Development of known-fate survival monitoring techniques for juvenile wild pigs (Sus scrofa)
David A. Keiter A B E , John C. Kilgo C , Mark A. Vukovich C , Fred L. Cunningham D and James C. Beasley A BA University of Georgia, Savannah River Ecology Laboratory, PO Drawer E, Aiken, SC 29802, USA.
B University of Georgia, D.B. Warnell School of Forestry and Natural Resources, 180 E. Green Street., Athens, GA 30602, USA.
C USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station, PO Box 700, New Ellenton, SC 29809, USA.
D USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Wildlife Services, National Wildlife Research Center, Mississippi Field Station, PO Box 6099, Mississippi State, MS 39762, USA.
E Corresponding author. Email: david.keiter@gmail.com
Wildlife Research 44(2) 165-173 https://doi.org/10.1071/WR16204
Submitted: 4 November 2016 Accepted: 15 March 2017 Published: 13 April 2017
Abstract
Context: Wild pigs are an invasive species linked to numerous negative impacts on natural and anthropogenic ecosystems in many regions of the world. Robust estimates of juvenile wild pig survival are needed to improve population dynamics models to facilitate management of this economically and ecologically important invasive species. Despite this critical knowledge gap, to date no successful known-fate study of wild piglet survival (<5 months of age) has been conducted, due to a lack of appropriate method for this species.
Aims: To aid in locating and tagging neonates, we piloted the use of vaginal implant transmitters (VITs) in adult wild pigs and evaluated average retention times of stud ear-tag transmitters, clip ear-tag transmitters, sutured and epoxied transmitters, harness transmitters, and surgically implanted transmitters to monitor known-fate survival of piglets.
Methods: We captured pregnant female pigs and implanted them with VITs. We tagged subsequently located neonates and piglets captured in traps with the aforementioned transmitters and monitored them to determine retention times and feasibility of each method.
Key results: VITs were effectively used to determine the location and time of wild pig parturition, allowing counting and tagging of neonate wild pigs. Stud ear-tag and abdominal implant transmitters were well retained by piglets weighing ≥3 kg, in contrast to the other tested transmitters.
Conclusions: Stud ear-tag and abdominal implant transmitters allowed known-fate monitoring of juvenile wild pigs, although, of these, stud ear-tag transmitters may be more practical as they do not require field surgery on piglets. Due to their relatively large size, the stud ear tag transmitters were infeasible for monitoring of true neonates (~1 kg); however, this application method may be suitable for neonates upon development of lighter-weight transmitters. The other transmitter attachment methods we tested were ineffective for monitoring of piglet survival, due to poor retention of transmitters.
Implications: The techniques piloted in this study will facilitate research into the reproductive ecology of wild pigs and known-fate studies of piglet mortality to aid in population modelling and evaluation of cause-specific mortality and factors affecting survival of these often-invasive animals.
Additional keywords: attachment, neonate, piglets, radiotransmitter, survival, Sus scrofa, vaginal implant transmitter, wild pigs.
References
Aldridge, H. D. J. N., and Brigham, R. M. (1988). Load carrying and maneuverability in an insectivorous bat: a test of the 5% rule of radio-telemetry. Journal of Mammalogy 69, 379–382.| Load carrying and maneuverability in an insectivorous bat: a test of the 5% rule of radio-telemetry.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Barrett, R. H. (1978). Feral hog at Dye Creek Ranch, California. Hilgardia 46, 283–355.
| Feral hog at Dye Creek Ranch, California.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Barrios-Garcia, M. N., and Ballari, S. A. (2012). Impact of wild boar (Sus scrofa) in its introduced and native range: a review. Biological Invasions 14, 2283–2300.
| Impact of wild boar (Sus scrofa) in its introduced and native range: a review.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Baubet, E., Servanty, S., and Brandt, S. (2009). Tagging piglets at the farrowing nest in the wild: some preliminary guidelines. Acta Silvatica & Lignaria Hungarica 5, 159–166.
Beasley, J. C., Grazia, T. E., Johns, P. E., and Mayer, J. J. (2013). Habitats associated with vehicle collisions with wild pigs. Wildlife Research 40, 654–660.
| Habitats associated with vehicle collisions with wild pigs.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Bengsen, A. J., Gentle, M. N., Mitchell, J. L., Pearson, H. E., and Saunders, G. R. (2014). Impacts and management of wild pigs Sus scrofa in Australia. Mammal Review 44, 135–147.
| Impacts and management of wild pigs Sus scrofa in Australia.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Bevins, S. N., Pedersen, K., Lutman, M. W., Gidlewski, T., and Deliberto, T. J. (2014). Consequences associated with the recent range expansions of nonnative feral swine. Bioscience 64, 291–299.
| Consequences associated with the recent range expansions of nonnative feral swine.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Bieber, C., and Ruf, T. (2005). Population dynamics in wild boar Sus scrofa: ecology, elasticity of growth rate and implications for the management of pulsed resource consumers. Journal of Applied Ecology 42, 1203–1213.
| Population dynamics in wild boar Sus scrofa: ecology, elasticity of growth rate and implications for the management of pulsed resource consumers.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Bishop, C. J., Anderson, C. R., Walsh, D. P., Bergman, E. J., Kuechle, P., and Roth, J. (2011). Effectiveness of a redesigned vaginal implant transmitter in mule deer. The Journal of Wildlife Management 75, 1797–1806.
| Effectiveness of a redesigned vaginal implant transmitter in mule deer.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Campbell, T. A., and Long, D. B. (2009). Feral swine damage and damage management in forested ecosystems. Forest Ecology and Management 257, 2319–2326.
| Feral swine damage and damage management in forested ecosystems.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Diefenbach, D. R., Kochanny, C. O., Vreeland, J. K., and Wallingford, B. D. (2003). Evaluation of an expandable breakaway radiocollar for white-tailed deer fawns. Wildlife Society Bulletin 31, 756–761.
Dreitz, V. J., Baeten, L. A., Davis, T., and Riordan, M. M. (2011). Testing radiotransmitter attachment techniques on northern bobwhite and chukar chicks. Wildlife Society Bulletin 35, 475–480.
| Testing radiotransmitter attachment techniques on northern bobwhite and chukar chicks.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Fedak, M. A., Anderson, S. S., and Curry, M. G. (1983). Attachment of a radio tag to the fur of seals. Journal of Zoology 200, 298–300.
| Attachment of a radio tag to the fur of seals.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Gaines, K. F., Porter, D. E., Punshon, T., and Brisbin, I. L. (2005). A spatially explicit model of the wild hog for ecological risk assessment activities at the Department of Energy’s Savannah River Site. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment 11, 567–589.
| A spatially explicit model of the wild hog for ecological risk assessment activities at the Department of Energy’s Savannah River Site.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Gortázar, C., Acevedo, P., Ruiz-Fons, F., and Vicente, J. (2006). Disease risks and overabundance of game species. European Journal of Wildlife Research 52, 81–87.
| Disease risks and overabundance of game species.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Hanson, L. B., Mitchell, M. S., Grand, J. B., Jolley, D. B., Sparklin, B. D., and Ditchkoff, S. S. (2009). Effect of experimental manipulation on survival and recruitment of feral pigs. Wildlife Research 36, 185–191.
| Effect of experimental manipulation on survival and recruitment of feral pigs.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Hayes, R., Riffell, S., Minnis, R., and Holder, B. (2009). Survival and habitat use of feral hogs in Mississippi. Southeastern Naturalist 8, 411–426.
| Survival and habitat use of feral hogs in Mississippi.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Hernandez, S. M., Gammons, D. J., Gottdenker, N., Mengak, M. T., Conner, L. M., and Divers, S. J. (2010). Technique, safety, and efficacy of intra-abdominal transmitters in nine-banded armadillos. The Journal of Wildlife Management 74, 174–180.
| Technique, safety, and efficacy of intra-abdominal transmitters in nine-banded armadillos.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Holland, A. E. (2015). Spatial ecology of black and turkey vultures in the southeastern United States. M.Sc. Thesis. University of Georgia, Athens, GA.
Hubbard, M. W., Tsao, L.-L. C., Klaas, E. E., Kaiser, M., and Jackson, D. H. (1998). Evaluation of transmitter attachment techniques on growth of wild turkey poults. The Journal of Wildlife Management 62, 1574–1578.
| Evaluation of transmitter attachment techniques on growth of wild turkey poults.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Imm, D. W., and McLeod, K. W. (2005). Plant Communities. In ‘Ecology and Management of a Forested Landscape: Fifty Years on the Savannah River Site’. (Eds J. C. Kilgo and J. I. Blake.) pp. 106–161. (Island Press: Washington, DC.)
