Mammalian Visitation to Candidate Feral Swine Attractants

Campbell, Tyler A.; Long, David B.

doi:10.2193/2007-227

Cited by 28 publications

(31 citation statements)

References 15 publications

(17 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These collective findings were counter to our hypothesis. Campbell and Long (2008) found no visitation to strawberry scent stations by raccoons or collared peccaries, the primary nontarget animals removing PIGOUT baits in southern Texas (Campbell et al 2006), but here we recorded visitation and removal by these species when strawberry flavoring was incorporated into PIGOUT baits. Interestingly, during trial 2, raccoons visited both surface-deployed (142 visits) and buried (129 visits) strawberry baits at a high rate, perhaps indicating raccoons' reluctant consumption of strawberry baits.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 54%

“…We hypothesized that 1) baits with strawberry-flavored feed additive would be specific to feral swine, based on previous findings (Campbell and Long 2008); 2) baits with FeralMonet attractant (Pestat; Proprietary Limited Company, Bruce, Australian Capital Territory, Australia), an aerosolized formulation of synthetic fermented egg, would display high feral swine removal, following findings for carnivores from Australia (Hunt et al 2007); and 3) buried baits would be more specific to feral swine because of the greater below-ground foraging abilities of feral swine compared to nontarget animals.…”

Section: Strawberry-flavored Baits For Pharmaceutical Delivery To Fermentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Strawberry‐Flavored Baits for Pharmaceutical Delivery to Feral Swine

Campbell

Long

2009

J Wildl Manag

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

More effective methods to control feral swine (Sus scrofa) damage are needed. We evaluated 8 oral delivery systems designed to deliver pharmaceuticals to feral swine on 2 properties in southern Texas, USA. We used modified PIGOUT® feral pig bait (Animal Control Technologies Australia P/L, Somerton, Victoria, Australia) throughout our trials to compare species‐specific visitation and removal rates. Given our consistent finding of high nontarget removal of baits intended for feral swine, we question whether a swine‐specific oral delivery system exists for this region.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 54%

Section: Strawberry-flavored Baits For Pharmaceutical Delivery To Fermentioning

confidence: 99%

Strawberry‐Flavored Baits for Pharmaceutical Delivery to Feral Swine

Campbell

Long

2009

J Wildl Manag

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…yet, conflicting outcomes exist across published results. Some studies have found that Raccoons do not exhibit a preferential response to certain attractants (i.e., scents or bait; nottingham et al 1989;Kavanaugh and Linhart 2000), while others report that Raccoons respond frequently to specific food scents and bait, such as fruit (campbell and Long 2008) or fish (campbell and Long 2007). These latter studies suggest that perhaps the food scent we employed (crayfish oil) was not preferentially attractive enough.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…past studies have investigated mammal response to olfactory stimuli or have used scent lures to attract mammals for other objectives. These studies include assessments of urban mammal and nuisance mammal response to food scent (e.g., Andelt and Woolley 1996;campbell and Long 2008), response of prey to predator scent (e.g., Gorman 1984;Sullivan et al 1985;caine and Weldon 1989;Swihart et al 1991;Russell and Banks 2007), studies of kin recognition (Johnston 2003) and territoriality (e.g., Arnold et al 2011;Shivik et al 2011), and population estimates (e.g., Mowat and Strobeck 2000;Mowat and paetkau 2002).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Lack of Response to Olfactory Lures Among Mammals in Riparian Habitat in Southern Wisconsin

Jacques¹,

Kapfer²,

Eshelman³

2016

Can Field Nat

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Non-invasive mammal surveys often employ olfactory stimuli on the assumption that they will attract mammals and increase the success of monitoring projects. However, information on the effectiveness of scent lures is variable and often relies on data generated from mammal tracks or sign, which can be challenging to quantify. Therefore, we sought to determine whether certain olfactory stimuli are more effective than others at eliciting a response from mammals along riparian corridors in Southern Wisconsin, using camera traps to monitor response to four scents and a control of de-ionized water. We recorded the number of times each species responded as well as the length of time spent investigating scents (Muskrat gland, mink gland, Red fox urine, crayfish oil) and the control. We recorded 2812 passes by 16 mammal species during our 12-month study, with Virginia Opossum (Didelphis virginiana), Woodchuck (Marmota monax), Eastern Gray Squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), Eastern Fox Squirrel (Sciurus niger), Raccoon (Procyon lotor), Coyote (Canis latrans), and White-tailed Deer (Odocoileus virginianus)observed on cameras most frequently. However, 72% of observations involved mammals passing through without investigating any scents or the control, and among the 28% of observations where mammals did investigate, we found no significant differences in their response to specific scents or the control or in response by season. Further analysis revealed no significant differences in the time mammals spent investigating individual scents or the control. The lack of response suggests that factors other than scent may have attracted wildlife to our stations. Although under some circumstances olfactory attractants may increase the level of response to monitoring stations, we suggest that attraction to our stations was largely a behavioural response to novel stimuli in the environment.

show abstract

“…Additionally, commonly used attractants (e.g., corn) oftentimes appeal to non-target species resulting in increased costs and missed opportunity (e.g., tripped traps). Species specificity of attractants is a requisite for minimizing potential delivery of pharmaceuticals to non-target species, minimizing non-target captures, and reducing consumption by non-target species (Fleming et al 2000;Kavanaugh and Linhart 2000;Campbell and Long 2007;Campbell and Long 2008). Therefore, identification of attractants that appeal more Objectives In order to concentrate wild pigs at a location and maintain routine visitation, an enticing or preferred substance(s) must be dispersed.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Attractants for wild pigs: current use, availability, needs, and future potential

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Populations of wild pigs (Sus scrofa) are burgeoning around the globe, and they are currently the target of extensive research and management efforts. Wild pigs are a highly successful invasive species that cause extensive damage to agriculture and native plant and animal communities. Lethal control is the most common management strategy used to reduce wild pig populations and their damage, and many lethal strategies rely on luring wild pigs to a specific location. Most commonly, a food commodity such as corn or maize (Zea mays) is used for attracting wild pigs to a site, but baiting with food is sometimes prohibited under wildlife laws, and visitation can be variable due to availability of alternative foods, level of harassment by humans, and acceptance of novel food source, devices, and activity. Wild pigs are highly adaptable with refined senses that enable them to interact with their environment and conspecifics in a complex manner. Wild and domestic pigs share keen senses, though differences exist due to suppressed stimuli, evolutionary gains and losses, or other factors related to needs for survival and fitness. Wild pigs routinely rely on acute olfaction to locate food, detect predators, and communicate with conspecifics. A pig's sense of taste is also considered to be refined and more acute than that of humans. An abundance of evaluations regarding various attractants for wild pigs has been conducted over the last several decades; yet, a scarcity of conclusive results on which attractants to use when and where still exists. As such, we undertook a comprehensive review of available information on potential attractants that could be used to aid management strategies of wild pigs such as hunting/shooting, trapping, pharmaceutical delivery, or density estimation. To complete this review, we assimilated and synthesized the most relevant literature, provide recommendations, and identify attractant evaluation needs for the enhancement of the global management of wild pigs.

show abstract

Mammalian Visitation to Candidate Feral Swine Attractants

Cited by 28 publications

References 15 publications

Strawberry‐Flavored Baits for Pharmaceutical Delivery to Feral Swine

Strawberry‐Flavored Baits for Pharmaceutical Delivery to Feral Swine

Lack of Response to Olfactory Lures Among Mammals in Riparian Habitat in Southern Wisconsin

Attractants for wild pigs: current use, availability, needs, and future potential

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About