abstract |
The ecological impact of the defence infrastructure of the Ukrainian–Belarusian border is a poorly studied topic. Wire fences (Concertina wire and Entanglement wire, Non-visible wire obstacle) along the Ukrainian–Belarusian border for wild animals can constitute an impenetrable barrier or a mortal danger for all medium and large-sized animals. Information on the species composition of dead or injured animals was obtained by direct inspection of wire fences, conducting a survey mainly of local residents or forest guards. Photography was used to document the circumstances of animal deaths. On average, each kilometre of fence kills several wild animals per year. The death of wild animals in wire fences on the Ukrainian–Belarusian border is more massive than in mine explosions, illegal shooting, or death in anti-drone nets. The most vulnerable group of animals are large mammals, especially ungulates. Entanglement wire (Non-visible wire obstacle) is more deadly and medium and large animals can get entangled and die in it. Typical injuries to ungulates include deep cuts to the skin, blood vessels, and tendons on the inner parts of the limbs. Occasionally, the Concertina wire does not cut the limbs, but grabs the ungulate by the body. During the mating season, deer often get into wire fences with their antlers and wind the wire around their antlers. Ungulates can independently free themselves from wire fences, but in case of serious injuries with bleeding they are doomed to death. It is likely that wire fences can create local reductions in the number of ungulates and large carnivores along the Ukrainian–Belarusian border. The construction of wire fences will almost completely eliminate the possibility of bear settlement. To reduce the death of wild animals, it is necessary to install at least flags along the fences. On the opposite side of the border, along the wire fence, it is necessary to create earthen ditches-barriers. To reduce the crossings of wild ungulates, it is advisable to equip artificial watering places. On many sections of the Ukrainian–Belarusian border, it is possible to leave certain areas of swamps without a fence. To strengthen the defence capabilities of the Ukrainian–Belarusian border, increased flooding of river floodplains and swamps is not used at all. |
references |
Blaszczyk, C., E. B. Kempers, L. Burgers. 2024. Fenced Europe: A more-than-human perspective to border control. The case of Bialowieza. European Law Open, 3: 90. https://doi.org/10.1017/elo.2024.6
Buchalski, M. R., A. Y. Navarro, W. M. Boyce, T. W. Vickers, M. W. Tobler, [et al.]. 2015. Genetic population structure of Peninsular bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis nelsoni) indicates substantial gene flow across US–Mexico border. Biological Conservation, 184: 218–228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2015.01.006
Lei, L., L. Wang. 2025. Border fences threaten movements of large mammals in southwestern China post-COVID-19 pandemic. GlobalEcologyandConservation, 57: e03410. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2025.e03410
Linnell, J. D. C., A. Trouwborst, L. Boitani, P. Kaczensky, D. Huber, [et al.]. 2016. Border security fencing and wildlife: the end of the transboundary paradigm in Eurasia? PLOS Biology, 14: e1002483. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1002483
Liu, J., D. L. Yong, C.-Y. Choi, L. Gibson. 2020. Transboundary frontiers: an emerging priority for biodiversity conservation. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 35: 679–690. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2020.03.004
McInturff, A., W. Xu, C. E. Wilkinson, N. Dejid, J. S. Brashares. 2020. Fence ecology: frameworks for understanding the ecological effects of fences. BioScience, 70: 971–985. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biaa103
Nowak, K., D. Bear, A. Dutta, M. Traphagen, M. Żmihorski, B. Jaroszewicz. 2024. Threats to conservation from national security interests. Conservation Biology, 38 (1): e14193. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.14193
Parks, S. A., L. M. Holsinger, C. E. Littlefield, S. Z. Dobrowski, K. A. Zeller, [et al.]. 2022. Efficacy of the global protected area network is threatened by disappearing climates and potential transboundary range shifts. Environmental Research Letters, 17: 054016. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ac6436
Sennett, C., C. L. Chambers. 2025. International border fences and walls negatively affect wildlife: a review. Biological Conservation, 302: 110957. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2024.110957
Trouwborst, A., F. Fleurke, J. Dubrulle. 2016. Border fences and their impacts on large carnivores, large herbivores and biodiversity: an international wildlife law perspective. Review of European, Comparative & International Environmental Law, 25: 291–306. https://doi.org/10.1111/reel.12169
Wang, L., S. H. Ali, D. H. Thornton, M. S. Farhadinia. 2024. Editorial: Transboundary conservation. Frontiers in Conservation Science, 5. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcosc.2024.1363427
Yeo, S. 2024. Fenced in: how a million kilometres of invisible borders are harming wildlife. BBC (web-site), 13/11/2024. URL
You, Z., Z. Jiang, C. Li, D. Mallon. 2013. Impacts of grassland fence on the behavior and habitat area of the critically endangered Przewalski’s gazelle around the Qinghai Lake. Chinese Science Bulletin, 58: 2262–2268. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11434-013-5844-9
Zagorodniuk, I. 2006. Anthropogenic traps and survival of animals in transformed environment. In: Borejko, V. E. (ed.). Tribune–12. Proceedings of 2nd International Conference for Wild Nature, Dedicated to Memory of F. R. Shtilmark. Lotos, Kyiv, 160–171.
Zagorodniuk, I. V., D. O. Vyshnevskyi. 2022. Losses and changes in biodiversity in zones of prolonged hostilities in Ukraine: the theriological component (2014–2022). Bulletin of the NAS of Ukraine, No. 11: 60–78. [Ukrainian]
Zagorodniuk, І. 2024. Fauna of war: trench fauna, field marshals, homeless, invaders (theriological aspects). Theriologia Ukrainica, 27: 3–24. [Ukrainian] https://doi.org/10.53452/TU2703 |
