Comparison of three indirect methods for density estimation of the wild boar (Sus scrofa) in different habitats in South Korea

References

• Acevedo P, Ruiz-Fons F, Vicente J, Reyes-García AR, Alzaga V, Gortázar C. 2008. Estimating red deer abundance in a wide range of management situations in Mediterranean habitats. Journal of Zoology 276(1):37–47. DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-7998.2008.00464.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alves J, da Silva AA, Soares AM, Fonseca C. 2013. Pellet group count methods to estimate red deer densities: Precision, potential accuracy and efficiency. Mammalian Biology 78(2):134–141. DOI: 10.1016/j.mambio.2012.08.003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baber DW, Coblentz BE. 1986. Density, home range, habitat use, and reproduction in feral pigs on Santa Catalina Island. Journal of Mammalogy 67(3):512–525. DOI: 10.2307/1381283.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beja‐Pereira A, Oliveira R, Alves PC, Schwartz MK, Luikart G. 2009. Advancing ecological understandings through technological transformations in noninvasive genetics. Molecular Ecology Resources 9(5):1279–1301. DOI: 10.1111/j.1755-0998.2009.02699.x.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boitani L, Mattei L, Nonis D, Corsi F. 1994. Spatial and activity patterns of wild boars in Tuscany, Italy. Journal of Mammalogy 75(3):600–612. DOI: 10.2307/1382507.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cahill S, Llimona F, Gràcia J. 2003. Spacing and nocturnal activity of wild boar Sus scrofa in a Mediterranean Metropolitan park. Wildlife Biology 9(s1):3–13. DOI: 10.2981/wlb.2003.058.
   Google Scholar
• Campbell D, Swanson G, Sales J. 2004. Methodological insights: Comparing the precision and cost‐effectiveness of faecal pellet group count methods. Journal of Applied Ecology 41(6):1185–1196. DOI: 10.1111/j.0021-8901.2004.00964.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Caravaggi A. 2017. remBoot: An R package for random encounter modelling. The Journal of Open Source Software 2(10):176. DOI: 10.21105/joss.00176.
   Google Scholar
• Castillo-Contreras R, Carvalho J, Serrano E, Mentaberre G, Fernández-Aguilar X, Colom A, González-Crespo C, Lavín S, López-Olvera JR. 2018. Urban wild boars prefer fragmented areas with food resources near natural corridors. Science of the Total Environment 615:282–288. DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.09.277.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Choi SK 2015. Molecular genetic diversity of two Artiodactyl species: Wild boar (Sus scrofa) in Asia and long-tailed goral (Naemorhedus caudatus) in South Korea. Ph.D. Thesis, Seoul National University.
   Google Scholar
• Creel S, Spong G, Sands JL, Rotella J, Zeigle J, Joe L, Murphy KM, Smith D. 2003. Population size estimation in Yellowstone wolves with error‐prone noninvasive microsatellite genotypes. Molecular Ecology 12(7):2003–2009. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-294X.2003.01868.x.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cusack JJ, Swanson A, Coulson T, Packer C, Carbone C, Dickman AJ, Kosmala M, Lintott C, Rowcliffe JM. 2015. Applying a random encounter model to estimate lion density from camera traps in Serengeti National Park, Tanzania. The Journal of Wildlife Management 79(6):1014–1021. DOI: 10.1002/jwmg.902.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ebert C, Huckschlag D, Schulz HK, Hohmann U. 2010. Can hair traps sample wild boar (Sus scrofa) randomly for the purpose of non-invasive population estimation? European Journal of Wildlife Research 56(4):583–590. DOI: 10.1007/s10344-009-0351-7.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ebert C, Knauer F, Spielberger B, Thiele B, Hohmann U. 2012. Estimating wild boar Sus scrofa population size using faecal DNA and capture-recapture modelling. Wildlife Biology 18(2):142–152. DOI: 10.2981/11-002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ebert C, Kolodziej K, Schikora TF, Schulz HK, Hohmann U. 2009. Is non-invasive genetic population estimation via faeces sampling feasible for abundant mammals with low defecation rates? A pilot study on free ranging wild boar (Sus scrofa) in south-west Germany. Acta Silvatica et Lignaria Hungarica 5(1):167–177. DOI: 10.37045/aslh-2009-0014.
   Google Scholar
• Engeman R, Massei G, Sage M, Gentle MN. 2013. Monitoring wild pig populations: A review of methods. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 20(11):8077–8091. DOI: 10.1007/s11356-013-2002-5.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fattorini N, Ferretti F. 2020. Estimating wild boar density and rooting activity in a Mediterranean protected area. Mammalian Biology 100(3):241–251. DOI: 10.1007/s42991-020-00030-0.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferretti F, Lazzeri L, Fattorini N. 2023. A test of motion‐sensitive cameras to index ungulate densities: Group size matters. The Journal of Wildlife Management 87(3):e22356. DOI: 10.1002/jwmg.22356.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferretti F, Storer K, Coats J, Massei G. 2015. Temporal and spatial patterns of defecation in wild boar. Wildlife Society Bulletin 39(1):65–69. DOI: 10.1002/wsb.494.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fickel J, Hohmann U. 2006. A methodological approach for non-invasive sampling for population size estimates in wild boars (Sus scrofa). European Journal of Wildlife Research 52(1):28–33. DOI: 10.1007/s10344-005-0003-5.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fryxell JM, Sinclair AR, Caughley G. 2014. Wildlife ecology, conservation, and management. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Goode MJ, Beaver JT, Muller LI, Clark JD, van Manen FT, Harper CA, Basinger PS. 2014. Capture—Recapture of white-tailed deer using DNA from fecal pellet groups. Wildlife Biology 20(5):270–278. DOI: 10.2981/wlb.00050.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guthery FS, Shaw JH. 2013. Density dependence: Applications in wildlife management. The Journal of Wildlife Management 77(1):33–38. DOI: 10.1002/jwmg.450.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Han JH, Yoo DS, Park SI, Kim ET. 2022. Understanding the transmission of African swine fever in wild boars of South Korea: A simulation study for parameter estimation. Transboundary and Emerging Diseases 69(4):e1101–e1112. DOI: 10.1111/tbed.14403.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hebeisen C, Fattebert J, Baubet E, Fischer C. 2008. Estimating wild boar (Sus scrofa) abundance and density using capture–resights in Canton of Geneva, Switzerland. European Journal of Wildlife Research 54(3):391–401. DOI: 10.1007/s10344-007-0156-5.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Henschel P, Ray J. 2003. Leopards in African Rainforests-Survey and Monitoring Techniques. New York: Wildlife Conservation Society.
   Google Scholar
• ISAG/FAO. 2004. Secondary guidelines for development of national farm animal genetic resources management plans. Measurement of domestic animal diversity (MoDAD): Recommended Microsatellite markers. Available: https://www.fao.org/3/aq569e/aq569e.pdf. Accessed May 2019 22.
   Google Scholar
• Kolodziej K, Theissinger K, Brün J, Schulz HK, Schulz R. 2012. Determination of the minimum number of microsatellite markers for individual genotyping in wild boar (Sus scrofa) using a test with close relatives. European Journal of Wildlife Research 58(3):621–628. DOI: 10.1007/s10344-011-0588-9.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laing SE, Buckland ST, Burn RW, Lambie D, Amphlett A. 2003. Dung and nest surveys: Estimating decay rates. Journal of Applied Ecology 40(6):1102–1111. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2664.2003.00861.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee SM 2020. Diet, space use, demographics, and seed dispersal of the wild boar (Sus scrofa): Implications for management in South Korea. Ph.D. Thesis, Seoul National University.
   Google Scholar
• Lee SM. 2022. Reproductive performance and sex ratio adjustment of the wild boar (Sus scrofa) in South Korea. Scientific Reports 12(1):21774. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-25626-z.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee SM, Lee EJ. 2019. Diet of the wild boar (Sus scrofa): Implications for management in forest-agricultural and urban environments in South Korea. PeerJ 7:e7835. DOI: 10.7717/peerj.7835.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Massei G, Bacon P, Genov PV. 1998. Fallow deer and wild boar pellet group disappearance in a Mediterranean area. The Journal of Wildlife Management 62(3):1086–1094. DOI: 10.2307/3802561.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Massei G, Coats J, Lambert MS, Pietravalle S, Gill R, Cowan D. 2018. Camera traps and activity signs to estimate wild boar density and derive abundance indices. Pest Management Science 74(4):853–860. DOI: 10.1002/ps.4763.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Massei G, Genov PV. 2004. The environmental impact of wild boar. Galemys 16:135–145.
   Google Scholar
• Massei G, Kindberg J, Licoppe A, Gačić D, Šprem N, Kamler J, Baubet E, Hohmann U, Monaco A, Ozoliņš J, Cellina S, Podgórski T, Fonseca C, Markov N, Pokorny B, Rosell C, Náhlik A. 2014. Wild boar populations, numbers of hunters down? A review of trends and implications for Europe. Pest Management Science 71(4):492–500. DOI: 10.1002/ps.3965.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McDaniel GW, McKelvey KS, Squires JR, Ruggiero LF. 2000. Efficacy of lures and hair snares to detect lynx. Wildlife Society Bulletin 28(1):119–123.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miller CR, Joyce P, Waits LP. 2005. A new method for estimating the size of small populations from genetic mark–recapture data. Molecular Ecology 14(7):1991–2005. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-294X.2005.02577.x.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Musial F, Kowalski A, Enck P, Kalveram KT. 1999. A computer-controlled, long-term recording system for studying eating, drinking, and defecation behavior in miniature pigs. Physiology & Behavior 68(1–2):73–80. DOI: 10.1016/S0031-9384(99)00163-8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Institute of Biological Resources. 2017. Wildlife survey. Incheon: National Institute of Biological Resources.
