ArticleScientific reports2025
Large-scale assessment of the impacts of invasive wild pigs on water quality in freshwater streams.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pseudorabies virus in wild swine: current evidence and interpretations from monitoring studies.BMC veterinary research · 2026Pooled it
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
Highly competent hosts of zoonotic diseases of economic and epidemiological importance, the highly invasive species, Sus scrofa, has been identified as sources of non-point pollution in North America through small-scale studies of their fecal contamination in surface waters. Their fecal contamination alters natural physicochemical stream characteristics and increases concentrations of fecal bacteria. Providing one of the first-large scale assessments of their impacts, our study identified wild pigs as a source of non-point pollution on both a regional and multi-regional scale within our selected study state through microbial source tracking and traditional water quality assessment. At a multi-regional scale, we found greater median concentrations (mg/L) of nitrate (95.7%; p < 0.001), magnesium (83.3%; p < 0.001), and potassium (84.7%; p < 0.001) in samples from streams with fecal contamination by wild pigs (n = 111) than from streams without (n = 115). Like other non-point pollutants, the effects of wild pigs on water quality are scale-dependent and differ significantly across regions. Finally, at both a regional and multi-regional scale, our study found observably greater Escherichia coli and fecal coliform concentrations in streams with wild pigs, though statistical significance was lost at scale. Future research will be necessary to continue to evaluate the impacts of wild pigs on water quality, especially across different scales. Our findings support continued monitoring of impacts as the density and range of North American wild pig populations continue to increase.
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.