ArticlePest management science2022
Permeability of artificial barriers (fences) for wild boar (Sus scrofa) in Mediterranean mixed landscapes.
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.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Modeling the Invasion: Habitat Suitability and Landscape Connectivity of Wild Boar (Ecology and evolution · 2026Article
- Seasonal Habitat Distribution and Connectivity Response of Water Deer and Wild Boar to Hotspot Fencing in a Fragmented Urban Forest Fringe.Ecology and evolution · 2026Article
- Behavioral responses of migratory caribou to semi-permeable roads in Arctic Alaska.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Symmetry of Wild Boar Damage to Agricultural Crops: Results of over 20 Years of Damage Monitoring in Central Europe.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025Article
- A spatially-heterogeneous impact of fencing on the African swine fever wavefront in the Korean wild boar population.Veterinary research · 2024Article
- 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
- Seroepidemiological and biomolecular survey onFood and waterborne parasitology · 2024Article
- A combined methodological approach to characterize pig farming and its influence on the occurrence of interactions between wild boars and domestic pigs in Corsican micro-regions.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2024Article
- Predicting Disparity between ASF-Managed Areas and Wild Boar Habitats: A Case of South Korea.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2023Article
- Three Years of African Swine Fever in South Korea (2019-2021): A Scoping Review of Epidemiological Understanding.Transboundary and emerging diseases · 2023Article
- Not Just Pictures: Utility of Camera Trapping in the Context of African Swine Fever and Wild Boar Management.Transboundary and emerging diseases · 2023Article
- Impacts of the Wild Boar (Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
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
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.