   Google Scholar
• Palencia P, Barroso P, Vicente J, Hofmeester TR, Ferreres J, Acevedo P. 2022. Random encounter model is a reliable method for estimating population density of multiple species using camera traps. Remote Sensing in Ecology and Conservation 8(5):670–682. DOI: 10.1002/rse2.269.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Palomares F, Godoy JA, Píriz A, O’Brien SJ, Johnson WE. 2002. Faecal genetic analysis to determine the presence and distribution of elusive carnivores: Design and feasibility for the Iberian lynx. Molecular Ecology 11(10):2171–2182. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-294X.2002.01608.x.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peakall R, Smouse PE. 2012. GenAlEx 6.5: Genetic analysis in Excel. Population genetic software for teaching and research—An update. Bioinformatics 28(19):2537–2539. DOI: 10.1093/bioinformatics/bts460.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pfeffer SE, Spitzer R, Allen AM, Hofmeester TR, Ericsson G, Widemo F, Singh N, Cromsigt JPGM. 2018. Pictures or pellets? comparing camera trapping and dung counts as methods for estimating population densities of ungulates. Remote Sensing in Ecology and Conservation 4(2):173–183. DOI: 10.1002/rse2.67.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Plhal R, Kamler J, Homolka M. 2014. Faecal pellet group counting as a promising method of wild boar population density estimation. Acta Theriologica 59(4):561–569. DOI: 10.1007/s13364-014-0194-9.
   Google Scholar
• Plhal R, Kamler J, Homolka M, Drimaj J. 2014. An assessment of the applicability of dung count to estimate the wild boar population density in a forest environment. Journal of Forest Science 60(4):174–180. DOI: 10.17221/99/2013-JFS.
   Google Scholar
• Putman RJ. 1984. Facts from faeces. Mammal Review 14(2):79–97. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2907.1984.tb00341.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• R Core Team. 2022. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
   Google Scholar
• Rovero F, Marshall AR. 2009. Camera trapping photographic rate as an index of density in forest ungulates. Journal of Applied Ecology 46(5):1011–1017. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2664.2009.01705.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rowcliffe JM, Field J, Turvey ST, Carbone C. 2008. Estimating animal density using camera traps without the need for individual recognition. Journal of Applied Ecology 45(4):1228–1236. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2664.2008.01473.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Silveira L, Jácomo AT, Diniz-Filho JAF. 2003. Camera trap, line transect census and track surveys: A comparative evaluation. Biological Conservation 114(3):114 351–355. DOI: 10.1016/S0006-3207(03)00063-6.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Solberg KH, Bellemain E, Drageset OM, Taberlet P, Swenson JE. 2006. An evaluation of field and non-invasive genetic methods to estimate brown bear (Ursus arctos) population size. Biological Conservation 128(2):128 158–168. DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2005.09.025.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Soofi M, Ghoddousi A, Hamidi AKH, Ghasemi B, Egli L, Voinopol-Sassu A, Kiabi BH, Balkenhol N, Khorozyan I, Waltert M. 2017. Precision and reliability of indirect population assessments for the Caspian red deer Cervus elaphus maral. Wildlife Biology 2017(1):1–8. DOI: 10.2981/wlb.00230.
   Google Scholar
• Trolle M, Kéry M. 2003. Estimation of ocelot density in the Pantanal using capture–recapture analysis of camera-trapping data. Journal of Mammalogy 84(2):607–614. DOI: 10.1644/1545-1542(2003)084<0607:EOODIT>2.0.CO;2.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Oosterhout C, Hutchinson WF, Wills DPM, Shipley P. 2004. micro-checker software for identifying and correcting genotyping errors in microsatellite data. Molecular Ecology Notes 4(3):535–538. DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-8286.2004.00684.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ENETWILD‐consortium, Vicente J, Palencia P, Plhal R, Blanco‐Aguiar JA, Laguna E, Soriguer R, López JF, Podgórski T, Petrović K, Apollonio M. 2019. Harmonization of the use of hunting statistics for wild boar density estimation in different study areas: Report based on comparison of case studies in different wild boar populations representative of the different management and habitat conditions across Europe. EFSA Supporting Publications 16:1706E.
   Google Scholar
• Waits JL, Leberg PL. 2000. Biases associated with population estimation using molecular tagging. Animal Conservation 3(3):191–200. DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-1795.2000.tb00103.x.
   Google Scholar
• Waits LP, Luikart G, Taberlet P. 2001. Estimating the probability of identity among genotypes in natural populations: Cautions and guidelines. Molecular Ecology 10(1):249–256. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-294X.2001.01185.x.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Waits LP, Paetkau D. 2005. Noninvasive genetic sampling tools for wildlife biologists: A review of applications and recommendations for accurate data collection. The Journal of Wildlife Management 69(4):1419–1433. DOI: 10.2193/0022-541X(2005)69[1419:NGSTFW]2.0.CO;2.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• White GC. 1982. Capture-recapture and removal methods for sampling closed populations. Los Alamos, New Mexico: Los Alamos National Laboratory.
   Google Scholar
• White GC, Burnham KP. 1999. Program MARK: Survival estimation from populations of marked animals. Bird Study 46(sup1):120–138. DOI: 10.1080/00063659909477239.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Willberg MJ, Dreher BP. 2004. genecap a program for analysis of multilocus genotype data for non-invasive sampling and capture-recapture population estimation. Molecular Ecology Notes 4(4):783–785. DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-8286.2004.00797.x.
   Google Scholar