Sanath K. Muliya1,2,3*†
Vishnupriya Kolipakam1*†
Ramesh K. Pandey1,4,5
Souritra Sharma1
Kumar Pushkar6Thammaiah C. Kuttappa1
Chethan C. Manjunath1
Uddalak T. Bindhani1Lallianpuii Kawlni1Virendra R. Tiwari1
Qamar Qureshi1- 1Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun, Uttarakhand, India
- 2National Tiger Conservation Authority, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, New Delhi, India
- 3National Zoological Park, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, New Delhi, India
- 4Project Elephant, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, New Delhi, India
- 5Academy of Scientific and Innovative Research (AcSIR), Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh, India
- 6Karnataka Forest Department, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India
Elephants, vital to India’s ecological and cultural fabric, now navigate increasingly fragmented habitats, rising incidence of negative interactions with humans. This has resulted in substantial casualties on both sides, with India reporting over 500 human deaths and approximately 100 elephant fatalities from retaliatory killings annually. Long-term solutions to mitigate human-elephant conflict include enhancing habitat quality and connectivity, restoring historic migratory routes, and protecting existing elephant corridors while establishing new ones where necessary. However, implementing such extensive habitat modifications presents significant challenges due to complex political, societal, and economic factors. This necessitates interim measures to manage conflicts within tolerable levels until comprehensive long-term solutions can be achieved. Here, we reflect upon a sustainable coexistence case study by leveraging technological advancements in satellite telemetry and mass communication within a landscape that supports the single largest population of Asian elephants globally. This integrated strategy combines adaptive management with active engagement of affected local communities, who collaborate with rapid response teams and wildlife managers to monitor and respond to elephant movements, ensuring that conservation efforts are locally grounded and socially acceptable. Such an approach offers potential to ensure the long-term persistence of this flagship species while balancing ecological and human needs.
1 Introduction
Asian elephants (Elephas maximus) historically occupied a broad geographic range, spanning much of present-day Asia (Shoshani and Tassy, 1996; Sukumar, 2003; Pandey et al., 2024). However, their contemporary distribution has undergone severe range contractions, with populations now restricted to fragmented habitats across only 13 range countries (Pandey et al., 2024). India represents a critical stronghold for the species, hosting the world’s largest extant population, accounting for over 60% of the global wild elephant population. With an estimated 25,000–30,000 individuals distributed across 163,000 km2 of diverse landscapes, the population has been deemed reasonably stable (Pandey et al., 2024). Classified as “Endangered” by the IUCN and afforded the highest levels of protection under Appendix I of CITES and Schedule I of India’s Wildlife Protection Act (1972), the species remains a conservation priority (Kumar et al., 2010; Sharma et al., 2020; Williams et al., 2020).
India’s success in maintaining stable elephant populations has been attributed to robust policy frameworks, stringent legal enforcement, habitat protection measures, and inclusive stakeholder engagement (Gubbi et al., 2014; Pandey et al., 2024). Strong institutional support, coupled with public tolerance and political commitment, has not only facilitated population stability but also enhanced the species’ long-term survival prospects (Qureshi et al., 2023; Pandey et al., 2024). Nevertheless, human-elephant conflict (HEC) remains a persistent challenge in several regions of the country. As elephants increasingly inhabit human-dominated landscapes, negative interactions have escalated, posing significant threats to livelihoods, human safety, and conservation efforts (Qureshi et al., 2023).
For centuries, elephants have held a significant place in shaping the religious and cultural identity of many Asian civilizations (Kowner et al., 2019; Thekaekara et al., 2021). This longstanding cultural respect may have helped communities in the region tolerate elephants, even as negative interactions with them have increased over time. Ancient Sanskrit scriptures like the “Gajasastra” mention instances of elephants damaging crops in the Indian subcontinent as far back as the 6th and 5th centuries BCE, showing that human-elephant conflicts are not a new phenomenon in the region (Subrahmanya and Gopalan, 1958). Nevertheless, contemporary statistics reveal a disturbing trend in the dynamics of human-elephant interactions in the region. For instance, in India alone, over 50,000 farming families are affected annually by HEC, with crop losses estimated at one million hectares each year (Rangarajan et al., 2010). Between 2009 and 2020, an average of US$ 4.79 million was paid annually as ex gratia for property losses by the state and central governments of the country (Pandey et al., 2024). Tragically, this has also led to substantial human casualties, with more than 500 people dying annually due to negative human-elephant interactions across the country, constituting a significant public health concern (Gubbi et al., 2014; Natarajan et al., 2023; Pandey et al., 2024). Concurrently, retaliatory actions result in the documented killing of more than 100 elephants each year, representing a critical conservation challenge (Gubbi et al., 2014; Pandey et al., 2024). Failure to address this situation promptly could thus result in a drastic decline in public tolerance toward elephants, threatening the overarching goal of conserving these flagship species in the subcontinent.
1.1 Nature of human elephant conflict in India
The current causes of HEC in India are diverse and complex, primarily driven by habitat fragmentation and escalating anthropogenic pressures, including agricultural expansion, human settlements, livestock grazing, and encroachments (Krishnan et al., 2019; Natarajan et al., 2023). Notably, HEC is not necessarily a consequence of high elephant densities or rapid population growth. Instead, in certain regions, such as North and South Bengal in the state of West Bengal, Hassan and Kodagu districts in the state of Karnataka, even marginal increases in elephant numbers have exacerbated management challenges due to severely fragmented remnant habitats (Naha et al., 2019; Qureshi et al., 2023). These conflict-prone zones have historically experienced landscape fragmentation due to tea or coffee-based agroforestry practices, leaving elephant populations partially isolated within highly human-dominated environments (Bal et al., 2008; Qureshi et al., 2023). This spatial proximity intensifies human-elephant interactions, leading to recurrent conflicts that threaten both livelihoods and conservation efforts.
A comprehensive, landscape-level strategy is widely recognized as the crucial component for achieving a long-term solution to HEC in India (Rangarajan et al., 2010; Pandey et al., 2024). Such an approach entails restoring historic migratory routes, improving habitat quality and connectivity, and safeguarding existing elephant corridors while establishing new ones where necessary (Rangarajan et al., 2010; Project Elephant et al., 2024). As of 2023, under its Project Elephant initiative, India has adopted a landscape-based conservation strategy by establishing 33 Elephant Reserves spanning 14 states, covering 80,777 km2 of habitat; a 24% increase from the 65,000 km2 protected in 2010 (Pandey et al., 2024). However, achieving extensive habitat modifications still remains challenging due to the intricate political, societal, and economic considerations involved, making the process inherently time-consuming. Given these challenges, immediate conflict mitigation measures must be implemented alongside long-term habitat restoration efforts. These interim strategies aim to contain HEC within manageable levels while maintaining community support for elephant conservation. A phased and adaptive approach is crucial to balance ecological objectives with the needs of human populations, ensuring sustainable coexistence in shared landscapes.
