Damage caused to rangelands by wild pig rooting activity is mitigated with intensive trapping

Gaskamp, Joshua A.; Gee, Kenneth L.; Campbell, Tyler A.; Silvy, Nova J.; Webb, Stephen L.

doi:10.1080/23311843.2018.1540080

Cited by 10 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, another report estimates that it may require removal of 80% of the population to slow population growth [50]. Intensive removal of wild pigs can lead to reduction in damage [25,51] even if the targeted level of population control is not accomplished. In these instances, it may not be cost effective to try to reach a high target level of removal, but rather consider reductions in damage costs as part of total cost effectiveness [51].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Study sites were divided into two units (Figure 1), resulting in six total units where control (i.e., no trapping) and trapping (i.e., corral trap and drop net) were assigned to the units at random. Corral traps (east unit; 592.2 ha) and drop nets (west unit; 1435.7 ha) were installed on ORR, drop nets (east unit; 579.7 ha) and a no trapping control (west unit; 431.5 ha) at CR, and corral traps (east unit; 415.8 ha) and a no trapping control (west unit; 529.4 ha) at HR (Figure 1; also see Table 1 in [25]). The placement of trap type in each unit remained unchanged during the second year of trapping and removal.…”

Section: Study Area-experimentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Along the Red River, in Love County, Oklahoma, wild pigs have caused significant damage to rangelands [25], agricultural areas and specialty crops [26], with a strong threat of disease, especially to livestock and native wildlife [27][28][29]. These issues prompted the need for the development of a control program and trapping systems that would be most effective and efficient at controlling wild pig populations.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Effectiveness and Efficiency of Corral Traps, Drop Nets and Suspended Traps for Capturing Wild Pigs (Sus scrofa)

Gaskamp

Gee²,

Campbell

et al. 2021

Animals

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Strategic control and eradication programs for wild pigs (Sus scrofa) are being developed to help curtail the expanding populations of this invasive, alien species. Drop nets and corral traps have a long history of capturing a multitude of wildlife species, so we evaluated the effectiveness and efficiency of these traps for controlling wild pigs in southern Oklahoma. We also developed and evaluated a suspended metal trap that provided real-time monitoring and deployment to capture animals. Effectiveness of each trap type was estimated as the proportion of pigs removed from the total population, whereas efficiency was calculated based on catch per unit effort (CPUE) (i.e., the number of person hours per pig removal). During 3 years of study (2010–2012), we removed 601 pigs, 296 using drop nets, 60 using corral traps, and 245 using suspended traps. Suspended traps removed 88.1% of the estimated population, whereas drop nets removed 85.7% and corral traps removed 48.5%. CPUE was 0.64 person hours/pig using suspended traps followed by 1.9 person hours/pig for drop nets and 2.3 person hours/pig for corral traps. Drop nets and suspended traps were more effective at removing a large proportion of the population (>85%), mainly through whole sounder removal, but the suspended trap with real-time notifications was the most efficient trap type, requiring fewer person hours to operate.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Study Area-experimentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Effectiveness and Efficiency of Corral Traps, Drop Nets and Suspended Traps for Capturing Wild Pigs (Sus scrofa)

Gaskamp

Gee²,

Campbell

et al. 2021

Animals

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In fact, Suidae overturn large patches of soil looking for plant underground storage organs (Barrios-Garcia and Ballari 2012; This is a post-peer-review, pre-copyedit version of an article published in European Journal of Wildlife Research. The final authenticated version is available online at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10344-019-1310-6 Gaskamp et al 2018), and it could lead to a food resources or space competition (Mori et al 2014b;Melletti and Meijaard 2017;Nie et al 2019) in which the porcupine would avoid the areas with presence of pigs. Contrary to our hypothesis, Mori (2017) hypothesized a possible positive/attractive effect of the rooting activity on the porcupine, because the turnover of the soil could enhance the access to food, especially when the ground is covered in snow.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The value of by-catch data: how species-specific surveys can serve non-target species

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Camera trapping has a wide range of research application but, while research designs are often focused on the study of a single focal species, cameras can also record other non-target species. Occupancy modelling using bycatch data can be a valuable resource to gain information on these species maximizing the scientific effort and efficiency of wildlife surveys. In this study we used by-catch data from a European wildcat (Felis sylvestris sylvestris) survey in Southern Italy to assess the habitat covariates determinant for the occupancy of the crested porcupine (Hystrix cristata). We recorded 33 detections at 17 out of 51 cameras (naïve occupancy = 0.33). The best models fitted the data well and porcupine occupancy estimate was 0.58 (SE ± 0.09) with a detection probability of 0.11 (SE ± 0.03). Average model showed that woodlands and number of shrub patches increased porcupine occupancy, while the reverse was true for altitude. Our results have improved the insights on the habitat use and ecological needs of this understudied species and it is the first study that develops occupancy models for the porcupine using presence/absence data obtained from a camera trap survey. Our study is an example of how camera trap surveys are often an under-exploited source of valuable information on a wider spectrum of sympatric species beyond the focal species for which camera traps were deployed. Minimum requirements for a camera trap survey to provide robust occupancy estimates for non-target species are discussed.

show abstract

“…Blood samples from these pigs were opportunistically collected via heart puncture post euthanasia. For complete details of trapping and data collection, see Gaskamp (2012) and Gaskamp et al (2018).…”

Section: Animal Capture and Sample Collectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Brucella spp. and Francisella tularensis from an invasive alien species (Sus scrofa) in the southcentral USA

et al. 2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Damage caused to rangelands by wild pig rooting activity is mitigated with intensive trapping

Cited by 10 publications

References 13 publications

Effectiveness and Efficiency of Corral Traps, Drop Nets and Suspended Traps for Capturing Wild Pigs (Sus scrofa)

Effectiveness and Efficiency of Corral Traps, Drop Nets and Suspended Traps for Capturing Wild Pigs (Sus scrofa)

The value of by-catch data: how species-specific surveys can serve non-target species

Brucella spp. and Francisella tularensis from an invasive alien species (Sus scrofa) in the southcentral USA

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About