Impact of wild boar rooting on small forest‐dwelling rodents

Abstract

Assessing impacts of wild boar on ecosystems is a research priority worldwide, with applied implications for environmental management. We evaluated whether rooting intensity by wild boar affected a rodent community in Central Italy. Rooting intensity was measured within trap transects and all around them, following standard procedures. We live‐trapped rodents in coppiced forests with a gradient of rooting intensity (including a fenced, boar‐proof, area) and evaluated relationships between abundance and rooting for two arboreal and five ground‐dwelling species. Among those, the most abundant ones were the bank vole Myodes glareolus and the yellow‐necked wood mouse Apodemus flavicollis. Rooting within and outside transects correlated to each other, as well as with the local passage rate of the wild boar, assessed through camera‐trapping. We found a negative relationship between rooting intensity and abundance of bank voles, that is, the main food resources of some predators of conservation concern. Rooting activity may trigger effects on ground‐dwelling rodents at the population level.

Spatiotemporal Overlap between the European Brown Hare and Its Potential Predators and Competitors

“…However, this shift to crepuscular activity could be adopted by hares where predation pressure is low, as it is similar to that observed where predator culling programs occur [ 50 , 51 ]. In the fenced area, no terrestrial predator has been camera-trapped during the two-year survey, confirming that they were not locally present [ 57 , 58 ]. We conducted a more intensive sampling in the fenced area to confirm this result.…”

“…In our study, we could not test for potential differences in activity rhythms amongst different habitat types due to the low sample size, which needs to be investigated by future research. Accordingly, where hare predators are limited to birds of prey [ 57 , 58 , 67 ], i.e., in the fenced area, some crepuscular activity is observed, particularly at birth peak, in the warm months, when surveillance behavior needs to be increased [ 68 , 69 ]. We cannot rule out that this behavior may differ from that observed in natural conditions, because hares in the fenced area came from breeding cages and were previously fed by humans in daylight hours.…”

“…Arnold and Cupressus arizonica E. Greene) and human settlements occurred in the remaining part of the study area. A five-hectare area surrounded by a 2.5 m high, fine-mesh (5 cm) fence [ 57 , 58 ], used for small game species acclimatization before restocking (European brown hare, common pheasant Phasianus colchicus, and red-legged partridge Alectoris rufa ), was present in the southern part of the study site. The uppermost part of the fence was further guarded with a 30 cm section of net projecting at right angles to the outside of the fence.…”

“…Thus, the fenced area excluded terrestrial carnivores, although it was still accessible to raptor birds (e.g., buzzards Buteo buteo and hen harriers Circus cyaneus ). Previous intensive camera-trapping in this area provided evidence for the absence of mesopredators and large-sized mammals [ 57 , 58 ]. About 25–30 hares/year are kept in the enclosure for 2–3 months.…”

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)

“…Many studies shows that wild boar can have a strong influence on biodiversity. Negative impacts are generally related to trampling and feeding activities together with predation upon invertebrates, small vertebrates, and eggs of ground-nesting birds (Baubet et al 2003;Amori et al 2016;Senserini and Santilli 2016;Oja et al 2017;Mori et al 2020). Moreover, depending on the intensity of rooting, wild boar can alter soil properties (Bueno et al 2013;Palacio et al 2013) and damage plant communities (Brunet et al 2016;Sondej and Kwiatkowska-Falińska 2017).…”