Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Frozen soil reduces the effectiveness of the electric fences

  • Research
  • Published:
European Journal of Wildlife Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Dry soil had a high electric resistance, and thus, electric fences are not always efficient in arid regions. When an animal standing on the ground touches the electric line, an electric circuit is formed and the animal gets shocked. Not only dry soil but also snow reduces the efficacy of electric fences. This is because liquid water is conductive, but solid snow is an insulator. However, the conductance of frozen soil is not studied enough. This study aims to investigate whether frozen soil reduces the effectiveness of electric fences and determines the electrical resistance of frozen soil. Four electric fences were installed on the forest edge in Yamanashi Prefecture, central Japan. From May 2021 to March 2022, two sensor cameras per fence were used to detect “probability of electrification” and “probability of intrusion into the fences.” We treated from May to October 2021 and November 2021 to March 2022 as a non-frozen season (summer) and frozen season (winter), respectively. Results showed that in winter, the probability of electrification was decreased from 0.5 to 0.29 and the intrusion was increased from 0.03 to 0.07. When a pulsed current was applied, the electric conductance of frozen soil was reduced to 0.5% of that of the wet soil. Therefore, due to their reduced effectiveness in cold conditions, alternate grounding techniques for electric fences are required. For instance, the use of weed control sheet interwoven with stainless steel wire could be a practical solution.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

References

  • Apfelbach R, Blanchard CD, Blanchard RJ et al (2005) The effects of predator odors in mammalian prey species: a review of field and laboratory studies. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 29:1123–1144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2005.05.005

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Conover MR (2001) Resolving Human-Wildlife Conflicts: The Science of Wildlife Damage Management. CRC Press, N.Y.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Delaney AJ, Peapples PR, Arcone SA (2001) Electrical resistivity of frozen and petroleum-contaminated fine-grained soil. Cold Reg Sci Technol 32:107–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-232X(00)00023-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dorrance MJ, Bourne J (1980) An evaluation of anti-coyote electric fencing. J Range Manag 33:385–387

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischer JW, Phillips GE, Baasch DM et al (2011) Modifying elk (Cervus elaphus) behavior with electric fencing at established fence-lines to reduce disease transmission potential. Wildl Soc Bull 35:9–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fortier R, LeBlanc A-M, Allard M et al (2008) Internal structure and conditions of permafrost mounds at Umiujaq in Nunavik, Canada, inferred from field investigation and electrical resistivity tomography. Can J Earth Sci 45:367–387

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friedman SP (2005) Soil properties influencing apparent electrical conductivity: a review. Comput Electron Agric 46:45–70

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geller GA (2012) Reducing predation of freshwater turtle nests with a simple electric fence. Herpetol Rev 43:398–403

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayward MW, Kerley GIH (2009) Fencing for conservation: restriction of evolutionary potential or a riposte to threatening processes? Biol Conserv 142:1–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heard H, Stephenson A (1987) Electrification of a fence to control the movements of black-backed jackals. South African J Wildl Res 17:20–24. https://doi.org/10.10520/AJA03794369_3196

  • Honda T (2020) Geographical personality gradient in herbivorous animals: implications for selective culling to reduce crop damage. Ecol Res 36:145–151. https://doi.org/10.1111/1440-1703.12186

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Honda T (2021) Are high-voltage electric fences more effective at deterrence than low-voltage fences? Interspecific Differences Crop Prot 148:105738

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Honda T (2022) Height and tension of electric lines: how should an electric fence be installed to effectively mitigate human-wildlife conflict? Eur J Wildl Res 68:60. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10344-022-01606-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Honda T, Kuwata H, Yamasaki S, Miyagawa Y (2011) A low-cost, low-labor-intensity electric fence effective against wild boar, sika deer, Japanese macaque and medium-sized mammals. Mammal Study 36:113–117. https://doi.org/10.3106/041.036.0203

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Honda T, Ueda H (2023) Why mammals do not damage entire farmlands like insect pests do? A review from a behavioral perspective. Mammal Study 48(2). https://doi.org/10.3106/ms2022-0054

  • Hone J, Atkinson B (1983) Evaluation of fencing to control feral pig movement. Wildl Res 10:499–505

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jayakody S, Sibbald AM, Gordon IJ, Lambin X (2008) Red deer Cervus elephus vigilance behaviour differs with habitat and type of human disturbance. Wildlife Biol 14:81–91

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson HE, Fischer JW, Hammond M et al (2014) Evaluation of techniques to reduce deer and elk damage to agricultural crops. Wildl Soc Bull 38:358–365

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Judge J, McDonald RA, Walker N, Delahay RJ (2011) Effectiveness of biosecurity measures in preventing badger visits to farm buildings. PLoS ONE 6:e28941

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Kistler C, Hegglin D, von Wattenwyl K, Bontadina F (2013) Is electric fencing an efficient and animal-friendly tool to prevent stone martens from entering buildings? Eur J Wildl Res 59:905–909

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuznetsova A, Brockhoff PB, Christensen RHB (2017) lmerTest package: tests in linear mixed effects models. J Stat Softw 82:1–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • LaGrange TG, Hansen JL, Andrews RD et al (1995) Electric fence predator exclosure to enhance duck nesting: a long-term case study in Iowa. Wildl Soc Bull 23:261–266

    Google Scholar 

  • Laguna E, Barasona JA, Carpio AJ et al (2022) Permeability of artificial barriers (fences) for wild boar Sus scrofa in Mediterranean mixed landscapes. Pest Manag Sci. https://doi.org/10.1002/ps.6853

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Lazarus J, Symonds M (1992) Contrasting effects of protective and obstructive cover on avian vigilance. Anim Behav 43:519–521. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-3472(05)80110-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leblond M, Dussault C, Ouellet JP et al (2007) Electric fencing as a measure to reduce moose–vehicle collisions. J Wildl Manage 71:1695–1703

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Linhart SB, Roberts JD, Dasch GJ (1982) Electric fencing reduces coyote predation on pastured sheep in North Dakota, Kansas. J Range Manag 35:276–281

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu B, Sun Y, Wang B et al (2020) Effect of water content on mechanical and electrical characteristics of the water-rich sandstone during freezing. Environ Earth Sci 79:236

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lokemoen JT, Doty HA, Sharp DE, Neaville JE (1982) Electric fences to reduce mammalian predation on waterfowl nests. Wildl Soc Bull 10:318–323

    Google Scholar 

  • Madhavi TC, Annamalai S (2016) Electrical conductivity of concrete. ARPN J Eng Appl Sci 11:5979–5982

    Google Scholar 

  • McAtee WL (1939) The electric fence in wildlife management. J Wildl Manage 3:1–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKillop IG, Sibly RM (1988) Animal behaviour at electric fences and the implications for management. Mamm Rev 18:91–103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miles AD (1951) Electric fence for distribution of cattle on a range grazed by sheep and cattle. Rangel Ecol Manag 4:228–232

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moseby KE, Read JL (2006) The efficacy of feral cat, fox and rabbit exclusion fence designs for threatened species protection. Biol Conserv 127:429–437

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nass RD, Theade J (1988) Electric fences for reducing sheep losses to predators. J Range Manag 41:251–252

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Natarajan L, Kumar A, Qureshi Q et al (2021) Evaluation of wall-barriers to manage human conflict with Asian elephants in India. Wildl Soc Bull 45:215–220. https://doi.org/10.1002/wsb.1195

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poole DW, Western G, McKillop IG (2004) The effects of fence voltage and the type of conducting wire on the efficacy of an electric fence to exclude badgers (Meles meles). Crop Prot 23:27–33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porter WF (1983) A baited electric fence for controlling deer damage to orchard seedlings. Wildl Soc Bull 11:325–327

    Google Scholar 

  • R Core Team (2021) R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing

  • Rhoades JD, Raats PAC, Prather RJ (1976) Effects of liquid-phase electrical conductivity, water content, and surface conductivity on bulk soil electrical conductivity. Soil Sci Soc Am J 40:651–655

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • The Japan Meteorological Agency (2022) Statistical Information System. https://www.data.jma.go.jp/obd/stats/etrn/. Accessed 10 Nov 2022

  • Tierson WC (1969) Controlling deer use of forest vegetation with electric fences. J Wildl Manage 33:922–926

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • VerCauteren KC, Lavelle MJ, Hygnstrom S (2006) Fences and deer-damage management: a review of designs and efficacy. Wildl Soc Bull 34:191–200

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Webb SL, Gee KL, Demarais S et al (2009) Efficacy of a 15-strand high-tensile electric fence to control white-tailed deer movements. Wildl Biol Pract 5:45–57

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Editage (www.editage.com) for English language editing. We extend our deepest gratitude to Ms. Kaori Muramatsu for her invaluable assistance in verifying the video data.

Funding

This study was funded by the Comprehensive Research Organization for Science and Technology of Yamanashi Prefectural Government.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Yamanashi Prefecture Agricultural Technology Center, Shimoimai, Kai, 1100, Japan

    Takeshi Honda

  2. Yamanashi Industrial Technology Center, Otsu, Kofu, 2094, Japan

    Akio Shimizu & Hiroki Tominaga

Authors
  1. Takeshi Honda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Akio Shimizu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Hiroki Tominaga
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Methodology: Akio Shimizu, Hiroki Tominaga, and Takeshi Honda. Formal analysis and investigation: Akio Shimizu, Hiroki Tominaga, and Takeshi Honda. Writing—original draft preparation: Takeshi Honda. Writing—review and editing: Takeshi Honda, Akio Shimizu, and Hiroki Tominaga. Funding acquisition: Takeshi Honda.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Takeshi Honda.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval

All applicable international, national, and institutional guidelines for the care and use of animals were followed. This animal study was approved by the Yamanashi Prefectural Research Assessment Committee (No. 020901).

Conflict of interest

The author declares no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Honda, T., Shimizu, A. & Tominaga, H. Frozen soil reduces the effectiveness of the electric fences. Eur J Wildl Res 69, 98 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10344-023-01727-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10344-023-01727-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation