The Relationship between Hunting Methods and the Sex, Age and Body Mass of Wild Boar Sus scrofa
Status PubMed-not-MEDLINE Jazyk angličtina Země Švýcarsko Médium electronic
Typ dokumentu časopisecké články
PubMed
33317026
PubMed Central
PMC7764782
DOI
10.3390/ani10122345
PII: ani10122345
Knihovny.cz E-zdroje
- Klíčová slova
- conflicts, harvest, hunting, long-term study, wildlife management,
- Publikační typ
- časopisecké články MeSH
Increases in the wild boar Sus scrofa population create many conflicts that must be managed, especially because hunting represents a major cause of mortality in this game species. However, hunting effort is not distributed randomly and is influenced by many factors, including hunting methods. This can be especially important in understanding the nature of hunting pressure for both theoretical (ecological and evolutionary) and applied reasons (for management purposes, especially during infectious diseases, for example, African swine fever, outbreaks). We analyzed hunting data from the survey area in Western Poland from the years 1965-2016. In this period a total of 2335 wild boar were culled using two hunting methods: by individual hunters (43.8%) and by teams of hunters (52.0%). During the study period, the number of wild boars increased significantly but in a non-linear manner. More adult males and yearlings of both sexes were shot during individual hunts; more adult females were culled during team hunting. Moreover, the body mass of culled wild boars was positively influenced by the distance to a forest and during the team hunts heavier females and males were shot. To effectively control populations of wild boars, programs to reduce the number of individuals should be better planned and ensure the maintenance of proper age- and sex structure in the wild boar population.
Institute of Biology University of Szczecin Wąska 13 PL 71 415 Szczecin Poland
Institute of Zoology Poznań University of Life Sciences Wojska Polskiego 71C PL 60 625 Poznań Poland
Polish Hunting Association Research Station 64 020 Czempiń Poland
Zobrazit více v PubMed
Barrios-Garcia M.N., Ballari S.A. Impact of wild boar (Sus scrofa) in its introduced and native range: A review. Biol. Invasions. 2012;14:2283–2300. doi: 10.1007/s10530-012-0229-6. DOI
Andrzejewski R., Jezierski W. Management of a wild boar population and its effects on commercial land. Acta Thériol. 1978;23:309–339. doi: 10.4098/AT.arch.78-23. DOI
Quirós-Fernández F., Marcos J., Acevedo P., Gortazar C. Hunters serving the ecosystem: The contribution of recreational hunting to wild boar population control. Eur. J. Wildl. Res. 2017;63:57. doi: 10.1007/s10344-017-1107-4. DOI
Meng X.J., Lindsay D.S., Sriranganathan N. Wild boars as sources for infectious diseases in livestock and humans. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2009;364:2697–2707. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2009.0086. PubMed DOI PMC
Carpio A.J., Apollonio M., Acevedo P. Wild ungulate overabundance in Europe: Contexts, causes, monitoring and management recommendations. Mammal Rev. 2020 doi: 10.1111/mam.12221. DOI
More S., Miranda M.A., Bicout D., Bøtner A., Butterworth A., Michel V., EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW) African swine fever in wild boar. EFSA J. 2018;16:e05344. PubMed PMC
Massei G., Kindberg J., Licoppe A., Gačić D., Šprem N., Kamler J., Baubet E., Hohmann U., Monaco A., Ozoliņš J., et al. Wild boar populations up, numbers of hunters down? A review of trends and implications for Europe. Pest Manag. Sci. 2015;71:492–500. doi: 10.1002/ps.3965. PubMed DOI
Walker S. Planned Wild Boar Cull in Poland Angers Conservationists. The Guardian 2019. [(accessed on 4 October 2020)]; Available online: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jan/11/planned-wild-boar-cull-in-poland-angers-conservationists.
