Perception of the impact of wild boar (feral pigs) on agriculture and livestock production in Argentina
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.30972/vet.3124731Keywords:
wild boar, perception, impact, agricultural and livestock producers, ArgentinaAbstract
To evaluate the perception of agricultural and livestock producers regarding the impact of wild boar on their activity and the environment, a survey was conducted in Argentina. For better representativity, the survey was distributed in different ways. A descriptive and statistical analysis of the results was performed. The producers who answered the survey are mostly engaged in livestock activity (96%) but 69% had both livestock and crops. 39% of the producers detected damage to those crops, mainly in cereals (corn, sorghum, wheat, oats, barley and rye) and in oilseeds (soy and sunflower), without significant differences associated to the type of crop (p=0.88). Other damages referred were infrastructure damage (30%), animals attacked (20%) and livestock feed consumption (45%). 37% had or know someone involved in car accidents related to wild boar. From a scale of one (harmful) to ten (beneficial) the average wild boar score assigned was 3.16 (standard deviation = 2.27). However, in some areas of our country they consider the species to be beneficial (significant spatial clustering) due to its use as a hunting species. The wild boar turns out to be a relevant problem for a large part of agricultural and livestock producers and it is associated with several economic losses. Considering that the producers would be benefited with the decrease in the number of wild boars their awareness is encouraging, thinking of developing population control plan. This must be a priority to work inter-institutionally in Argentina, involving environmental authorities and those linked to the agricultural and livestock industry.Downloads
References
Abate S et al. 2016. Enfermedad de Aujeszky en Patagonia Noreste: reporte de casos positivos en jabalí (Sus scrofa). Rev Coleg Med Vet Patagonia 29: 16-18.
Abate S et al. 2017. El jabalí como reservorio silvestre de tuberculosis en el noreste de la Patagonia argentina. X Jorn Intern de Vet Práct, Mar del Plata, Argentina.
Acosta, DB et al. 2019. Genetic diversity and phylogenetic relationships in feral pig populations from Argentina. Mamm Biol 99: 27-36.
Anderson SJ, Stone CP. 1993. Snaring to control feral pigs Sus scrofa in a remote Hawaiian rain forest. Biol Conserv 63: 195-201.
Barrios MN, Ballari SA. 2012. Impact of wild boar (Sus scrofa) in its introduced and native range: a review. Biol Invas 14: 2283-2300.
Brook RK, Beest FM. 2014. Feral wild boar distribution and perceptions of risk on the central Canadian prairies. Wildlife Soc Bull 38: 486-494.
Carpinet TI et al. 2017. Determinación de anticuerpos contra patógenos virales y bacterianos seleccionados en la población de cerdos silvestres (Sus scrofa) de la Reserva Natural Bahía Samborombón, Argentina. Analecta Vet 37: 21-27.
Cifuentes S et al. 2016. Leptospirosis en jabalí (Sus scrofa) en una zona de la Patagonia noreste. XXIX Jorn Argent Mastozoología, San Juan, Argentina.
Ciocco RB et al. 2019. Endoparásitos de una población de cerdos silvestres (Sus scrofa) en Bahía Samborombón, Buenos Aires, Argentina. Rev Mex Biodiv 90: 1.
Clout MN, Veitch CR. 2002. Turning the tide of biological invasion: the potential for eradicating invasive species. IUCN SSC Invasive Species, Cambridge, UK 1-3.
Cohen M et al. 2010. Trichinella infection in wild boars (Sus scrofa) from a protected area of Argentina and its relationship with the presence of humans. Vet Parasit 169: 362-366.
Comerci ME. 2016. Avance de los cotos de caza en La Pampa ¿nuevas dinámicas territoriales? Rev Investig Cs Soc, Facult Humanid & Cs Soc, UNAM, Argentina.
Crosby AW. 1986. Ecological imperialism: the biological expansion of Europe, Cambridge University Press, New York, 900: 1900.
Cruz F, Donlan CJ, Campbell K, Carrion V. 2005. Conservation action in the Galapagos: feral pig (Sus scrofa) eradication from Santiago Island. Biol Conserv 121: 473-478.
