Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41309671›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

Visually estimating body mass of wild pigs.

Nathan P Snow, Kelly J Koriakin, Michael J Lavelle, Michael P Glow, Justin W Fischer, Justin A Foster, Kurt C VerCauteren

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

7 authors.

Nathan P SnowUnited States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Wildlife Services, National Wildlife Research Center, Fort Collins, CO, USA. nathan.p.snow@usda.gov.
Kelly J KoriakinUnited States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Wildlife Services, National Wildlife Research Center, Fort Collins, CO, USA.
Michael J LavelleUnited States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Wildlife Services, National Wildlife Research Center, Fort Collins, CO, USA.
Michael P GlowUnited States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Wildlife Services, National Wildlife Research Center, Fort Collins, CO, USA.
Justin W FischerUnited States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Wildlife Services, National Wildlife Research Center, Fort Collins, CO, USA.
Justin A FosterTexas Parks and Wildlife Department, Kerr Wildlife Management Area, Hunt, TX, USA.
Kurt C VerCauterenUnited States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Wildlife Services, National Wildlife Research Center, Fort Collins, CO, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Body mass of wild pigs (Sus scrofa) can provide useful information regarding reproductive capacity of a population, and population health and resilience for this highly-destructive invasive species. Body mass of females is an indicator of whether they reproduce before 1 year of age, which could have substantial impacts on reproductive capacity of a population. Measuring body mass can be difficult because large wild pigs may require > 1 person to weigh, are often located in remote areas making equipment difficult to transport, or are often culled without access to the carcass (e.g., shooting from aircraft). We evaluated our ability to accurately estimate the body mass of wild pigs by visual inspection, and identified which factors (i.e., morphometrics and demographics) influenced the accuracy of our estimates. We visually estimated the body mass of wild pigs and then collected actual weights of 1,210 wild pigs across 5 regions (Alabama, Texas, Hawaii, Guam, Queensland). We also collected morphometric measurements and age to evaluate how these factors impacted our estimates. On average we found our estimates were accurate, averaging only -0.14 kg underestimated weights across all wild pigs weighed. However, our estimates were most severely underestimated (e.g., up to -20 kg) for younger wild pigs (i.e., < 1-3 years) that were heavier (i.e., > 30 kg). We also confirmed that although growth rates slowed after 1 year of age, wild pigs continued to grow in body length, head length, height, and girth as they aged, which explained why the age of an animal influenced our ability to generate accurate estimates. We surmised that young-yet-heavy wild pigs were disproportionally stouter than older animals, thus were underestimated due to their shortened appearance. Underestimating the body mass for young-yet-heavy females could misinform management plans, because these animals may have substantial influence on the reproductive capacity of a population. For visually estimating body mass of wild pigs, we recommend considering indicators of age (e.g., morphological proportions) to avoid underestimating young-yet-heavy animals with stout appearances. We also recommend calibrating observers regularly using known weights and morphometrics.

Indexed as

Animals, WildBody WeightSus scrofaAnimalsFemaleMaleReproductionSwineBody conditionBody massFeral swineMorphologySus scrofaWeightWild boarWildlife damage management

Identifiers

PMID41309671
PMCPMC12660307

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.