬂict crop—by sympatric humans

and chimpanzees. Oryx 46:375–81

Honda T, Miyagawa Y, Ueda H, Inoue M. 2009. Effectiveness of newly-designed electric fences in reducing

crop damage by medium and large mammals. Mamm. Study. 34:13–17

Humle T, Hill CM. 2016. People-primate interactions: implications for primate conservation. In An Intro-

duction to Primate Conservation, ed. SA Wich, AJ Marshall, pp. 219–40. Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press

Jadhav S, Barua M. 2012. The elephant vanishes: impact of human–elephant conﬂict on people’s wellbeing.

Health Place 18:1356–65

Jhala YV. 1993. Damage to Sorghum crop by blackbuck. Int. J. Pest Manag. 39:23–27

Kaplan BS, O’Riain MK, van Eden R, King AJ. 2011. A low-cost manipulation of food resources reduced

spatial overlap between baboons (Papio ursinus) and humans in conﬂict. Int. J. Primatol. 32:1397–412

Katsvanga CAST, Mudyiwa SM, Gwenzi D. 2006. Bark stripping and population dynamics of baboon troops

after chemical control in pine plantations of Zimbabwe. Afr. J. Ecol. 44:413–16

Khumalo KE, Yung LA. 2013. Women, human-wildlife conﬂict and CBNRM: hidden impacts and vulnera-

bilities in Kwandu Conservancy, Namibia. Conserv. Soc. 13:232–43

Knight J. 1999. Monkeys on the move: the natural symbolism of people-macaque conﬂict in Japan. J. Asian

Stud. 58:622–47

Knight J, ed. 2000. Natural Enemies. People-Wildlife Conﬂicts in Anthropological Perspective. London: Routledge

Knight J. 2003. Waiting for Wolves in Japan. An Anthropological Study of People-Wildlife Relationships. Oxford,

UK: Oxford Univ. Press

Knight J. 2011. Herding Monkeys to Paradise: How Macaque Troops are Managed for Tourism in Japan.Leiden,

Neth.: Brill

Knight J. 2017. Wildlife tourism as crop protection? Double-goal provisioning and the transvaluation of the

macaque in postwar Japan. Hum. Wildl. Interact. 11:217–30

Krief S, Cibot M, Bortolamiol S, Seguya A, Krief J-M, Masi S. 2014. Wild chimpanzees on the edge: nocturnal

activities in croplands. PLOS ONE 9:e109925

390 Hill

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2018.47:377-394. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

Access provided by 161.73.114.34 on 11/06/19. For personal use only.

AN47CH24_Hill ARI 4 September 2018 17:28

LaFleur M, Gould L. 2009. Feeding outside the forest: the importance of crop raiding and an invasive weed in

the diet of gallery forest ring-tailed lemurs (Lemur catta) following a cyclone at the Beza Mahafaly Special

Reserve, Madagascar. Folia Primatol. 80:233–46

Lambert JE, Rothman JM. 2015. Fallback foods, optimal diets, and nutritional targets: primate responses to

varying food availability and quality. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 44:493–512

Lee PC, Poole JH, Njiraini N, Moss CJ. Moss CJ, et al. 2011. Male social dynamics: Independence and beyond.

In The Amboseli Elephants: A Long-Term Perspective on a Long-Lived Mammal, pp. 260–71. Chicago: Univ.

Chicago Press

Lee PC, Priston NEC. 2005. Human attributes to primates: perception of pests, conﬂict and consequences

for primate conservation. See Paterson & Wallis 2005, pp. 1–23

Linkie M, Dinata Y, Nofrianto A, Leader-Williams N. 2007. Patterns and perceptions of wildlife crop raiding

in and around Kerinci Seblat National Park, Sumatra. Anim. Conserv. 10:127–35

Lodge E, Ross C, Ortmann S, MacLarnon A. 2013. Inﬂuence of diet and stress on reproductive hormones in

Nigerian olive baboons. Gen. Comp. Endocrinol. 191:146–54

MacKenzie CA, Sengupta RR, Kaoser R. 2015. Chasing baboons or attending class: protected areas and

childhood education in Uganda. Environ. Conserv. 42:373–83

MacLarnon AM, Sommer V, Goffe AS, Higham JP, Lodge E, et al. 2015. Assessing adaptability and reactive

scope: introducing a new measure and illustrating its use through a case study of environmental stress in

forest-living baboons. Gen. Comp. Endocrinol. 215:10–24

Madden F. 2004. Creating coexistence between humans and wildlife: global perspectives on local efforts to

address human–wildlife conﬂict. Hum. Dimens. Wildl. 9:247–57

Madden F, McQuinn B. 2017. Conservation conﬂict transformation. addressing the missing link in wildlife

conservation. See Hill et al. 2017, pp. 148–69

Malcolm KD, McShea WJ, Garsheli DL, Luo S-J, Van Deelen TR, et al. 2014. Increased stress in Asiatic

black bears relates to food limitations, crop raiding, and foraging beyond native reserve boundaries in

China. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 2:267–76

Mayberry AL, Hovorka AJ, Evans KE. 2017. Well-being impacts of human-elephant conﬂict in Khumaga,

Botswana: exploring visible and hidden dimensions. Conserv. Soc. 15:280–91

McKinney T, Westin JL, Serio-Silva JC. 2015. Anthropogenic habitat modiﬁcation, tourist interactions and

crop-raiding in howler monkeys. In Howler Monkeys. Behavior, Ecology, Conservation, ed. MM Kowalewski,

PA Garber, L Cortes-Ortiz, B Urbani, D Youlatos, pp. 281–311. New York: Springer

McLennan MR. 2013. Diet and feeding ecology of chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) in Bulindi, Uganda: foraging

strategies at the forest-farm interface. Int. J. Primatol. 34:585–614

McLennan MR, Ganzhorn JU. 2017. Nutritional characteristics of wild and cultivated foods for chimpanzees

(Pan troglodytes) in agricultural landscapes. Int. J. Primatol. 38:122–50

McLennan MR, Hill CM. 2012. Troublesome neighbours: changing attitudes towards chimpanzees (Pan

troglodytes) in a human-dominated landscape in Uganda. J. Nat. Conserv. 20:219–27

McLennan MR, Hyeroba D, Asiimwe C, Reynolds V, et al. 2012. Chimpanzees in mantraps: lethal crop

protection and conservation in Uganda. Oryx 46:598–603

McLennan MR, Spanoletti N, Hockings KJ. 2017. The implications of primate-behavioral ﬂexibility for

sustainable human-primate coexistence in anthropogenic habitats. Int. J. Primatol. 38:105–21

Mekonnen A, Bekele A, Fashing PJ, Lernould JM, Atickem A, Stenseth NC. 2012. Newly discovered Bale

monkey populations in forest fragments in southern Ethiopia: evidence of crop raiding, hybridization

with grivets and other conservation threats. Am. J. Primatol. 74:423–32

Merrigi A, Lovari S. 1996. A review of wolf predation in southern Europe: Does the wolf prefer wild prey to

livestock? J. Appl. Ecol. 33:1561–71

Mikich SB, Liebsch D. 2014. Damage to forest plantations by tufted capuchins (Sapajus nigritus): too many

monkeys or not enough fruits? For. Ecol. Manag. 314:9–16

Naughton-Treves L. 1997. Farming the forest edge: vulnerable places and people around Kibale National

Park, Uganda. Geogr. Rev. 87:27–46

Naughton-Treves L. 1998. Predicting patterns of crop damage by wildlife around Kibale National Park.

Conserv. Biol. 12:156–68

www.annualreviews.org •Crop Foraging, Crop Losses, and Crop Raiding 391

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2018.47:377-394. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

Access provided by 161.73.114.34 on 11/06/19. For personal use only.

AN47CH24_Hill ARI 4 September 2018 17:28

Naughton-Treves L. 2002. Wild animals in the garden: conserving wildlife in Amazonian agroecosystems.

Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 92:488–506

Naughton-Treves L, Treves A. 2005. Socio-ecological factors shaping local support for wildlife: crop-raiding

by elephants and other wildlife in Africa. See Woodroffe et al. 2005, pp. 252–77

Naughton-Treves L, Treves A, Chapman C, Wrangham R. 1998. Temporal patterns of crop-raiding by

primates: linking food availability in croplands and adjacent forest. J. Appl. Ecol. 35:596–606

Nyhus PJ, Tilson R. 2000. Crop-raiding elephants and conservation implications at Way Kambas National

Park, Sumatra, Indonesia. Oryx 34:262–74

O’Brien EP, Hill CM. 2018. Assessing the potential of non-harmful, natural feeding deterrents tested on

captive primates. Int. J. Pest Manag. 64:59–65

O’Connell-Rodwell CE, Rodwell T, Rice M, Hart LA. 2000. Living with the modern conservation paradigm:

Can agricultural communities co-exist with elephants? A ﬁve-year case study in East Caprivi, Namibia.

Biol. Conserv. 93:381–91

Ogra MV. 2008. Human–wildlife conﬂict and gender in protected area borderlands: a case study of costs,

perceptions, and vulnerabilities from Uttarakhand (Uttaranchal), India. Geoforum 39:1408–22

Okello MM. 2005. Land use changes and human-wildlife conﬂicts in the Amboseli Area, Kenya. Hum. Dimens.

Wildl. 10:19–28

Osborn FV, Hill CM. 2005. Techniques to reduce crop loss: human and technical dimensions in Africa. See

Woodroffe et al. 2005, pp. 72–85

Palme R, Rettenbacher S, Touma C, El-Bahr SM, M ¨

ostl E. 2005. Stress hormones in mammals and birds:

comparative aspects regarding metabolism, excretion, and noninvasive measurement in fecal samples.

Ann. NY Acad. Sci. 1040:162–71

Paterson JD, Wallis J, eds. 2005. Commensalism and Conﬂict: The Human–Primate Interface. Norman, UK: Am.

Soc. Primatol.

