SpringerLink
Log in

Controlling the abundance of invasive exotic wild boar (Sus scrofa) improves palm-tree conservation in north-eastern Argentina

  • Research
  • Published:
European Journal of Wildlife Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Linking management of invasive species to conservation outcomes is key to assessing program success. Wild boar (Sus scrofa) severely reduced the recruitment of Butia yatay palm trees, the main conservation value at El Palmar National Park, and was targeted for long-term control efforts. We integrated scattered and unpublished information to model the quantitative relationships among culling efforts (inputs), wild boar relative abundance (outputs), and damage extent (outcomes), indexed by ground rooting surface and yatay seedling mortality, and assessed how much cumulative effort was needed to achieve program targets. Park rangers culled wild boar by hunting with dogs and shooting rifles from stationary vehicles over 2004–2005. Local hunters hunted with dogs (2006–2011) and shot with rifles from elevated blinds (2006–2015). Linear regression of log-transformed variables showed that yatay seedling annual mortality and ground rooting declined exponentially over time as did wild boar abundance measured by hunting-based indices, which were significantly correlated. Limited ranger-led hunting efforts substantially reduced seedling mortality over < 2 year. Minimal seedling mortality (2.8%) and target levels of ground rooting (1.3%) were reached within 5 year of combined operations. When control efforts were interrupted for 6 months, ground rooting resurged while wild boar numbers increased. These results support the effort-outcomes principle and demonstrate the success of the management program in achieving conservation targets related to wild boar damage. Carefully structured and managed (organized) sport hunting of invasive wildlife may contribute to the sustainability of conservation programs.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (Canada)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article as Online Resource 1.

References

  • Adams PJ, Fontaine JB, Huston RM, Fleming PA (2019) Quantifying efficacy of feral pig (Sus scrofa) population management. Wildl Res 46:587–598

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andersen O, Wam HK, Mysterud A, Kaltenborn BP (2014) Applying typology analyses to management issues: deer harvest and declining hunter numbers. J Wildl Manag 78:1282–1292

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ballari SA (2014) El jabalí (Sus scrofa) en el Parque Nacional El Palmar, Entre Ríos: uso de hábitats, dieta, impactos y manejo. Doctoral dissertation, Universidad Nacional de Córdoba, Argentina. https://rdu.unc.edu.ar/handle/11086/11834. Accessed 21 Jan 2022

  • Ballari SA, Cirignoli S, Winter M, Cuevas MF, Merino ML, Monteverde M, Barrios-García MN, Sanguinetti J, Lartigau B, Kin MS, Relva MA (2019) Sus scrofa. In: SAyDS–SAREM (eds) Categorización 2019 de los mamíferos de Argentina según su riesgo de extinción. Lista Roja de los mamíferos de Argentina. http://cma.sarem.org.ar. Accessed 29 Aug 2022

  • Ballari SA, Cuevas MF, Ojeda RA, Navarro JL (2015) Diet of wild boar (Sus scrofa) in a protected area of Argentina: the importance of baiting. Mammal Res 60:81–87

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barrios-García MN, Ballari SA (2012) Impact of wild boar (Sus scrofa) in its introduced and native range: a review. Biol Invasions 14:2283–2300

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bengsen AJ, Forsyth DM, Harris S, Latham AD, McLeod SR, Pople A (2020) A systematic review of ground-based shooting to control overabundant mammal populations. Wildl Res 47:197–207

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bieber C, Ruf T (2005) Population dynamics in wild boar Sus scrofa: ecology, elasticity of growth rate and implications for the management of pulsed resource consumers. J Appl Ecol 42:1203–1213

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bongianino M (2019) Cambios recientes en los patrones espaciales y en la dinámica de poblaciones de Butia yatay en el Parque Nacional El Palmar, Entre Ríos, Argentina. Undergraduate dissertation. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales, Universidad de Buenos Aires

  • Braga C, Alexandre N, Fernández-Llario P, Santos P (2010) Wild boar (Sus scrofa) harvesting using the espera hunting method: side effects and management implications. Eur J Wildl Res 56:465–469

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burt MD, Miller C, Souza D (2011) The use of volunteer hunting as a control method for feral pig populations on O’ahu, Hawai’i. In: Veitch CR, Clout MN, Towns DR (eds) Island invasives: eradication and management. IUCN, Gland, pp 402–406

