Costs and effectiveness of damage management of an overabundant species (Sus scrofa) using aerial gunning
Amy J. Davis
A C , Bruce Leland B , Michael Bodenchuk B , Kurt C. VerCauteren A and Kim M. Pepin A
+ Author Affiliations
- Author Affiliations
A National Wildlife Research Center, Wildlife Services, Animal Plant Health Inspection Service, United States Department of Agriculture, 4101 Laporte Avenue, Fort Collins, CO 80521, USA.
B Wildlife Services, Animal Plant Health Inspection Service, United States Department of Agriculture, San Antonio, TX 78269, USA.
C Corresponding author. Email: amy.j.davis@aphis.usda.gov
Wildlife Research 45(8) 696-705 https://doi.org/10.1071/WR17170
Submitted: 21 November 2017 Accepted: 5 October 2018 Published: 18 December 2018
Abstract
Context: Management of overabundant or invasive species is a constant challenge because resources for management are always limited and relationships between management costs, population density and damage costs are complex and difficult to predict. Metrics of management success are often based on simple measures, such as counts, which may not be indicative of impacts on damage reduction or cost-effectiveness under different management plans.
Aims: The aims of this study were to evaluate the effectiveness of aerial gunning for the management of wild pigs (Sus scrofa), and to evaluate how cost-effectiveness would vary under different relationships between levels of damage and densities of wild pigs.
Methods: Repeated reduction events were conducted by aerial gunning on three consecutive days at three study sites. Using a removal model, the proportion of the population removed by each flight was estimated and population modelling was used to show the time it would take for a population to recover. Three possible damage–density relationships were then used to show the level of damage reduction (metric of success) from different management intensities and levels of population recovery, and these relationships were expressed in terms of total costs (including both damage and management costs).
Key results: Populations were typically reduced by ~31% for the first flight, ~56% after two flights and ~67% after three flights. When the damage relationship suggests high damage even at low densities, the impact of one, two or three flights would represent a reduction in damage of 2%, 19% and 60% respectively after 1 year. Different damage relationships may show considerable damage reduction after only one flight. Removal rates varied by habitat (0.05 per hour in open habitats compared with 0.03 in shrubby habitats) and gunning team (0.03 versus 0.05).
Conclusions: Monitoring the efficacy of management provides critical guidance and justification for control activities. The efficacy of different management strategies is dependent on the damage–density relationship and needs further study for effective evaluation of damage reduction efforts.
Implications: It is critically important to concurrently monitor density and damage impacts to justify resource needs and facilitate planning to achieve a desired damage reduction goal.
Additional keywords: cost–benefit analyses, damage reduction, feral swine, invasive species, monitoring, population reduction, wildlife management.
References
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 |
Baxter, P. W. J., Sabo, J. L., Wilcox, C., McCarthy, M. A., and Possingham, H. P. (2008). Cost-effective suppression and eradication of invasive predators. Conservation Biology 22, 89–98.
| Cost-effective suppression and eradication of invasive predators.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Bengsen, A. J., Leung, L. K. P., Lapidge, S. J., and Gordon, I. J. (2011). Using a general index approach to analyze camera‐trap abundance indices. The Journal of Wildlife Management 75, 1222–1227.
| Using a general index approach to analyze camera‐trap abundance indices.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 expansion of nonnative feral swine. Bioscience 64, 291–299.
| Consequences associated with the recent range expansion 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 |
Bleier, N., Lehoczki, R., Újváry, D., Szemethy, L., and Csányi, S. (2012). Relationships between wild ungulates density and crop damage in Hungary. Acta Theriologica 57, 351–359.
| Relationships between wild ungulates density and crop damage in Hungary.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Buckland, S. T., Anderson, D. R., Burnham, K. P., Laake, J. L., Borchers, D. L. and Thomas, L. (2001) ‘Introduction to Distance Sampling: estimating abundance of biological populations.’ (Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK.)
Caley, P. (1993). Population dynamics of feral pigs (Sus scrofa) in a tropical riverine habitat complex. Wildlife Research 20, 625–636.
| Population dynamics of feral pigs (Sus scrofa) in a tropical riverine habitat complex.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Caley, P. (1994). Factors affecting the success rate of traps for catching feral pigs in a tropical habitat. Wildlife Research 21, 287–292.
| Factors affecting the success rate of traps for catching feral pigs in a tropical habitat.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 |
Campbell, T. A., Long, D. B., and Leland, B. R. (2010). Feral swine behavior relative to aerial gunning in southern Texas. The Journal of Wildlife Management 74, 337–341.
| Feral swine behavior relative to aerial gunning in southern Texas.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Chee, Y. E., and Wintle, B. A. (2010). Linking modelling, monitoring and management: an integrated approach to controlling overabundant wildlife. Journal of Applied Ecology 47, 1169–1178.
| Linking modelling, monitoring and management: an integrated approach to controlling overabundant wildlife.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Choquenot, D., Kilgour, R. J., and Lukins, B. S. (1993). An evaluation of feral pig trapping. Wildlife Research 20, 15–21.
| An evaluation of feral pig trapping.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Choquenot, D., Hone, J., and Saunders, G. (1999). Using aspects of predator–prey theory to evaluate helicopter shooting for feral pig control. Wildlife Research 26, 251–261.
| Using aspects of predator–prey theory to evaluate helicopter shooting for feral pig control.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Conover, M. R. (2001). ‘Resolving Human–wildlife Conflicts: the Science of Wildlife Damage Management.’ (CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL.)