Priston NEC. 2005. Crop-Raiding by Macaca ochreata brunnescens in Sulawesi: reality, perceptions and outcomes

for conservation. PhD Thesis, Univ. Cambridge, Cambridge, UK

Priston NEC, McLennan MR. 2013. Managing humans, managing macaques: human–macaque conﬂict in

Asia and Africa. In The Macaque Connection: Cooperation and Conﬂict between Humans and Macaques,ed.S

Radhakrishna, MA Huffman, A Sinha, pp. 225–50. New York: Springer

Priston NEC, Wyper RM, Lee PC. 2012. Buton macaques (Macaca ochreata brunnescens): crops, conﬂict, and

behavior on farms. Am. J. Primatol. 74:29–36

Redpath SM, Young J, Evely A, Adams W, Sutherland WJ, et al. 2013. Understanding and managing conser-

vation conﬂicts. Trends Ecol. Evol. 28:100–9

Reynolds V. 2005. The Chimpanzees of the Budongo Forest. Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press

Reynolds V, Wallis J, Kyamanywa R. 2003. Fragments, sugar and chimpanzees in Masindi District, western

Uganda. In Primates in Fragments: Ecology and Conservation, ed. LK Marsh, pp. 309–20. New York: Kluwer

Acad./Plenum

Richards P. 2000. Chimpanzees as political animals in Sierra Leone. See Knight 2000, pp. 78–103

Riley EP. 2007. The human–macaque interface: conservation implications of current and future overlap and

conﬂict in Lore Lindu National Park, Sulawesi, Indonesia. Am. Anthropol. 109:473–84

Riley EP. 2010. The importance of human-macaque folklore for conservation in Lore Lindu National Park,

Sulawesi, Indonesia. Oryx 44:235–40

Riley EP, Priston NEC. 2010. Macaques in farms and folklore: exploring the human–nonhuman primate

interface in Sulawesi, Indonesia. Am. J. Primatol. 72:848–54

Riley EP, Tolbert B, Farida WR. 2013. Nutritional content explains the attractiveness of cacao to crop raiding

Tonkean macaques. Curr. Zool. 59:160–69

Rode KD, Chapman CA, Chapman LJ, McDowell LR. 2003. Mineral resource availability and consumption

by Colobus in Kibale National Park, Uganda. Int. J. Primatol. 24:541–73

Rode KD, Chiyo PI, Chapman CA, McDowell LR. 2006. Nutritional ecology of elephants in Kibale National

Park, Uganda, and its relationship with crop-raiding behaviour. J. Trop. Ecol. 22:441–49

Saj T, Sicotte P, Paterson JD. 1999. Inﬂuence of human food consumption on the time budget of vervets. Int.

J. Primatol. 20:977–94

392 Hill

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2018.47:377-394. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

Access provided by 161.73.114.34 on 11/06/19. For personal use only.

AN47CH24_Hill ARI 4 September 2018 17:28

Saj TL, Sicotte P, Paterson JD. 2001. The conﬂict between vervet monkeys and farmers at the forest edge in

Entebbe, Uganda. Afr. J. Ecol. 39:195–99

Schweitzer C, Gaillard C, Guerbois C, Fritz H, Petit O. 2017. Participant proﬁling and pattern of crop-

foraging in Chacma baboons (Papio hamadryas ursinus) in Zimbabwe: Why does investigating age-sex

classes matter? Int. J. Primatol. 38:207–23

Scott JC. 1985. Weapons of the Weak:Everyday Forms of Peasant Resistance. New Haven, CT/London: Yale

Univ. Press

Seiler N, Robbins MM. 2016. Factors inﬂuencing ranging on community land and crop raiding by mountain

gorillas. Anim. Conserv. 19:176–88

Siex KS, Struhsaker TT. 1999. Colobus monkeys and coconuts: a study of perceived human–wildlife conﬂicts.

J. Appl. Ecol. 36:1009–20

Simons EL, Meyers DM. 2001. Folklore and beliefs about the aye aye (Daubentonia madagascariensis). Lemur

News 6:11–16

Singh M, Erinjery JJ, Kavana TS, Roy K, Singh M. 2011. Drastic population decline and conservation prospects

of roadside dark-bellied bonnet macaques (Macaca radiata radiata) of southern India. Primates 52:149–

Slovic P. 1987. Perception of risk. Science 236:280–85

Smith K, Barrett CB, Box PW. 2000. Participatory risk mapping for targeting research and assistance: with

an example from east African pastoralists. World Dev. 28:1945–59

Songhurst A. 2017. Measuring human-wildlife conﬂicts: comparing insights from different monitoring ap-

proaches. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 41:351–61

Sousa J, Hill CM, Ainslie A. 2017. Chimpanzees, sorcery and contestation in a protected area in Guinea Bissau.

Soc. Anthropol. 25:364–79

Strum SC. 1994. Prospects for management of primate pests. Rev. Ecol. (Terre Vie) 49:295–306

Strum SC. 2010. The development of primate raiding: implications for management and conservation. Int. J.

Primatol. 31:133–56

Sukumar R. 1990. Ecology of the Asian elephant in southern India. II Feeding habits and crop raiding patterns.

J. Trop. Ecol. 6:33–53

Sukumar R. 1991. The management of large mammals in relation to male strategies and conﬂict with people.

Biol. Conserv. 55:93–102

Sukumar R, Gadgil M. 1988. Male-female differences in foraging on crops by Asian elephants. Anim. Behav.