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell TA, Long DB (2009) Feral swine damage y damage management in forested ecosystems. For Ecol Manag 257:2319–2326

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carpio AJ, Apollonio M, Acevedo P (2021) Wild ungulate overabundance in Europe: contexts, causes, monitoring and management recommendations. Mamm Rev 51:95–108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Choquenot D, McIlroy J, Korn T (1996) Managing vertebrate pests: feral pigs. Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra, Bureau of Resource Sciences

    Google Scholar 

  • Choquenot D, Parkes J (2001) Setting thresholds for pest control: how does pest density affect resource viability? Biol Conserv 99:29–46

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coblentz BE, Baber DW (1987) Biology and control of feral pigs on Isla Santiago, Galapagos, Ecuador. J Appl Ecol 24:403–418

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Comer CE, Mayer JJ (2009) Wild pig reproductive biology. In: Mayer JJ, Brisbin IL (eds) Wild pigs: biology, damage, control techniques and management. Savannah River Site, Aiken, pp 51–76

  • Croft S, Franzetti B, Gill R, Massei G (2020) Too many wild boar? Modeling fertility control and culling to reduce wild boar numbers in isolated populations. PLoS ONE 15:e0238429

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Cruz F, Donlan CJ, Campbell K, Carrion V (2005) Conservation action in the Galápagos: feral pig (Sus scrofa) eradication from Santiago Island. Biol Conserv 12:473–478

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cuevas MF, Ballari SA, Ojeda RA, Skewes O (2021) Wild boar invasion in Argentina and Chile: ecology, impacts, and distribution. Biological Invasions in the South American Anthropocene. Springer, Cham, pp 203–229

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Cuevas MF, Campos CM, Ojeda RA, Jaksic FM (2020) Vegetation recovery after 11 years of wild boar exclusion in the Monte Desert, Argentina. Biol Invasions 22:1607–1621

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeNicola AJ, Williams SC (2008) Sharpshooting suburban white-tailed deer reduces deer–vehicle collisions. Hum-Wildl Confl 2:28–33

    Google Scholar 

  • Di Minin E, Clements HS, Correia RA, Cortés-Capano G, Fink C, Haukka A, Hausmann A, Kulkarni R, Bradshaw CJ (2021) Consequences of recreational hunting for biodiversity conservation and livelihoods. One Earth 4:238–253

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ditchkoff SS, Bodenchuk MJ (2020) Management of wild pigs. In: VerCauteren KC, Beasley JC, Ditchkoff SS, Mayer JJ, Roloff GJ, Strickland BK (eds) Invasive wild pigs in North America: ecology, impacts, and management, pp 75–98

  • Doerr ML, McAninch JB, Wiggers EP (2001) Comparison of 4 methods to reduce white-tailed deer abundance in an urban community. Wildl Soc Bull 29:1105–1113

    Google Scholar 

  • Drimaj J, Kamler J, Hošek M, Plhal R, Mikulka O, Zeman J, Drápela K (2020) Reproductive potential of free-living wild boar in Central Europe. Eur J Wildl Res 66:1–11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drimaj J, Kamler J, Hošek M, Zeman J, Plhal R, Mikulka O, Kudláček T (2019) Reproductive characteristics of wild boar males (Sus scrofa) under different environmental conditions. Acta Vet Brno 88:401–412

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elledge AE, McAlpine CA, Murray PJ, Gordon IJ (2013) Modelling habitat preferences of feral pigs for rooting in lowland rainforest. Biol Invasions 15:1523–1535

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Engeman RM, Constantin BU, Shwiff SA, Smith HT, Woolard J, Allen J, Dunlap J (2007) Adaptive and economic management methods for feral hog control in Florida. Hum-Wildl Confl 1:178–185

    Google Scholar 

  • European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), Cortiñas Abrahantes J, Gogin A, Richardson J, Gervelmeyer A (2017) Epidemiological analyses on African swine fever in the Baltic countries and Poland. EFSA J 15:e04732

    Google Scholar 

  • Festa-Bianchet M (2007) Ecology, evolution, economics and ungulate management. In: Fulbright TE, Hewitt DG (eds) Wildlife science: linking ecological theory and management applications. CRC Press, pp 183–202

