European Journal of Wildlife Research

, Volume 50, Issue 3, pp 112–120 | Cite as

Efficiency of spreading maize in the garrigues to reduce wild boar (Sus scrofa) damage to Mediterranean vineyards

Original Paper

Abstract

The aim of this work was to assess the efficiency of dissuasive spreading of maize to reduce the level of wild boar damage to vines in a Mediterranean area (Puéchabon, southern France). The 50 wine growers of Puéchabon were all questioned about the annual losses caused by the wild boar in each vineyard of the study area between 1990 and 1992. We also studied the distribution of the damage on a smaller scale, by mapping the damaged vines within two vineyards. In summer 1993, we distributed 4.7 tons of maize in the woods , and then questioned the wine growers about the losses in each vineyard for 1993. During 1990–1992, on both large and small scales, the damage had a patchy distribution, with more patches of damage occurring close to the woods. Moreover, the later the vines ripened, the less frequent the damage. The severity of the damage was only affected by the distance of the vineyard from woods. In total, the wild boar consumed 20,049 kg of grapes each year between 1990–1992 (193 kg/ha), and 63% of the vineyards were damaged. In 1993, both the density and the compensation paid in the département increased threefold. However, in our study area, both the proportion of damaged vineyards (36%) and the level of damage in the vineyards (151 kg/ha) were reduced, saving more than 60% in compensation. The dissuasive spreading of maize is therefore an efficient tool to reduce the level of damage to vineyards.

Keywords

Compensation Deterrent Mediterranean habitat Patchy distribution  Supplementary feeding 

