ArticlePloS one2024
Refining animal welfare of wild boar (Sus scrofa) corral-style traps through behavioral and pathological investigations.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Beyond Immediate Individual Care: Monitoring Captured Free-Ranging European Wild Ungulates to Refine Protocols.Veterinary sciences · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Wild boar trapping has been used as a management tool to control wild boar populations. However, it is increasingly criticized due to animal welfare concerns. While cortisol levels have been used to assess trap-related stress in wild boar, data on trap-related injuries and behavioral data are scarce. We aimed to evaluate three different corral-style traps for wild boar according to available mammal trapping standards to investigate and refine animal welfare in wild boar trapping. We examined 138 wild boars captured and killed by head shot in 27 capture events. Traps were closed by remote control only if the complete group were trapped. The behavior of the animals in the trap and during culling was recorded on video. All wild boars were examined and a pathological and radiological examination of the heads for trap- and shot-related injuries followed. Trap-related injuries occurred in 33% of the animals with superficial mild skin defects to skull fractures. One out of three traps met all the set requirements. A wire-meshed trapping system failed all. After installing an incomplete barrier in the center of the trap to slow down trapped animals, the fracture rate in one trap type was significantly reduced by 29% (p < 0.05). Our data showed that the type of trap (p = 0.007) and the number of animals trapped at once (p = 0.002) had a significant influence on the number of escape attempts. Trapping larger groups reduced the escape attempts. We emphasize the importance of an accurate pathological examination to evaluate animal welfare in traps and call for adjusting the injury categories listed in the standards and make a proposal for wild boar live trapping.
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.