in

Food resources affect territoriality of invasive wild pig sounders with implications for control

  • 1.

    Lowe, S., Browne, M., Boudjelas, S. & De Poorter, M. 100 of the world’s worst invasive alien species: A selection from the global invasive species database. In Encyclopedia of Biological Invasions 12 (The Invasive Species Specialist Group (ISSG), Species Survival Commission (SSC), World Conservation Union (IUCN), 2000). https://doi.org/10.1525/9780520948433-159.

  • 2.

    North American Invasive Species Network. The ten most important invasive species or invasive species assemblages in North America in 2015. https://www.bugwoodcloud.org/mura/naisn/assets/File/NAISNPRJan2015.pdf (2015).

  • 3.

    Keuling, O. et al. Eurasian wild boar Sus scrofa (Linnaeus, 1758). in Ecology, Conservation and Management of Wild Pigs and Peccaries (eds. Melleti, M. & Meijaard, E.) 202–233 (Cambridge University Press, 2017).

  • 4.

    Strickland, B. K., Smith, M. D. & Smith, A. L. Wild pig damage to resources. In Invasive Wild Pigs in North America: Ecology, Impacts, and Management (eds VerCauteren, K. C. et al.) 143–174 (RC Press, London, 2020).

    Google Scholar 

  • 5.

    Pimental, D. Environmental and economic costs of vertebrate species invasions into the United States. In Managing Vertebrate Invasive Species: Proceedings of an International Symposium (eds. Witmer, G. W., Pitt, W. C. & Fagerstone, K. A.) 2–8 (USDA National Wildlife Research Center, Fort Collins, CO, USA, 2007).

  • 6.

    Ditchkoff, S. S. & Bodenchuk, M. J. Management of wild pigs. In Invasive Wild Pigs in North America: Ecology, Impacts, and Management (eds VerCauteren, K. C. et al.) 175–198 (CRC Press, London, 2020).

    Google Scholar 

  • 7.

    Maher, C. R. & Lott, D. F. Definitions of territoriality used in the study of variation in vertebrate spacing systems. Anim. Behav. 49, 1581–1597 (1995).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 8.

    Bastille-Rousseau, G. et al. Multi-level movement response of invasive wild pigs (Sus scrofa) to removal. Pest Manag. Sci. 77, 85–95 (2021).

    CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 9.

    Boitani, L., Mattei, L., Nonis, D. & Corsi, F. Spatial and activity patterns of wild boars in Tuscany, Italy. J. Mammal. 75, 600–612 (1994).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 10.

    Ilse, L. M. & Hellgren, E. C. Resource partitioning in sympatric populations of collared peccaries and feral hogs in southern Texas. J. Mammal. 76, 784–799 (1995).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 11.

    Gabor, T. M., Hellgren, E. C., Bussche, R. A. V. D. & Silvy, N. J. Demography, sociospatial behaviour and genetics of feral pigs (Sus scrofa) in a semi-arid environment. J. Zool. 247, 311–322 (1999).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 12.

    Sparklin, B. D., Mitchell, M. S., Hanson, L. B., Jolley, D. B. & Ditchkoff, S. S. Territoriality of feral pigs in a highly persecuted population on Fort Benning, Georgia. J. Wildl. Manag. 73, 497–502 (2009).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 13.

    Beasley, J. C., Ditchkoff, S. S., Mayer, J. J., Smith, M. D. & VerCauteren, K. C. Research priorities for managing invasive wild pigs in North America. J. Wildl. Manag. 82, 674–681 (2018).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 14.

    Gray, S. M., Roloff, G. J., Montgomery, R. A., Beasley, J. C. & Pepin, K. M. Wild pig spatial ecology and behavior. In Invasive Wild Pigs in North America: Ecology, Impacts, and Management (eds VerCauteren, K. C. et al.) 33–56 (CRC Press, London, 2020).

    Google Scholar 

  • 15.

    Emlen, J. T. Defended area? A critique of the territory concept and of conventional thinking. Ibis 99, 352 (1957).

    Google Scholar 

  • 16.

    Kamath, A. & Wesner, A. B. Animal territoriality, property and access: A collaborative exchange between animal behaviour and the social sciences. Anim. Behav. 164, 233–239 (2020).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 17.

    ESRI. ArcGIS Pro. Environmental Systems Research Institute (2021).

  • 18.

    Mayer, J. J. Wild hog. In Ecology and Management of a Forested Landscape: Fifty Years on the Savannah River Site (eds Kilgo, J. C. & Blake, J. I.) 374–379 (Island Press, Washington, 2005).

    Google Scholar 

  • 19.

    Mayer, J. J., Edwards, T. B., Garabedian, J. E. & Kilgo, J. C. Sanitary waste landfill effects on an invasive wild pig population. J. Wildl. Manag. 85, 868–879 (2021).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 20.

    Royle, J. A., Chandler, R. B., Sollmann, R. & Gardner, B. Spatial Capture-Recapture (Academic Press, Cambridge, 2014).

    Google Scholar 

  • 21.

    Kranstauber, B., Kays, R., LaPoint, S. D., Wikelski, M. & Safi, K. A dynamic Brownian bridge movement model to estimate utilization distributions for heterogeneous animal movement. J. Anim. Ecol. 81, 738–746 (2012).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 22.

    Byrne, M. E., Guthrie, J. D., Hardin, J., Collier, B. A. & Chamberlain, M. J. Evaluating wild Turkey movement ecology: An example using first-passage time analysis. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 38, 407–413 (2014).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 23.

    Clontz, L. M., Pepin, K. M., VerCauteren, K. C. & Beasley, J. C. Behavioral state resource selection in invasive wild pigs in the Southeastern United States. Sci. Rep. 11, 6924 (2021).

    CAS 
    Article 
    ADS 

    Google Scholar 

  • 24.

    White, G. C. & Garrott, R. A. Analysis of Wildlife Radio-Tracking Data (Academic Press, Cambridge, 1990).

    Google Scholar 

  • 25.

    Potts, J. R., Harris, Stephen & Giuggioli, L. Quantifying behavioral changes in territorial animals caused by sudden population declines. Am. Nat. 182, E73–E82 (2013).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 26.

    Fieberg, J. & Kochanny, C. O. Quantifying home-range overlap: The importance of the utilization distribution. J. Wildl. Manag. 69, 1346–1359 (2005).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 27.

    R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing (2021).

  • 28.

    Schielzeth, H. & Forstmeier, W. Conclusions beyond support: Overconfident estimates in mixed models. Behav. Ecol. 20, 416–420 (2009).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 29.

    Kay, S. L. et al. Quantifying drivers of wild pig movement across multiple spatial and temporal scales. Mov. Ecol. 5, 14 (2017).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 30.

    Hurvich, C. M. & Tsai, C.-L. Regression and time series model selection in small samples. Biometrika 76, 297–307 (1989).

    MathSciNet 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 31.

    Long, J. A., Nelson, T. A., Webb, S. L. & Gee, K. L. A critical examination of indices of dynamic interaction for wildlife telemetry studies. J. Anim. Ecol. 83, 1216–1233 (2014).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 32.

    Benhamou, S., Valeix, M., Chamaillé-Jammes, S., Macdonald, D. W. & Loveridge, A. J. Movement-based analysis of interactions in African lions. Anim. Behav. 90, 171–180 (2014).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 33.

    Brotherton, P. N. M., Pemberton, J. M., Komers, P. E. & Malarky, G. Genetic and behavioural evidence of monogamy in a mammal, Kirk’s dik–dik (Madoqua kirkii). Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 264, 675–681 (1997).

    CAS 
    Article 
    ADS 

    Google Scholar 

  • 34.

    Burt, W. H. Territoriality and home range concepts as applied to mammals. J. Mammal. 24, 346–352 (1943).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 35.

    Cooper, N. W., Sherry, T. W. & Marra, P. P. Modeling three-dimensional space use and overlap in birds. Auk 131, 681–693 (2014).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 36.

    Millspaugh, J. J., Gitzen, R. A., Kernohan, B. J., Larson, M. A. & Clay, C. L. Comparability of three analytical techniques to assess joint space use. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 32, 148–157 (2004).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 37.

    Pepin, K. M. et al. Contact heterogeneities in feral swine: Implications for disease management and future research. Ecosphere 7, e01230 (2016).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 38.

    Yang, A. et al. Effects of social structure and management on risk of disease establishment in wild pigs. J. Anim. Ecol. 90, 820–833 (2021).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 39.

    Carpenter, F. L. Food abundance and territoriality: To defend or not to defend?. Am. Zool. 27, 387–399 (1987).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 40.

    Both, C. & Visser, M. E. Density dependence, territoriality, and divisibility of resources: From optimality models to population processes. Am. Nat. 161, 326–336 (2003).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 41.

    Doncaster, C. P. & Macdonald, D. W. Optimum group size for defending heterogenous distributions of resources: A model applied to red foxes, Vulpes vulpes, Oxford city. J. Theor. Biol. 159, 189–198 (1992).

    Article 
    ADS 

    Google Scholar 

  • 42.

    Krause, J. & Ruxton, G. D. Living in Groups (University Press, Oxford, 2002).

    Google Scholar 

  • 43.

    Garabedian, J. E., Moorman, C. E., Peterson, M. N. & Kilgo, J. C. Effects of group size and group density on trade-offs in resource selection by a group-territorial central-place foraging woodpecker. Ibis 162, 477–491 (2020).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 


  • Source: Ecology - nature.com

    Predicting building emissions across the US

    A new method for removing lead from drinking water