References

  1. Andrzejewski R, Jezierski W (1978) Management of a wild boar population and its effects on commercial land. Acta Theriol 23:309–339Google Scholar
  2. Boisaubert B, Bouldoire JL, Vassant J (1983) Bilan de cinq années d’expérimentation de protection des cultures par clôtures électiques dans le département de la Haute-Marne. Bull Mens Off Natl Chasse 68:15–26Google Scholar
  3. Chessel D, Thioulouse J, Champely S (1997) Autocorrélation et composantes cartographiables. Documentation thématique du logiciel ADE-4. Fiche thématique 7.3. VilleurbanneGoogle Scholar
  4. ESRI (Environmental Systems Research Institute) (1996) Using Arcview GIS. The geographic information system for everyone. Environmental Systems Research Institute, Redlands, CAGoogle Scholar
  5. Fournier-Chambrillon C, Maillard D, Fournier P (1994a) Diet of the wild boar (Sus scrofa L.) inhabiting the Montpellier garrigue. IBEX JME 3:179–179Google Scholar
  6. Fournier-Chambrillon C, Maillard D, Fournier P (1994b) Le régime alimentaire du sanglier en milieu méditerranéen. Approche des dégâts sur vigne. Bull Mens Off Natl Chasse 191:36-47Google Scholar
  7. Fournier-Chambrillon C, Maillard D, Fournier P (1996) Variabilité du régime alimentaire du sanglier (Sus scrofa L.) dans les garrigues de Montpellier (Hérault). Gibier Faune Sauvage 13:1457–1476Google Scholar
  8. Geisser H (1998) The wild boar (Sus scrofa) in the Thurgau (Northeastern Switzerland): population status, damage and the influence of supplementary feeding on damage frequency. Gibier Faune Sauvage 15:547–554Google Scholar
  9. Genov PV, Tonini L, Massei G (1995) Crop damage by wild ungulates in a Mediterranean area. In: Botev N (ed) The game and the man, Proc IUGB, Sofia,pp 214–215Google Scholar
  10. Gérard JF, Campan R (1988) Variabilité éco-éthologique chez le sanglier européen: comparaison des travaux français. Cah Ethol Appl 8:63–130Google Scholar
  11. Ihaka R, Gentleman R (1996) R: A language for data analysis and graphics. J Comput Graph Stat 5:299–314Google Scholar
  12. Johnson DH (1980) The comparison of usage and availability measurements for evaluating resource preference. Ecology 61:65–71Google Scholar
  13. Kristiansson H (1985) Crop damage by wild boars in central Sweden. In: de Crombrugghe, SA (ed.) Proc 17th Congr IUGB Brussels, pp 605–609Google Scholar
  14. Lavoisier E, Léon F, Havet P, Granval P (1996) Intérêt de la jachère pour réduire les dégâts de grand gibier dans les récoltes. Bull Mens Off Natl Chasse 214:51–55Google Scholar
  15. Leranoz-Urtasum I (1983) Sobre la relacion des jabali (Sus scrofa L.) con la agricultura, en Navarra septentrional. Actas XV Congr Int Fauna Cinegetica Silvestre, Trujillo, Spain, pp 639–645Google Scholar
  16. Mackin R (1970) Dynamics of damage caused by wild boar to different agricultural crops. Acta Theriol 15:447–458Google Scholar
  17. McCullagh P, Nelder JA (1989) Generalized linear models, 2nd edn. Chapman and Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  18. Maillard D (1996) Occupation et utilisation de la garrigue et du vignoble méditerranéens par le sanglier (Sus scrofa L.). Doctoral Thesis, University of Aix-Marseille III, FranceGoogle Scholar
  19. Maillard D, Sanier M (1996) Comportement alimentaire, dégâts dans les vignes et protection. La Chasse dans l’Hérault 24:21–21Google Scholar
  20. Meriggi A, Sacchi O (1992) Factors affecting damage by wild boars to cereal fields in northern Italy. In: Spitz F, Janeau G, Gonzalez G, Aulagnier S (eds) Proc Int Symp Ongulés/Ungulates 1991, SFEPM-IRGM, Paris, pp 439–441Google Scholar
  21. Onida P, Garau F, Cossu S (1995) Damage caused to crops by wild boars (S. scrofa meridionalis) in Sardinia (Italy). IBEX JME 3:230–235Google Scholar
  22. Otis DL (1997) Analysis of habitat selection studies with multiple patches within cover types. J Wildl Manage 61:1016–1022Google Scholar
  23. Otis DL (1998) Analysis of the influence of spatial pattern in habitat selection studies. J Agric Biol Environ Stat 3:254–267Google Scholar
  24. Spitz F, Janeau G (1995) Daily selection of habitat in wild boar (Sus scrofa). J Zool (Lond) 237:423–434Google Scholar
  25. Spitz F, Lek S (1999) Environmental impact prediction using neural network modelling. An example in wildlife damage. J Appl Ecol 36:317–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Thioulouse J, Chessel D, Doledec S, Olivier JM (1997) ADE-4 : a multivariate analysis and graphical display software. Stat Comput 7:75–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Vassant J (1994a) Les techniques de prévention des dégâts de sanglier. Bull Mens Off Natl Chasse 191:90–93Google Scholar
  28. Vassant J (1994b) L’agrainage dissuasif : résultats d’expériences. Bull Mens Off Natl Chasse 191:101–105Google Scholar
  29. Vassant J (1996) Evolution of wild boar populations and damage to crops in France between 1978 and 1993. In: C.I.C. (ed.) Proc Schwarzwild Symp, Sopron, Ungarn, pp 131–141Google Scholar
  30. Vassant J, Boisaubert B (1984) Bilan des expérimentations entreprises en Haute-Marne pour réduire les dégâts de sangliers (Sus scrofa) à l’encontre des cultures agricoles. In: Spitz F, Pépin D (eds) Proc Symp Int Sanglier. Colloques de l’INRA 22:187–199Google Scholar
  31. Vassant J, Breton D (1986) Essai de réduction des dégâts de sangliers (Sus scrofa scrofa) sur blé (Triticum sativum) au stade laiteux par distribution de maïs (Zea mais) en forêt. Gibier Faune Sauvage 3:83–95Google Scholar
  32. Vassant J, Jullien JM, Brandt S (1992) Reducing wild boar damage to wheat and oats in summer: study of the effectiveness of maize distribution in the forest. In: Bobek B, Perzanowski K, Regelin WL (eds) Proc 18th IUGB Congr, Global trends in wildlife management, Jagdellonian University, KrakowGoogle Scholar
  33. Welander J (2000) Spatial and temporal dynamics of a disturbance regime. Wild boar Sus scrofa rooting and its effects on plant species diversity. Doctoral Thesis, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, UtgivningsortGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • C. Calenge
    • 1
  • D. Maillard
    • 1
  • P. Fournier
    • 1
  • C. Fouque
    • 1
  1. 1.Office national de la chasse et de la faune sauvageMontpellier Cedex 05France

Personalised recommendations