Wildlife Fences to Mitigate Human–Wildlife Conflicts in Africa: A Literature Analysis
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI read with interest the manuscript entitled “Wildlife fences to mitigate human–wildlife conflicts in Africa: a literature analysis.” While I recognize the effort made by the authors, I must respectfully reject this paper in its current form. Although the authors aim to provide a literature review on the use of fences to mitigate human–wildlife conflicts in Africa, much of the information included is either unrelated to the core topic or presented in a confusing manner. I regret not being more positive, but I believe the way the data is currently presented significantly diminishes the potential impact this work could have if it were restructured and focused more effectively.
Specific comments and concerns are reported down below.
Introduction
“Farmers commonly use fences to protect agricultural lands from ungulates, such as deer and wild boar, to mitigate the negative impacts these animals can have on cultivated crops”.
Farmers/livestock owners use fences also to protect livestock from carnivore attacks. Even if the authors mentioned the Australian Dingo Barrier Fence afterwards, a sentence should be introduced here as well.
Results
3.2. Reasons for fencing
Figure 4 is unclear. “Human–elephant conflict” falls within the “Human–wildlife conflict”. So, what is the difference? The author should better explain what’s the message they want to share. Additionally, all reasons for fencing were highlighted, while the title specifically refers to human–wildlife conflicts. The remaining reported reasons are out of the first research question of the study, i.e., What are the main reasons for wildlife fencing in Africa?
3.3. Types of fences
Beehive should be written without spacing out bee and hive.
Figure 5 is unclear. Above the author stated that “The electric fences are further subdivided into veterinary, predator proof and game fences”. However, in Figure 5 they are presented as separate categories. This is confusing. The figure needs to be rearranged.
3.4. Effectiveness of fences
Figure 6. The authors present a figure that pools all data. However, to be meaningful and provide significant information, particularly regarding livestock predations and damages to agricultural lands, data should be divided into separate categories for carnivores and herbivores. Combining all data into a single figure significantly reduces clarity.
3.9. Impacts of fences
This part is written like a discussion. The authors should extrapolate the main findings and present them in the form of a chart by differentiating among categories. For example, based on the information reported, categories could be subdivided as follows:
1. Human–wildlife conflict mitigation.
2. Species and habitat preservation.
3. Economic benefits.
4. Reduction of ecological connectivity.
5. Wildlife population reductions.
6. Increasing poaching vulnerability.
7. Geographical isolations.
8. Behavioural modifications.
9. Alteration of predator–prey relationships.
10. Social impacts.
Then, in the discussion, the authors should mention some examples.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We are grateful for your extremely valuable comments. We considered all of them and we are sure that following those recommendations we could significantly improve the quality of the manuscript. Please, find uploaded the improved version of the manuscript together with our replies to all of your comments.
Thank you very much for your efforts!
The Authors
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsOverall, this appears to be a well-executed systematic literature review on the use of wildlife fencing in Africa. This is certainly a topic worthy of attention, as effectively conveyed in the introduction. To get the most value out of the work, however, the reporting, presentation, and interpretation of the data need to be significantly improved.
The most important and consistent problem is that the authors write as if the findings of their literature review reflect the general reality on the ground, rather than the scientific interest in particular problem. A systematic literature review is not a random sample of conditions on the ground.
Overgeneralization starts in the abstract; l. 18-21 generalize from their findings to an argument that electric fences are the ones most commonly used on the ground. This claim is repeated in the text on l. 163 and l. 259. Surely, this is not the case. Nor do the results show that elephants are the species most commonly targeted by fencing (l. 198, l. 288); just that's the interaction of greatest interest to researchers.
The questions on l. 80-85 are clear, but cannot be answered as they are phrased using the methods described here. Again, the literature review is limited to answering what topics the scientific literature has focused on.
To address this issue, the authors need to reframe and rephrase the presentation of their data, and to add a discussion about the likely effects of scientific interest on what appears in the literature and how those effects influence their results.
The other consistent problem is that the graphs are confusing. In Fig. 2, years with 0 publications are just omitted, forcing the reader to examine the years listed on the X axis to see what's missing. Please include the 0 years in the graph, especially between 2002 and 2023 -- it will make it much easier to see trends. (It's fine to insert a visual break between 1995 and 2002 since those are all 0.)
I am also inferring that in Fig. 4 and 5 because the number of publications across categories totals more than the total listed (54) that some publications listed more than one reason for fencing or type of fence covered, so that these are effectively multiple response questions. Please make this explicit in the Methods, as well as noting in each figure caption.
Specific comments are listed below.
L. 26-28 As written, the results (see comments below) do not make the case that all fences are expensive and difficult to maintain. Please be more specific.
L. 91-92. How did they choose the animal descriptors they chose? In the discussion, the authors should also consider how their choice of animal descriptors in the keyword search might have influenced the outcome of the search.
l. 131: What does “the previous one” refer to?
l. 149-151. “The rise in fencing…” sentence is interpretation and probably belongs in the discussion.
Fig. 4. Does the Human-Wildlfie-Conflict category include or exclude elephants? Please be clear.
Fig. 5. The categories of fences in Fig. 5 don’t match up with the text. Are “natural fences” (in text, l. 173) the same as “live fences” (in Fig. 5)? What is a veterinary fence? What in the figure corresponds to the post and rail fences described in the text (l. 171)? Please be consistent in use of fence categories.
Fig. 6. Is the effectiveness data in Fig. 6 confined only to fences used to mitigate HWC? Or is it fencing for all purposes? Please clarify.
L. 187-190. This sentence is very difficult to understand. Please rewrite for clarity.
Sec. 3.6 The discussion of permeability is confusing. Is it specifically for species that the fence was intended to contain or does it also refer to other species? “Escapees” also is odd terminology – normally one thinks of escaping confinement, but I’m not sure that’s how it’s meant here.
l. 222-226. Understanding that data on costs were scarce, more data need to be provided in this section; a single study on a single kind of elephant fencing [52] does not justify a generalized statement about the cost of fencing. Also, “expensive” and “affordable” are subjective and relative terms, and are not helpful.
l. 274 – It’s not that live fences aren’t useful (the previous discussion implies that they are), it’s that they’re not used widely because of their disadvantages. Correct?
l. 328-344. A lot of new information is introduced about alternative fencing techniques in the Conclusion. Because the authors are trying to be brief, they don’t adequately describe these new fencing types. (I was unable to determine what a butterfly fence was, for example.) Most of this information should be moved to the discussion and explained in more detail. The Conclusion could then briefly recommend that new fence designs be pursued.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We are grateful for your extremely valuable comments. We considered all of them and we are sure that following those recommendations we could significantly improve the quality of the manuscript. Please, find uploaded the improved version of the manuscript together with our replies to all of your comments.
Thank you very much for your efforts!
The Authors
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors did a very effective job responding to this reviewer's comments, and have resolved my concerns.
