ArticlePloS one2020
Too many wild boar? Modelling fertility control and culling to reduce wild boar numbers in isolated populations.
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
15 citing papers in PubMed.
- Balancing Effectiveness and Ethics: Global Systematic Review ofAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2026Review
- Wildlife fertility control: a mini-review of technologies, efficacy, and welfare impacts.Animal reproduction · 2026Review
- Comparing Durations of Different Countermeasure Efficacies Against Wild Boar (Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025Article
- Article
- Risk and protective factors for ASF in domestic pigs and wild boar in the EU, and mitigation measures for managing the disease in wild boar.EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority · 2024Article
- Human-Wildlife Conflict Mitigation Based on Damage, Distribution, and Activity: A Case Study of Wild Boar in Zhejiang, Eastern China.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2024Article
- Drastic changes in ground-dwelling beetle communities following high-intensity deer culling: insights from an island ecosystem.Environmental entomology · 2024Article
- Wild boar captured in a large corral-style trap or hunted: preliminary comparison of meat quality traits.Italian journal of food safety · 2023Article
- Use of Wild Boar (Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2023Review
- Fertility Control for Wildlife: A European Perspective.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2023Review
- Simulating Hunting Effects on the Wild Boar Population and African Swine Fever Expansion Using Agent-Based Modeling.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2023Article
- Assessing mammal trapping standards in wild boar drop-net capture.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- The importance of fine-scale predictors of wild boar habitat use in an isolated population.Ecology and evolution · 2022Article
- Effects of a Recombinant Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone Vaccine on Reproductive Function in Adult Male ICR Mice.Vaccines · 2021Article
- Improving Hunted Wild Boar Carcass Hygiene: Roles of Different Factors Involved in the Harvest Phase.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Wild boar and feral swine number and range are increasing worldwide in parallel with their impact on biodiversity and human activities. The ecological and economic impact of this species include spread of diseases, vehicle collisions, damage to crops, amenities and infrastructures and reduction in plant and animal abundance and richness. As traditional methods such as culling have not contained the growth and spread of wild boar and feral pigs, alternative methods such as fertility control are now advocated. We used empirical data on two isolated wild boar populations to model and compare the effects of different regimes of culling and fertility control on population trends. We built a Bayesian population model and applied it to explore the implications for population control of various management options combining culling and/or contraception. The results showed that, whilst fertility control on its own was not sufficient to achieve the target reduction in wild boar number, adding fertility control to culling was more effective than culling alone. In particular, using contraceptives on 40% of the population to complement the culling of 60% of the animals, halved the time to achieve our target reduction compared with culling only. We conclude that, assuming the effort of adding fertility control to culling was found to be cost-effective in terms of population reduction, these two methods should be used simultaneously if a rapid decrease in wild boar number is required for a closed population.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.