Cowled, B. D., Elsworth, P., and Lapidge, S. J. (2008). Additional toxins for feral pig (Sus scrofa) control: identifying and testing Achilles’ heels. Wildlife Research 35, 651–662.
| Additional toxins for feral pig (Sus scrofa) control: identifying and testing Achilles’ heels.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Davis, A. J., Hooten, M. B., Miller, R. S., Farnsworth, M. L., Lewis, J., Moxcey, M., and Pepin, K. M. (2016). Inferring invasive species abundance using removal data from management actions. Ecological Applications 26, 2339–2346.
| Inferring invasive species abundance using removal data from management actions.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Davis, A. J., Leland, B., Bodenchuk, M., VerCauteren, K. C., and Pepin, K. M. (2017). Estimating population density for disease risk assessment: the importance of understanding the area of influence of traps using wild pigs as an example. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 141, 33–37.
| Estimating population density for disease risk assessment: the importance of understanding the area of influence of traps using wild pigs as an example.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
DeMaso, S. J., Guthery, F. S., Spears, G. S., and Rice, S. M. (1992). Morning covey calls as an index of northern bobwhite density. Wildlife Society Bulletin 20, 94–101.
Diefenbach, D. R., Palmer, W. L., and Shope, W. K. (1997). Attitudes of Pennsylvania sportsmen towards managing white-tailed deer to protect the ecological integrity of forests. Wildlife Society Bulletin 25, 244–251.
Fackler, P. L., and Haight, R. G. (2014). Monitoring as a partially observable decision problem. Resource and Energy Economics 37, 226–241.
| Monitoring as a partially observable decision problem.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Fagerstone, K. A., and Clay, W. H. (1997). Overview of USDA animal damage control efforts to manage overabundant deer. Wildlife Society Bulletin 25, 413–417.
Farnsworth, G. L., Pollock, K. H., Nichols, J. D., Simons, T. R., Hines, J. E., Sauer, J. R., and Brawn, J. (2002). A removal model for estimating detection probabilities from point-count surveys. The Auk 119, 414–425.
| A removal model for estimating detection probabilities from point-count surveys.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Gill, R. M. A. (1992). A review of damage by mammals in north temperate forests: 1. Deer. Forestry. International Journal of Forestry Research 65, 145–169.
Gove, N. E., Skalski, J. R., Zager, P., and Townsend, R. L. (2002). Statistical models for population reconstruction using age-at-harvest data. The Journal of Wildlife Management 66, 310–320.
| Statistical models for population reconstruction using age-at-harvest data.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Hauser, C. E., Pople, A. R., and Possingham, H. P. (2006). Should managed populations be monitored every year? Ecological Applications 16, 807–819.
| Should managed populations be monitored every year?Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Homer, C. G., Dewitz, J. A., Yang, L., Jin, S., Danielson, P., Xian, G., Coulston, J., Herold, N. D., Wickham, J. D., and Megown, K. (2015). Completion of the 2011 National Land Cover Database for the conterminous United States-Representing a decade of land cover change information. Photogrammetric Engineering & Remote Sensing 81, 345–354.
Hone, J. (1995). Spatial and temporal aspects of vertebrate pest damage with emphasis on feral pigs. Journal of Applied Ecology 32, 311–319.
| Spatial and temporal aspects of vertebrate pest damage with emphasis on feral pigs.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Hone, J. (1996). Analysis of vertebrate pest research. In ‘Proceedings of the Seventeenth Vertebrate Pest Conference.’ (Eds R.M. Timm & A.C. Crabb.) pp. 13–17. (University of California: Davis, CA.)
Hone, J. (2002). Feral pigs in Namadgi National Park, Australia: dynamics, impacts and management. Biological Conservation 105, 231–242.
| Feral pigs in Namadgi National Park, Australia: dynamics, impacts and management.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Linnell, J. D., Broseth, H., Odden, J., and Nilsen, E. B. (2010). Sustainably harvesting a large carnivore? Development of Eurasian lynx populations in Norway during 160 years of shifting policy. Environmental Management 45, 1142–1154.
| Sustainably harvesting a large carnivore? Development of Eurasian lynx populations in Norway during 160 years of shifting policy.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Lyons, J. E., Runge, M. C., Laskowski, H. P., and Kendall, W. L. (2008). Monitoring in the context of structured decision-making and adaptive management. The Journal of Wildlife Management 72, 1683–1692.
| Monitoring in the context of structured decision-making and adaptive management.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Massei, G., Cowan, D., Coats, J., Gladwell, F., Lane, J., and Miller, L. (2008). Effect of the GnRH vaccine GonaCon on the fertility, physiology and behaviour of wild boar. Wildlife Research 35, 540–547.
| Effect of the GnRH vaccine GonaCon on the fertility, physiology and behaviour of wild boar.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 |
Moretti, M. (1995). Biometric data and growth rates of a mountain population of wild boar (Sus scrofa L.), Ticino, Switzerland. IBEX – Journal of Mountain Ecology 3, 56–59.
Naughton-Treves, L. (1998). Predicting patterns of crop damage by wildlife around Kibale National Park, Uganda. Conservation Biology 12, 156–168.
| Predicting patterns of crop damage by wildlife around Kibale National Park, Uganda.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Otto, S. P., and Day, T. (2007). ‘A Biologist’s Guide to Mathematical Modeling in Ecology and Evolution’. Vol. 13. (Princeton University Press, Princeton, IL.)
Parkes, J. P., Ramsey, D. S. L., Macdonald, N., Walker, K., McKnight, S., Cohen, B. S., and Morrison, S. A. (2010). Rapid eradication of feral pigs (Sus scrofa) from Santa Cruz Island, California. Biological Conservation 143, 634–641.
| Rapid eradication of feral pigs (Sus scrofa) from Santa Cruz Island, California.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Pimentel, D. (2007). Environmental and economic costs of vertebrate species invasions into the United States. In ‘Managing Vertebrate Invasive Species: Proceedings of an International Symposium’. (Eds G. W. Witmer, W. C. Pitt, K. A. Fagerston). pp. 13–17. (US Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Wildlife Services, National Wildlife Research Center: Fort Collins, CO.)
Royle, J. A., and Dorazio, R. M. (2006). Hierarchical models of animal abundance and occurrence. Journal of Agricultural Biological & Environmental Statistics 11, 249–263.
| Hierarchical models of animal abundance and occurrence.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Rupp, S. P., Ballard, W. B., and Wallace, M. C. (2000). A nationwide evaluation of deer hunter harvest survey techniques. Wildlife Society Bulletin 28, 570–578.
Seward, N. W., Ver Cauteren, K. C., Witmer, G. W., and Engeman, R. M. (2004). Feral swine impacts on agriculture and the environment. Sheep & Goat Research Journal 12, 34–40.
Shrnhur, A. J., Levy, O., and Dvir, D. (1997). Mapping the dimensions of project success. Project Management Journal 28, 5–13.
Sibly, R. M., and Hone, J. (2002). Population growth rate and its determinants: an overview. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences 357, 1153–1170.
| Population growth rate and its determinants: an overview.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Slade, N. A., and Blair, S. M. (2000). An empirical test of using counts of individuals captured as indices of population size. Journal of Mammalogy 81, 1035–1045.
| An empirical test of using counts of individuals captured as indices of population size.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Snow, N. P., Jarzyna, M. A., and VerCauteren, K. C. (2017). Interpreting and predicting the spread of invasive wild pigs. Journal of Applied Ecology 54, 2022–2032.
| Interpreting and predicting the spread of invasive wild pigs.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
St. Clair, K., Dunton, E., and Giudice, J. (2012). A comparison of models using removal effort to estimate animal abundance. Journal of Applied Statistics 40, 527–545.
| A comparison of models using removal effort to estimate animal abundance.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Timmons, J. B., Mellish, J., Higginbotham, B., Griffin, J., Lopez, R. R., Sumrall, A., Cathey, J. C., and Skow, K. (2012). Feral Hog Population Growth, Density, and Harvest in Texas. Texas A&M AgriLife Extension Service Report. (Texas A&M University: College Station, TX.)
VerCauteren, K. C., Anderson, C. W., van Deelen, T. R., Drake, D., Walter, W. D., Vantassel, S. M., and Hygnstrom, S. E. (2011). Regulated commercial harvest to manage overabundant white-tailed deer: an idea to consider? Wildlife Society Bulletin 35, 185–194.
| Regulated commercial harvest to manage overabundant white-tailed deer: an idea to consider?Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Waithman, J. D., Sweitzer, R. A., Vuren, D. V., Drew, J. D., Brinkhaus, A. J., Gardner, I. A., and Boyce, W. M. (1999). Range expansion, population sizes, and management of wild pigs in California. The Journal of Wildlife Management 63, 298–308.
| Range expansion, population sizes, and management of wild pigs in California.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
West, B. C., and Parkhurst, J. A. (2002). Interactions between Deer Damage, Deer Density, and Stakeholder Attitudes in Virginia. Wildlife Society Bulletin 30, 139–147.
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 |
Zippin, C. (1958). The removal method of population estimation. The Journal of Wildlife Management 22, 82–90.
| The removal method of population estimation.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
