BackgroundWild boar (Sus scrofa) populations are increasing worldwide and invading urban areas. Live-capture can improve the management of this challenge, maximising efficiency, allowing scientific studies and potentially improving animal welfare. This study assesses teleanaesthesia, drop-net, corral trap and cage trap to live-capture wild boar in urban and peri-urban areas, evaluating efficiency and animal stress through haematology and serum biochemistry.MethodsFrom 2012 to 2018, 655 wild boars were captured in 279 operations (drop-net=17, teleanaesthesia=186, cage trap=66 and corral trap=10) in the urban and peri-urban areas of Barcelona (Spain). Haematological and serum biochemical variables were determined in 145 wild boars (42 drop-netted, 41 teleanaesthetised, 38 cage-trapped and 24 corral-trapped).ResultsPerformance (wild boars captured per operation) was highest for drop-net, followed by corral and cage traps, and finally teleanaesthesia. The three physical capture methods were more stressful than teleanaesthesia, causing a more intense physiological reaction, muscular damage, renal function impairment and homeostasis adaption. Stress response was predominantly adrenergic for drop-net and cortisol-induced for cage and corral traps.ConclusionTeleanaesthesia is the choice in reactive urban situations thanks to its adaptability; drop-net effectively targets wild boars in peri-urban environments; cage and corral traps are useful as long-term methods in specific areas.

No abstract

Tick‐borne pathogens (TBPs) constitute an emerging public health concern favoured by multidimensional global changes. Amongst these, increase and spread of wild boar (Sus scrofa) populations are of special concern since this species can act as a reservoir of zoonotic pathogens and promote tick abundance. Thus, we aimed to make a first assessment of the risk by TBPs resulting from wild boar and ticks in the vicinity of a highly populated area. Between 2014 and 2016, we collected spleen samples and 2256 ticks from 261 wild boars (out of 438 inspected) in the metropolitan area of Barcelona (MAB; northeast Spain). We morphologically identified four tick species: Hyalomma lusitanicum (infestation prevalence: 33.6%), Dermacentor marginatus (26.9%), Rhipicephalus sanguineus sensu lato (18.9%) and R. bursa (0.2%). Ticks were pooled according to species and individual host. A total of 180 tick pools and 167 spleen samples were screened by real‐time PCR and/or reverse line blot hybridization assay for Ehrlichia sp., Anaplasma sp., Babesia sp., Rickettsia sp., Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato and Coxiella burnetii. Seventy‐two out of the 180 tick pools were positive to Rickettsia spp. (minimum prevalence of 8.7%), including Rickettsia massiliae, R. slovaca and R. raoultii. We did not detect Rickettsia spp. in wild boar spleens nor other TBPs in ticks or wild boars. Since the ticks identified can bite humans, and the recorded spotted fever group (SFG) rickettsiae are zoonotic pathogens, there is a risk of SFG rickettsiae transmission for MAB inhabitants. Our results suggest a broader distribution of H. lusitanicum, competent vector for the Crimean‐Congo haemorrhagic fever virus than previously known. Wild boar is not a Rickettsia spp. reservoir according to the spleen negative results. However, its abundance could favour tick life cycle and abundance, and its proximity to humans could promote the infection risk by Rickettsia spp.

Disease transmission among wild boars, domestic animals and humans is a public health concern, especially in areas with high wild boar densities. In this study, fecal samples of wild boars (n = 200) from different locations of the Metropolitan Area of Barcelona were analyzed by PCR to explore the frequency of β-lactamases and extended cephalosporin and carbapenem resistance genes (ESBLs) in Escherichia coli strains and the presence of toxigenic Clostridioides difficile. The prevalence of genes conferring resistance to β-lactam antimicrobials was 8.0% (16/200): blaCMY-2 (3.0%), blaTEM-1b (2.5%), blaCTX-M-14 (1.0%), blaSHV-28 (1.0%), blaCTX-M-15 (0.5%) and blaCMY-1 (0.5%). Clostridioides difficile TcdA+ was detected in two wild boars (1.0%), which is the first report of this pathogen in wild boars in Spain. Moreover, the wild boars foraging in urban and peri-urban locations were more exposed to AMRB sources than the wild boars dwelling in natural environments. In conclusion, the detection of E. coli carrying ESBL/AmpC genes and toxigenic C. difficile in wild boars foraging in urban areas reinforces the value of this game species as a sentinel of environmental AMRB sources. In addition, these wild boars can be a public and environmental health concern by disseminating AMRB and other zoonotic agents. Although this study provides the first hints of the potential anthropogenic sources of AMR, further efforts should be conducted to identify and control them.

No abstract

Applying contemporary trapping standards when managing wildlife should no longer be an option, but a duty. Increasing wild boar populations originate a growing number of conflicts and hunting is the only cost-effective management option in most cases. However, new scenarios where hunting is unfeasible emerge and trapping necessities cope with lacking regulatory frameworks and technical guidelines. In this research, we evaluated drop nets, a capture method not considered by the international trapping standards, to capture Eurasian wild boar (Sus scrofa), a wildlife species not included in the list of mammal species under the scope of the Agreement on International Humane Trapping Standards (AIHTS). Less than 20% of the captured wild boars presented moderate or severe injuries attributable to the capture method, hence fulfilling the acceptance thresholds of the outdated AIHTS. Based on the new standards thresholds of acceptance, the humaneness of drop-nets in our study ranged 66–78%, under the 85% required. The capture success and selectivity were 100%, as ensured by operator-driven triggering, which should be considered the main strengths of this method, together with the minimization of animal suffering owing the short duration of the stressful situation. Additionally, in spite of the socially adverse environment, with people contrary to wild boar removal, no disturbances against the capture system or operations occurred. This is the first assessment of a drop-net capture method according to internationally accepted mammal trapping standards, with unconclusive results. However, there is a need for adapted procedures and thresholds of acceptance aimed at not-mechanical traps in general, and specifically at drop-nets. Compared to other live-capture methods, drop-nets minimize the duration of the stressful situation —at the expense of a strong adrenergic acute response—, maximize the probabilities of capturing entire sounders of prosocial species, which may be also considered as more humane, and has the ability to coordinate higher values of capture success, absolute selectivity and adaptability to difficult environments.

No abstract

No abstract