Keiter, D. A., and Beasley, J. C. (2017). Hog heaven? Challenges of managing wild pigs in natural areas. Natural Areas Journal 37, 6–16.
| Hog heaven? Challenges of managing wild pigs in natural areas.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Keuling, O., Lauterbach, K., Stier, N., and Roth, M. (2010). Hunter feedback of individually marked wild boar Sus scrofa L.: dispersal and efficiency of hunting in northeastern Germany. European Journal of Wildlife Research 56, 159–167.
| Hunter feedback of individually marked wild boar Sus scrofa L.: dispersal and efficiency of hunting in northeastern Germany.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Keuling, O., Baubet, E., Duscher, A., Ebert, C., Fischer, C., Monaco, A., Podgórski, T., Prevot, C., Ronnenberg, K., Sodeikat, G., Stier, N., and Thurfjell, H. (2013). Mortality rates of wild boar Sus scrofa L. in central Europe. European Journal of Wildlife Research 59, 805–814.
| Mortality rates of wild boar Sus scrofa L. in central Europe.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Kilgo, J. C., Ray, H. S., Vukovich, M., Goode, M. J., and Ruth, C. (2012). Predation by coyotes on white-tailed deer neonates in South Carolina. The Journal of Wildlife Management 76, 1420–1430.
| Predation by coyotes on white-tailed deer neonates in South Carolina.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Krull, C. R., Stanley, M. C., Burns, B. R., Choquenot, D., and Etherington, T. R. (2016). Reducing wildlife damage with cost-effective management programs. PLoS One 11, e0146765.
| Reducing wildlife damage with cost-effective management programs.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Kurz, J. C., and Marchinton, R. L. (1972). Radiotelemetry studies of feral hogs in South Carolina. The Journal of Wildlife Management 36, 1240–1248.
| Radiotelemetry studies of feral hogs in South Carolina.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Mayer, J. J. (2002a). A simple field technique for age determination of adult wild pigs: environmental information document. Westinghouse Savannah River Company WSRC-RP-2002–00635, Westinghouse Savannah River Company, Aiken, SC.
Mayer, J. J., and Brisbin, I. L. Jr (Eds) (2008). ‘Wild pigs in the United States: Their History, Comparative Morphology, and Current Status.’ (University of Georgia Press: Athens, GA.)
Mayer, J. J., Martin, F. D., and Brisbin, I. L. (2002b). Characteristics of wild pig farrowing nests and beds in the upper Coastal Plain of South Carolina. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 78, 1–17.
| Characteristics of wild pig farrowing nests and beds in the upper Coastal Plain of South Carolina.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Mellish, J. M., Sumrall, A., Campbell, T. A., Collier, B. A., Neill, W. H., Higginbotham, B., and Lopez, R. R. (2014). Simulating potential population growth of wild pig, Sus scrofa, in Texas. Southeastern Naturalist (Steuben, ME) 13, 367–376.
| Simulating potential population growth of wild pig, Sus scrofa, in Texas.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Sáenz-de-Santa-María, A., and Tellería, J. L. (2015). Wildlife–vehicle collisions in Spain. European Journal of Wildlife Research 61, 399–406.
| Wildlife–vehicle collisions in Spain.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Servanty, S., Gaillard, J.-M., Ronchi, F., Focardi, S., Baubet, E., and Gimenez, O. (2011). Influence of harvesting pressure on demographic tactics: implications for wildlife management. Journal of Applied Ecology 48, 835–843.
| Influence of harvesting pressure on demographic tactics: implications for wildlife management.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Taylor, R. B., Hellgren, E. C., Gabor, T. M., and Ilse, L. M. (1998). Reproduction of feral pigs in southern Texas. Journal of Mammalogy 79, 1325–1331.
| Reproduction of feral pigs in southern Texas.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Toïgo, C., Servanty, S., Gaillard, J.-M., Brandt, S., and Baubet, E. (2008). Disentangling natural from hunting mortality in an intensively hunted wild boar population. The Journal of Wildlife Management 72, 1532–1539.
Vetter, S. G., Brandstätter, C., Macheiner, M., Suchentrunk, F., Gerritsmann, H., and Bieber, C. (2016). Shy is sometimes better: personality and juvenile body mass affect adult reproductive success in wild boars, Sus scrofa. Animal Behaviour 115, 193–205.
| Shy is sometimes better: personality and juvenile body mass affect adult reproductive success in wild boars, Sus scrofa.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Warner, R. E., and Etter, S. L. (1983). Reproduction and survival of radio-marked hen ring-necked pheasants in Illinois. The Journal of Wildlife Management 47, 369–375.
| Reproduction and survival of radio-marked hen ring-necked pheasants in Illinois.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Williams, B. L., Holtfreter, R. W., Ditchkoff, S. S., and Grand, J. B. (2011). Trap style influences wild pig behavior and trapping success. The Journal of Wildlife Management 75, 432–436.
| Trap style influences wild pig behavior and trapping success.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