36:1233–35

Thirgood S, Woodroffe R, Rabinowitz A. 2005. The impact of human-wildlife conﬂict on human lives and

livelihoods. See Woodroffe et al. 2005, pp. 13–26

Tweheyo M, Hill CM, Obua J. 2005. Patterns of crop raiding by primates around the Budongo Forest Reserve,

Uganda. Wildl. Biol. 11:237–47

Van Schaik CP. 1983. Why are diurnal primates living in groups? Behavior 87:120–44

Wallace GE. 2010. Monkeys in maize: Primate crop-raiding behaviour and developing on-farm techniques to mitigate

human–wildlife conﬂict. PhD Thesis, Oxford Brookes Univ., Oxford

Wallace GE, Hill CM. 2012. Crop damage by primates: quantifying the key parameters of crop-raiding events.

PLOS ONE 7:e46636

Wang SW, Curtis PD, Lassoie JP. 2006. Farmer perceptions of crop damage by wildlife in Jigme Singye

Wangchuck National Park, Bhutan. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 34:359–65

Warren Y. 2003. Olive baboons (Papio cynocephalus anubis): behaviour, ecology and human conﬂict in Gashaka

Gumti National Park, Nigeria. PhD Thesis, Univ. Roehampton, London

Warren Y, Buba B, Ross C. 2007. Patterns of crop-raiding by wild and domestic animals near Gashaka Gumti

National Park, Nigeria. Int. J. Pest Manag. 53:207–16

Webber AD. 2006. Primate crop raiding in Uganda: actual and perceived risks around Budongo Forest Reserve.PhD

Thesis, Oxford Brookes Univ., Oxford, UK

Webber AD, Hill CM. 2014. Using participatory risk mapping (PRM) to identify and understand people’s

perceptions of crop loss to animals in Uganda. PLOS ONE 9:e102912

Weyher AH, Ross C, Semple S. 2006. Gastrointestinal parasites in crop raiding and wild foraging Papio anubis

in Nigeria. Int. J. Primatol. 27:1519–34

www.annualreviews.org •Crop Foraging, Crop Losses, and Crop Raiding 393

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2018.47:377-394. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

Access provided by 161.73.114.34 on 11/06/19. For personal use only.

AN47CH24_Hill ARI 4 September 2018 17:28

Wilson ML, Hauser MD, Wrangham RW. 2007. Chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) modify grouping and vocal

behavior in response to location-speciﬁc risk. Behaviour 144:1621–53

Wilson S, Davies TE, Hazarika N, Zimmerman A. 2013. Understanding spatial and temporal patterns of

human-elephant conﬂict in Assam, India. Oryx 49:140–49

Woodroffe R, Thirgood S, Rabinowitz A, eds. 2005. People and Wildlife: Conﬂict or Coexistence? Cambridge,

UK: Cambridge Univ. Press

Zak AA, Riley EP. 2017. Comparing the use of camera traps and farmer reports to study crop feeding behaviour

of Moor macaques (Macaca maura). Int. J. Primatol. 38:224–41

394 Hill

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2018.47:377-394. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

Access provided by 161.73.114.34 on 11/06/19. For personal use only.

AN47_FrontMatter ARI 5 September 2018 14:34

Annual Review of

Anthropology

Volume 47, 2018

Contents

Perspectives

Others’ Words, Others’ Voices: The Making of a Linguistic

Anthropologist

Richard Bauman pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp1

Archaeology

Development and Disciplinary Complicity: Contract Archaeology in

South America Under the Critical Gaze

Crist´obal Gnecco ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp279

Ethics of Archaeology

Alfredo Gonz´alez-Ruibal pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp345

An Emerging Archaeology of the Nazi Era

Reinhard Bernbeck ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp361

Bayesian Statistics in Archaeology

Erik Ot´arola-Castillo and Melissa G. Torquato ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp435

Looting, the Antiquities Trade, and Competing Valuations of the Past

Alex W. Barker pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp455

Developments in American Archaeology: Fifty Years of the National

Historic Preservation Act

Francis P. McManamon pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp553

Biological Anthropology

Ethics in Human Biology: A Historical Perspective on Present

Challenges

Joanna Radin pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp263

The Bioarchaeology of Health Crisis: Infectious Disease in the Past

Clark Spencer Larsen pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp295

Crop Foraging, Crop Losses, and Crop Raiding

Catherine M. Hill ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp377

vii

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2018.47:377-394. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

Access provided by 161.73.114.34 on 11/06/19. For personal use only.

AN47_FrontMatter ARI 5 September 2018 14:34

Emerging and Enduring Issues in Primate Conservation Genetics

Richard R. Lawler ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp395

Effects of Environmental Stress on Primate Populations

Jason M. Kamilar and Lydia Beaudrot pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp417

Ethics of Primate Fieldwork: Toward an Ethically Engaged

Primatology

Erin P. Riley and Michelle Bezanson ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp493

Hunter-Gatherers and Human Evolution: New Light on Old Debates

Richard B. Lee ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp513

Female Power in Primates and the Phenomenon of Female Dominance

Rebecca J. Lewis ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp533

Anthropology of Language and Communicative Practices

Food and Language: Production, Consumption, and Circulation of

Meaning and Value

Martha Sif Karrebæk, Kathleen C. Riley, and Jillian R. Cavanaugh pppppppppppppppppppppp17

