Is the wild pig the real “big bad wolf”? Negative effects of wild pig on Atlantic Forest mammals

Hegel, Carla Grasiele Zanin; Santos, Luane Reis dos; Marinho, Jorge Reppold; Marini, Miguel Ângelo

doi:10.1007/s10530-019-02068-9

Cited by 23 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 60 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Along with deforestation, Brazilian Atlantic forest is threatened by additional factors, such as the presence of invasive alien species and proximity to areas with intense human activity. As an example, the wild pig (Sus scrofa) competes with and reduces population sizes of several native mammals in Atlantic forest remnants (Hegel et al, 2019). In addition, proximity to humans may promote the occurrence of epizootic events in wild populations, as observed with malaria and yellow fever in non-human primates (Buery et al, 2017;Moreno et al, 2013).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does stress mess with rodents’ heads? Influence of habitat amount and genetic factors in mandible fluctuating asymmetry in South American water rats (Nectomys squamipes, Sigmodontinae) from Brazilian Atlantic rainforest remnants

Caccavo

Lemos

Maroja

et al. 2021

Ecology and Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does stress mess with rodents’ heads? Influence of habitat amount and genetic factors in mandible fluctuating asymmetry in South American water rats (Nectomys squamipes, Sigmodontinae) from Brazilian Atlantic rainforest remnants

Caccavo

Lemos

Maroja

et al. 2021

Ecology and Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…After 2016, and only on the island affected by wild boars, did we find a significant decline in snake counts, recruitment, and annual population growth rates in both species. These results provide further evidence that wild boars can be destructive when they proliferate, notably in the absence of predatory pressures (wolf or hunters) [14,[47][48][49].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 56%

Recent Invaders in Small Mediterranean Islands: Wild Boars Impact Snakes in Port-Cros National Park

Ballouard¹,

Kauffman²,

Besnard

et al. 2021

Diversity

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Mediterranean islands host unique ecosystems that are particularly vulnerable to invasive species. However, knowledge regarding the precise impact of invasive species on local biodiversity remains limited for many of these systems. Here we report on the negative impacts of invasive wild boars (Sus scrofa) on native snakes on islands in the Mediterranean basin. Capture-mark-recapture was initiated in 2012 on two snake species (Montpellier snake, Malpolon monspessulanus and Ladder snake, Zamenis scalaris) across two islands of Port-Cros National Park. Several wild boars, an invasive species, reached the islands in 2007. They remained confined to small areas of the islands for several years. In Port-Cros, the numbers of wild boars suddenly increased in 2015, and rapidly colonized the whole island damaging vast land surfaces. In Porquerolles, wild boars did not proliferate. This offered an opportunity to examine the impact of wild boar outbreak with a Before-After Control-Impact design (BACI). Snake counts and mark-recapture modeling showed that demographic traits were stable before 2016 for both snake species on both islands. As well as abundance, recruitment, and population growth rate of Montpellier snakes significantly declined where wild boars proliferated but remained constant on the island where they did not. Wild boars probably impacted snake numbers through habitat destruction and direct killing. The rapid decline of snakes (apex predators) and intensive uprooting that strongly damage ground dwelling species (plants, animals) suggest that wild boars represent a serious threat to island biodiversity. As elsewhere around the world, these invasive ungulates proliferate in the Mediterranean basin, they are proficient swimmers and exhibit a remarkably high invasive potential. We recommend vigilance and fast eradication to prevent population outburst; even a few a localized non-proliferating individuals contain the latent potential for devastating outbreaks.

show abstract

“…investigate ecological patterns and theories (Lombardi et al, 2020;Robinson et al, 2014), interactions among native and invasive species (Dugger et al, 2016;Hegel et al, 2019;Osorio et al, 2020), Consequently, while the opportunity to apply multi-species occupancy models will likely increase, data collection procedures may not be at the correct spatial and temporal scales necessary to meet the closure assumption for many species. The simulations presented here emulated camera trapping data and the simulated level for detection was comparable to observed levels of daily detection for several carnivores (Shannon et al, 2014) F I G U R E 1 Proportion of simulations for which the estimates of (a) occupancy for Species A (Ψ A ), (b) occupancy of Species B given Species A was present (Ψ BA ) and occupancy of Species B, given that Species A was absent (Ψ Ba ) when the simulated pattern was independence (i.e., Ψ BA = Ψ Ba ), (c) Ψ BA and Ψ Ba when the simulated pattern was avoidance (i.e., Ψ BA < Ψ Ba ), and (d) Ψ BA and Ψ Ba when the simulated pattern was aggregation (i.e., Ψ BA > Ψ Ba ), was not different from the true simulated level of occupancy (based on 95% confidence intervals) when sites were closed or not closed (i. may be difficult to meet the closure assumption for some species (Mackenzie & Royle, 2005) due to logistical constraints (e.g., limited equipment or personnel) that require sampling to take longer than a period over which closure can be reasonably assumed (e.g., Johnson et al, 2020), or challenges identifying an appropriate spatial scale (e.g., Jornburom et al, 2020).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Co‐occurrence models fail to infer underlying patterns of avoidance and aggregation when closure is violated

Lonsinger

2022

Ecology and Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Advances in multi-species monitoring have prompted an increase in the use of multispecies occupancy analyses to assess patterns of co-occurrence among species, even when data were collected at scales likely violating the assumption that sites were closed to changes in the occupancy state for the target species. Violating the closure assumption may lead to erroneous conclusions related to patterns of co-occurrence among species. Occurrence for two hypothetical species was simulated under patterns of avoidance, aggregation, or independence, when the closure assumption was either met or not. Simulated populations were sampled at two levels (N = 250 or 100 sites) and two scales of temporal resolution for surveys. Sample data were analyzed with conditional two-species occupancy models, and performance was assessed based on the proportion of simulations recovering the true pattern of co-occurrence.Estimates of occupancy were unbiased when closure was met, but biased when closure violations occurred; bias increased when sample size was small and encounter histories were collapsed to a large-scale temporal resolution. When closure was met and patterns of avoidance and aggregation were simulated, conditional two-species models tended to correctly find support for non-independence, and estimated species interaction factors (SIF) aligned with predicted values. By contrast, when closure was violated, models tended to incorrectly infer a pattern of independence and power to detect simulated patterns of avoidance or aggregation that decreased with smaller sample size. Results suggest that when the closure assumption is violated, co-occurrence models often fail to detect underlying patterns of avoidance or aggregation, and incorrectly identify a pattern of independence among species, which could have negative consequences for our understanding of species interactions and conservation efforts. Thus, when closure is violated, inferred patterns of independence from multi-species occupancy should be interpreted cautiously, and evidence of avoidance or aggregation is likely a conservative estimate of true pattern or interaction.

show abstract

Is the wild pig the real “big bad wolf”? Negative effects of wild pig on Atlantic Forest mammals

Cited by 23 publications

References 60 publications

Does stress mess with rodents’ heads? Influence of habitat amount and genetic factors in mandible fluctuating asymmetry in South American water rats (Nectomys squamipes, Sigmodontinae) from Brazilian Atlantic rainforest remnants

Does stress mess with rodents’ heads? Influence of habitat amount and genetic factors in mandible fluctuating asymmetry in South American water rats (Nectomys squamipes, Sigmodontinae) from Brazilian Atlantic rainforest remnants

Recent Invaders in Small Mediterranean Islands: Wild Boars Impact Snakes in Port-Cros National Park

Co‐occurrence models fail to infer underlying patterns of avoidance and aggregation when closure is violated

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About