1.2 Human elephant conflict in Karnataka State, Southern India
The southern Indian state of Karnataka currently sustains India’s largest wild Asian elephant population, representing what is likely the single largest population of this species worldwide, with an estimated 6,395 individuals distributed across 14,500 km2 of habitat (Krishnan et al., 2019; Karnataka Forest Department, 2023). The state demonstrated its conservation commitment to the species through the establishment of the Mysore Elephant Reserve in 2002, which remains India’s largest elephant conservation landscape (EIACP Centre, 2024). Spanning over 8,055.94 km2, the reserve encompasses a diverse mosaic of dry and moist deciduous forests, semi-evergreen and evergreen ecosystems, interspersed with agroforestry buffer zones that facilitate ecological connectivity (Gubbi et al., 2014; EIACP Centre, 2024).
While functioning as a conservation flagship species, elephants paradoxically represent Karnataka’s most conflict-prone megafauna (Muliya et al., 2023). Recent data reveal the scale of this challenge: between 2019-2021, the state recorded approximately 35,000 crop-raiding incidents and over 50 human fatalities attributable to elephants, necessitating ex-gratia payments totaling ∼4.1 million USD to affected communities (Muliya et al., 2023). Although HEC hotspots are concentrated in the South and Central Western Ghats region of the state, emerging patterns indicate significant spatial expansion, with HEC incidents now reported across 14 districts of Karnataka (Figures 1a, b). Additionally, a significant proportion of Karnataka’s elephant population now resides outside protected areas, primarily due to prolonged anthropogenic pressures such as land-use modifications. Concurrently, a substantial human population inhabits these same areas or the fringes of extant elephant habitats, resulting in frequent and severe negative interactions between humans and elephants (Krishnan et al., 2019).
Figure 1. (a) Geographical map of Karnataka State, indicating 14 HEC prone districts of the state & (b) HEC hotspots concentrated in the southern and central Western Ghats region of Karnataka.
1.3 Current mitigation measures and their effectiveness:
To mitigate HEC, wildlife managers globally, including in India, have implemented a range of mitigation techniques, most of which are deterrence-based approaches relying on fear conditioning to discourage elephants from entering human-dominated landscapes (Mumby and Plotnik, 2018; Panda et al., 2020). These immediate interventions primarily aim to either physically separate elephants from human settlements or deter conflict-prone individuals (Sitati et al., 2007; Panda et al., 2020). Common strategies include physical and chemical barriers, compensation and ex-gratia schemes for elephant-related damages, and translocation of recurrent conflict animals (Sitati et al., 2007; Menon, 2019; Mumby and Plotnik, 2018; Panda et al., 2020). Innovative biological approaches, such as beehive fences (King et al., 2009; Nair and Jayson, 2016) and chili-based deterrents (Chang’a et al., 2016; Gunaryadi et al., 2017), as well as acoustic or visual repellents like firecrackers and lights, have also been used to exploit elephants’ natural aversion to specific stimuli (Cabral de Mel et al., 2022). Although these measures can be effective in the short term when maintained consistently, their success is often context-dependent and limited by habituation, inconsistent upkeep, high implementation costs, and poorly planned translocations, which may displace conflicts to novel areas rather than resolving them (Fernando et al., 2012; Mumby and Plotnik, 2018; Galley and Anthony, 2024). Moreover, such strategies generally focus on exclusion rather than coexistence, addressing only the immediate symptoms of conflict without accounting for ecological drivers such as habitat fragmentation, seasonal resource scarcity, and elephant social behavior.
More recently, mitigation efforts have begun to incorporate ecological and behavioral insights, emphasizing the importance of understanding elephant movements, habitat use, and motivations leading to HEC instances (Mumby and Plotnik, 2018). In addition to landscape-level approaches, such as securing movement corridors and modifying agricultural practices (Kumara and Paramesha, 2024), the integration of early warning systems that utilize elephant communication cues represents a shift toward coexistence-oriented management (Mumby and Plotnik, 2018; Dharmarathne et al., 2020; Badola et al., 2021; Pandey et al., 2024). For example, AI-equipped camera traps have been employed to detect elephant presence in near real time and transmit alerts to village guards at relatively low cost, enabling proactive deterrence before HEC occurs (Brickson et al., 2023). Similarly, in Sri Lanka, elephants have been fitted with aversive geofencing devices to manage their movements within virtual boundaries (de Mel et al., 2023). In Kenya, a geofencing system using GSM-enabled radio collars notifies rangers of intruding elephants (Graham et al., 2012). Community-based mobile-phone networks have also enhanced prevention, with approximately three-quarters of local users in a Kenyan study area receiving timely alerts about nearby elephants and taking preemptive actions to avoid HEC instances (Graham et al., 2012).
Collectively, these innovations align conflict mitigation with elephant movement patterns and behavior, achieving preventive outcomes rather than merely reactive responses, and are considered scalable and cost-efficient. However, their successful implementation necessitates careful consideration of human dimensions, including socio-economic costs, land-use pressures, and community perceptions. Importantly, these approaches must be adapted and evaluated within local, site-specific contexts, as the ecological drivers, socio-cultural factors, and landscape characteristics influencing HEC may vary substantially. Recognizing the fluid and context-dependent nature of HEC, effective mitigation requires adaptive, multi-faceted strategies that reconcile the needs of both human and elephant populations within a broader socio-ecological framework. In this context, the present work is presented as a community case study, highlighting applied experience and lessons learned from implementing a satellite-telemetry and mass communication–based early warning system for human –elephant coexistence in Southern India’s agroforestry landscapes.
