ArticleAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2024
Odor Fences Have No Effect on Wild Boar Movement and Home Range Size.
Article in Animals : an open access journal from MDPI, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- No Effect of a Commercially Used Odor Repellent for Roe Deer (Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025Article
- 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
- Wild Boar Proves High Tolerance to Human-Caused Disruptions: Management Implications in African Swine Fever Outbreaks.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2024Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Wild boars are an opportunistic wildlife species that has successfully colonized the human-modified landscape in Europe. However, the current population boom has negative consequences, which result in a rapid increase in human-wildlife conflicts and disease transmission, including African swine fever (ASF). The increasing frequency of conflicts requires adequate solutions for these issues through various measures. Application of deterrents is a common non-lethal measure whose effects have been insufficiently verified until recently. Thus, this study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of odor fences, often applied as a barrier against wild boar movement. For this purpose, 18 wild boars were marked with GPS collars. After 22 days of initial monitoring, 12 sections of odor fences were installed on their home ranges. The monitored wild boars crossed the area 20.5 ± 9.2 times during the pre-installation period and 19.9 ± 8.4 times after the odor fence installation. Moreover, the average home range varied between 377.9 ± 185.0 ha before and 378.1 ± 142.2 ha after the odor fence installation. Based on GPS telemetry results, we do not support using odor repellent lines for crop protection or for limiting wild boar movement to lessen ASF outbreaks.
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.