Habitat and management influence on a seasonal diet composition of wild boar
- 25 Downloads
The purpose of this study was to compare the diet composition of two wild boar populations living in the Czech Republic, one living in a floodplain, broadleaved, forest (A) and the other in a highland mostly coniferous forest (B). Food consumed by A showed to be mostly of natural origin, while that of B was predominantly supplemented. The diet consisting of natural resources was significantly different than the diet including mainly supplemented food. All diversity indices of food volume were higher in lowland localities compared to highland in all season’s cumulative sample. Similarity of the relative volume and relative frequency gradually decreased from spring to winter. Significant differences were found in wild boar consumption of roots (higher in A), grasses (higher in A), seeds and fruits (higher in B) and cereal husks (higher in B). Differences were also found in body mass of the piglets in A, as piglets were dominant group in both localities. Food supply of the localities and population management by the wildlife managers (supplemented food) were the main factors influencing the diet composition of the wild boar.
KeywordsHighland Floodplain Sus scrofa Food Seasons Body mass
We are grateful to our colleagues from Department Management for helping with material collection. This research was supported by the IGA LDF MENDELU 11/2015 and COST No. LD14052 projects.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Compliance with ethical standard
All applicable international, national, and/or institutional guidelines for the care and use of animals were followed.
- Anderson MJ (2001) A new method for non-parametric multivariate analysis of variance. Austral Ecol 26:32–46Google Scholar
- Bartoš L, Kotrba R, Pintíř J (2010) Ungulates and their management in the Czech Republic. In: Apollonio M, Andersen R, Putman R (eds) European ungulates and their management in the 21st century. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 243–262Google Scholar
- Cellina S (2008) Effects of supplemental feeding on the body condition and reproductive state of wild boar Sus scrofa in Luxembourg. Dissertation, University of SussexGoogle Scholar
- Groot Bruinderink GWTA, Hazebroek E, van der Voot H (1994) Diet and condition of wild boar, Sus scrofa scrofa, without supplementary feeding. J Zool 233:631–648. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7998.1994.tb05370.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Málek M (2009) LHP LHC Kinský Žďár 2009–2018, Lesprojekt Hradec KrálovéGoogle Scholar
- Massei G, Genov PV (2004) The environmental impact of wild boar. Galemys 16:135–145Google Scholar
- Nasiadka P, Janiszewski P (2015) Food preferences of wild boars (Sus scrofa L.) in the summer and early autumn expressed by the damage caused in agricultural crops. Sylwan 159:307–317Google Scholar
- Poole RW (1974) An introduction to quantitative ecology. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Scott C (1973) Seasonal food habits of European wild hogs (Sus scrofa) in the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. MSc thesis, University of Tennessee, USAGoogle Scholar
- Shannon CE, Weaver W (1949) The mathematical theory of communication. University of Illinois, UrbanaGoogle Scholar
- Zeman L (1995) Katalog krmiv. VÚVZ Pohořelice, (in Czech)Google Scholar