Satellite tracking and geospatial analysis of feral swine and their habitat use in Louisiana and Mississippi

Abstract

Feral swine root, or dig, for food and create wallows, thereby destroying sensitive vegetation, displacing native wildlife, and ultimately leading to loss of habitat quality and value. In coastal wetlands, their rooting decreases underground production and expansion of the root zone, exacerbating coastal erosion and land loss (Ashe, 2009). Rooting activities in forested habitats impact forest regeneration and vegetation structure and may lead to increases in invasive plants, including Chinese tallow tree (Triadica sebifera) and cogon grass (Imperata cylindrical). Hurricane protection levees and other water control structures that protect human communities have been severely damaged by rooting. In agricultural lands, feral swine consume crops, damage crop fields, prey on livestock, and create potentially hazardous conditions for the operation of farm equipment (Hamrick and others, 2011). Feral swine compete for food directly with many native animals-such as ducks, deer, squirrels, turkeys, and bears-and destroy habitat

Invasion Complexities: The Diverse Impacts of Nonnative Species on Amphibians

“…Armadillos (Dasypus novemcinctus), which have recently expanded their range in North America, pose similar threats to native salamanders (Plethodon angusticlavius; Crane et al, 2011), as do introduced feral swine that have invaded southern parts of the United States (Hartley et al, 2012). Research conducted by Crane et al (2011) indicates that salamanders are able to detect armadillo chemical cues and that such cues cause P. angusticlavius to exhibit antipredator behavior.…”

Quantifying damage from wild pigs with small unmanned aerial systems

“…Previous studies to determine economic loss due to wild pigs relied on scientific measures such as self‐reporting questionnaires to approximate damage costs and radiotelemetry to track wild pig movement and measure habitat selection (Hayes et al ; Hartley et al , ; Anderson et al ). Although sound, these approaches possess inherent biases such as sampling error and lack of visual investigation.…”