Limits...
Spatiotemporal Effects of Supplementary Feeding of Wild Boar (Sus scrofa) on Artificial Ground Nest Depredation.

Oja R, Zilmer K, Valdmann H - PLoS ONE (2015)

Bottom Line: We conducted two separate artificial ground nest experiments in five different hunting districts in south-eastern Estonia.The quantity of food provided and distance of a nest from the feeding site were the most important factors determining predation risk.Larger quantities of food resulted in higher predation risk, while predation risk responded in a non-linear fashion to distance from the feeding site.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Zoology, Institute of Ecology and Earth Sciences, University of Tartu, Tartu, Estonia.

ABSTRACT
Supplementary feeding of ungulates, being widely used in game management, may have unwanted consequences. Its role in agricultural damage is well-studied, but few studies have considered the potential for the practice to attract ground nest predators. Our goal was to identify the factors influencing ground nest predation in the vicinity of year-round supplementary feeding sites for wild boar and to characterise their spatiotemporal scope. We conducted two separate artificial ground nest experiments in five different hunting districts in south-eastern Estonia. The quantity of food provided and distance of a nest from the feeding site were the most important factors determining predation risk. Larger quantities of food resulted in higher predation risk, while predation risk responded in a non-linear fashion to distance from the feeding site. Although predation risk eventually decreases if supplementary feeding is ceased for at least four years, recently abandoned feeding sites still pose a high predation risk.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

The first experimental design (a) and the adjusted design of the second experiment (b).Rectangles denote the location of the supplementary feeding site and dots correspond to nests in the vicinity of the site.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4526364&req=5

pone.0135254.g001: The first experimental design (a) and the adjusted design of the second experiment (b).Rectangles denote the location of the supplementary feeding site and dots correspond to nests in the vicinity of the site.

Mentions: The first experiment was conducted to investigate the key factors associated with predation risk in the forest surrounding supplementary feeding sites. In May 2012, a total of 312 nests were placed in the vicinity of 12 supplementary feeding sites (see study plots and distances in S1 Table) in the Tähtvere and Valga study areas. Two transects were established at each study plot, starting in proximity to the feeding site and leading into the forest interior (Fig 1A). The first artificial nest was placed approximately 10–20 m from the feed, and each transect contained 13 nests with approximately 40 m between adjacent nests. Ground cover, defined as the proportion of herbaceous understorey plants excluding mosses, was determined for each nest site using the method suggested by Booth et al. [43]. We used an 8.0 MP Olympus SP-560UZ camera attached to a 1.5 m tripod to ensure that height from the ground was the same for all nest sites. The distance of a nest from the nearest feeding site and closest neighbour was determined with MapInfo Professional 10.5 using the GPS coordinates obtained during fieldwork.


Spatiotemporal Effects of Supplementary Feeding of Wild Boar (Sus scrofa) on Artificial Ground Nest Depredation.

Oja R, Zilmer K, Valdmann H - PLoS ONE (2015)

The first experimental design (a) and the adjusted design of the second experiment (b).Rectangles denote the location of the supplementary feeding site and dots correspond to nests in the vicinity of the site.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4526364&req=5

pone.0135254.g001: The first experimental design (a) and the adjusted design of the second experiment (b).Rectangles denote the location of the supplementary feeding site and dots correspond to nests in the vicinity of the site.
Mentions: The first experiment was conducted to investigate the key factors associated with predation risk in the forest surrounding supplementary feeding sites. In May 2012, a total of 312 nests were placed in the vicinity of 12 supplementary feeding sites (see study plots and distances in S1 Table) in the Tähtvere and Valga study areas. Two transects were established at each study plot, starting in proximity to the feeding site and leading into the forest interior (Fig 1A). The first artificial nest was placed approximately 10–20 m from the feed, and each transect contained 13 nests with approximately 40 m between adjacent nests. Ground cover, defined as the proportion of herbaceous understorey plants excluding mosses, was determined for each nest site using the method suggested by Booth et al. [43]. We used an 8.0 MP Olympus SP-560UZ camera attached to a 1.5 m tripod to ensure that height from the ground was the same for all nest sites. The distance of a nest from the nearest feeding site and closest neighbour was determined with MapInfo Professional 10.5 using the GPS coordinates obtained during fieldwork.

Bottom Line: We conducted two separate artificial ground nest experiments in five different hunting districts in south-eastern Estonia.The quantity of food provided and distance of a nest from the feeding site were the most important factors determining predation risk.Larger quantities of food resulted in higher predation risk, while predation risk responded in a non-linear fashion to distance from the feeding site.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Zoology, Institute of Ecology and Earth Sciences, University of Tartu, Tartu, Estonia.

ABSTRACT
Supplementary feeding of ungulates, being widely used in game management, may have unwanted consequences. Its role in agricultural damage is well-studied, but few studies have considered the potential for the practice to attract ground nest predators. Our goal was to identify the factors influencing ground nest predation in the vicinity of year-round supplementary feeding sites for wild boar and to characterise their spatiotemporal scope. We conducted two separate artificial ground nest experiments in five different hunting districts in south-eastern Estonia. The quantity of food provided and distance of a nest from the feeding site were the most important factors determining predation risk. Larger quantities of food resulted in higher predation risk, while predation risk responded in a non-linear fashion to distance from the feeding site. Although predation risk eventually decreases if supplementary feeding is ceased for at least four years, recently abandoned feeding sites still pose a high predation risk.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus