Agronomy for Sustainable Development

, Volume 32, Issue 3, pp 683–692 | Cite as

Increase in crop damage caused by wild boar (Sus scrofa L.): the “refuge effect”

  • Andrea Amici
  • Fioravante Serrani
  • Carlo Maria Rossi
  • Riccardo Primi
Research Article

Abstract

The occurrence of crop damage by wild boars raised dramatically in the last decades, implying an increase in social conflicts, expenditures for compensation and a risk to natural ecosystems. Many researchers have explained this phenomenon by considering wild boar biology, behaviour and abundance. Little or no attention has been devoted to wildlife management and the agricultural mosaic. We hypothesised that the agricultural structure of the landscape and wildlife management planning, including hunting, can play a relevant role in causing crop damage. We studied a Mediterranean area in central Italy that is characterised by a patchy agriculture, dividing the surface into hexagons. A large number of terrain parameters were calculated at the large (hexagons) and local (buffer) scale, including the topography, land use and agricultural management. We also considered wildlife variables such as the number of wild boar shot down, hunting management and the legal status of the wild boar. The terrain and management data for each hexagon were submitted to a generalised binomial stepwise multiple logistic regression. The resultant model demonstrated an accuracy of 0.76, a misclassification rate of 0.24 and an odds ratio of 10.41. The most important variables selected by the regression were the woods in the area where hunting was banned (P < 0.001), a 1-km buffer of intensively cultivated farmland close to the woods where hunting was banned (P < 0.001), a 1-km buffer of intensively cultivated farmland along the river (P < 0.05), the forest edge (P < 0.001), and the mean number of wild boar that were shot (P < 0.05). In this study, we proved that an important factor in explaining crop damage is the “refuge effect” (a buffer close to the wooded areas where hunting was banned) and the 1-km buffer along possible dispersion routes.

Keywords

Sus scrofa Wild boar Crop damage Regression Ungulates Wildlife management Agricultural landscape 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by Amministrazione Provinciale di Viterbo, Assessorato Agricoltura, Caccia e Pesca.

References

  1. Acevedo P, Escudero MA, Muñoz R, Gortázar C (2006) Factors affecting wild boar abundance across an environmental gradient in Spain. Acta Theriol 51:327–336. doi:10.1007/BF03192685 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Apan AA, Raine SR, Paterson MS (2002) Mapping and analysis of changes in the riparian landscape structure of the Lockyer Valley catchment, Queensland, Australia. Landscape Urban Plan 59:43–57. doi:10.1016/S0169-2046(01)00246-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bibier 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 42:1203–1213. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2664.2005.01094.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brangi A, Meriggi A (2003) Espansione del cinghiale (Sus scrofa) e danni alle coltivazioni in un'area delle Prealpi occidentali. Hystrix 14:95–105Google Scholar
  5. Cahill S, Llimona F, Gràcia J (2003) Spacing and nocturnal activity of wild boar Sus scrofa in a Mediterranean metropolitan park. Wild Biol 9:3–13Google Scholar
  6. 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 50:112–120. doi:10.1007/s10344-004-0047-y Google Scholar
  7. Carnevali L, Pedrotti L, Riga F, Toso S (2009) Banca Dati Ungulati: Status, distribuzione, consistenza, gestione e prelievo venatorio delle popolazioni di Ungulati in Italia. Rapporto 2001–2005. Biol Cons Fauna 117:1–168 [Italian-English text]Google Scholar
  8. De Clercq EM, De Wulf RR, Van Herzele A (2007) Relating spatial pattern of forest cover to accessibility. Landscape Urban Plan 80:14–22. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2006.04.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Deleo JM (1993) Receiver operating characteristic laboratory (ROCLAB): software for developing decision strategies that account for uncertainty. In: College Park, MD: IEEE Computer Society Press (ed) Proceedings of the Second International Symposium on Uncertainty Modelling and Analysis, pp 318–325.Google Scholar
  10. Eng J (2006) ROC analysis: web-based calculator for ROC curves. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University (updated 2006 May 17). http://www.jrocfit.org. Accessed 22 March 2011
  11. Feranec J, Ot'ahel' J (1998) Final version of the 4th level CORINE land cover classes at scale 1:50000 (Task 4.2). Technical Report. EAA Phare Topic Ling on Land Cover. Bratislava. Institute of Geography, SASGoogle Scholar
  12. Friedman JH (1991) Multivariate adaptive regression splines (with discussion). Ann Stat 19:1–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Geisser H, Reyer HU (2004) Efficacy of hunting, feeding, and fencing to reduce crop damage by wild boars. J Wildl Manage 68:939–946. doi:10.2193/0022-541X(2004)068[0939:EOHFAF]2.0.CO;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Giménez-Anaya A, Herrero J, Rosell C, Couto S, García-Serrano A (2008) Food habits of wild boars (Sus scrofa) in a Mediterranean coastal wetland. Wetlands 28:197–203. doi:10.1672/07-18.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Groot-Bruinderinck GWTA, Hazebrook E, Van der Voot H (1994) Diet and condition of wild boar (Sus scrofa scrofa) without supplementary feeding. J Zool Soc Lond 233:631–648CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Harrel FE Jr, Lee KL, Mark DB (1996) Tutorial in biostatistics; multivariate prognostic models: issues in developing models, evaluating assumptions and adequacy, and measuring and reducing errors. Stat Med 15:361–387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Honda T (2007) Factors affecting crop damage by wild boar: the analysis using census data of agriculture and forestry. J Jap Forest Soc 89:249–252, ISSN: 0021485XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hosmer DW, Lemeshow S (1989) Applied logistic regression. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  19. Keuling O, Stier N, Roth M (2009) Commuting, shifting or remaining?: Different spatial utilisation patterns of wild boar Sus scrofa L. in forest and field crops during summer. Mamm Biol 74:145–152. doi:10.1016/j.mambio.2008.05.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Landis JR, Koch GC (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biom 33:159–174. doi:10.2307/2529310 Google Scholar
  21. McGarigal K, Cushman SA, Neel MC, Ene E (2002). FRAGSTATS: Spatial Pattern Analysis Program for Categorical Maps. Computer software program produced by the authors at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. http://www.umass.edu/landeco/research/fragstats/fragstats.html
  22. Neter J, Wasserman W, Kutner M (1989) Applied linear regression models. Richard D. Irwin, Boston, MAGoogle Scholar
  23. Ottaviani D, Lasinio GJ, Boitani L (2004) Two statistical methods to validate habitat suitability models using presence-only data. Ecol Model 179:417–443. doi:10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2004.05.016 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Pearce J, Ferrier S (2000) Evaluating the predictive performance of habitat models developed using logistic regression. Ecol Mod 133:225–245. doi:10.1016/S0304-3800(00)00322-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Pinna W, Nieddu G, Moniello G, Cappai MG (2007) Vegetable and animal food sorts found in the gastric content of Sardinian Wild Boar (Sus scrofa meridionalis). J Anim Physiol An 91:252–255. doi:10.1111/j.1439-0396.2007.00700.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Real R, Barbosa AM, Vargas JM (2006) Obtaining environmental favourability functions from logistic regression. Environ Ecol Stat 13:237–245. doi:10.1007/s10651-005-0003-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Schley L, Roper TJ (2003) Diet of wild boar Sus scrofa in Western Europe, with particular reference to consumption of agricultural crops. Mammal Rev 33:43–56. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2907.2003.00010.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Schley L, Dufrêne M, Krier A, Frantz AC (2008) Patterns of crop damage by wild boar (Sus scrofa) in Luxembourg over a 10-year period. Eur J Wildl Res 54:589–599. doi:10.1007/s10344-008-0183-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. StatSoft, Inc. (2004) STATISTICA (data analysis software system), version 7. www.statsoft.com.
  30. Thurfjell H, Ball JP, Åhlén PA, Kornacher P, Dettki H, Sjöberg K (2009) Habitat use and spatial patterns of wild boar Sus scrofa (L.): agricultural fields and edges. Eur J Wildl Res 55:517–523. doi:10.1007/s10344-009-0268-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Wald A (1943) Tests of statistical hypotheses concerning several parameters with applications to problems of estimation. T Am Math Soc 54:426–482. doi:10.2307/1990256 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Zweig MH, Campbell G (1993) Receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) plots: a fundamental evaluation tool in clinical medicine. Clin Chem 39:561–577PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© INRA and Springer-Verlag, France 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andrea Amici
    • 1
  • Fioravante Serrani
    • 1
  • Carlo Maria Rossi
    • 1
  • Riccardo Primi
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Agriculture, Forestry, Nature and EnergyUniversity of TusciaViterboItaly

Personalised recommendations