Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36064859›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2022

Assessing mammal trapping standards in wild boar drop-net capture.

Carles Conejero, Jorge Ramón López-Olvera, Carlos González-Crespo, Arián Ráez-Bravo, Raquel Castillo-Contreras, Stefania Tampach, Roser Velarde, Gregorio Mentaberre

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. A behavioral study of live captured coypu (Frontiers in veterinary science · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Stress Assessment of 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

8 authors.

Carles ConejeroWildlife Ecology and Health Group (WE&H-https://weh.cat/) and Departament de Medicina i Cirurgia Animals, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (UAB), 08193, Barcelona, Spain.
Jorge Ramón López-OlveraWildlife Ecology and Health Group (WE&H-https://weh.cat/) and Departament de Medicina i Cirurgia Animals, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (UAB), 08193, Barcelona, Spain.
Carlos González-CrespoWildlife Ecology and Health Group (WE&H-https://weh.cat/) and Departament de Medicina i Cirurgia Animals, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (UAB), 08193, Barcelona, Spain.
Arián Ráez-BravoWildlife Ecology and Health Group (WE&H-https://weh.cat/) and Departament de Medicina i Cirurgia Animals, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (UAB), 08193, Barcelona, Spain.
Raquel Castillo-ContrerasWildlife Ecology and Health Group (WE&H-https://weh.cat/) and Departament de Medicina i Cirurgia Animals, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (UAB), 08193, Barcelona, Spain.
Stefania TampachWildlife Ecology and Health Group (WE&H-https://weh.cat/) and Departament de Medicina i Cirurgia Animals, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (UAB), 08193, Barcelona, Spain.
Roser Velarde *Wildlife Ecology and Health Group (WE&H-https://weh.cat/) and Departament de Medicina i Cirurgia Animals, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (UAB), 08193, Barcelona, Spain.
Gregorio Mentaberre *Wildlife Ecology and Health Group (WE&H-https://weh.cat/) and Departament de Ciència Animal, Universitat de Lleida (UdL), 25198, Lleida, Spain. gregorio.mentaberre@udl.cat.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Applying contemporary trapping standards when managing wildlife should no longer be an option, but a duty. Increasing wild boar populations originate a growing number of conflicts and hunting is the only cost-effective management option in most cases. However, new scenarios where hunting is unfeasible emerge and trapping necessities cope with lacking regulatory frameworks and technical guidelines. In this research, we evaluated drop nets, a capture method not considered by the international trapping standards, to capture Eurasian wild boar (Sus scrofa), a wildlife species not included in the list of mammal species under the scope of the Agreement on International Humane Trapping Standards (AIHTS). Less than 20% of the captured wild boars presented moderate or severe injuries attributable to the capture method, hence fulfilling the acceptance thresholds of the outdated AIHTS. Based on the new standards thresholds of acceptance, the humaneness of drop-nets in our study ranged 66-78%, under the 85% required. The capture success and selectivity were 100%, as ensured by operator-driven triggering, which should be considered the main strengths of this method, together with the minimization of animal suffering owing the short duration of the stressful situation. Additionally, in spite of the socially adverse environment, with people contrary to wild boar removal, no disturbances against the capture system or operations occurred. This is the first assessment of a drop-net capture method according to internationally accepted mammal trapping standards, with unconclusive results. However, there is a need for adapted procedures and thresholds of acceptance aimed at not-mechanical traps in general, and specifically at drop-nets. Compared to other live-capture methods, drop-nets minimize the duration of the stressful situation -at the expense of a strong adrenergic acute response-, maximize the probabilities of capturing entire sounders of prosocial species, which may be also considered as more humane, and has the ability to coordinate higher values of capture success, absolute selectivity and adaptability to difficult environments.

Indexed as

Animal WelfareAnimalsAnimals, WildHumansSpainSus scrofaSwineWounds and Injuries

Identifiers

PMID36064859
PMCPMC9445033

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.