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Gaillard JM, Festa-Bianchet M, Yoccoz NG, Loison A, Toïgo C (2000) Temporal variation in fitness components and population dynamics of large herbivores. Ann Rev Ecol Syst 31:367–393

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gamelon M, Gaillard JM, Servanty S, Gimenez O, Toıgo C, Baubet E, Klein F, Lebreton JD (2012) Making use of harvest information to examine alternative management scenarios: a body weight structured model for wild boar. J Appl Ecol 49:833–841

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • García-Díaz P, Cassey P, Norbury G, Lambin X, Montti L, Pizarro JC, Powell PA, Burslem DF, Cava M, Damasceno G, Fasola L (2021) Management policies for invasive alien species: addressing the impacts rather than the species. Bioscience 71:174–185

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goveto L (1999) Manejo adaptativo de las poblaciones de jabalíes en las áreas protegidas. Buenos Aires: Administración de Parques Nacionales, Buenos Aires, pp 1–46

  • Gürtler RE, Cohen JE (2022) Invasive axis deer and wild boar in a protected area in Argentina, controlled hunting, and Taylor’s law. Wildl Res 49:111–128

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gürtler RE, Izquierdo VM, Gil G, Cavicchia M, Maranta A (2017) Co** with wild boar in a conservation area: impacts of a 10-year management program of Sus scrofa in northeastern Argentina. Biol Invasions 19:11–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gürtler RE, Rodríguez-Planes LI, Gil G, Izquierdo VM, Cavicchia M, Maranta A (2018) Differential long-term impacts of a management control program of axis deer and wild boar in a protected area of north-eastern Argentina. Biol Invasions 20:1431–1447

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanson LB, Mitchell MS, Grand JB, Jolley DB, Sparklin BD, Ditchkoff SS (2009) Effect of experimental manipulation on survival and recruitment of feral pigs. Wildl Res 36:185–191

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hewitt DG (2015) Hunters and the conservation and management of white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus). Int J Environ Stud 72:839–849

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hone J (1995) Spatial and temporal aspects of vertebrate pest damage with emphasis on feral pigs. J Appl Ecol 32:311–319

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hone J (2002) Feral pigs in Namadgi National Park, Australia: dynamics, impacts and management. Biol Conserv 105:231–242

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hone J (2007) Wildlife damage control. CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hone J (2012) Applied population and community ecology: the case of feral pigs in Australia. Wiley-Blackwell, West Sussex

  • Hone J, Drake VA, Krebs CJ (2015) Prescriptive and empirical principles of applied ecology. Environ Rev 23:170–176

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hone J, Drake VA, Krebs CJ (2017) The effort-outcomes relationship in applied ecology: evaluation and implications. Bioscience 67:845–852

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jezierski W, Myrcha A (1975) Food requirements of a wild boar population. Polish Ecol Studies 1:61–83

    Google Scholar 

  • Johann F, Handschuh M, Linderoth P, Dormann CF, Arnold J (2020) Adaptation of wild boar (Sus scrofa) activity in a human-dominated landscape. BMC Ecol 20:1–4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kapos V, Bamford A, Aveling R, Bubb P, Carey P, Entwistle A, Hopkins J, Mulliken T, Safford R, Stattersfield A, Walpole M, Manica A (2009) Outcomes, not implementation, predict conservation success. Oryx 43:336–342

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krull CR, Stanley MC, Burns BR, Choquenot D, Etherington TR (2016) Reducing wildlife damage with cost-effective management programs. PLoS ONE 11:e0146765

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Lowe S, Browne M, Boudjelas S, De Poorter M (2004) 100 of the world’s worst invasive alien species: a selection from the global invasive species database. Invasive Species Specialist Group, Auckland

  • Lunazzi MM (2009) Demografía de la palmera Butia yatay en el Parque Nacional El Palmar: distribución y estructura de las poblaciones en las escalas de paisaje y de stand. MSc dissertation. Facultad de Agronomía, Universidad de Buenos Aires

  • Maillard D, Fournier P (1995) Effects of shooting with hounds on size of resting range of wild boar (Sus scrofa L.) groups in mediterranean habitat. J Mtn Ecol (Ibex) 3:102–107