Cuevas MF, Ojeda RA, Jaksic FM. 2016. Estrategias ecológicas e impacto del jabalí en provincias fitogeográficas de Argentina con énfasis en las tierras áridas. Mastozool Neotrop 23: 239-255.
Daciuk J. 1978. Estado actual de las especies de mamíferos introducidos en la Subregión Araucana (Argentina) y grado de coacción ejercido en algunos ecosistemas surcordilleranos. An Parq Nac 14: 105-130.
Decker DJ et al. 1996. From clients to stakeholders: a philosophical shift for fish and wildlife. Management 70:82.
Hobbs RJ. 2000. Invasive species in a changing world. Island Press, 255 p.
Koichi K. 2012. The perceived environmental and socioeconomic impacts of feral pigs (Sus scrofa): A re-examination of their perceived pest status, and management implications (Doctoral dissertation), James Cook Univ.
Kulldorff M. 1997. A spatial scan statistic. Communications in Statistics: Theory and Methods 26: 1481-1496.
Kulldorff M. 2009. Informat Managem Serv, Inc. 2009. SaTScanTM v8.0: Software for the spatial and space-time
scan statistics. http://www.satscan.org.
Lowe S, Browne M, Boudjelas S, Poorter M. 2000. 100 of the world’s worst invasive alien species: a selection from the global invasive species database (Vol. 12). Invasive Species Specialist Group, Auckland.
MAyDS 2018.. Fortalecimiento de la gobernanza para la protección de la biodiversidad mediante la formulación e implementación de la estrategia nacional sobre especies exóticas invasoras. ENEEI, Minist. Amb. & Desarr. Sustent., Argentina, GCP/ARG/023/GFF.
Navas JA. 1987. Los vertebrados exóticos introducidos en Argentina. Rev Museo Argent Cs Nat, Serie Zoología, XIV: 7-38.
Oliver WL. 1993. Pigs, peccaries, and hippos: status survey and conservation action plan. Ed. IUCN, Vol. 19.
Oliver WL, Brisbin IL. 1993. Introduced and feral pigs: problems, policy and priorities. In: Status survey and conservation action plan: pigs, peccaries and hippos gland, William Oliver (ed.), Switzerland, p. 159-191.
Petrakovsky J, Carpinetti B, Antonuci A. 2016. Prevalencia serológica de leptospira sp en cerdos silvestres (Sus scrofa) en bahía Samborombón, Buenos Aires, Argentina, periodo 2013-2015. Salud y Tecnología Veterinaria 3: 23.
Sagua MI et al. 2018. Inferring the origin and genetic diversity of the introduced wild boar (Sus scrofa) populations in Argentina: an approach from mitochondrial markers. Mammal Res 63: 467-476.
Sanguinetti J, Pastore H. 2016. Abundancia poblacional y manejo del jabalí (Sus scrofa): una revisión global para abordar su gestión en la Argentina. Mastozoología neotropical 23: 305-323.
Schuyler PT, Garcelon DK, Escover S. 2002. Eradication of feral pigs (Sus scrofa) on Santa Catalina island, California, USA. Invasive Species Specialist Group, IUCN, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK, 274-286.
Tanger SM, Guidry KM, Nui H. 2015. Monetary estimates of feral hog damage to agricultural producers in Louisiana. Journal of the NACAA 8: 2.
Team QD. 2009. QGIS geographic information system. Open Source Geospatial Foundation, 117 p.
Tesón M, Regis A, Huici N, Novak F. 1997. Triquinelosis en jabalíes (Sus scrofa) en Lacar (Neuquén, Argentina). Rev Vet Arg 14: 187-190.
Villamil J, Krivokapich S, Ribicich M. 2013. Análisis epidemiológico de trichinellosis en humanos y jabalíes de La Pampa, Argentina. Alimentos y Zoonosis 8: 16.
Winter M et al. 2018. Trichinellosis surveillance in wildlife in northeastern argentine patagonia. Vet Parasit 11: 32-35.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Revista Veterinaria (Rev. Vet.) maintains a commitment to the policies of Open Access to scientific information, as it considers that both scientific publications as well as research investigations funded by public resources should circulate freely without restrictions. Revista Veterinaria (Rev. Vet.) ratifies the Open Access model in which scientific publications are made freely available at no cost online.