2 Context: elephants and agroforestry landscapes in Kodagu, Karnataka
Over the past few decades, the majority of HEC instances in Karnataka have been concentrated in the agroforestry landscapes of Kodagu and Hassan districts (Bal et al., 2011; Krishnan et al., 2019; Anoop et al., 2023; Muliya et al., 2023). Kodagu, in particular, spans a total geographical area of 4,102 km2, of which 3,257 km2 is forested (Government of Karnataka, 2023). The district includes the Nagarhole Tiger Reserve and three wildlife sanctuaries, Talacauvery, Pushpagiri, and Brahmagiri, which, together with adjacent protected areas, form a contiguous corridor extending to the Eastern Ghats in neighbouring states. This landscape sustains the largest single population of Asian elephants, estimated at ~9,000 individuals (Sukumar, 1989), with an exceptionally high density of 1–3 elephants per km2 (Kemf and Santiapillai, 2000).
The land use in Kodagu is dominated by extensive coffee plantations, which serve as the primary cash crop, typically intercropped with banana, cardamon, turmeric, and black pepper (Muliya et al., 2023). The district ranks among India’s largest coffee producers, contributing approximately 40% of the nation’s and 2% of the global coffee output (Shivani and Iyer, 2024). Additionally, low-lying areas and swamps are frequently utilized for paddy cultivation (Figure 2a), further diversifying the agricultural landscape (Anoop et al., 2023). Historically, paddy cultivation was a major income source in Kodagu until coffee emerged as the dominant commercial crop, leading to its widespread expansion (Ramakrishnan et al., 2000). Driven by commercial coffee market, cultivation intensified between 1977 and 2007, resulting in a 30% loss of natural forest cover and a 100% increase in coffee plantation area (Elouard and Guilmoto, 2000; Bal et al., 2011). While protected areas maintained their ecological integrity, agroforestry expansion primarily occurred at the expense of private forests, resulting in substantial biodiversity decline and landscape transformation.
Figure 2. (a) Farmers taking stock of damage caused by an elephant herd in paddy fields of Kodagu district, Karnataka. Such fields in Kodagu are usually located adjacent to large coffee estates or community owned forests, which act as refuge for crop raiding elephants in the landscape. (b) An Elephant herd venturing into a Kodagu coffee plantation, its canopy cover and native trees mirroring nearby forest habitats (c) An adult tusker damaging the areca palm plantation in Kodagu district, Karnataka & (d) A Matriarch, along with the heard in Coffee plantation of Kodagu. Water bodies found in such plantations are perennial, contrasting with the seasonal ones in nearby protected areas.
This transition markedly modified forest community structure and reduced habitat quality for many species, though the canopy architecture remained largely preserved. Approximately 60% of Kodagu retains shade-grown coffee plantations and other crops such as cardamom, which structurally mimic natural forests (Figure 2b), an ecological feature that continues to influence elephant habitat use (Narayana, 2015). These modified habitats provide critical advantages for elephants, including availability of perennial water sources in plantations (Figures 2c, d), unlike seasonal availability in adjacent protected areas (Muliya et al., 2023). Additionally, the Kodava community, the native people of the region, maintain extensive patches of sacred groves and communally managed forests across the landscape as part of their ethnocultural traditions (Chandrakanth et al., 2014). These areas are increasingly serving as critical refuge habitats for elephant herds exhibiting high conflict propensity (Narayana, 2015; Muliya et al., 2023). The combined effects of such resource attributes, along with high elephant density has increased the reliance of elephant populations outside protected areas on coffee-dominated landscapes (Menon, 2019). With a human population density of 135 individuals/km2 and an annual growth rate of 1.09% (Government of Karnataka, 2011), the interface between expanding anthropogenic activities and elephant habitat use has intensified in the region.
3 Advancing human elephant coexistence in Kodagu with satellite telemetry
Recent advances in communication technology have enabled the development of Early Warning Systems (EWS) as an effective, non-lethal approach to mitigating human-wildlife conflict (Foyet and Louis, 2023). These systems operate through rapid detection of wildlife incursions into anthropogenic landscapes, followed by real-time alert dissemination via mobile networks, broadcast media, or dedicated alarm systems to local communities, conservation stakeholders, and wildlife authorities. Similarly, in the context of elephants, pioneering work on manual detection-based EWS in Valparai, Tamil Nadu, India, has significantly reduced the negative outcomes of HEC instances in these areas while proactively enhancing forest managers’ ability to respond promptly (Kumar and Raghunathan, 2014).
The success of EWS depends on the precise and timely detection of elephant movements in human-dominated areas, which may not always be achievable with manual detection methods. Technological advancements like telemetry have emerged as powerful tools in wildlife conservation and management, offering unique opportunities to study wildlife ecology and behavior, including movement patterns Habib et al., 2014). In response to the rising incidents of human-wildlife conflict across India, a project in 2018 titled ‘Population Management of Species Involved in Human-Wildlife Conflicts’ was undertaken by the Wildlife Institute of India (WII). The project aimed to develop comprehensive, species-specific strategies, combining short and long-term measures to manage conflict-prone populations sustainably (Qureshi et al., 2023). As elephants were one of the target species, the Karnataka Forest Department (KFD) and WII collaborated to implement a telemetry-based EWS by deploying 25 advanced satellite radio collars on conflict-prone elephants between 2019 and 2022 in Karnataka, with 11 of these placed on elephants inhabiting coffee-agroforestry landscapes in Kodagu. This built upon KFD’s 2017 pilot using GSM-GPS collars, which, despite technical limitations from patchy network coverage, demonstrated telemetry’s potential for conflict mitigation.
3.1 Programmatic elements of Kodagu EWS: collar deployment and information dissemination
Based on local knowledge, information from local forest department personal, and focal surveys, elephant herds were rigorously profiled in 2019, and satellite collar deployment were prioritized for either matriarchs of conflict-causing herds or lone tuskers responsible for known human fatalities. Using this selection approach, a total of six matriarchs (representing herds comprising approximately 90 elephants) and five males were radio-collared. Capture operations involved chemical immobilization process by trained wildlife veterinarians using etorphine hydrochloride (7 mg for subadult males; 9–11 mg for adults) or xylazine hydrochloride (900–1200 mg)/reduced etorphine (7–8 mg) for females to enable standing sedation, facilitated by trained kumki elephants (Sanath Muliya; unpublished data). Kumkis (captive elephants used in South Asian elephant capture and management) performed critical functions including target location in dense vegetation, facilitation of darting, sedation site guidance, and proper positioning during collar attachment, thereby minimizing physiological stress while ensuring operational safety (Figures 3a, b).
Figure 3. (a) Satellite collar deployment on a matriarch in kodagu coffee plantation. The procedure, conducted under standing sedation, is supported by trained ‘Kumki’ elephants to ensure safety for both the animal and personnel involved. (b) Satellite collar deployment on a Tusker in Kodagu Coffee Plantation. The procedure, differing from standing sedation used for females, employs opioid capture drugs to fully anesthetize males in the field.
