Patterns of crop damage by wild boar (Sus scrofa)in Luxembourg over a 10-year period

  • Laurent Schley
  • Marc Dufrêne
  • Ady Krier
  • Alain C. Frantz
Original Paper

Abstract

In many European countries, the wild boar (Sus scrofa) is often associated with crop damage. In this study, we analyse data relating to 13,276 cases of wild boar damage to agricultural crops over a 10-year period in Luxembourg (an area of 2,586 km2 in Western Europe). Results show that (1) damage is more severe in this area than in others; (2) damage to permanent grassland is far more frequent and more severe than damage to annual crops; (3) trichomatous crops such as barley are avoided; (4) damage is seasonally distributed according to type of crop; (5) damage is distributed spatially in a non-uniform manner; (6) damage intensity is significantly correlated with wild boar hunting bags, both over time and space. We suggest that wild boar management strategy should always take into account the issue of damage to agricultural crops. Our results imply that measures for preventing or reducing damage should be more targeted in time and space and that adjustments to cropping patterns should contribute towards a reduction of wild boar damage.

Keywords

Agriculture Game species Human–wildlife conflicts Hunting records Ungulates 

References

  1. Anonymous (1988) Le sanglier. Supplément au Bull Mens ONC 123:1–8Google Scholar
  2. Anonymous (1998) Current status and potential impact of wild boar (Sus scrofa) in the English countryside: a risk assessment. Central Science Laboratory, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, UKGoogle Scholar
  3. Anonymous (2002) Vorschlag der Fédération des Chasseurs Luxembourgeois betreffend eine jagd- und wildtiergerechte Fütterung. Fëscher a Jeeër 6(02):26–27Google Scholar
  4. Anonymous (2006) Guide communal. L’annuaire des communes. Imprimerie Victor Buck, Luxembourg, LuxembourgGoogle Scholar
  5. Arnold W (2005) Schwarzwild: Hintergründe einer Explosion. Weidwerk 1(2005):8–11Google Scholar
  6. Baettig M (1988) Recherche et étude du sanglier dans la République et Canton du Jura. Biologie, habitat, chasse et gestion, dégâts aux cultures et leur prévention. Office des eaux et de la protection de la nature, St-Ursanne, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  7. Ballon P, Bouldoire J-P (1983) Dégâts dus au gibier. Bulletin Technique d’Information 377–378:185–200Google Scholar
  8. Barrett RH (1978) The feral hog on the dye creek ranch, California. Hilgardia 46:283–355Google Scholar
  9. Baubet E (1998) Biologie du sanglier en montagne: biodémographie, occupation de l’espace et régime alimentaire. Thesis, University of Lyon, Lyon, FranceGoogle Scholar
  10. Baubet E (2008) Alimentation naturelle ou artificielle: quels effets sur la dynamique de populations de sangliers. Actes du colloque sur les modalités de gestion du sanglier, 1st–2nd March 2007, Reims, France (in press)Google Scholar
  11. Baubet E, Bonenfant C, Brandt S (2004) Diet of the wild boar in the French Alps. In: Fonseca C, Herrero J, Luís A, Soares AMVM (eds) Wild boar research 2002. A selection and edited papers from the 4th International Wild Boar Symposium. Galemys, 16 Special Issue, pp 99–111Google Scholar
  12. Bieber C, Ruf T (2002) Populationsökologie des Schwarzwildes. Weidwerk 6(2002):11–14Google Scholar
  13. Bieber C, Ruf T (2005) Population dynamics in wild boar Sus scrofa: ecology, elasticity of growth rate and implications for the management of pulsed resource consumers. J Appl Ecol 42:1203–1213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Borcard D, Legendre P, Drapeau P (1992) Partialling out the spatial component of ecological variation. Ecology 73:1045–1055CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Bouldoire J-L, Havet P (1981) Nature et importance des dégâts aux cultures causés par les grands gibiers et les sangliers. Bull Mens ONC 48:10–16Google Scholar
  16. Briedermann L (1976) Ergebnisse einer Inhaltsanalyse von 665 Wildschweinmagen. Zoologischer Garten, N.F., Jena 46:157–185Google Scholar
  17. Burnham KP, Anderson DR (1998) Model selection and inference: a practical information-theoretic approach. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  18. Calenge C, Maillard D, Fournier P, Fouque C (2004) Efficiency of spreading maize in the garrigues to reduce wild boar (Sus scrofa) damage to Mediterranean vineyards. Eur J Wildl Res 52:112–120Google Scholar
  19. Cellina S (2008) Effects of supplemental feeding on the body condition and reproductive state of wild boar Sus scrofa in Luxembourg. Thesis, University of Sussex, Brighton, UKGoogle Scholar
  20. Duderstaedt H-J (1995) AH-HA-Weniger Schäden auf Grünland. Deutsche Jagd-Zeitung 10(95):26–28Google Scholar
  21. EFOR (2002) Territoires écologiques du Luxembourg-domaines et secteurs écologiques. Administration des Eaux et Forêts, Service de l’Aménagement des Bois et de l’Economie Forestière, Luxembourg, LuxembourgGoogle Scholar
  22. Erkinaro E, Heikura K, Lindgren E, Pulliainen E, Sulkava S (1982) Occurrence and spread of the wild boar (Sus scrofa) in eastern Fennoscandia. Mem Soc Fauna Flora Fennica 58:39–47Google Scholar
  23. Feichtner B (1998) Ursachen der Streckenschwankungen beim Schwarzwild im Saarland. Z Jagdwiss 44:140–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Geisser H (2000) Das Wildschwein (Sus scrofa) im Kanton Thurgau (Schweiz): Analyse der Populationsdynamik, der Habitatansprüche und der Feldschäden in einem anthropogen beeinflussten Lebensraum. Thesis, University of Zurich, Zurich, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  25. Geisser H, Bürgin T (1998) Das Wildschwein. Verlag Desertina, Chur, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  26. Geisser H, Reyer H-U (2004) Efficacy of hunting, feeding, and fencing to reduce crop damage by wild boars. J Wildl Manage 68:939–946CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Genov P (1981) Die Verbreitung des Schwarzwildes (Sus scrofa L.) in Eurasien und seine Anpassung an die Nahrungsverhältnisse. Z Jagdwiss 27:221–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gérard JF, Teillaud P, Spitz F, Mauget R, Campan R (1991) Les ongulés sauvages de France: le sanglier. Rev Ecol (Terre et Vie) Supplément 6:11–66Google Scholar
  29. Gortázar C, Acevedo P, Ruiz-Fons F, Vicente J (2006) Disease risks and overabundance of game species. Eur J Wildl Res 52:81–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Goryńska W (1981) Method of determining relations between the extent of damage in farm crops, big game numbers, and environmental conditions. Acta Theriol 26:469–481Google Scholar
  31. Gouvernement du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg (1925) Loi modifiée du 20 juillet 1925 sur l’amodiation de la chasse et l’indemnisation des dégâts causés par le gibier. Mémorial 1925(35):429–448Google Scholar
  32. Groot Bruinderink GWTA, Hazebroek E, van der Voot H (1994) Diet and condition of wild boar, Sus scrofa scrofa, without supplementary feeding. J Zool (Lond) 233:631–648CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hahn N, Eisfeld D (1998) Diet and habitat use of wild boar (Sus scrofa) in SW-Germany. Gibier Faune Sauvage 15:595–606Google Scholar
  34. Harperath M, Schmitz D (2005) Annuaire statistique du Luxembourg. Service central de la statistique et des études économiques (STATEC), Ministère de l’Economie, Luxembourg, LuxembourgGoogle Scholar
  35. Herre W (1993) Sus scrofa Linnaeus, 1758-Wildschwein. In: Niethammer J, Krapp F (eds) Handbuch der Säugetiere Europas, Bd. 2/II Paarhufer–Artiodactyla (Suidae, Cervidae, Bovidae). AULA-Verlag, Wiesbaden, Germany, pp 36–66Google Scholar