Language of Kin Relations and Relationlessness

Christopher Ball ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp47

The Ethics and Aesthetics of Care

Steven P. Black pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp79

The Language of Evangelism: Christian Cultures of Circulation

Beyond the Missionary Prologue

Courtney Handman ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp149

Children as Interactional Brokers of Care

Inmaculada M. Garc´ıa-S ´anchez pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp167

Political Parody and the Politics of Ambivalence

Tanja Petrovi´cppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp201

Word for Word: Verbatim as Political Technologies

Miyako Inoue pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp217

Sociocultural Anthropology

Literature and Reading

Adam Reed ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp33

The Anthropology of Mining: The Social and Environmental Impacts

of Resource Extraction in the Mineral Age

Jerry K. Jacka ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp61

viii Contents

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2018.47:377-394. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

Access provided by 161.73.114.34 on 11/06/19. For personal use only.

AN47_FrontMatter ARI 5 September 2018 14:34

Science/Art/Culture Through an Oceanic Lens

Stefan Helmreich and Caroline A. Jones ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp97

Consumerism

Anne Meneley pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp117

Police and Policing

Jeffrey T. Martin pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp133

Industrial Meat Production

Alex Blanchette pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp185

Interspecies Relations and Agrarian Worlds

Shaila Seshia Galvin pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp233

Hybrid Peace: Ethnographies of War

Nikolai Ssorin-Chaikov ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp251

The Gender of the War on Drugs

Shaylih Muehlmann ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp315

Precarity, Precariousness, and Vulnerability

Clara Han ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp331

The Anthropology of Ethics and Morality

Cheryl Mattingly and Jason Throop pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp475

Theme I: Ethics

The Ethics and Aesthetics of Care

Steven P. Black pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp79

Police and Policing

Jeffrey T. Martin pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp133

Children as Interactional Brokers of Care

Inmaculada M. Garc´ıa-S ´anchez pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp167

Ethics in Human Biology: A Historical Perspective on Present

Challenges

Joanna Radin pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp263

Development and Disciplinary Complicity: Contract Archaeology in

South America Under the Critical Gaze

Crist´obal Gnecco ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp279

The Gender of the War on Drugs

Shaylih Muehlmann ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp315

Precarity, Precariousness, and Vulnerability

Clara Han ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp331

Contents ix

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2018.47:377-394. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

Access provided by 161.73.114.34 on 11/06/19. For personal use only.

AN47_FrontMatter ARI 5 September 2018 14:34

Ethics of Archaeology

Alfredo Gonz´alez-Ruibal pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp345

An Emerging Archaeology of the Nazi Era

Reinhard Bernbeck ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp361

Looting, the Antiquities Trade, and Competing Valuations of the Past

Alex W. Barker pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp455

The Anthropology of Ethics and Morality

Cheryl Mattingly and Jason Throop pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp475

Ethics of Primate Fieldwork: Toward an Ethically Engaged

Primatology

Erin P. Riley and Michelle Bezanson ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp493

Theme II: Food

Food and Language: Production, Consumption, and Circulation of

Meaning and Value

Martha Sif Karrebæk, Kathleen C. Riley, and Jillian R. Cavanaugh pppppppppppppppppppppp17

Consumerism

Anne Meneley pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp117

Industrial Meat Production

Alex Blanchette pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp185

Interspecies Relations and Agrarian Worlds

Shaila Seshia Galvin pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp233

Crop Foraging, Crop Losses, and Crop Raiding

Catherine M. Hill ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp377

Indexes

Cumulative Index of Contributing Authors, Volumes 38–47 ppppppppppppppppppppppppppp575

Cumulative Index of Article Titles, Volumes 38–47 ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp579

Errata

An online log of corrections to Annual Review of Anthropology articles may be found at

http://www.annualreviews.org/errata/anthro

xContents

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2018.47:377-394. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

Access provided by 161.73.114.34 on 11/06/19. For personal use only.

Drivers and Consequences of Human-elephant Interactions in an Agricultural Landscape of Rural Kenya

Thesis

Full-text available

Aug 2022

Lynn Von Hagen

Globally, interactions between people and wildlife are increasing due to habitat loss and conversion and the movement of people and wildlife into areas in which they were not previously present. Many of these interactions involve agricultural damage, which is especially problematic for resource limited communities. One species that causes extensive agricultural damage to rural farmers are African elephants (Loxodonta africana) which forage on cultivated crops, jeopardizing food security for humans and creating conservation concerns for elephants. While the ecological drivers of this human-elephant conflict are known, there remains a gap in our knowledge about how the farmers perceive and conceptualize the conflict that is necessary for advancing conservation. Thus, the goal of this dissertation is to develop a greater understanding of the impact of human-elephant interactions on rural farmers across social, ecological, economic, and cultural dimensions to better inform policy and decision makers in wildlife agencies mitigating these interactions. To address this goal, I developed key research questions: 1) how is the use and knowledge of deterrents by farmers and their behaviors and attitudes towards elephants related to demographic variables such as age, years farming, and exposure to deterrent information? 2) what are farmer attitudes and behaviors towards environmental threats to their livelihoods, and are there sociodemographic categories that influence farmer responses to such threats? and, 3) what are farmers' mental models of elephant conflicts, including drivers of conflict that are underrepresented or unknown in the literature and potential indicators for evaluation of mitigation programs? To address these questions and the corresponding hypotheses, I conducted social surveys and participatory modeling sessions across 6 villages in the Greater Tsavo ecosystem of southeastern Kenyan. Across the villages, ~90% of respondents had never received information on mitigating crop raiding using fencing deterrents. 3 The main reason for not implementing deterrents was lack of funding. Farmers were accepting of mitigation solutions for concerns such as climate change. However, 35% had never received information on solutions such as alternative crops. Likewise, ~50% of farmers would prefer to continue farming, even if alternative ways to earn income were available. Farmers positively viewed the benefits of wildlife, suggesting local community programs may be beneficial for improving attitudes. Mental models indicated several novel drivers of conflict such as road infrastructure and soil compaction and provided additional potential sociocultural indicators for evaluating mitigation programs. The models also showed that economic and environmental interactions were central variable types conserved across all villages and impacts to income levels and feeling of security were the most important variables indicated by farmers. The findings of this research provide valuable information for wildlife managers and policy makers that value stakeholder knowledge to aid in mitigating human-elephant interactions.

Руководство КВВ МСОП по конфликтам и сосуществованию человека и дикой природы : Первое издание

Book

Full-text available

Feb 2024

The Coexistence of People and Bearded Capuchins (Sapajus libidinosus) in a Nonindustrial Ecosystem: An Assessment of Tourist and Local Perceptions in the Coastal Area of Maranhão, Brazil

Article

Full-text available

Nov 2023
INT J PRIMATOL

As human activity increases in primate habitats, it is critical to understand people’s perceptions of primates and of potential conflicts with them. We investigated the perceptions of crab-eating bearded capuchins (Sapajus libidinosus) in two communities with different sources of revenue in Northeast Brazil. Parnaíba relies heavily on crab-catching, whereas Preguiças relies mostly on tourism. We conducted questionnaires (N = 421) and compared the responses of residents from the two communities and those of tourists in Preguiças. We also conducted interviews (N = 21) with residents of Preguiças to examine the influences of tourism, landscape change, and overlapping resource use on people’s perceptions of capuchins. All residents reported seeing capuchins often, but residents in Preguiças reported liking them relatively more than residents of Parnaíba, where fewer respondents described capuchins as damaging property. Residents did not report conflict with the capuchins at either site. Tourists in Preguiças also did not observe human-capuchin conflicts. Although most residents knew that the capuchins were legally protected and believed that they had adequate food in the mangroves, some people reported feeding them at both sites. Tourists, who knew less about the capuchins and their habitat than did residents, were aware that providing food was illegal but were uncertain of the capuchins’ protected status. Interviews confirmed that residents were very knowledgeable about capuchin ecology and changes in habituation and habitat use, given increased tourism, decreased hunting, and environmental change. Our results suggest that resource and spatial overlap does not necessarily result in perceived conflict, supporting previous ethnoprimatological work, and highlight areas where tourism and conservation initiatives may support a nonconflictive (harmonious) and sustainable, multispecies coexistence.

Do Responses of Wild Macaca nigra to Crop Defense Resemble Responses to Predators?

Article

Full-text available

Aug 2023
INT J PRIMATOL

Although conservation-minded researchers advocate that growers use a variety of methods to defend crops from wildlife, we know little about the effects of such methods on the targeted species. We assessed effects of nonlethal crop defense (CD) methods used in Tangkoko Reserve, Sulawesi, Indonesia, on potentially stress-related behavior of Critically Endangered (CR) wild, crested macaques (Macaca nigra). We examined responses of three groups exposed to different amounts of CD, both immediately after being targeted and when only exposed to cues of targeting elsewhere in the forest. We analyzed 630 h of data from 33 adults of both sexes by using Generalized Linear Mixed Models. When not targeted, all groups and both sexes displayed fewer self-directed behaviors, males showed fewer affiliative behaviors, and two groups decreased aggression in months with more CD. When we compared behavior immediately after targeting with behavior unassociated with targeting, males in the most frequently targeted group showed increased aggression, whereas both sexes in the moderately frequently targeted group showed increased self-directed behaviors. We suggest that when not targeted, groups show a degree of behavioral inhibition during months in which CD targeting is relatively frequent. When targeted, the two regularly targeted groups displayed behavior consistent with increased stress. However, the groups appeared to respond in qualitatively different ways. We tentatively suggest that the macaques’ behavioral responses to CD (inhibition in low-risk conditions and signs of stress and/or motivational conflict in moderate-risk conditions) resemble typical responses of primates to perceived predators posing varying degrees of risk.

Why wild herbivores raid crops: alternative hypotheses and their differential implications for mitigation of human wildlife conflict

Preprint

Full-text available

May 2024

Wild herbivores eating up crops is a major issue in human wildlife conflict. Although there is substantial literature that identifies the conflict, tries to estimate the extent of economic loss, its consequences and also suggests some mitigation measures, many fundamental issues remain unaddressed. A number of speculations about the root causes behind the problem have been made but they haven’t been tested as alternative hypotheses. We make a list of alternative hypotheses, collected from a wide variety of sources, evaluate their plausibility and logical integrity, suggest differential testable predictions and their differential implications for mitigation measures. It is important to identify the locale specific causes of the conflict because the efficacy of mitigation measures would crucially depend upon the predominant underlying cause. Measures applied without a good understanding of the causal factors might turn out to be ineffective and even counterproductive. Substantial research needs to be focused on differentially testing the predictions of the alternative hypotheses in order to be able to handle the problem and promote healthy coexistence of wildlife with indigenous people.

National Impact Assessment Report on Electric Fencing 2021 Dorjee, Kelzang Dawa, Lhendup Dorji & Nidup Dorji Vertebrate Pest Management Programme National Plant Protection Centre, Semtokha Department of Agriculture Ministry of Agriculture and Forests Funded by: Food S ecurity and Agriculture Productivity Project (FSAPP)

Article

Jan 2024

The report assess the impact of an electric fence on human-wildlife conflict, its efficacy in protecting crops from animals and challenges/obstacles that resulted in failure of the technology.

Dietary flexibility of western red colobus in two protected areas with contrasting anthropogenic pressure

Article

Full-text available

Nov 2023

Food distribution and abundance can affect intra- and inter-dietary variation in non-human primates, influencing feeding ecology and altering behaviour. Natural and/or human-induced actions can influence the dynamics between primates and the environment, with associated impacts on socio-ecology and demography. This relationship in anthropogenic landscapes, however, is poorly understood. Here, we use DNA metabarcoding to obtain high resolution dietary diversity data, and multivariate generalised linear models to investigate variation in the diet of this threatened primate. We characterise the diet of the western red colobus (Piliocolobus badius) in both the better preserved Gola Rainforest National Park (GRNP, Sierra Leone), and in the fragmented forests of Cantanhez National Park (CNP, Guinea-Bissau), and evaluate biological, ecological and temporal differences. Dietary plant species richness was high in both protected areas, and the type of plants consumed varied significantly across seasons, space, and time. Although we identify dependence on a few key plants, red colobus in CNP consumed a higher average number of plant taxa than in GRNP, and 11% of the diet consisted of cultivated foods (e.g. mango). This is the first time a molecular approach has been used to investigate red colobus diet, and reveal dietary flexibility in degraded forests. Predicting the consequences of dietary change on long-term population persistence, however, remains a significant knowledge gap. Nevertheless, our results provide critical information to inform targeted regional conservation planning and implementation.

Wildlife Conflict Area Demarcation—Special Reference to Human–Elephant Conflict

Chapter

Nov 2023

Human–elephant conflict (HEC) is presently a major issue in West Bengal. This chapter aims to demarcate conflict intensity zones based on selected landscape features, i.e. percentage of forest cover, multi-crop area density, built-up area density, forest habitat patch shape complexity road network buffering, canal buffering and water patch density. All of these data were obtained from individual forest range images (LISS-III, P6 Satellite image 2019). Individual thematic layers were prepared using kriging tool and reclassification done for five classes in ArcGIS 10.1 version software. The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) method was used in order to elucidate weight and rank of selected individual parameters like forest cover, multi-crop area, built-up patch density, patch fragmentation, road and canal and water patch density. Weighted overlay analysis was applied to demarcate the wildlife conflict zones using selected parameter layers. This zonation will help the planners or policy makers for implementing preventive measures in controlling HEC effects.

Exploration of sugarcane crops by Sapajus flavius inhabiting a fragment of Atlantic Forest in State of Paraíba, Northeast Brazil

Article

Full-text available

Jan 2023

Sapajus flavius has a frugivorous-insectivorous diet, but also consumes food items from crops. Thus, we investigated the exploration of sugarcane cropping and processing by a group of Sapajus flavius. It was chosen the ad libitum and All Occurrences Observation Methods for collected data. Access to Sugarcane Plantations, Acquisition of Sugarcane, and Sugarcane Consumption behaviors were the most ones recorded. Surveillance and Back Without Sugarcane behaviors were the least ones recorded. There is an increase of exploration of sugarcane plantations during months with low rainfall, which coincides with the reduction of fruits in the forest fragment. Male and female adults were the ones who most exploit sugarcane plantations. The way individuals access, acquire and consume sugarcane highlights cognitive abilities, promoting the persistence of the species in fragmented areas with crops in the surrounding. The analyzed aspects will help on developing species conservation strategies, such as the implantation of native vegetation corridors to connect forest fragments that are isolated due to the expansion of sugarcane crops.

Exploration of sugarcane crops by Sapajus flavius inhabiting a fragment of Atlantic Forest in State of Paraíba, Northeast Brazil

Article

Full-text available

Apr 2023

Well-Being Impacts of Human-Elephant Conflict in Khumaga, Botswana: Exploring Visible and Hidden Dimensions

Article

Full-text available

Jan 2017

High densities of wild African savannah elephants (Loxodonta africana) combined with widespread human land-use have increased human-elephant conflict in northern Botswana. Visible impacts (e.g. crop/property damage, injury/fatality) of elephants on human well-being are well documented in scholarly literature while hidden impacts (e.g. emotional stress, restricted mobility) are less so. This research uses qualitative methods to explore human experiences with elephants and perceived impacts of elephants on human well-being. Findings reveal participants are concerned about food insecurity and associated visible impacts of elephant crop raids. Findings also reveal participants are concerned about reduced safety and restricted mobility as hidden impacts threatening livelihoods and everyday life. Both visible and hidden impacts of elephants contribute to people's negative feelings towards elephants, as does the broader political context. This research emphasises the importance of investigating both visible and hidden impacts of elephants on human well-being to foster holistic understanding of human-elephant conflict scenarios and to inform future mitigation strategies.