Following successful immobilization, elephants were fitted with advanced satellite collars (Africa Wildlife Tracking cc, Pretoria, South Africa) equipped with Iridium satellite transmitters providing near real-time GPS tracking capabilities, and were immediately released at the capture location. These programmable collars enabled wildlife managers to adjust location transmission frequencies from 5-minute to 24-hour intervals based on monitoring requirements. Upon activation, the telemetry data were visualized for individual elephants and subsequently disseminated to stakeholders through multiple communication channels, including: (1) rapid response teams for immediate conflict mitigation, (2) local community alert networks in areas of elephant movement, and (3) research biologists for ecological studies. A detailed schematic of the satellite telemetry integration within EWS in Kodagu, illustrating the complete workflow from data acquisition to alert dissemination is presented as Figure 4.
Figure 4. Operational workflow of the satellite telemetry-based EWS for mitigating human-elephant conflict in Kodagu, Karnataka.
4 Discussion: management implications and community response
Effective management of human-wildlife conflicts requires adaptive, scalable solutions that minimize ecological and ethical trade-offs. Satellite telemetry and mass communication-based EWS in Kodagu is one such innovation, which facilitates temporary, non-lethal separation of elephants and humans at flexible spatial scales. While a quantitative assessment of this EWS’s efficacy is pending due to ongoing conflict data analysis, preliminary evidence highlights its substantial qualitative and practical benefits (Table 1), providing a viable alternative to traditional, high-intervention strategies like capture and translocation.
Table 1. Practical value of the satellite telemetry-based EWS in mitigating human-elephant conflict in Kodagu, Karnataka.
The limitations of translocation as a conflict mitigation tool are well-documented (Poole et al., 2011). Elephants, as highly intelligent and socially complex organisms, rely on stable, multi-tiered networks maintained through vocal, tactile, and spatial interactions (Rutherford and Murray, 2021; Bonaparte-Saller and Mench, 2018). Translocation disrupts these critical social structures, particularly in India, where logistical constraints often preclude whole-herd relocations. Individual translocations not only inflict psychological distress on displaced elephants but also destabilize source herds, while the loss of environmental familiarity further undermines individual fitness (Fernando et al., 2012; Shier and Swaisgood, 2012). Compounding these challenges, translocated elephants frequently exhibit strong philopatry, navigating hazardous anthropogenic landscapes in attempts to return to their original ranges (Pinter-Wollman et al., 2009; Fernando et al., 2012). This homing behavior forces elephants to traverse unfamiliar, human-dominated landscapes, increasing the likelihood of aggressive human-elephant interactions. Even when translocated individuals remain in release areas, their crop-raiding behavior often persists, effectively transferring conflict to new regions rather than resolving it (Fernando et al., 2012).
In this context, satellite-collared EWS emerges as a sustainable solution by enabling real-time monitoring and preemptive management of elephants within their natural habitats (Babu, 2021). While the initial capture and collaring process is undeniably invasive and may induce acute stress in captured individuals, this short-term impact must be weighed against the long-term benefits for both elephant populations and human communities. The transient suffering of specific individuals may be regarded as an acceptable, albeit regrettable, cost when balanced against the broader imperative of species conservation, ecosystem resilience, and conflict reduction. By facilitating proactive mitigation strategies, EWS supports the long-term health and stability of elephant populations in their native landscapes, promoting coexistence, a critical step toward ethically and ecologically sound conflict mitigation.
The implementation of EWS in Kodagu extends beyond ecological significance, offering demonstrable benefits for human communities coexisting with elephants. Wildlife managers systematically disseminate real-time elephant movement data derived from satellite telemetry to local communities and plantation owners through multiple communication channels, including cross-platform mobile messaging services and radio broadcasts. This early alert system enables residents to make informed decisions by avoiding areas of active elephant presence, thereby reducing the probability of sudden encounters (Babu, 2021). The resulting human behavioral adaptation, manifested as increased caution when elephants are nearby, has contributed to a measurable decline in negative interactions. Beyond immediate safety benefits, this transparent information sharing has significantly improved community perceptions of forest department initiatives (Qureshi et al., 2023). Most notably, the approach’s demonstrated effectiveness is evident in how communities that previously advocated for elephant removal now actively support collaring programs, recognizing their vital role in conflict reduction (Indresh, 2021).
The system’s real-time monitoring capability has also enabled wildlife managers to implement timely interventions through coordinated deployment of Rapid Response Teams (Babu, 2021; Menon, 2023). These specialized units perform critical functions including driving elephants away from human settlements, enforcing temporary activity restrictions in elephant movement areas, and facilitating preventive evacuations during elephant raids. This proactive approach has demonstrated measurable success in reducing human fatalities while optimizing the deployment of limited management resources available (Babu, 2021). Importantly, by replacing reactive, ad-hoc deterrence methods with predictive management, the system has reduced secondary impacts including unwarranted additional crop damages that often results from uncoordinated attempts to drive away conflict elephants. Moreover, the tracking data has also proven to be a reliable tool for cross-verifying crop damage claims, ensuring a fair and transparent ex-gratia payment process across the landscape.
Equally important is the telemetry based EWS’s contribution to frontline staff safety, an aspect frequently marginalized in conflict mitigation discussions. The Kodagu landscape has documented multiple instances of severe injuries and even some fatalities among frontline personnel during conventional elephant management and driving operations (Dundi, 2022; DHNS, 2023). The current program’s integration of VHF ground tracking enables frontline staff and RRTs to maintain safe operational distances through precise, on-ground elephant localization. While it is obvious that not all elephants in the landscape are collared, the strategic selection of matriarchs from conflict-causing herds has allowed for effective daily tracking of over 90 elephants, substantially enhancing safety of personal involved in management interventions. This technological enhancement has thus transformed field safety protocols, simultaneously protecting both frontline personnel and local community, a dual benefit that underscores the system’s comprehensive value in human-elephant coexistence strategies.
4.1 Advancing ecological and ethological knowledge
Apart from enhanced conflict mitigation efforts, the EWS exercise in Kodagu has also yielded unprecedented ecological insights into elephant behavior within human-dominated landscapes. The program has amassed approximately 104,764 elephant location points over 4,516 observation days until early 2022 (Qureshi et al., 2023), creating one of the most extensive datasets on elephant movement ecology in agroforestry systems. By transforming these data into predictive tools (Figures 5a–c), the EWS bridges ecological research and practical conflict mitigation, ensuring strategies are both scientifically grounded and responsive to on-the-ground realities, a critical advancement toward sustainable coexistence.
