European Journal of Wildlife Research

, Volume 59, Issue 6, pp 805–814 | Cite as

Mortality rates of wild boar Sus scrofa L. in central Europe

  • Oliver Keuling
  • Eric Baubet
  • Andreas Duscher
  • Cornelia Ebert
  • Claude Fischer
  • Andrea Monaco
  • Tomasz Podgórski
  • Céline Prevot
  • Katrin Ronnenberg
  • Gunter Sodeikat
  • Norman Stier
  • Henrik Thurfjell
Original Paper

Abstract

In many parts of Europe, wild boar Sus scrofa population increase, and thus, high densities and dispersal into new areas are accompanied by economic problems. Due to many factors like insufficient hunting strategies as well as underestimation of population densities and reproduction rates, harvest rates seem to be insufficient. Thus, we calculated mortality rates of several wild boar populations from 1998 to 2009, to show the efficiency of hunting within several studies distributed over eight European states. For calculating mortality rates, the daily probability of survival of radio telemetrically observed wild boar was analysed according to Mayfield (Wilson Bull 73:255-261, 1961) and with survival analysis in R for three age classes (0, 1, ≥2 years) and both sexes. The mortality rates of wild boar per annum, especially piglets, were comparably low (about 0.5 for piglets and similar for total population). About three third of all observed animals survived at least until the next period of reproduction. Mortality rates differed between some study areas, the sexes and age classes. The sex ratio of the shot piglets equals the sex ratio of captured piglets; there seems to be no sex-biased hunting in this age class, but in an older age. Shooting was the main cause of death; only very few animals died by natural causes, e.g. diseases. The comparative analysis of all studies reflects a low mortality of wild boar in highly productive populations. Our results certified the findings of several studies that predation, natural mortality, and road mortality have only small impact on wild boar populations, whereas especially, nutrition or hunting are mainly decisive. Assuming net reproduction rates of more than 200 % according to literature data, our results indicate that harvest rates are not sufficient at our study sites. In all our studies, mortality rates and, thus, harvest rates are less than the assumed total net reproduction. Especially, the harvest rate of piglets seems to be insufficient. Thus, the population will increase further. High reproduction has to be counteracted by regulating mainly the reproductive animals. For regulating a population, combined and effective hunting methods have to be conducted to harvest at least the net reproduction. Thus, we recommend higher hunting rates of piglets (80 % of the offspring should be harvested) and of adult females. Intensified hunting of piglets by drive hunts and at an early age as well as intensified single hunt on adult females might help regulating wild boar populations.

Keywords

Sus scrofa Mortality rates Hunting efficiency Sex ratio Wildlife management Human dimension 

Supplementary material

10344_2013_733_MOESM1_ESM.jpg (772 kb)
ESM 1

Location of the study areas in Europe (JPEG 771 kb)

10344_2013_733_MOESM2_ESM.pdf (24 kb)
ESM 2Output of the linear regression (PDF 24.2 kb)
10344_2013_733_MOESM3_ESM.pdf (32 kb)
ESM 3Output of the non-parametric survival analysis with censoring (PDF 31.5 kb)
10344_2013_733_MOESM4_ESM.pdf (98 kb)
ESM 4Trends of hunting bag statistics from different European countries (a few examples) and Japan (PDF 97.9 kb)

References

  1. Baubet E, Servanty S, Brandt S (2009) Tagging piglets at the farrowing nest in the wild: some preliminary guidelines. Acta Silv Lign Hung 5:159–166Google Scholar
  2. 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
  3. Boitani L, Trapanese P, Mattei L (1995) Demographic patterns of a wild boar (Sus scrofa L.) population in Tuscany, Italy. IBEX J Mt Ecol 3:197–201Google Scholar
  4. Boutin S (1990) Food supplementation experiments with terrestrial vertebrates: patterns, problems, and the future. Can J Zool 68:203–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Braga C, Alexandre N, Fernández-Llario P, Santos P (2010) Wild boar (Sus scrofa) harvesting using the espera hunting method: side effects and management implications. Eur J Wildl Res 56:465–469CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Briedermann L (1971) Zur Reproduktion des Schwarzwildes in der Deutschen Demokratischen Republik. Tag-Ber dt Akad Landwirtsch-Wiss Berlin 113:169–186Google Scholar
  7. Briedermann L (1977) Jagdmethoden beim Schwarzwild und ihre Effektivität. Beitr Jagd- u Wildforschung 10:139–152Google Scholar
  8. Briedermann L (1990) Schwarzwild. Neumann-Neudamm, MelsungenGoogle Scholar
  9. Briedermann L, Dittrich G, Goretzki J, Stubbe C, Horstmann H-D, Schreiber R, Klier E, Siefke A, Mehlitz S (1986) Entwicklung der Schalenwildbestände in der DDR und Möglichkeiten der Bestandsregulierung. Beitr Jagd- u Wildforschung 14:16–32Google Scholar
  10. Cahill S, Llimona F (2004) Demographics of a wild boar Sus scrofa Linnaeus, 1758 population in a metropolitan park in Barcelona. In: Fonseca C, Herrero J, Luis A, Soares AMVM (eds) Wild boar research 2002. A selection and edited papers from the “4th International Wild Boar Symposium” Lousa, Portugal, pp. 37–52Google Scholar
  11. Cahill S, Llimona F, Gràcia J (2003) Spacing and nocturnal activity of wild boar Sus scrofa in a Mediterranean metropolitan park. Wildl Biol 9(Suppl):3–13Google Scholar
  12. Calenge C, Maillard D, Vassant J, Brandt S (2002) Summer and hunting season home ranges of wild boar (Sus scrofa) in two habitats in France. Game Wildl Sci 19:281–301Google Scholar
  13. Caley P, Ottley B (1995) The effectiveness of hunting dogs for removing feral pigs (Sus scrofa). Wildl Res 22:147–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cellina S (2008) Effects of supplemental feeding on the body condition and reproductive state of wild boar Sus scrofa in Luxembourg. PhD. University of SussexGoogle Scholar
  15. Durio P, Gallo Orsi U, Macchi E, Perrone A (1995) Structure and monthly birth distribution of a wild boar population living in mountainous environment. IBEX J Mt Ecol 3:202–203Google Scholar
  16. Ebert C, Huckschlag D, Schulz HK, Hohmann U (2010) Can hair traps sample wild boar (Sus scrofa) randomly for the purpose of non-invasive population estimation? Eur J Wildl Res 56:583–590CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ebert C, Kolodziej K, Schikora TF, Schulz H, Hohmann U (2009) Is non-invasive genetic population estimation via faeces sampling feasible for abundant mammals with low defecation rates? A pilot study on free ranging wild boar (Sus scrofa) in South-West Germany. Acta Silv Lign Hung 5:167–177Google Scholar
  18. Fenati M, Monaco A, Guberti V (2008) Efficiency and safety of xylazine and tiletamine/zolazepam to immobilize captured wild boars (Sus scrofa L. 1758): analysis of field results. Eur J Wildl Res 54:269–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fernández-Llario P, Carranza J, Mateos-Quesada P (1999) Sex allocation in a polygynous mammal with large litter size: the wild boar. Anim Behav 58:1079–1084PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fernández-Llario P, Mateos-Quesada P (2003) Population structure of the wild boar (Sus scrofa) in two Mediterranean habitats in the western Iberian Peninsula. Folia Zool 52:143–148Google Scholar
  21. Fruzinski B, Labudzki L (2002) Management of wild boar in Poland. Z Jagdwiss 48(Suppl):201–207Google Scholar
  22. Garzon-Heydt P (1992) Study of a population of wild boar Sus scrofa castilianus Thomas, 1912 in Spain, based on hunting data. In: Bobek B, Perzanowski K, Regelin W (eds) Global trends in wildlife management. 18th IUGB Congress Krakow. Swiat Press, Krakow-Warszawa. pp. 489–492Google Scholar
  23. Geisser H, Reyer H-U (2005) The influence of food and temperature on population density of wild boar Sus scrofa in the Thurgau (Switzerland). J Zool, Lond 267:89–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Genov PW, Massei G, Kostova W (1994) Die Nutzung des Wildschweins (Sus scrofa) in Europa in Theorie und Praxis. Z Jagdwiss 40:263–267Google Scholar
  25. Gerard JF, Cargnelutti B, Spitz F, Valet G, Sardin T (1991) Habitat use of wild boar in a French agroecosystem from late winter to early summer. Acta Theriol 36:119–129Google Scholar
  26. Gethöffer F, Sodeikat G, Pohlmeyer K (2007) Reproductive parameters of wild boar (Sus scrofa) in three different parts of Germany. Eur J Wildl Res 53:287–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gortázar C, Ferroglio E, Höfle U, Frölich K, Vicente J (2007) Diseases shared between wildlife and livestock: a European perspective. Eur J Wildl Res 53:241–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Groot Bruinderink GWTA, Hazebroek E (1996) Wild boar (Sus scrofa scrofa L.) rooting and forest regeneration on podzolic soils in the Netherlands. For Ecol Manage 88:71–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Happ N (2002) Hege und Bejagung des Schwarzwildes. Franckh-Kosmos Verlags-GmbH & Co., StuttgartGoogle Scholar
  30. Hebeisen C, Fattebert J, Baubet E, Fischer C (2008) Estimating wild boar (Sus scrofa) abundance and density using capture–resights in Canton of Geneva, Switzerland. Eur J Wildl Res 54:391–401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Herrero J, García-Serrano A, García-Gonzáles R (1995) Wild boar (Sus scrofa L.) hunting in south-western Pyrenees (Spain): preliminary data. IBEX J Mt Ecol 3:228–229Google Scholar
  32. Jędrzejewski W, Jędrzejewska B, Okarma H, Schmidt K, Zub K, Musiani M (2000) Prey selection and predation by wolves in Białowieża Primeval Forest, Poland. J Mammal 81:197–212Google Scholar
  33. Kanzaki N, Perzanowski K (1997) The potential role of wolf predation in regulating wild boar population in Bieszczady, Poland. Wildl Conserv Japan 2:205–212Google Scholar
  34. Kenward RE (2001) A manual for wildlife radio tagging. Academic, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  35. Keuling O (2009) Managing Wild Boar - Considerations for wild boar management based on game biology data. PhD thesis. Dresden University of Technology. 23 pGoogle Scholar
  36. Keuling O, Lauterbach K, Stier N, Roth M (2010) Hunter feedback of individually marked wild boar Sus scrofa L.: dispersal and efficiency of hunting in northeastern Germany. Eur J Wildl Res 56:159–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Keuling O, Stier N, Roth M (2008a) Annual and seasonal space use of different age classes of female wild boar Sus scrofa L. Eur J Wildl Res 54:403–412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Keuling O, Stier N, Roth M (2008b) How does hunting influence activity and space use in wild boar Sus scrofa. Eur J Wildl Res 54:729–737CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Keuling O, Stier N, Roth M (2009) Commuting, shifting or remaining? Different spatial usage patterns of wild boar Sus scrofa L. in forest and field crops during summer. Mamm Biol 74:145–152Google Scholar
  40. Labudzki L, Wlazelko M (1991) Saisonale Dynamik der vom Schwarzwild im Feldanbau verursachten Schäden im Forschungsgebiet Zielonka. Z Jagdwiss 37:250–257Google Scholar
  41. Liebl T, Elliger A, Linderoth P (2005) Aufwand und Erfolg der Schwarzwildjagd in einem stadtnahen Gebiet. WFS-Mitteilungen:1–5Google Scholar
  42. Martys MF (1982) Gehegebeobachtungen zur Geburts- und Reproduktionsbiologie des Europäischen Wildschweins (Sus scrofa L.). Z Säugetierkunde 47:100–113Google Scholar
  43. Massolo A, Mazzoni della Stella R (2006) Population structure variations of wild boar Sus scrofa in central Italy. Ital J Zool 73:137–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Mayfield H (1961) Nesting success calculated from exposure. Wilson Bull 73:255–261Google Scholar
  45. Mazzoni della Stella R, Calvoi F, Burrini L (1995) The wild boar management in a province of Central Italy. IBEX J Mt Ecol 3:213–216Google Scholar
  46. Milner-Gulland EJ, Coulson T, Clutton-Brock TH (2004) Sex differences and data quality as determinants of income from hunting red deer Cervus elaphus. Wildl Biol 10:187–201Google Scholar
  47. Milner JM, Nilsen EB, Andreassen HP (2007) Demographic side effects of selective hunting in ungulates and carnivores. Conserv Biol 21:36–47PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Monaco A, Carnevali L (2004) Comparing efficiency between ear tags transmitters vs radiocollars in radiotracked wild boar. 5th International Wild Boar and Suidae Symposium CracowGoogle Scholar
  49. Moretti M (1995) Birth distribution, structure and dynamics of a hunted mountain population of wild boars (Sus scrofa L.), Ticino, Switzerland. IBEX J Mt Ecol 3:192–196Google Scholar
  50. Nàhlik A, Sándor G (2003) Birth rate and offspring survival in a free-ranging wild boar Sus scrofa population. Wildl Biol 9(Suppl):37–42Google Scholar
  51. Nores C, Llaneza L, Álvares MA (2008) Wild boar (Sus scrofa) mortality by hunting and wolf (Canis lupus) predation. An example in Northern Spain. Wildl Biol 14:44–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Okarma H, Jedrzejewska B, Jedrzejewski W, Krasinski ZA, Milkowski L (1995) The roles of predation, snow cower, acorn crop and man related factors on ungulate mortality in Bialowieza Primeval Forest, Poland. Acta Theriol 40:197–217Google Scholar
  53. Peris S, Baquedano R, Sánchez A, Pescador M (2005) Mortalidad del jabalí (Sus scrofa) en carreteras de la provincia de Salamanca (NO de España): ¿Influencia de su comportamiento social? Galemys 17:13–23Google Scholar
  54. Podgórski T, Baś G, Jędrzejewska B, Sönnichsen L, Śnieżko S, Jędrzejewski W, Okarma H (2013) Spatiotemporal behavioral plasticity of wild boar (Sus scrofa) under contrasting conditions of human pressure: primeval forest and metropolitan area. J Mammal 94:109–119Google Scholar
  55. R Core Team (2012) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, R 2.15.2 ed. Vienna, Austria. ISBN 3-900051-07-0. Available at http://www.R-project.org/
  56. Reimoser F, Wildauer L, Duscher A, Schreiber B, Zink R (2009) Monitoring & Wildmanagement von Wildtieren im Nationalpark Neusiedlersee-Seewinkel. Endbericht. Modul B, Teil Fiwi. authorized, Wien, 122 pGoogle Scholar
  57. Saether BE (1997) Environmental stochasticity and population dynamics of large herbivores: a search for mechanisms. TREE 12:143–149PubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. Saunders G (1993) The demography of Feral pigs (Sus scrofa) in Kosciusko National Park, New South Wales. Wildl Res 20:559–569CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 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 54:589–599CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Scillitani L, Monaco A, Toso S (2010) Do intensive drive hunts affect wild boar (Sus scrofa) spatial behaviour in Italy? Some evidences and management implications. Eur J Wildl Res 56:307–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Servanty S (2008) Dynamique d’une population chassée de sanglier (Sus scrofa scrofa) en milieu forestier. PhD. Univerité Claude BernardGoogle Scholar
  62. Servanty S, Gaillard J-M, Togo C, Lebreton J-D, Baubet E, Klein F (2005) Population management based on incomplete data: modelling the case of wild boar (Sus scrofa scrofa) in France. In: Pohlmeyer KV (ed). XXVIIth Congress of IUGB, 28. Aug.-3. Sept. Extended abstracts Hanover, Germany, 256–257Google Scholar
  63. Servanty S, Gaillard JM, Ronchi F, Focardi S, Baubet E, Giménez O (2011) Influence of harvesting pressure on demographic tactics: implications for wildlife management. J Appl Ecol 48:835–843CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Servanty S, Gaillard JM, Toïgo C, Brandt S, Baubet E (2009) Pulsed resources and climate-induced variation in the reproductive traits of wild boar under high hunting pressure. J Anim Ecol 78:1278–1290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Sodeikat G, Papendiek J, Richter O, Söndgerath D, Pohlmeyer K (2005) Modelling population dynamics of wild boar (Sus scrofa) in Lower Saxony, Germany. In: Pohlmeyer KV (ed). XXVIIth Congress of IUGB, 28. Aug.-3. Sept. Extended abstracts Hanover, Germany, 488-489Google Scholar
  66. Sodeikat G, Pohlmeyer K (2007) Impact of drive hunts on daytime resting site areas of wild boar family groups (Sus scrofa L.). Wildl Biol Pract 3:28–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Stubbe W, Stubbe M (1977) Vergleichende Beiträge zur Reproduktions- und Geburtsbiologie von Wild- und Hausschwein—Sus scrofa L., 1758. Beitr Jagd- u Wildforschung 10:153–179Google Scholar
  68. Therneau T (2012) A Package for Survival Analysis in S. R package version 2.37-2. Available at http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=survival>. Accessed 20 Nov 2012
  69. Thurfjell H, Ball JP, Åhlén P-A, 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 55:517–523CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Toïgo C, Servanty S, Gaillard JM, Brandt S, Baubet E (2008) Disentangling natural fom hunting mortality in an intensively hunted wild boar population. J Wildl Manage 72:1532–1539Google Scholar
  71. Tolon V, Dray S, Loison A, Zeileis A, Fischer C, Baubet E (2009) Responding to spatial and temporal variations in predation risk: space use of a game species in a changing landscape of fear. Can J Zool 87:1129–1137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Ueda G, Kanzaki N (2005) Wild boar hunters profile in Shimane Prefecture, western Japan. Wildl Biol Pract 1:146–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Oliver Keuling
    • 1
  • Eric Baubet
    • 2
  • Andreas Duscher
    • 3
  • Cornelia Ebert
    • 4
  • Claude Fischer
    • 5
  • Andrea Monaco
    • 6
  • Tomasz Podgórski
    • 7
  • Céline Prevot
    • 8
  • Katrin Ronnenberg
    • 1
  • Gunter Sodeikat
    • 1
  • Norman Stier
    • 9
  • Henrik Thurfjell
    • 10
  1. 1.Institute for Terrestrial and Aquatic Wildlife ResearchUniversity of Veterinary Medicine HannoverHannoverGermany
  2. 2.CNERA Cervidés-SangliersOffice National de la Chasse et de la Faune SauvageParisFrance
  3. 3.Research Institute of Wildlife EcologyUniversity of Veterinary Medicine ViennaViennaAustria
  4. 4.Research Institute for Forest Ecology and ForestryTrippstadtGermany
  5. 5.hepia, Filière Gestion de la NatureJussySwitzerland
  6. 6.National Wildlife InstituteOzzano dell’EmiliaItaly
  7. 7.Mammal Research InstitutePolish Academy of SciencesBiałowieżaPoland
  8. 8.Laboratoire Faune sauvage et Cynégétique, Département de l’étude du milieu naturel et agricoleService Public de WallonieGemblouxBelgium
  9. 9.Institute of Forest Botany and Forest ZoologyDresden University of TechnologyTharandtGermany
  10. 10.Department of Wildlife, Fish, and Environmental StudiesSwedish University of Agricultural SciencesUmeåSweden

Personalised recommendations