Sus scrofa is both a destructive invasive species and a popular game animal in many parts of the world, but there is a lack of consistency and accuracy in how scientists and wildlife managers refer to wildliving members of the species. The growing importance of this invasive species necessitates that scientists, managers, and policy-makers standardize use of a common name in a taxonomically accurate manner to effectively communicate to the general public and scientific community. In this commentary, we discuss the current terminology used for S. scrofa and, based upon the history of introductions of this species, propose that these animals be referred to as wild pigs within their introduced range unless it is known that the population consists of genetically pure wild boar or domestic pigs that have recently been released and become feral. Use of the term "wild pig" should reduce the potential to misclassify populations as a result of genetic introgression and evolution following release. Furthermore, we recommend that, when appropriate, the terms "nonnative" or "invasive" be included to describe wild pigs in their introduced range to emphasize their negative impacts on natural and anthropogenic environments. The effective control of wild pig populations considered to be invasive will require informed public support and sound scientific management, necessitating clear communication about this species among the research community, wildlife managers, and the general public. Ó 2016 The Wildlife Society.

Knowledge of population density is necessary for effective management and conservation of wildlife, yet rarely are estimators compared in their robustness to effects of ecological and observational processes, which can greatly influence accuracy and precision of density estimates. In this study, we simulate biological and observational processes using empirical data to assess effects of animal scale of movement, true population density, and probability of detection on common density estimators. We also apply common data collection and analytical techniques in the field and evaluate their ability to estimate density of a globally widespread species. We find that animal scale of movement had the greatest impact on accuracy of estimators, although all estimators suffered reduced performance when detection probability was low, and we provide recommendations as to when each field and analytical technique is most appropriately employed. The large influence of scale of movement on estimator accuracy emphasizes the importance of effective post-hoc calculation of area sampled or use of methods that implicitly account for spatial variation. In particular, scale of movement impacted estimators substantially, such that area covered and spacing of detectors (e.g. cameras, traps, etc.) must reflect movement characteristics of the focal species to reduce bias in estimates of movement and thus density.

No abstract