Figure 5. (a) Satellite telemetry–derived home range of a resident female Ananya in Kodagu under the EWS, transiting between human-dominated landscapes and the adjacent protected area. (b) Satellite telemetry–derived home range of a resident matriarch female Meera in Kodagu under the Early Warning System (EWS), located exclusively within a human-dominated landscape. (c) Satellite telemetry–derived home range of a resident matriarch female Akansha in Kodagu under the Early Warning System (EWS), located exclusively within a human-dominated landscape.
The extensive dataset collected through this initiative has also shed light on the spatial and behavioral dynamics of elephants in Kodagu. Analyses revealed home ranges to vary from 41–97 km2, with some herds ranging both inside and outside protected areas (PA), underscoring their reliance on resources beyond PA for survival. Notably, three herds (approximately 20–25 individuals) exclusively used plantations over three years, never venturing into PA despite being just 10–15 km away (Sharma et al., 2023). This finding challenges the earlier belief that plantations were merely stopovers during seasonal migrations and highlights elephants’ remarkable adaptability to human-dominated landscapes.
Movement analyses further demonstrated elephants’ adaptive strategies such as directed and purposeful movements in forest patches versus more tortuous and meandering paths in cultivated areas, and a pronounced shift toward nocturnal activity (Sharma et al., 2023), behavioral adjustments that suggests awareness of danger outside the protected areas and likely reduce human encounters. These insights collectively emphasize the importance of understanding elephant movement ecology to design effective, adaptive management strategies that balance conservation and human needs.
5 Implementation challenges, future applications and way forward
The field applicability and practical effectiveness of satellite telemetry-based EWS have prompted the Karnataka government to expand the initiative statewide, integrating it as a routine management measure. Since the substantial costs and maintenance requirements present financial barriers to broader adoption, the State Government is also leading initiatives for local collar development to improve availability and affordability (The Hindu Bureau, 2025).
While satellite telemetry-based EWS presents a transformative approach to HEC mitigation, its largescale implementation faces several logistical constraints. Elephant capture and collaring procedures constitute a technically demanding intervention requiring specialized veterinary competencies and trained captive elephant support teams. Although Karnataka maintains relatively advanced operational capacity in this domain, such expertise may be scarce across other conflict-affected states in India. While WII has been providing nationwide ad hoc veterinary support, developing institutional expertise at state level remains imperative; not solely for capture-collaring operations, but for comprehensive HWC mitigation and wildlife health initiatives.
The procedure itself is inherently invasive and carries non-negligible risks, including capture stress to the animals and potential injury to personnel during capture. However, given the escalating human-elephant conflict scenarios across India and the proven efficacy of EWS in reducing fatalities and economic losses, these interventions represent a critical need of the hour. The short-term stresses imposed during collaring must be weighed against the system’s long-term benefits, enhanced safety for both elephants and humans, data-driven conservation strategies, and the prevention of more drastic measures like retaliatory killings. As such, despite its constraints, EWS deployment remains an essential stopgap measure while parallel efforts continue to address habitat restoration and landscape-level conservation solutions.
The novel insight that certain elephant herds use plantations as permanent residences or display high fidelity to these areas, underscores the urgent need for innovative population management strategies. Given that culling is neither culturally nor legally acceptable in India, and translocation or capture has proven impractical, more humane interventions such as immunocontraception offer a promising alternative. Immunocontraception, as demonstrated in African elephant populations in South Africa, is safe, effective, and reversible, making it an ideal tool for managing elephant numbers without disrupting social structures or causing harm (Fayrer-Hosken et al., 2000). Recognizing its potential, the Ministry of Environment Forest & Climate Change, Government of India, echoes the view to take up a pilot research project with WII to explore the pros and cons of immunocontraception as a viable solution in the country. This is also in line with the actions outlined by the Elephant Task Force, constituted by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government of India, which endorses development and exploration of reproduction control techniques for mitigation of HEC and the need for serious and sustained scientific research in the field (Rangarajan et al., 2010). This approach, combined with ongoing monitoring and community engagement, represents a balanced way forward, ensuring coexistence while safeguarding both human livelihoods and elephant populations. Until long-term habitat restoration and conservation measures are achieved, such adaptive and humane strategies are essential for maintaining ecological harmony and reducing conflict in shared landscapes.
Data availability statement
The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.
Ethics statement
The animal study was approved by Institutional Animal Ethics Committee (IAEC) of the Wildlife Institute of India (IAEC Certificate No. WII/IAEC/2017-18). Further, all elephant captures were conducted in compliance with the existing laws under the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972, Government of India, specifically under the following permissions: PCCF(WL)/C2/CR-22/2017-18 dated 02/05/2020, PCCF(WL)/C2/CR-59/2016-17 dated 27/04/2021, PCCF(WL)/C2/CR-22/2017-18 dated 03/08/2021, and PCCF(WL)/C2/CR-22/2017-18, dated 11/02/2022. The study was conducted in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. Written informed consent was obtained from the individual(s) for the publication of any potentially identifiable images or data included in this article.
Author contributions
SM: Data curation, Validation, Methodology, Conceptualization, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing, Investigation, Formal Analysis, Software. VK: Funding acquisition, Methodology, Formal Analysis, Writing – review & editing, Software, Investigation, Visualization, Data curation, Project administration, Writing – original draft, Validation, Resources, Conceptualization, Supervision. RP: Supervision, Methodology, Validation, Conceptualization, Investigation, Data curation, Funding acquisition, Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Formal Analysis, Software, Resources, Project administration, Visualization. SS: Investigation, Writing – original draft, Software, Data curation, Formal Analysis, Writing – review & editing, Methodology. KP: Writing – review & editing, Project administration, Conceptualization, Supervision, Resources, Writing – original draft. TK: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Software, Investigation, Formal Analysis, Data curation, Methodology. UB: Writing – review & editing, Software, Investigation, Writing – original draft, Methodology, Formal Analysis, Data curation. LK: Project administration, Conceptualization, Validation, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – review & editing, Investigation, Resources, Funding acquisition, Writing – original draft, Software, Visualization. VT: Project administration, Validation, Supervision, Funding acquisition, Writing – original draft, Visualization, Writing – review & editing, Resources. QQ: Project administration, Formal Analysis, Conceptualization, Visualization, Validation, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – original draft, Software, Funding acquisition, Writing – review & editing, Data curation, Resources, Investigation. CM: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Software, Investigation, Formal Analysis, Data curation, Methodology, Resources.
