Influence of seasonality, environmental and anthropic factors on crop damage by wild boar Sus scrofa

Cappa, Fabrizio; Lombardini, Marco; Meriggi, Alberto

doi:10.25225/fozo.015.2019

Cited by 13 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 52 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In most cases, the prevention methods, where and when adopted, are applied after the damages have already occurred, and without a cost-benefit analysis (Massei et al 2011;Meriggi et al 2016). The formulation of risk prediction models allows acting in advance by assigning a risk class to each field and therefore to identify the fields most at risk (Cappa et al 2019), where it is possible to provide deterrent systems such as electrified fences or acoustic deterrents. This would improve the effectiveness of these tools and could partially reduce their economic impact on single farms.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The feeding activity of wild boar in cultivated fields can be analyzed from the perspective of the general predictions of the optimal foraging theory, trying to identify which factors related to energy intake, energy expenditure and animal safety contribute to the choice of fields in to go to for food (Stephen and Krebs 1986;Krebs and Kalcenik 1991;Begon et al 2006;Rubenstein and Alcock 2018). Through the analysis of the factors that influence the occurrence of damage, it is possible to formulate predictive risk models that allow to identify the most threatened areas and to act before the damage occurs with prevention tools (Ficetola et al 2014;Lombardini et al 2017;Cappa et al 2019).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Factors affecting the crop damage by wild boar (Sus scrofa) and effects of population control in the Ticino and Lake Maggiore Park (North-western Italy)

2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Wild boar foraging impacts the crops, pastures, and meadows causing remarkable losses to agricultural income. Protected areas located in plains, such as the Ticino Valley Natural Park, are characterized by the coexistence of important natural habitats and intensive agricultural areas. In the Park, from 2010 to 2017, 49% of the complaints report an event of damage to maize and 43% to meadows. The total expense for reimbursements of the maize amounted to € 439,341.52, with damages concentrated in May, after sowing period and between August and September, during the milky stage of maize. For meadows reimbursements amounted to € 324,768.66, with damage events concentrated in February and March. To reduce damage to crops, the Park administration carried out lethal control of the wild boar population. From 2006 to 2017, the most used control method was culling from hunting hides. In our analysis, we did not find significant relationships between the number of shot boars and the damage amount. The factors that determine the decrease of damage probability to crops are mainly related to human disturbance and the characteristics of the fields. The predictive model of damage risk built comparing damaged and undamaged fields showed a good predictive ability. The population viability analyses showed that it is impossible to obtain a drastic reduction of population with the current harvest rate. By tripling it and focusing on the females and sub-adult a numerical reduction of 50% of the population would be achievable in 7 years and the probability of population survival would be halved in 3 years.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Factors affecting the crop damage by wild boar (Sus scrofa) and effects of population control in the Ticino and Lake Maggiore Park (North-western Italy)

2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Calenge et al (2004) showed that diversionary feeding practices significantly reduced wild boar damage, suggesting that food availability had a major influence on the likelihood and extent of damage caused to crops. However, diversionary feeding can increase ungulates’ reproductive output, carrying capacity and hence population size (González‐Crespo et al 2018, Cappa et al 2019).…”

Section: Methods and Contexts Of Overabundancementioning

confidence: 99%

Wild ungulate overabundance in Europe: contexts, causes, monitoring and management recommendations

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

High‐density populations of large ungulates are now widespread. However, the perception of overabundance only appears when it produces a problem for humans, such as a loss of plant diversity, damage to agricultural crops and forestry, ungulate‐vehicle collisions, a nuisance to humans, disease transmission to livestock or changes in habitat for other species. The admissible level of density depends on the ecological and socio‐economic context in which the population is located, and defining this level is important, in order to determine management strategies and actions. We describe the main contexts in which ungulate overabundance occurs in Europe, record the causes of overabundance and evaluate which set of indicators of ecological change is the most appropriate for monitoring and diagnosing overabundance in each scenario. Our review of 318 published papers revealed six contexts of wild ungulate overabundance in Europe (protected areas, hunting areas, forestry, arable farming, livestock farming and [peri]urban areas). In addition to population abundance, four sets of indicators of environmental change could be used to monitor overabundance within these contexts (impacts on habitats, impact on animal performance, increments in diseases and parasite loads, and increments in nuisance to humans). Nine species of ungulate were found to be overabundant. Red deer Cervus elaphus was the species most likely to be overabundant in the contexts of protected areas (detailed in 27% of papers on that context) and hunting areas (38%); roe deer Capreolus capreolus in forestry (28%); wild boar Sus scrofa in arable farming (60%), livestock farming (29%) and (peri)urban areas (38%). Our evidence shows that the diagnosis and monitoring of ungulate population overabundance via indicators of ecological change, and the management actions required to control these undesirable situations, are strongly context‐dependent.

show abstract

“…Wild boar (Sus scrofa) is a native species widely distributed from Europe to Asia (Keuling and Leus 2019) that can negatively impact ecosystems of introduced areas as an invasive species (Barrios-Garcia and Ballari 2012, Risch et al 2021). Wild boars have been reported to cause crop damage (Lombardini et al 2017, Cappa et al 2019) and human injuries (Mayer 2013) and are vectors causing infectious diseases in humans and livestock (Antolová et al 2007, Gortázar et al 2007). Thus, wild boar population management is essential to control the damage caused by them.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Home range and habitat selection of wild boar (Sus scrofa) in rural landscape

Ikeda

Higashide

Suzuki

et al. 2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Wild boars are cause crop damage and are vectors causing infectious diseases in humans and livestock, thus wild boar population management is essential to control the damage. Because information on mammal home range and habitat selection is important for the management of target species, accurate spatial data would provide valuable information to establish population management scheme and infectious diseases countermeasure. In this study, we aimed to understand the home range of wild boars and their habitat selection during the daytime and nighttime. We captured seven wild boars in in central Gifu Prefecture, Japan, and monitored each individual from October 2020 to June 2022. We calculated the 95% and 50% home range of each individual for the entire monitoring period and for short-term period. Additionally, we investigated environmental characteristics at GPS locations during daytime and nighttime. In this study, the home range sizes from the minimum convex polygon method ranged from 0.32 to 28.51 km2, and the maximum distance between the location points was 7.6 km. Moreover, wild boars avoided anthropogenic environments during the daytime and selectively used cropland category during the nighttime. Therefore, wild boars had narrow home ranges depending on the anthropogenic environments. Consequently, wildlife managers could reduce agricultural damage caused by wild boars by managing bamboo forests and abandoned cultivated lands in the rural landscape. For infectious diseases, moreover, they should implement countermeasures against wild boars that are within 8 km of pig farms.

show abstract

Influence of seasonality, environmental and anthropic factors on crop damage by wild boar Sus scrofa

Abstract: BioOne Complete (complete.BioOne.org) is a full-text database of 200 subscribed and open-access titles in the biological, ecological, and environmental sciences published by nonprofit societies, associations, museums, institutions, and presses.

Cited by 13 publications

References 52 publications

Factors affecting the crop damage by wild boar (Sus scrofa) and effects of population control in the Ticino and Lake Maggiore Park (North-western Italy)

Factors affecting the crop damage by wild boar (Sus scrofa) and effects of population control in the Ticino and Lake Maggiore Park (North-western Italy)

Wild ungulate overabundance in Europe: contexts, causes, monitoring and management recommendations

Home range and habitat selection of wild boar (Sus scrofa) in rural landscape

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About