Wild pigs breach farm fence through harvest time in southern San Joaquin Valley

White, Michael D.; Kauffman, Kayla M.; Lewis, Jesse S.; Miller, Ryan S.

doi:10.3733/ca.2018a0017

Cited by 4 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…S4). The same pattern was observed by White et al ., 27 where wild pigs crossed and broke fences more intensively during the harvest period (September–October) when crops were ripe. Lombardini et al ., 66 have also reported that crop damage (e.g., vineyards, oat fields…) by wild boars were characterized by a peak incidence in the summer and early autumn (FSP), and a minimum in spring (FAP).…”

Section: Discusionsupporting

confidence: 84%

“…Livestock fences were the most used type in agricultural areas for crop protection and on livestock farms to delimit pastures (Supporting information, see Table S3) in our study area. For this reason, the greater crossing success reported for this type of fence, and during the FSP, may well be relevant to farmers because of the damage to crops caused by this species 27 . For example, Apollonio et al ., 62 have estimated annual wild boar damage to agriculture in Europe as being valued at €80 000 000.…”

Section: Discusionmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…Previous studies have attributed success in crossing fences to the type of fence, and the lack of maintenance with the presence of holes or breakage points. 19,20,27 The 28 estates present in the study area (64 390 ha) were characterized by means of a survey, conducted with the managers and farmers during the 2009 and 2010 summers (July-September), which is the season when water resources are most limited for wildlife, the availability of food is, therefore, severely reduced and thus the animals displayed longer daily movements in the study area (Supporting information, Table S2). The aim of the survey was to gather information on the fences, both internal and on the perimeter.…”

Section: Characterization Of the Estatesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In addition to the initial cost of installing the fences, their effectiveness is highly dependent of the maintenance status, especially when they are intended to retain wildlife populations, and this is costly 19,25 . Their effectiveness may be compromised by some vulnerable points (e.g., an intersection with a river/road) 23,26 in concomitance with the increased attraction of the resources they protect (e.g., harvest period on agricultural land) 27 . Most fences do not work against a wide variety of species, 10 and normally involve animal conservation costs (e.g., cutting migration routes, promoting landscape fragmentation) 28,29 …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…19,25 Their effectiveness may be compromised by some vulnerable points (e.g., an intersection with a river/road) 23,26 in concomitance with the increased attraction of the resources they protect (e.g., harvest period on agricultural land). 27 Most fences do not work against a wide variety of species, 10 and normally involve animal conservation costs (e.g., cutting migration routes, promoting landscape fragmentation). 28,29 Wild boar (Sus scrofa) is the ungulate most involved in conflicts in Europe, where effective solutions to manage the species are in high demand.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Permeability of artificial barriers (fences) for wild boar (Sus scrofa) in Mediterranean mixed landscapes

Laguna

Barasona

Carpio

et al. 2022

Pest Management Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUND: Fences are one of the most widespread manmade features in nature, constituting an artificial limitation to the movement of wildlife. To date, their effects on wildlife behavior have been understudied but this knowledge is required to design effective management procedures. Using 21 GPS-monitored wild boar, we evaluated the permeability of different types of fences and described temporal patterns and spatial hotspots for crossing events. A fence's permeability was inferred by the crossing success, i.e., the number of times that animals crossed a barrier vs the number of times they did not cross. The vulnerability of fences at watercourses was explored by assessing whether the frequency of crossings was higher around watercourse intersections than expected by chance.RESULTS: Well-maintained big game proof fences were the most effective in reducing successful wild boar crossings; they were, on average, 30% more efficient than livestock type fences. Crossing success was higher for males than females and during the food shortage period than in the food abundance period. The frequency of crossings around watercourses was higher than expected by chance, especially in moderately and well-maintained big game proof type fences.CONCLUSION: While no fence type was 100% wild boar proof, well-maintained big game proof fences substantially constrained the movement of boar. However, they are vulnerable around watercourses. Managing the conflicts in which this species is involved, such as shared infections and agricultural damage, would require fences that are even more effective than the ones analyzed here, ideally in conjunction with other preventive actions.

show abstract

Section: Discusionsupporting

confidence: 84%

Section: Discusionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Section: Characterization Of the Estatesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Permeability of artificial barriers (fences) for wild boar (Sus scrofa) in Mediterranean mixed landscapes

Laguna

Barasona

Carpio

et al. 2022

Pest Management Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Comparison of daily activity patterns across seasons using GPS telemetry and camera trap data for a widespread mammal

Wolfson,

Schlichting,

Boughton

et al. 2023

Ecosphere

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Daily activity patterns of animals can be dynamic across seasons in response to changing environmental conditions. Daily activity, though, has rarely been evaluated in relation to multiple factors (e.g., seasons, demographics, and data collection methods), which could be important for understanding what drives activity patterns. Here, we evaluated the daily activity patterns of a widespread invasive species, wild pigs (Sus scrofa), across two ecologically different study areas at Buck Island Ranch, FL, and Tejon Ranch, CA, from 2015 to 2018. Using GPS telemetry data (62 individuals in FL, 21 individuals in CA) and detections from grids of systematically placed motion‐activated cameras (44 cameras in FL, 48 cameras in CA), we compared activity patterns among seasons, sexes, and data collection methods (GPS and camera traps). Overall, wild pigs were mostly active during crepuscular and nocturnal periods, with their lowest activity during diurnal periods; however, activity patterns varied due to several factors. Daily activity patterns were similar between methods, among seasons, and between sexes in the subtropical climate of Florida. In contrast, daily activity patterns exhibited greater differences between methods and among seasons in California, where seasonal differences in temperature and precipitation were more pronounced. Overall, daily activity patterns estimated using GPS telemetry and camera‐based methods not only exhibited a high degree of overlap in several comparisons but also exhibited marked differences that should be recognized. Given the increasing evaluation of daily activity patterns of animals using multiple types of datasets, our study provides ecologists with valuable information to consider when designing ecological studies, interpreting their results, and comparing research across systems and studies.

show abstract