, Volume 73, Issue 3, pp 259–265 | Cite as

Habitat and management influence on a seasonal diet composition of wild boar

  • Jaroslav Zeman
  • Jan Hrbek
  • Jakub Drimaj
  • Tomáš Kudláček
  • Marta Heroldová
Original Article


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.


Highland 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.


  1. Anderson MJ (2001) A new method for non-parametric multivariate analysis of variance. Austral Ecol 26:32–46Google Scholar
  2. Ballari SA, Barrios-García MN (2014) A review of wild boar Sus scrofa diet and factors affecting food selection in native and introduced ranges. Mammal Rev 44:124–134. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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
  4. 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
  5. Focardi S, Gaillard JM, Ronchi F, Rossi S (2008) Survival of wild boars in a variable environment: unexpected life-history variation in an unusual ungulate. J Mammal 89:1113–1123. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Geisser H, Reyer HU (2005) The influence of food and temperature on population density of wild boar Sus scrofa in the Thurgau (Switzerland). J Zool 267:89–96. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Herrero J, Garcia-Serrano A, Couto S, Ortuno VM, Garcia-Gonzalez R (2006) Diet of wild boar Sus scrofa L. and crop damage in an intensive agroecosystem. Eur J Wildl Res 52:245–250. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ježek M, Štípek K, Kušta T, Červený J, Vícha J (2011) Reproductive and morphometric characteristics of wild boar (Sus scrofa) in the Czech Republic. J For Sci 57:285–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ježek M, Holá M, Kušta T, Červený J (2016) Creeping into wild boar stomach to find traces of supplementary feeding. Wildlife Res 43:590–598. Google Scholar
  11. Málek M (2009) LHP LHC Kinský Žďár 2009–2018, Lesprojekt Hradec KrálovéGoogle Scholar
  12. Massei G, Genov PV (2004) The environmental impact of wild boar. Galemys 16:135–145Google Scholar
  13. Massei G, Genov PV, Staines BW (1996) Diet, food availability and reproduction of wild boar in Mediterranean area. Acta Theriol 41:307–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Matschke GH (1967) Aging European wild hogs by dentition. J Wildlife Manage 31:109–113. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Merta D, Mocala P, Pomykacz M, Frackowiak W (2014) Autumn-winter diet and fat reserves of wild boars (Sus scrofa) inhabiting forest and forest-farmland environment in south-western Poland. Folia Zool 63:95–102. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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
  17. Orłowska L, Rembacz W, Florek C (2013) Carcass weight, condition and reproduction of wild boar harvested in northwestern Poland. Pest Manag Sci 69:367–370. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Övergaard R, Gemmel P, Karlsson M (2007) Effects of weather conditions on mast year frequency in beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) in Sweden. Forestry 80:555–565. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Poole RW (1974) An introduction to quantitative ecology. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  20. Putman RJ, Staines BW (2004) Supplementary winter feeding of wild red deer Cervus elaphus in Europe and North America: justifications, feeding practice an effectiveness. Mammal Rev 34:285–306. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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
  22. Shannon CE, Weaver W (1949) The mathematical theory of communication. University of Illinois, UrbanaGoogle Scholar
  23. Schley L, Dufrene 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. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Zeman J, Hrbek J, Drimaj J, Kudláček T, Kamler J, Plhal R, Heroldová M (2016) Comparison of three methods to evaluate wild boar diet. Folia Zool 65:221–224. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Zeman L (1995) Katalog krmiv. VÚVZ Pohořelice, (in Czech)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Institute of Zoology, Slovak Academy of Sciences 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Forest Protection and Wildlife ManagementMendel University in BrnoBrnoCzech Republic
  2. 2.Institute of Forest EcologyMendel University in BrnoBrnoCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations