Abstract:[Objectives] Electronic fence in preventing and controlling wildlife damages has been widely studied and applied overseas, but it has not been promoted in China. Chunhua Town of Hunchun, Jilin Province was chosen as the study area, and the research on the effect of electronic fences in preventing and controlling Wild Boar (Sus scrofa) damages and the influencing factors has been carried out. [Methods] A total of 40 sample plots were laid out for the study and divided into 12 groups, with a﹣k being the experimental group and l being the control group (Table 2). The number of wires, single pulse intensity, length of control period, crop loss rate, and the number of Wild Boars entering the sample plots were recorded (Table 3). The effectiveness of the control was measured by the length of the control period, the number of Wild Boars entering the sample plot and the crop loss rate. The data were analyzed using the Mann-Whitney U test to determine the significance and variability of the effectiveness of electronic fence. [Results] The length of the control period, the number of Wild Boars entering the sample plots, and the crop loss rate of all experimental groups were significantly different from those of the control group (P < 0.05) (Table 5). There were no significant differences (P > 0.05) in the length of the effective period of control, the number of Wild Boars entering the sample plots, and the rate of crop loss in the sample plots with two fence wires of electronic fence and pulse intensities of 0.3 J, 1.0 J and 2.0 J respectively (Table 4). The effective period of control was 29.2 ± 1.4 d, the number of Wild Boars entering the sample plots was 0.7 ± 1.0 ind and the crop loss rate was 4.28% ± 8.24% for the electronic fence group with three fence wires. The effective period of control was 27.3 ± 3.3 d, the number of Wild Boars entering the sample plots was 1.0 ± 1.3 ind and the crop loss rate was 7.98% ± 14.34% for the electronic fence group with two fence wires. The electronic fence group at the one fence wire had a control period of 23.0 ± 2.3 d, with 2.3 ± 1.5 ind of Wild Boars entering the sample plot and 19.33% ± 8.14% of crop loss (Table 5). [Conclusion] The electronic fence could effectively reduce the damage of Wild Boar to farmland. The pulse intensity of the electronic fence has no significant effect on the prevention and control effect of Wild Boar damage to farmland, and the more the number of coils of the electronic fence, the better the prevention and control effect of Wild Boar damage.