  36. Herrero J, García-Serrano A, Couto S, Ortuño VM, García-González R (2006) Diet of wild boar Sus scrofa L. and crop damage in an intensive agroecosystem. Eur J Wildl Res 52:245–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Janeau G, Gallo Orsi U (1992) Wild boar session and workshop: comments and conclusions. In: Spitz F, Janeau G, Gonzalez G, Aulagnier S (eds) Proceedings of the international symposium “Ongulés/Ungulates 91”, SFEPM-IRGM. Toulouse, France, pp 383–384Google Scholar
  38. Jullien JM, Brandt S, Vassant J (1988) L’apport de maïs, à points fixes, est-il un moyen efficace de dissuader les sangliers de fréquenter les céréales en lait? Bull Mens ONC 130:19–26Google Scholar
  39. Kaberghs J (2004) Sanglier-Impact du nourrissage artificiel. Chasse et Nature 96(4):29–32Google Scholar
  40. Klein F, Baubet E, Toigo C, Leduc D, Saint-Andrieux C, Saïd S, Fréchard C, Vallance M (2007) La gestion du sanglier. Des pistes et des outils pour réduire les populations. Office national de la chasse et de la faune sauvage. Paris, Auffargis, Bar-le-Duc, FranceGoogle Scholar
  41. Krier A (2005) Zur Problematik der Entwicklung der Schalenwildbestände und der Wildschäden im Großherzogtum Luxemburg unter besonderer Berücksichtigung des Schwarzwildes. Beitr Jagd Wildf 30:337–350Google Scholar
  42. Kristiansson H (1985) Crop damage by wild boars in Central Sweden. In: Proceedings of the XVIIth Congress of the International Union of Game Biologists. Brussels, Belgium, pp 605–609Google Scholar
  43. Łabudzki L, Wlazełko M (1991) Saisonale Dynamik der vom Schwarzwild im Feldanbau verursachten Schäden im Forschungsgebiet Zielonka. Z Jagdwiss 37:250–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Linderoth P, Elliger A (2002) Schwarzwildschäden an landwirtschaftlichen Kulturen in Baden-Württemberg im Jagdjahr 2000/2001. WFS-Mitteilungen 1(2002):1–4Google Scholar
  45. Linkie M, Dinata Y, Nofrianto A, Leader-Williams N (2007) Patterns and perceptions of wildlife crop raiding in and around Kerinci Seblat National Park, Sumatra. Anim Conserv 10:127–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Macchi E, Gallo Orsi U, Perrone A, Durio P (1992) Wild boar (Sus scrofa) damages in Cuneo Province (Piedmont, Italy NW). In: Spitz F, Janeau G, Gonzalez G, Aulagnier S (eds) Proceedings of the International Symposium “Ongulés/Ungulates 91”, SFEPM-IRGM. Toulouse, France, pp 431–433Google Scholar
  47. Melchior E, Mentgen E, Peltzer R, Schmitt R, Weiss J (1987) Atlas der Brutvögel Luxemburgs. Lëtzebuerger Natur- a Vulleschutzliga, Kockelscheuer, LuxembourgGoogle Scholar
  48. 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) Proceedings of the International Symposium “Ongulés/Ungulates 91”, SFEPM-IRGM. Toulouse, France, pp 439–441Google Scholar
  49. Minitab Inc (2004) MINITAB®, release 14 for Windows [computer program]. Minitab Inc., State College, PA, USAGoogle Scholar
  50. Naughton-Treves L (1998) Predicting patterns of crop damage by wildlife around Kibale National Park, Uganda. Conserv Biol 12:156–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Oli MK, Taylor IR, Rogers ME (1994) Snow leopard Panthera uncia predation of livestock: an assessment of local perceptions in the Annapurna Conservation Area, Nepal. Biol Conserv 68:63–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Reimoser F, Gossow H (1996) Impact of ungulates on forest vegetation and its dependence on the silvicultural system. Forest Ecol Manag 88:107–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Rondeux J (2006) Der Luxemburger Wald in Zahlen. Ergebnisse der Luxemburger Landeswaldinventur 1998–2000. Forstverwaltung des Großherzogtums Luxemburg, Abteilung für Forsteinrichtung und forstliche Betriebswirtschaft, Luxemburg, LuxembourgGoogle Scholar
  54. Schley L (2000) The badger Meles meles and the wild boar Sus scrofa: distribution and damage to agricultural crops in Luxembourg. Thesis, University of Sussex, Brighton, UKGoogle Scholar
  55. Schley L, Roper TJ (2003) Diet of wild boar Sus scrofa in Western Europe, with particular reference to consumption of agricultural crops. Mammal Rev 33:43–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Schley L, Krier A, Wagner M, Roper TJ (1998) Changes in the wild boar Sus scrofa population in Luxembourg during the period 1946 to 1996. Bull Soc Nat luxemb 99:77–85Google Scholar
  57. Servanty S, Gaillard J-M, Toigo C, Lebreton J-D, Baubet E, Klein F, Brandt S (2008) Démographie des populations de sangliers: Conséquences pour la gestion de l’espèce. In: Actes du colloque sur les modalités de gestion du sanglier, 1st–2nd March 2007, Reims, France (in press)Google Scholar
  58. Singleton GR, Petch DE (1994) A review of the biology and management of rodent pests in southeast Asia. ACIAR Tech Rep 30:1–65Google Scholar
  59. Spiecker D (1969) Verlauf und Ausbreitung der Schweinepest (Pestis suum) in der Eifel in den Jahren 1963 und 1964. Z Jagdwiss 15:144–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Spitz F, Lek S (1999) Environmental impact prediction using neural network modelling. An example in wildlife damage. J Appl Ecol 36:317–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Sułkowski P, Smyd-Gołba K, Wiśniowska L (2004) Characteristics of damage caused by wild boar in various regions of Poland. Abstracts of the 5th International Wild Boar and Suidae Symposium. Department of Ecology, Wildlife Research and Ecotourism, Pedagogical University of Kraków, Kraków, Poland, pp 47–48Google Scholar
  62. Tellería JL, Sáez-Royuela C (1985) L’évolution démographique du sanglier (Sus scrofa) en Espagne. Mammalia 49:195–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. ter Braak CJF, Smilauer P (1998) Canoco: a software for canonical community ordination (ver. 4). Centre for Biometry, Wageningen, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  64. Tilson R, Nyhus P (1998) Keeping problem tigers from becoming a problem species. Conserv Biol 12:261–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Vassant J (1994a) L’agrainage dissuasif: résultat d’expériences. Bull Mens ONC 191:101–105Google Scholar
  66. Vassant J (1994b) Les techniques de prévention des dégâts de sangliers. Bull Mens ONC 191:90–93Google Scholar
  67. Vassant J (1997) Agrainage et gestion des populations de sangliers. Supplément au Bull Mens ONC 227:1–4Google Scholar
  68. 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) Symposium international sur le sanglier, Colloques de l’I.N.R.A. 22. Toulouse, France, pp 187–199Google Scholar
  69. Vassant J, Breton D (1986) Essai de réduction de dégâts de sangliers (Sus scrofa scrofa) sur le blé (Triticum sativum) au stade laiteux par distribution de maïs (Zea mais) en forêt. Gibier Faune Sauvage 3:83–95Google Scholar
  70. Vassant J, Jullien JM, Brandt S (1987) Réduction des dégâts de sangliers sur blé et avoine en été. Bull Mens ONC 113:23–33Google Scholar
  71. Wilson CJ (2004) Rooting damage to farmland in Dorset, southern England, caused by feral wild boar Sus scrofa. Mammal Rev 34:331–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Wlazełko M, Łabudzki L (1992) Über die Nahrungskomponenten und die trophische Stellung des Schwarzwildes im Forschungsgebiet Zielonka. Z Jagdwiss 38:81–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Zar JH (1999) Biostatistical analysis, 4th ed. Prentice-Hall, Inc, Upper Saddle River, New JerseyGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Laurent Schley
    • 1
  • Marc Dufrêne
    • 2
  • Ady Krier
    • 3
  • Alain C. Frantz
    • 4
  1. 1.Service de la Conservation de la NatureDirection des Eaux et ForêtsLuxembourgLuxembourg
  2. 2.Centre de Recherche de la Naturedes Forêts et du BoisGemblouxBelgium
  3. 3.Service de la ChasseDirection des Eaux et ForêtsLuxembourgLuxembourg
  4. 4.Department of Animal and Plant Sciences, Alfred Denny BuildingUniversity of SheffieldSheffieldUK

Personalised recommendations