Movement responses inform effectiveness and consequences of baiting wild pigs for population control

Snow, Nathan P.; VerCauteren, Kurt C.

doi:10.1016/j.cropro.2019.05.029

Cited by 18 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 47 publications

(59 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We initially pre‐baited up to twice the number of sites than were ultimately used in the toxic phase of the trials to ensure we established enough bait sites and we selected the best bait sites for deploying the toxic bait. For selecting pre‐baiting sites, we used a goal of maintaining >500 m separation between bait sites, in attempt to locate discrete family groups of wild pigs 30,36,37 . We deployed time lapse cameras (see later) at all sites to enable determination of the approximate numbers and uniquely identifiable characteristics (e.g.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Based on previous research, we followed a pre-baiting and conditioning strategy for wild pigs that took ∼13 days to cluster groups of wild pigs to a bait site before ultimately deploying the SN-toxic bait (Table 1). 21,30,36 We initiated pre-baiting with whole-grain wheat (i.e. QLD 2018) or whole-kernel corn (i.e.…”

Section: Baiting Wild Pigsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For selecting pre-baiting sites, we used a goal of maintaining >500 m separation between bait sites, in attempt to locate discrete family groups of wild pigs. 30,36,37 We deployed time lapse cameras (see later) at all sites to enable determination of the approximate numbers and uniquely identifiable characteristics (e.g. group of ten wild pigs with two nursing sows and eight piglets) of wild pigs at each site.…”

Section: Baiting Wild Pigsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Efficacy and risks from a modified sodium nitrite toxic bait for wild pigs

Snow

Wishart

Foster

et al. 2021

Pest Management Science

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUND Wild pigs (Sus scrofa) are a destructive invasive species throughout many regions of the world. In 2018, a field evaluation of an early prototype of a sodium nitrite (SN) toxic bait in the United States revealed wild pigs dropped large amounts of the toxic bait outside the pig‐specific bait stations while feeding, and thus subsequent hazards for non‐target animals. We modified the SN‐toxic bait formulation, the design of the bait station, and the baiting strategy to reduce dropped bait. We tested the modifications in Queensland, Australia (December 2018), Alabama, USA (August 2019), and Texas, USA (March 2020) under differing climatic and seasonal conditions for one night. RESULTS Cumulatively we found 161 carcasses of all age classes of wild pigs using systematic transects. Remote camera indices indicated high lethality for wild pigs, achieving population reductions of 76.3 to 90.4%. Wild pigs dropped only small particles of SN‐toxic bait (average = 55.5 g per bait site), which represented a 19‐fold decrease from the previous trial. Despite this reduction, we found three Australian ravens (Corvus coronoides) in Queensland, two Virginia opossums (Didelphis virginiana) in Alabama, and 35 granivorous‐passerine birds (mostly dark‐eyed juncos [Junco hyemalis]) in Texas dead from consuming the dropped bait. We did not detect any population‐level effects for those species. CONCLUSION Our modifications were effective at reducing populations of wild pigs, but the deaths of non‐target species require further steps to minimize these hazards. Next steps will include evaluating various deterrent devices for birds the morning after SN‐toxic bait has been offered. Published 2020. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Baiting Wild Pigsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Baiting Wild Pigsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Efficacy and risks from a modified sodium nitrite toxic bait for wild pigs

Snow

Wishart

Foster

et al. 2021

Pest Management Science

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…www.nature.com/scientificreports www.nature.com/scientificreports/ resources, such as ground nests, as those resources become available 59,60 . However, male wild pigs also moved farther distances and had larger home ranges than females in this study area 61,62 , suggesting that males could have discovered more nests randomly during their increased movements.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 80%

Invasive Wild Pigs as Primary Nest Predators for Wild Turkeys

Sanders

Hewitt

Perotto‐Baldivieso

et al. 2020

Sci Rep

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

similar to natural turkey nests 34. Additionally, simulated nest studies allow for assessment of the influence of the density of nests on nest depredation 35. We used simulated wild turkey nests to evaluate the magnitude of nest predation by wild pigs relative to native nest predators throughout the nesting season in 2016. We also simulated differing densities of nests to evaluate for changes in the frequency of nest predation. Our first objective was compare the frequency of nest consumption by wild pigs to that of native nest predators. Secondly, we assessed the role of seasonality and density of nests in the depredation of nests by wild pigs. Finally, we evaluated differences in consumption of nests by sex and age of wild pigs. Our results will inform efforts to mitigate the impacts of wild pigs on wild turkeys. Methods Study area. Our study area was located in south-central Texas (Bexar County), USA (Latitude 29.622 N, Longitude 98.572 W). Specifically, we worked on Camp Bullis Military Reserve, an 11,000 ha military training base that is bordered by both urban and rural ecosystems. Topography on Camp Bullis is typical of the Edwards Plateau: rolling hills with limestone outcrops and rocky soils 36. Vegetation is an oak woodland and grassland matrix 37,38. Streams and pools are available seasonally during periods of high precipitation. Camp Bullis contains populations of both wild pigs and Rio Grande wild turkey (M. gallopavo intermedia), as well as potential nest predators including raccoons (Procyon lotor), gray foxes (Urocyon cinereoargenteus), coyotes (Canis latrans), bobcats (Lynx rufus), opossums (Didelphis virginiana), striped skunks (Mephitis mephitis), armadillos (Dasypus novemcinctus), corvids, and snakes 23,28. In 2006, a suspected release or immigration from surrounding properties of wild pigs occurred on Camp Bullis, resulting in abundant wild pigs throughout the study area (M. L. Cooksey, U.S. Army Environmental Command, personal communication). In 2017, the density of wild pigs was reported to average 3.5 wild pigs per km 2 39. capture and monitoring of wild pigs. Methods for this study were similarly reported for a simultaneous study 23. We captured wild pigs using corral and box traps baited with whole-kernel corn between 15 January and 15 March 2016. We immobilized adult wild pigs (estimated to be >45 kg) using an intramuscu

show abstract

“…We selected bait sites by overlaying the study area with a 0.75 × 0.75 km grid (based on Kay et al 2017, Lavelle et al 2018 b , Snow et al 2019, Snow and VerCauteren 2019), and focusing on grid cells that had fresh sign of wild pigs (e.g., feces, tracks, rooting, wallows). This grid size allowed us to expose an estimated 90–100% of wild pigs to bait in the study area (Snow and VerCauteren 2019). Within the selected cells, we established 1–3 bait sites by deploying 11.3 kg of whole‐kernel corn in locations near fresh sign.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Daily and Landscape Influences of Species Visitation to Toxic Bait Sites for Wild Pigs

Snow

Halseth

Glow

et al. 2021

Wildlife Society Bulletin

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Toxic baiting of wild pigs (Sus scrofa) is a potential new tool for population control and damage reduction in the United States. Use of toxic bait sites by non‐target species is concerning because of the risks posed from exposure to a toxic bait. A 2018 field trial in northern Texas, USA, examining the efficacy of a prototype toxic bait (HOGGONE®, containing 10% sodium nitrite) revealed unexpected hazards to non‐target species, primarily passerine birds, from consuming toxic bait spilled outside of bait stations by wild pigs. The hazards jeopardize the ability to register HOGGONE as a tool for controlling wild pigs. We conducted a post hoc analysis from that 2018 trial to identify how daily and landscape factors influenced the use of bait sites by non‐target species, and subsequent hazards from consuming the toxic bait. We discovered that no single strategy can eliminate visitations by all non‐target species, but offering the toxic bait at night, in wild‐pig specific bait stations, and in more homogeneous landscapes appeared to be the best strategy for minimizing visits by passerine birds. We also found that use of bait sites by wild pigs were temporally clustered, and more pigs visited bait sites along linear features of the landscape (e.g., agricultural edges or riparian corridors). We recommend a baiting strategy where applicators do not place bait stations directly at sites where remnant particles of grain (from prebaiting) are available on the ground. Published 2021. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA.

show abstract

Movement responses inform effectiveness and consequences of baiting wild pigs for population control

Abstract: Movement responses inform effectiveness and consequences of baiting wild pigs for population control" (2019).

Cited by 18 publications

References 47 publications

Efficacy and risks from a modified sodium nitrite toxic bait for wild pigs

Efficacy and risks from a modified sodium nitrite toxic bait for wild pigs

Invasive Wild Pigs as Primary Nest Predators for Wild Turkeys

Daily and Landscape Influences of Species Visitation to Toxic Bait Sites for Wild Pigs

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About