    Google Scholar 

  • Massei G, Kindberg J, Licoppe A, Gačić D, Šprem N, Kamler J, Baubet E, Hohmann U, Monaco A, Ozoliņš J, Cellina S, Podgorski T, Fonseca C, Markov N, Pokorny B, Rosell C, Nahlik A (2015) Wild boar populations up, numbers of hunters down? A review of trends and implications for Europe. Pest Manag Sci 71:492–500

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Massei G, Roy S, Bunting R (2011) Too many hogs? A review of methods to mitigate impact by wild boar and feral hogs. Hum-Wildl Interact 5:79–99

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer JJ (2009a) Wild pig field sign. In: Mayer JJ, Brisbin IL (eds) Wild pigs: biology, damage, control techniques and management. Savannah River Site, Aiken, pp 205–218

  • Mayer JJ (2009b) Comparison of five harvest techniques for wild pigs. In Wild pigs: biology, damage, control techniques and management. In: Mayer JJ, Brisbin IL (eds) Wild pigs: biology, damage, control techniques and management. Savannah River Site, Aiken, pp 315–328

  • Mayer JJ, Hamilton RE, Brisbin IL (2009) Use of trained hunting dogs to harvest or control wild pigs. In: Mayer JJ, Brisbin IL (eds) Wild pigs: biology, damage, control techniques and management. Savannah River Site, Aiken, pp 275–288

  • McDonough MT, Ditchkoff SS, Smith MD, Vercauteren KC (2022) A review of the impacts of invasive wild pigs on native vertebrates. Mamm Biol 18:1–2

    Google Scholar 

  • Meng XJ, Lindsay DS, Sriranganathan N (2009) Wild boars as sources for infectious diseases in livestock and humans. Phil Trans R Soc B Biol Sci 364:2697–2707

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Miller RS, Sweeney SJ, Slootmaker C, Grear DA, Di Salvo PA, Kiser D, Shwiff SA (2017) Cross-species transmission potential between wild pigs, livestock, poultry, wildlife, and humans: implications for disease risk management in North America. Sci Rep 7:1–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milner-Gulland EJ, Rowcliffe JM (2007) Conservation and sustainable use, a handbook of techniques. Oxford University Press, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mysterud A, Rauset GR, Van Moorter B, Andersen R, Strand O, Rivrud IM (2020) The last moves: the effect of hunting and culling on the risk of disease spread from a population of reindeer. J Appl Ecol 57:2509–2518

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Natusch DJD, Mayer M, Lyons JA, Shine R (2017) Interspecific interactions between feral pigs and native birds reveal both positive and negative effects. Austral Ecol 42:479–485

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nicosia G, Rodríguez-Planes LI, Maranta AA, Morel A, Gürtler RE (2021) Combining citizen science and recreational hunters to monitor exotic ungulates and native wildlife in a protected area of northeastern Argentina. Biol Invasions 23:3687–3702

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Bryan CJ, Patton NR, Hone J, Lewis JS, Berdejo-Espinola V, Risch DR, Holden MH, McDonald-Madden E (2022) Invasive wild pigs (Sus scrofa) as a human-mediated source of soil carbon emissions: uncertainties and future directions. Global Change Biol 28:1–3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Panebianco A, Bó RF, Gregorio P, Vila A (2019) Macro and microhabitat patterns of habitat use and selection by wild boar in Los Alerces National Park. Mastozool Neotrop 26:143–154

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parkes JP, Ramsey DSL, Macdonald N, Walker K, McKnight S, Cohen BS, Morrison SA (2010) Rapid eradication of feral pigs (Sus scrofa) from Santa Cruz Island, California. Biol Conserv 143:634–641

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pauly D (1995) Anecdotes and shifting baseline syndrome of fisheries. Trends Ecol Evol 10:430

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pedrosa F, Salerno R, Padilha FVB, Galetti M (2015) Current distribution of invasive feral pigs in Brazil: economic impacts and ecological uncertainty. Nat Conserv 13:84–87

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perez Carusi LC, Beade MS, Bilenca DN (2017) Spatial segregation among pampas deer and exotic ungulates: a comparative analysis at site and landscape scales. J Mammal 98:761–769

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pignataro AG (2010) Controles de la regeneración de la palmera Butia yatay en el Parque Nacional El Palmar. MSc dissertation. Facultad de Agronomía, Universidad de Buenos Aires

