ArticlePest management science2025
Influence of bait and habitat on site visitation by wild pigs (Sus scrofa).
Article in Pest management science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWild pigs (Sus scrofa), known for their impacts on ecosystems in both their native and invasive ranges, are commonly managed using lethal trapping or shooting methods reliant upon bait or scent lures. Previous studies evaluating the efficacy of attractants at improving wild pig visitations have yielded mixed results, which are likely to be a reflection of the generalist foraging strategies of wild pigs as well as their fine-scale variability in space use.
resultsWe conducted experimental trials at 743 sites in South Carolina, USA, to quantify differences in wild pig visitation among a suite of bait, scent lures and bait + scent lure combinations to identify which maximized visitation. We monitored sites using a remote camera for 7 days and quantified visitation rates and time to visitation. Additionally, to identify habitat attributes that maximized wild pig visitation, we characterized a suite of habitat attributes at each location. Wild pigs visited more sites and had shorter times to visitation at sites with bait present (bait: 42.85%, 61.35 h; bait + scent: 47.99%, 60.98 h) than sites with scent lures alone (24.40%, 82.03 h), with similar results for groups of wild pigs and individuals, emphasizing the effectiveness of bait in increasing visitation. Our habitat modeling results suggest that wild pigs are more likely to locate bait sites in areas closer to water sources and in thick understory.
conclusionWe recommend that managers maximize visitation of wild pigs by using high-value baits, not relying on scent lures, and intentionally selecting sites based on habitat attributes where wild pigs have nearby access to water and cover. © 2025 The Author(s). Pest Management Science published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Society of Chemical Industry. This article has been contributed to by U.S. Government employees and their work is in the public domain in the USA.
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.