Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35229454›Full record

ArticlePest management science2022

Permeability of artificial barriers (fences) for wild boar (Sus scrofa) in Mediterranean mixed landscapes.

Eduardo Laguna, José A Barasona, Antonio J Carpio, Joaquín Vicente, Pelayo Acevedo

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Pest management science, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Seroepidemiological and biomolecular survey onFood and waterborne parasitology · 2024
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Impacts of the Wild Boar (Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2022
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Eduardo LagunaGrupo de Sanidad y Biotecnología (SaBio), Instituto de Investigación en Recursos Cinegéticos (IREC), UCLM-CSIC-JCCM, Ciudad Real, Spain.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0250-3157
José A BarasonaVISAVET, Health Surveillance Centre, Department of Animal Health, Complutense University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain.
Antonio J CarpioGrupo de Sanidad y Biotecnología (SaBio), Instituto de Investigación en Recursos Cinegéticos (IREC), UCLM-CSIC-JCCM, Ciudad Real, Spain.
Joaquín VicenteGrupo de Sanidad y Biotecnología (SaBio), Instituto de Investigación en Recursos Cinegéticos (IREC), UCLM-CSIC-JCCM, Ciudad Real, Spain.
Pelayo AcevedoGrupo de Sanidad y Biotecnología (SaBio), Instituto de Investigación en Recursos Cinegéticos (IREC), UCLM-CSIC-JCCM, Ciudad Real, Spain.

Funding

European Social Fund (ESF) and the Castilla-La Mancha Regional Government (JCCM) SBPLY/16/180501/00269European Union IJC2020-042629-IMCIN/AEIMINECO-FEDER PID2019-111699RB-I00Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad AGL2016-76358-R
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFences are one of the most widespread manmade features in nature, constituting an artificial limitation to the movement of wildlife. To date, their effects on wildlife behavior have been understudied but this knowledge is required to design effective management procedures. Using 21 GPS-monitored wild boar, we evaluated the permeability of different types of fences and described temporal patterns and spatial hotspots for crossing events. A fence's permeability was inferred by the crossing success, i.e., the number of times that animals crossed a barrier vs the number of times they did not cross. The vulnerability of fences at watercourses was explored by assessing whether the frequency of crossings was higher around watercourse intersections than expected by chance.

resultsWell-maintained big game proof fences were the most effective in reducing successful wild boar crossings; they were, on average, 30% more efficient than livestock type fences. Crossing success was higher for males than females and during the food shortage period than in the food abundance period. The frequency of crossings around watercourses was higher than expected by chance, especially in moderately and well-maintained big game proof type fences.

conclusionWhile no fence type was 100% wild boar proof, well-maintained big game proof fences substantially constrained the movement of boar. However, they are vulnerable around watercourses. Managing the conflicts in which this species is involved, such as shared infections and agricultural damage, would require fences that are even more effective than the ones analyzed here, ideally in conjunction with other preventive actions. © 2022 The Authors. Pest Management Science published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Society of Chemical Industry.

Indexed as

Animals, WildSus scrofaAnimalsFemaleMalePermeabilitySwineanimal movementcorridorsfence crossingmanagementrisk of disease transmission

Identifiers

PMID35229454
PMCPMC9313896

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.