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

Depredation risk depends upon the period of non-use of an abandoned supplementary feeding site.Depredation risk in the vicinity of active or abandoned supplementary feeding sites – results of the best GLMM. Predicted depredation risk at control sites is marked with a dotted line (AGE = 0 in the model), grey lines denote ± 1 SE.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

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

pone.0135254.g003: Depredation risk depends upon the period of non-use of an abandoned supplementary feeding site.Depredation risk in the vicinity of active or abandoned supplementary feeding sites – results of the best GLMM. Predicted depredation risk at control sites is marked with a dotted line (AGE = 0 in the model), grey lines denote ± 1 SE.

Mentions: A total of 168 out of 306 artificial nests were depredated (55%), 75% and 48% in the vicinity of active and abandoned feeding sites respectively and 38% in control plots. TYPE and AGE produced the best model according to AICc (Table 2). According to the best model, depredation risk was significantly higher in feeding sites than in control plots (β = 1.854, SE = 0.415, p < 0.001) and decreased at abandoned feeding sites with increasing period of non-use (β = -0.197, SE = 0.054, p < 0.001), but was significantly higher during the first few years after abandonment (Fig 3). Model fit was not improved by the inclusion of forest type as an additional additive variable (χ22 = 0.08, p = 0.962) or interaction terms in the model (χ26 = 3.33, p = 0.767).


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

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

Depredation risk depends upon the period of non-use of an abandoned supplementary feeding site.Depredation risk in the vicinity of active or abandoned supplementary feeding sites – results of the best GLMM. Predicted depredation risk at control sites is marked with a dotted line (AGE = 0 in the model), grey lines denote ± 1 SE.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

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

pone.0135254.g003: Depredation risk depends upon the period of non-use of an abandoned supplementary feeding site.Depredation risk in the vicinity of active or abandoned supplementary feeding sites – results of the best GLMM. Predicted depredation risk at control sites is marked with a dotted line (AGE = 0 in the model), grey lines denote ± 1 SE.
Mentions: A total of 168 out of 306 artificial nests were depredated (55%), 75% and 48% in the vicinity of active and abandoned feeding sites respectively and 38% in control plots. TYPE and AGE produced the best model according to AICc (Table 2). According to the best model, depredation risk was significantly higher in feeding sites than in control plots (β = 1.854, SE = 0.415, p < 0.001) and decreased at abandoned feeding sites with increasing period of non-use (β = -0.197, SE = 0.054, p < 0.001), but was significantly higher during the first few years after abandonment (Fig 3). Model fit was not improved by the inclusion of forest type as an additional additive variable (χ22 = 0.08, p = 0.962) or interaction terms in the model (χ26 = 3.33, p = 0.767).

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