Funding
The author(s) declared that financial support was received for this work and/or its publication. This study was conducted as part of a larger project, ‘Population Management of Species Involved in Human-Wildlife Conflict,’ undertaken by the Wildlife Institute of India, funded by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government of New Delhi, under grant order no. 8-98/2016-WL dated 30th January, 2018.
Acknowledgments
We are grateful to the Mr Subhash K. Malkhede, IFS, Chief Wildlife Warden & Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (wildlife) for granting permissions and continued support. We are also grateful to Former Chief Wildlife Wardens of the state, Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Wildlife & Project Elephant, concerned Divisional Forest Officers, and officials of the Karnataka Forest Department for granting permissions and providing logistical support. The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support provided by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government of India, which made this project possible. We extend our sincere thanks to the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH for their financial and technical support for some of the field operations, including the provision of radio collars, under the Indo-German Technical Cooperation on Human-Wildlife Conflict Mitigation in India programme. Special thanks to Dr. Navaneethan B (GIZ, India) and Sumanth Bindumadhav (HSI, India) for their invaluable on-field assistance during capture and collar deployment operations. Mr Dillan Madnanna is acknowledged for valuable support in visual documentation of project activities. This work would not have been possible without the unwavering dedication and tireless efforts of Karnataka Forest veterinarians (Dr Mujibur Rehman, Dr Ramesh Huliya & Dr Vaseem Mirza), WII researchers, Karnataka Forest field staff, and the kumki elephant mahouts and kaavadis, whose expertise and commitment were pivotal to the successful implementation this initiative.
Conflict of interest
The authors declared that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Generative AI statement
The author(s) declared that generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.
Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
Anoop N. R., Samrat A., and Ganesh T. (2023). Elephants in the farm–changing temporal and seasonal patterns of human-elephant interactions in a forest-agriculture matrix in the Western Ghats, India. Front. Conserv. Sci. 4, 1142325. doi: 10.3389/fcosc.2023.1142325
Babu S. (2021). Mitigating human-elephant conflict in Hassan-Kodagu landscape through information & communication technology. Trumpet 2, 34–30. Available online at: https://moef.gov.in/uploads/2020/11/Quarterly-Journal-Vol-2-Issue-3-OCT-DEC-2021.pdf (Accessed May 3, 2025).
Badola R., Ahmed T., Gill A. K., Dobriyal P., Das G. C., Badola S., et al. (2021). An incentive-based mitigation strategy to encourage coexistence of large mammals and humans along the foothills of Indian Western Himalayas. Sci. Rep. 11, 5235. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-84119-7
Bal P., Nath C. D., and Garcia C. (2008). Drivers of human elephant interactions in coffee agro-forestry landscapes in Kodagu (Western Ghats), India: An approach to understand the human-elephant conflict. Agritrop. Available online at: https://agritrop.cirad.fr/550939/1/document_550939.pdf (March 15, 2025).
Bal P., Nath C. D., Nanaya K. M., Kushalappa C. G., and Garcia C. (2011). Erratum to: Elephants also like coffee: Trends and drivers of human–elephant conflicts in coffee agroforestry landscapes of Kodagu, Western Ghats, India. Environ. Manage. 48, 263–275. doi: 10.1007/s00267-011-9718-0
Bonaparte-Saller M. and Mench J. A. (2018). Assessing the dyadic social relationships of female African (Loxodonta africana) and Asian (Elephas maximus) zoo elephants using proximity, tactile contact, and keeper surveys. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 199, 45–51. doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2017.10.011
Brickson L., Zhang L., Vollrath F., Douglas-Hamilton I., and Titus A. J. (2023). Elephants and algorithms: a review of the current and future role of AI in elephant monitoring. J. R. Soc. Interface 20, p.20230367. doi: 10.1098/rsif.2023.0367
Cabral de Mel S. J., Seneweera S., de Mel R. K., Dangolla A., Weerakoon D. K., Maraseni T., et al. (2022). Current and future approaches to mitigate conflict between humans and Asian elephants: the potential use of aversive geofencing devices. Animals 12, p.2965. doi: 10.3390/ani12212965
Chandrakanth M. G., Accavva M. S., Bhat M. G., Nagaraja M. G., and Van Huylenbroeck G. (2014). Existence value of Kodagu Devara Kadu, sacred groves in India. (Bangalore: Institute for Social and Economic Change). Available online at: https://www.isec.ac.in/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/PB-31-Sacred-Groves-in-India_Final.pdf (Accessed May 3, 2025).
Chang’a A., Souza de N., Muya J., Keyyu J., Mwakatobe A., Malugu L., et al. (2016). Scaling-up the use of chili fences for reducing human-elephant conflict across landscapes in Tanzania. Trop. Conserv. Sci. 9, pp.921–pp.930. doi: 10.1177/194008291600900220
de Mel S. J. C., Seneweera S., de Mel R. K., Medawala M., Abeysinghe N., Dangolla A., et al. (2023). Virtual fencing of captive Asian elephants fitted with an aversive geofencing device to manage their movement. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 258, 105822. doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2022.105822
Dharmarathne C., Fernando C., Weerasinghe C., and Corea R. (2020). Project orange elephant is a conflict specific holistic approach to mitigating human-elephant conflict in Sri Lanka. Commun. Biol. 3, p.43. doi: 10.1038/s42003-020-0760-4
DHNS (2023). “Forest staffer dies in elephant attack in Kodagu district,” in Deccan herald. Available online at: https://www.deccanherald.com/India/karnataka/forest-staffer-dies-in-elephant-attack-in-kodagu-district-2672797 (Accessed May 3, 2025).
Dundi D. B. (2022). God, enemy, child: relationships between elephants and humans in the western ghats, India (London: University of Roehampton).
EIACP Centre (2024). “Mysuru elephant reserve,” in Wildlife series: elephant reserves. Ed. Ramesh K. (Dehradun: Wildlife Institute of India). Available online at: https://wiienvis.nic.in/PublicationDetails.aspx?SubLinkId=6051&LinkId=11085&Year=2024.
Elouard C. and Guilmoto C. (2000). “Vegetation features in relation to biogeography,” in Mountain biodiversity, land use dynamics, and traditional ecological knowledge (Oxford and IBH, New Delhi), 25–42.
Fayrer-Hosken R. A., Grobler D., Van Altena J. J., Bertschinger H. J., and Kirkpatrick J. F. (2000). Immunocontraception of african elephants. Nature 407, 149. doi: 10.1038/35025136
Fernando P., Leimgruber P., Prasad T., and Pastorini J. (2012). Problem-elephant translocation: Translocating the problem and the elephant? PLoS One 7, e50917. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0050917
Foyet M. and Louis M. P. (2023). Enhancing conservation communication: Using digital literacy to address the misunderstanding of Southern Africa’s sustainable use approach in western settings. J. Policy Gov. 3, 17. doi: 10.33002/jpg030202
Galley W. and Anthony B. P. (2024). Beyond crop-raiding: Unravelling the broader impacts of human-wildlife conflict on rural communities. Environ. Manage. 74, 590–608. doi: 10.1007/s00267-024-02018-9
Government of Karnataka. (2011). District Census Handbook: Kodagu, Census of India 2011. Karnataka, Government of India: Directorate of Census Operations. Available online at: https://kodagu.nic.in/en/about-district/demography/ (Accessed May 7, 2025).
Government of Karnataka. (2023). Economic survey of karnataka 2022-23. Available online at: https://des.karnataka.gov.in/storage/pdf-files/Economic%20Survey%202022-23%20English.pdf (Accessed May 7, 2025).
Graham M. D., Adams W. M., and Kahiro G. N. (2012). Mobile phone communication in effective human elephant–conflict management in Laikipia County, Kenya. Oryx 46, pp.137–pp.144. doi: 10.1017/S0030605311001104
Gubbi S., Swaminath M. H., Poornesha H. C., Bhat R., and Raghunath R. (2014). An elephantine challenge: Human–elephant conflict distribution in the largest Asian elephant population, southern India. Biodivers. Conserv. 23, 633–647. doi: 10.1007/s10531-014-0621-x
Gunaryadi D., Sugiyo, and Hedges S. (2017). Community-based human–elephant conflict mitigation: the value of an evidence-based approach in promoting the uptake of effective methods. PLoS One 12, e0173742. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0173742
Habib B., Shrotriya S., Sivakumar K., Sinha P. R., and Mathur V. B. (2014). Three decades of wildlife radio telemetry in India: a review. Anim. Biotelem. 2, 1–10. doi: 10.1186/2050-3385-2-4
Indresh C. (2021). “Radio-collaring proves effective in checking wild elephant raids,” in The hans India. Available online at: https://www.thehansIndia.com/news/cities/bengaluru/radio-collaring-proves-effective-in-checking-wild-elephant-raids-696686 (Accessed May 3, 2025).
Karnataka Forest Department (2023). Asian elephant (Elephas maximus) population size and structure estimates for karnataka – interim report (Bengaluru: Karnataka Forest Department).
Kemf E. and Santiapillai C. (2000). Asian elephants in the wild (Gland: WWF-World Wide Fund for Nature).
King L. E., Lawrence A., Douglas-Hamilton I., and Vollrath F. (2009). Beehive fence deters crop-raiding elephants. Afr. J. Ecol. 47, pp.131–pp.137. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2028.2009.01114.x
Kowner R., Bar-Oz G., Biran M., Shahar M., and Shelach-Lavi G. (2019). “Animals and human society in Asia: an overview and premises,” in Animals and human society in asia. Eds. Kowner R., Bar-Oz G., Biran M., Shahar M., and Shelach-Lavi G. (Palgrave Macmillan, Cham), 1–29. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-24363-0_1
Krishnan V., Kumar M. A., Raghunathan G., and Vijayakrishnan S. (2019). Distribution and habitat use by Asian elephants (Elephas maximus) in a coffee-dominated landscape of southern India. Trop. Conserv. Sci. 12, 1940082918822599. doi: 10.1177/1940082918822599
Kumar M. A., Mudappa D., and Raman T. S. (2010). Asian elephant Elephas maximus habitat use and ranging in fragmented rainforest and plantations in the Anamalai Hills, India. Trop. Conserv. Sci. 3, 143–158. doi: 10.1177/19400829100030020
Kumar M. A. and Raghunathan G. (2014). Fostering human-elephant coexistence in the Valparai landscape, Anamalai Tiger Reserve, Tamil Nadu. Human-Wildlife Conflict in the Mountains of SAARC Region Compilation of Successful Management Strategies and Practices, 14–26.
Kumara R. R. and Paramesha B. P. (2024). Sericulture for sustainable livelihood, where humans and elephants co-exist in karnataka, India. Gajah 57, 20–22. doi: 10.2305/NIGB3741
Menon A. (2019). “Crisis in Kodagu: Can humans and elephants co-exist?” in Roundglass Sustain. Available online at: https://roundglasssustain.com/conservation/crisis-kodagu-can-humans-elephants-co-exist (Accessed May 7, 2025).
Menon A. (2023). “There is more to radio collaring than cheetah deaths,” in Mongabay. Available online at: https://India.mongabay.com/2023/10/there-is-more-to-radio-collaring-than-cheetah-deaths/ (Accessed May 7, 2025).
Muliya S. K., Sharma S., Kuttappa T. C., Chetan C. M., Chatarjee D., Nasir M., et al. (2023). “Understanding human-elephant conflict,” in Population management of species involved in human wildlife conflict. Ed. Qureshi Q., et al (Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun). TR No/2023/14.
Mumby H. S. and Plotnik J. M. (2018). Taking the elephants’ perspective: remembering elephant behavior, cognition and ecology in human-elephant conflict mitigation. Front. Ecol. Evol. 6, 122. doi: 10.3389/fevo.2018.00122
Naha D., Sathyakumar S., Dash S., Chettri A., and Rawat G. S. (2019). Assessment and prediction of spatial patterns of human-elephant conflicts in changing land cover scenarios of a human-dominated landscape in North Bengal. PloS One 14, e0210580. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0210580
Nair R. P. and Jayson E. A. (2016). Effectiveness of beehive fences to deter crop raiding elephants in Kerala, India. Int. Res. J. Natural Appl. Sci. 3, 14–19.
Narayana M. H. (2015). A Study on Elephant and Human Interactions in Kodagu, South India. (dissertation thesis). (Scotland: University of Stirling).
Natarajan L., Nigam P., and Pandav B. (2023). Impacts of passive elephant rewilding: assessment of human fatalities in India. Environ. Conserv. 50, 186–191. doi: 10.1017/S0376892923000115
Panda P. P., Noyal T., and Dasgupta S. (2020). Best practices of human-elephant conflict management in India (Dehradun: Elephant Cell, Wildlife Institute of India).
Pandey R. K., Yadav S. P., Selvan K. M., Natarajan L., and Nigam P. (2024). Elephant conservation in India: Striking a balance between coexistence and conflicts. Integr. Conserv. 3, 1–11. doi: 10.1002/inc3.38
Pinter-Wollman N., Isbell L. A., and Hart L. A. (2009). Assessing translocation outcome: comparing behavioral and physiological aspects of translocated and resident African elephants (Loxodonta africana). Biol. Conserv. 142, 1116–1124. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2009.01.027
Poole J. H., Lindsay W. K., Lee P. C., Moss C. J., and Croze H. (2011). “Ethical approaches to elephant conservation,” in The amboseli elephants: A long-term perspective on a long-lived mammal (University of Chicago Press, Chicago), 318–336. doi: 10.7208/chicago/9780226542263.003
Project Elephant, Wildlife Institute of India and Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change. (2024). Framework for preparation of elephant conservation plan for the elephant reserves. Available online at: https://www.moef.gov.in/uploads/pdf/framework_preparation_elephant_conservation_plan.pdf (Accessed May 3, 2025).
Qureshi Q., Muliya S. K., Kawlni L., Kolipakam V., Gusain P., Hussain K., et al. (2023). Population management of species involved in human wildlife conflict (Dehradun: Wildlife Institute of India). TR No/2023/14.
Ramakrishnan P. S., Chandrashekara U. M., Elouard C., Guilmoto C. Z., Maikhuri R. K., Rao K. S., et al. (2000). Mountain biodiversity, land use dynamics, and traditional ecological knowledge (New Delhi: Oxford & IBH Publishing).
Rangarajan M., Desai A., Sukumar R., Easa P. S., Menon V., Vincent S., et al. (2010). Gajah: securing the future for elephants in India. The report of the elephant task force (New Delhi: Ministry of Environment and Forests).
Rutherford L. and Murray L. E. (2021). Personality and behavioral changes in Asian elephants (Elephas maximus) following the death of herd members. Integr. Zool. 16, 170–188. doi: 10.1111/1749-4877.12476
Sharma S., Muliya S. K., Kolipakam V., Thammaiah C. K., Chethan C. M., Kulkarni P., et al. (2023). Pachyderms in plantations: ranging patterns and habitat use of Asian elephants (Elephas maximus indicus) in an agroforestry landscape of Southern Karnataka, India. Proc. Br. Ecol. Soc Annu. Meet. 2023. doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35767.91044
Sharma P., Panthi S., Yadav S. K., Bhatta M., Karki A., Duncan T., et al. (2020). Suitable habitat of wild Asian elephant in Western Terai of Nepal. Ecol. Evol. 10, 6112–6119. doi: 10.1002/ece3.6356
Shier D. M. and Swaisgood R. R. (2012). Fitness costs of neighborhood disruption in translocations of a solitary mammal. Conserv. Biol. 26, 116–123. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2011.01748.x
Shivani M. P. and Iyer A. S. (2024). “From beans to business: a rise of coffee preneurs in Kodagu, Karnataka. From Beans to Business: A Rise of Coffee Preneurs in Kodagu, Karnataka,” in Harnessing AI, machine learning, and ioT for intelligent business. Studies in systems, decision and control, vol. 555 . Eds. Hamdan A. and Braendle U. (Springer Nature Switzerland, Cham), 805–814. doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-67890-5_72
Shoshani J. and Tassy P. (1996). The proboscidea: evolution and palaeoecology of elephants and their relatives (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
Sitati N., Leader-Williams N., Stephenson P. J., and Walpole M. J. (2007). “Mitigating human-elephant conflict in a human dominated landscape: Challenges and lessons from Transmara District, Kenya,” in Mitigating human-elephant conflict: case studies from Africa and Asia. Eds. Walpole M. and Linkie M. (Cambridge, U.K.: Fauna & Flora International), 37–46.
Subrahmanya K. S. S. and Gopalan B. A. (1958). Gaja sastram of palakapya muni (Tanjore: T. M. S. S. M. Library).
Sukumar R. (1989). The asian elephant: ecology and management (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Sukumar R. (2003). The living elephants: evolutionary ecology, behavior, and conservation (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
The Hindu Bureau (2025). “Forest Dept. develops cost-effective radio collars to track elephant movements,” in The Hindu. Available online at: https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/karnataka/state-forest-department-develops-cost-effective-radio-collars-to-track-elephant-movements/article69183995.ece (Accessed May 7, 2025).
Thekaekara T., Bhagwat S. A., and Thornton T. F. (2021). Coexistence and culture: understanding human diversity and tolerance in human-elephant interactions. Front. Conserv. Sci. 2, 735929. doi: 10.3389/fcosc.2021.735929
Williams C., Tiwari S. K., Goswami V. R., De Silva S., Kumar A., Baskaran N., et al. (2020). “Elephas maximus,” in The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2020: e.T7140A45818198. Available online at: https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/7140/45818198 (Accessed January 3, 2025).
Keywords: Asian elephant, early warning system, human elephant coexistence, mass communication, radio telemetry
Citation: Muliya SK, Kolipakam V, Pandey RK, Sharma S, Pushkar K, Kuttappa TC, Manjunath CC, Bindhani UT, Kawlni L, Tiwari VR and Qureshi Q (2026) Satellite -telemetry and mass communication based early warning system for human-elephant coexistence in Southern India’s agroforestry landscapes. Front. Conserv. Sci. 6:1640741. doi: 10.3389/fcosc.2025.1640741
Received: 04 June 2025; Accepted: 11 December 2025; Revised: 10 November 2025;
Published: 14 January 2026.
Edited by:
Maximilian Krüger, University of Siegen, GermanyReviewed by:
Ali T. Qashqaei, Borderless Wildlife Conservation Society, IranAshok Kumar Ram, Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Nepal, Nepal
Copyright © 2026 Muliya, Kolipakam, Pandey, Sharma, Pushkar, Kuttappa, Manjunath, Bindhani, Kawlni, Tiwari and Qureshi. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Sanath K. Muliya, U2FuYXRoLmttQGdvdi5pbg==; Vishnupriya Kolipakam, dmlzaG51cHJpeWFAd2lpLmdvdi5pbg==
†These authors have contributed equally to this work