Vicente J., Apollonio M., Blanco-Aguiar J.A., Borowik T., Brivio F., Casaer J., Croft S., Ericsson G., Ferroglio E., Gavier-Widen D., et al. Science-based wildlife disease response. Science. 2019;364:943–944. doi: 10.1126/science.aax4310. PubMed DOI
Vajas P., Calenge C., Richard E., Fattebert J., Rousset C., Saïd S., Baubet E. Many, large and early: Hunting pressure on wild boar relates to simple metrics of hunting effort. Sci. Total Environ. 2019;698:134251. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.134251. PubMed DOI
Martínez-Jauregui M., Rodríguez-Vigal C., Jones O.R., Coulson T., Miguel A.S. Different hunting strategies select for different weights in red deer. Biol. Lett. 2005;1:353–356. doi: 10.1098/rsbl.2005.0330. PubMed DOI PMC
Mysterud A., Tryjanowski P., Panek M. Selectivity of harvesting differs between local and foreign roe deer hunters: Trophy stalkers have the first shot at the right place. Biol. Lett. 2006;2:632–635. doi: 10.1098/rsbl.2006.0533. PubMed DOI PMC
Scillitani L., Monaco A., Toso S. Do intensive drive hunts affect wild boar (Sus scrofa) spatial behaviour in Italy? Some evidences and management implications. Eur. J. Wildl. Res. 2009;56:307–318. doi: 10.1007/s10344-009-0314-z. DOI
Tryjanowski P., Panek M., Karg J., Szumacher-Strabel M., Cieslak A., Ciach M. Long-term changes in the quantity and quality of supplementary feeding of wildlife: Are influenced by game managers? Folia Zool. 2017;66:248–253. doi: 10.25225/fozo.v66.i4.a6.2017. DOI
Fruziński B. Dzik. Wydawnictwo Cedrus; Warszawa, Poland: 1992. (In Polish)
Mysterud A., Tryjanowski P., Panek M., Pettorelli N., Stenseth N.C. Inter-specific synchrony of two contrasting ungulates: Wild boar (Sus scrofa) and roe deer (Capreolus capreolus) Oecologia. 2007;151:232–239. doi: 10.1007/s00442-006-0584-z. PubMed DOI
R Development Core Team . R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing; Vienna, Austria: 2019.
Length R., Singmann H., Love J., Buerkner P., Herve M. Emmeans: Estimated Marginal Means, aka Least-Squares Means. R Package Version 1.4.4. [(accessed on 4 October 2020)]; Available online: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=emmeans.
Wood S.N. Generalized Additive Models: An Introduction with R. 2nd ed. Chapman and Hall/CRC; Boca Raton, FL, USA: 2017.
Wickham H. ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis. Springer; New York, NY, USA: 2016.
Lüdecke D. ggeffects: Tidy Data Frames of Marginal Effects from Regression Models. J. Open Source Softw. 2018;3:772. doi: 10.21105/joss.00772. DOI
Kamieniarz R., Panek M. Zwierzęta łowne w Polsce na Przełomie XX i XXI Wieku. Polski Związek Łowiecki; Stacja Badawcza, Polska: 2008.
Pielowski Z., Kamieniarz R., Panek M. Raport o Zwierzętach łownych w Polsce. Biblioteka Monitoringu Środowiska; Warszawa, Poland: 1993. Report about Game Animals in Poland.
Edwards S., Fukusho A., Lefèvre P.-C., Lipowski A., Pejsak Z., Roehe P., Westergaard J. Classical swine fever: The global situation. Veter. Microbiol. 2000;73:103–119. doi: 10.1016/S0378-1135(00)00138-3. PubMed DOI
Budny M., Panek M. Level and growth rate of wild boar populations in relation to forest cover, crop field size and maize occurrence in Poland in the years 1999–2014. Sylwan. 2016;160:1020–1026.
Fruziński B., König B. Structures and demographic processes of wild boar Sus scrofa L. population in Western Poland. Forestry. 1999;2:23–30.
Gethöffer F., Sodeikat G., Pohlmeyer K. Reproductive parameters of wild boar (Sus scrofa) in three different parts of Germany. Eur. J. Wildl. Res. 2007;53:287–297. doi: 10.1007/s10344-007-0097-z. DOI
Fonseca C., Da Silva A.A., Alves J., Vingada J., Soares A.M. Reproductive performance of wild boar females in Portugal. Eur. J. Wildl. Res. 2011;57:363–371. doi: 10.1007/s10344-010-0441-6. DOI
Keuling O., Baubet E., Duscher A., Ebert C., Fischer C., Monaco A., Podgorski T., Prevot C., Ronnenberg K., Sodeikat G., et al. Mortality rates of wild boar Sus scrofa L. in central Europe. Eur. J. Wildl. Res. 2013;59:805–814. doi: 10.1007/s10344-013-0733-8. DOI
Fruziński B., Kałuziński J., Baksalary J. Weight and body measurements of forest and field roe deer. Acta Theriol. 1982;27:479–488. doi: 10.4098/AT.arch.82-42. DOI
Kamieniarz R. The structure of agricultural landscape and functioning of the field roe deer population. Wyd. Uniw. Przyr. Pozn. Rozpr. Nauk. 2013;463:1–71.