Wildlife tourism as crop protection? Double-goal provisioning and the transvaluation of the macaque in postwar Japan

Article

Full-text available

Sep 2017

John Knight

Human–wildlife interfaces are often sites of friction and confl ict in the form of crop and livestock depredations that can lead to negative local attitudes toward the animals responsible. This paper examines the use of provisioning to reduce wildlife damage through diversion (diversionary feeding) and to display the diverted animals for tourism. It focuses on a macaque (Macaca fuscata) provisioning initiative from the municipality of Ōita in western Japan that set out to achieve these 2 objectives of crop protection and tourism. Provisioning succeeded in establishing the macaques as a popular tourist attraction, but it has been far less eff ective in keeping farmland safe from crop-raiding. Owing mainly to macaque population increase and habituation, the early diversion eff ect waned and crop-raiding re-emerged as a problem. The Ōita vision of double-goal provisioning has proven to be fl awed and the compatibility of diversionary provisioning with wildlife tourism highly questionable.

Chimpanzees, sorcery and contestation in a protected area in Guinea Bissau

Article

Full-text available

May 2017

In Cantanhez National Park in Guinea-Bissau the construction of meaning made after encounters with chimpanzees is associated with local social life. If a chimpanzee makes an unprovoked attack on a person, its actions are often understood as those of a sorcerer. Chimpanzees are involved in two parallel accusation discourses: one is played in intimate spheres of sociability where sorcerers harm their kin to benefit from secret alliances, and the other addresses a wider audience perceived to benefit from chimpanzees which are being protected at the expense of other humans. Both narratives represent local criticism against transgressions to calculations of redistribution and reciprocity.

Herding Monkeys to Paradise: How Macaque Troops are Managed for Tourism in Japan

Book

May 2011

John Knight

Introduction.: Complex Problems: Using a Biosocial Approach to Understanding Human-Wildlife Interactions

Chapter

May 2017

Catherine M Hill

Introduction complex problems: Using a biosocial approach to understanding human-wildlife interactions

Article

Jan 2017

C.M. Hill

Conservation Conflict Transformation:: Addressing the Missing Link in Wildlife Conservation

Chapter

May 2017

Savage Values:: Conservation and Personhood in Southern Suriname

Chapter

May 2017

Marc Brightman

The monkey is not always a God: Attitudinal differences toward crop-raiding macaques and why it matters for conflict mitigation

Article

Jan 2018

Attitudinal differences toward wildlife have important implications for conflict management and when the species in question have strong cultural and religious associations, conflict mitigation becomes a challenging endeavor. We investigated farmers’ attitudes toward two different crop-raiding macaque species, the rhesus macaque in northern India, and the bonnet macaque in southern India. Apart from regional differences in attitudes, we also assessed temporal changes in attitude toward the rhesus macaque. We carried out household surveys using a semistructured questionnaire to collect data. Our findings reveal that respondents in southern and northern India differ significantly in their views regarding species sanctity and preference for mitigation options. Although people’s perceptions of the rhesus macaques had changed over time in northern India, farmers were still unwilling to cause harm to the macaques. We discuss the underlying causes of these observed differences in attitude and their impact on the management of human–macaque conflict.

Measuring human-wildlife conflicts: Comparing insights from different monitoring approaches: Measuring Human-Wildlife Conflict

Article

Jun 2017

Anna Songhurst

Studies investigating wildlife crop-damage have been widely documented, but methods often vary and results can be difficult to compare across national and international regions. Standardized data-collection protocols involving local communities are encouraged in wildlife management research to address this issue; however, it is not clear how data collected from such systems compare with government monitoring schemes. I established an independent monitoring program for human–elephant conflict (HEC) incidents over a 3-year period (2008–2010) in northern Botswana, following the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) data collection protocol. In addition, the government's monitoring scheme for problem-animal control continued in the area. With these systems running simultaneously, I compared the data collection efficiency of the 2 approaches and explored implications of each on HEC management. The total number of crop-damage incidents recorded differed between the 2 systems. The IUCN approach was temporally more efficient than the government approach, which influenced measurements of areas damaged by elephants. Government records showed a greater mean area of damage per elephant crop-raiding incident compared with community enumerator records. A potential challenge of using the IUCN approach for wide-scale HEC monitoring is the selection, cost, and management of enumerators. Ultimately, both approaches were effective for general monitoring of HEC incidents when the purpose of data collection was clearly defined. Monitoring systems that address broader issues beyond providing a record of damage incidents are likely to have a greater effect in reducing human–wildlife conflicts in the long-term.

Crop Foraging, Crop Losses, and Crop Raiding

Abstract

Recommended publications

Suppressive effects of sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.) on local rain-fed weeds in Zambia

Adequate Harvesting Technology for Small- and Medium-Scale Sugarcane Farmers in Rio de Janeiro: The...

PESTICIDE RESIDUE - A PRESSING ISSUE

Crop Production Under Risk-Uncertainty Conditions