Mortality rates of wild boar Sus scrofa L. in central Europe

Keuling, Oliver; Baubet, Éric; Duscher, Andreas; Ebert, Cornelia; Fischer, Claude; Monaco, Andrea; Podgórski, Tomasz; Prévot, Céline; Ronnenberg, Katrin; Sodeikat, Gunter; Stier, Norman; Thurfjell, Henrik

doi:10.1007/s10344-013-0733-8

Cited by 159 publications

(181 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

174

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Hunt indices require large sampling areas to reduce bias (Siren et al 2004). Moreover, hunters typically do not target all population segments equally, limiting the value of inferences to the total population and population structure (Braga et al 2010;FestaBianchet 2007;Keuling et al 2013;Plhal et al 2011). To insure a valid index, effort expended, including by those hunters who do not bag an animal, also must be obtained (but often is not available).…”

Section: Take Ratesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Monitoring wild pig populations: a review of methods

Engeman¹,

Massei

Sage³

et al. 2013

Environ Sci Pollut Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Wild pigs (Sus scrofa) are widespread across many landscapes throughout the world and are considered to be an invasive pest to agriculture and the environment, or conversely a native or desired game species and resource for hunting. Wild pig population monitoring is often required for a variety of management or research objectives, and many methods and analyses for monitoring abundance are available. Here, we describe monitoring methods that have proven or potential applications to wild pig management. We describe the advantages and disadvantages of methods so that potential users can efficiently consider and identify the option(s) best suited to their combination of objectives, circumstances, and resources. This paper offers guidance to wildlife managers, researchers, and stakeholders considering population monitoring of wild pigs and will help ensure that they can fulfill their monitoring objectives while optimizing their use of resources.

show abstract

Section: Take Ratesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Monitoring wild pig populations: a review of methods

Engeman¹,

Massei

Sage³

et al. 2013

Environ Sci Pollut Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This variation in the precision of population size estimations makes it very difficult to compare the efficiency of depopulation methods between studies. In addition, wild boar have a high reproductive rate, and populations can double in size after the reproduction season (Gethöffer et al, 2007;Keuling et al, 2013). The more the estimated population size differs from the true population size, the larger the error in assessing the efficiency of a method to reduce the wild boar population.…”

Section: Terms Of Reference As Provided By the European Commissionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Annual hunting in the French forest of Châteauvillain-Arc-en-Barrois (11 000 ha) has reported a more than 40 % reduction (post-reproduction) of the population harvested annually in the period 1982-2004(Toigo et al, 2008. The annual mortality of wild boar differs between Member States and can reach levels up to 60 % (Keuling et al, 2013). Given the high reproductive rate, it is estimated that if less than the 65 % of the European wild boar population is harvested the population will increase (Keuling et al, 2013).…”

Section: Terms Of Reference As Provided By the European Commissionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The annual mortality of wild boar differs between Member States and can reach levels up to 60 % (Keuling et al, 2013). Given the high reproductive rate, it is estimated that if less than the 65 % of the European wild boar population is harvested the population will increase (Keuling et al, 2013). The highest reported reduction of a European wild boar population in a hunt (56.8 %, post-reproduction) was achieved in a fenced Spanish hunting estate of 723 ha (Boadella et al, 2012).…”

Section: Terms Of Reference As Provided By the European Commissionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Reducing juvenile and female survival appears to be the most effective approach to population control (Sweitzer et al, 2000;Bieber and Ruf, 2005;Toigo et al, 2008;Gamelon et al, 2012), but hunting can result in selective removal of healthy adult male wild boar and especially in insufficient harvest of piglets (Toigo et al, 2008;Servanty et al, 2011;Keuling et al, 2013). Moreover, hunting and trapping could lead to adaptation of wild boar behaviour for instance by becoming more active during the night, increased home range sizes (Calenge et al, 2002;Sodeikat and Polheimer, 2002;Scillitani et al, 2010) and/or increased reproduction (Bieber and Ruf, 2005;Hanson et al 2009;Gamelon et al, 2011;Servanty et al, 2011).…”

Section: Terms Of Reference As Provided By the European Commissionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Evaluation of possible mitigation measures to prevent introduction and spread of African swine fever virus through wild boar

2014

EFS2

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This scientific report has been prepared in response to a request for urgent scientific and technical assistance under Art 31 of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002, in relation to possible mitigation measures to prevent introduction and spread of African swine fever virus (ASFV). It was requested to assess the feasibility to drastically reduce the wild boar population by hunting or by the use of traps, and to assess if prevention of movement of wild boars by feeding or by artificial physical barriers reduces the risk of spread of ASFV. No evidence was found in scientific literature proving that wild boar populations can be drastically reduced by hunting or trapping in Europe. The main reasons are the adaptive behaviour of wild boar, compensatory growth of the population and the possible influx of wild boar from adjacent areas. Thus, drastic hunting is not a tool to reduce the risk for introduction and spread of ASFV in wild boar populations. Furthermore, wild boar density thresholds for introduction, spread and persistence of ASFV in the wild boar populations are currently impossible to establish, due to the uncertainty regarding the extent of the spread and maintenance of ASFV, the biases in population datasets, the complex population structures and dynamics. Furthermore, attempts to drastically reduce wild boar populations may even increase transmission and facilitate progressive geographical spread of ASFV, since intensive hunting pressure on wild boar populations leads to dispersion of groups and individuals. Artificial feeding of wild boar might increase the risk of ASFV spread. Fencing can restrict wild boar movements, however further knowledge of the ASF epidemiology and spatial distribution of wild boar is required to identify the areas where fencing could be used as one possible element of a control programme and to assess the feasibility of its implementation.

show abstract

Ecological drivers of African swine fever virus persistence in wild boar populations: Insight for control

Pepin

Golnar

Abdo

et al. 2020

Ecology and Evolution

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Environmental sources of infection can play a primary role in shaping epidemiological dynamics; however, the relative impact of environmental transmission on host‐pathogen systems is rarely estimated. We developed and fit a spatially explicit model of African swine fever virus (ASFV) in wild boar to estimate what proportion of carcass‐based transmission is contributing to the low‐level persistence of ASFV in Eastern European wild boar. Our model was developed based on ecological insight and data from field studies of ASFV and wild boar in Eastern Poland. We predicted that carcass‐based transmission would play a substantial role in persistence, especially in low‐density host populations where contact rates are low. By fitting the model to outbreak data using approximate Bayesian computation, we inferred that between 53% and 66% of transmission events were carcass‐based that is, transmitted through contact of a live host with a contaminated carcass. Model fitting and sensitivity analyses showed that the frequency of carcass‐based transmission increased with decreasing host density, suggesting that management policies should emphasize the removal of carcasses and consider how reductions in host densities may drive carcass‐based transmission. Sensitivity analyses also demonstrated that carcass‐based transmission is necessary for the autonomous persistence of ASFV under realistic parameters. Autonomous persistence through direct transmission alone required high host densities; otherwise re‐introduction of virus periodically was required for persistence when direct transmission probabilities were moderately high. We quantify the relative role of different persistence mechanisms for a low‐prevalence disease using readily collected ecological data and viral surveillance data. Understanding how the frequency of different transmission mechanisms vary across host densities can help identify optimal management strategies across changing ecological conditions.

show abstract

Mortality rates of wild boar Sus scrofa L. in central Europe

Cited by 159 publications

References 38 publications

Monitoring wild pig populations: a review of methods

Monitoring wild pig populations: a review of methods

Evaluation of possible mitigation measures to prevent introduction and spread of African swine fever virus through wild boar

Ecological drivers of African swine fever virus persistence in wild boar populations: Insight for control

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About