  • Pullin AS, Knight TM (2005) Assessing conservation management’s evidence base: a survey of management-plan compilers in the United Kingdom and Australia. Conserv Biol 19:1989–1996

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ralph CJ, Maxwell BD (1984) Relative effects of human and feral hog disturbance on a wet forest in Hawaii. Biol Conserv 30:291–303

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramos S, De Ruyver R, Gattinoni N, Garin R, Garran S (2018) Estación agrometeorológica del INTA Concordia: 50 años de servicio a la comunidad. INTA Ediciones, Buenos Aires, pp 53

  • Risch DR, Ringma J, Price MR (2021) The global impact of wild pigs (Sus scrofa) on terrestrial biodiversity. Sci Rep 11:1–10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saïd S, Tolon V, Brandt S, Baubet E (2012) Sex effect on habitat selection in response to hunting disturbance: the study of wild boar. Eur J Wildl Res 58:107–115

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandom CJ, Hughes J, Macdonald DW (2013) Rooting for rewilding: quantifying wild boar’s Sus scrofa rooting rate in the Scottish Highlands. Restor Ecol 21:329–335

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schuyler PT, Garcelon DK, Escover S (2002) Eradication of feral pigs (Sus scrofa) on Santa Catalina island, California, USA. In: Turning the tide: the eradication of invasive species. Invasive Species Specialist Group, IUCN, Gland, pp 274–286

  • Servanty S, Gaillard JM, Ronchi F, Focardi S, Baubet E, Gimenez O (2011) Influence of harvesting pressure on demographic tactics: implications for wildlife management. J Appl Ecol 48:835–843

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singer FJ (1981) Wild pig populations in the national parks. Environ Manage 5:263–270

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Snow NP, Jarzyna MA, VerCauteren KC (2017) Interpreting and predicting the spread of invasive wild pigs. J Appl Ecol 54:2022–2032

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Soga M, Gaston KJ (2018) Shifting baseline syndrome: causes, consequences, and implications. Front Ecol Environ 16:222–230

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sosinski ÊE Jr, Urruth LM, Barbieri RL, Marchi MM, Martens SG (2019) On the ecological recognition of Butia palm groves as integral ecosystems: why do we need to widen the legal protection and the in situ/on-farm conservation approaches? Land Use Policy 81:124–130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stata Corp (2018) Stata Statistical Software: release 15.1. College Station, TX, USA, Stata Corporation

    Google Scholar 

  • Stone CP, Taylor D (1984) Status of feral pig management and research in Hawaii Volcanoes National Park. Proc Hawaii Volcanoes National Park Nat Sci Conf 5:106–117

    Google Scholar 

  • Tear TH, Kareiva P, Angermeier PL, Comer P, Czech B, Kautz R, Landon L, Mehlman D, Murphy K, Ruckelshaus M, Scott JM (2005) How much is enough? The recurrent problem of setting measurable objectives in conservation. Bioscience 55:835–849

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tisdell CA (1982) Wild pigs: environmental pest or economic resource? Pergamon Press, pp 445

  • Tolon V, Dray S, Loison A, Zeileis A, Fischer C, Baubet E (2009) Responding to spatial and temporal variations in predation risk: space use of a game species in a changing landscape of fear. Can J Zool 87:1129–1137

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vetter SG, Ruf T, Bieber C, Arnold W (2015) What is a mild winter? Regional differences in within-species responses to climate change. PLoS ONE 10:e0132178

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Walsh JC, Wilson KA, Benshemesh J, Possingham PH (2012) Unexpected outcomes of invasive predator control: the importance of evaluating conservation management actions. Animal Conserv 15:319–328

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walters C (2003) Folly and fantasy in the analysis of spatial catch rate data. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 60:1433–1436

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Welander J (2000) Spatial and temporal dynamics of wild boar (Sus scrofa) rooting in a mosaic landscape. J Zool 252:263–271

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • West BC, Cooper AL, Armstrong JB (2009) Managing wild pigs: a technical guide. Hum-Wildl Interact Monogr 1:1–54

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

R. E. G. acknowledges with thanks the valuable contributions of Marcelo Cavicchia, Guillermo Gil, A. Delaloye, and C. Sosa; Sol Gaspe and Gabriela Nicosia for artwork; Alfredo Sabaliauskas, who gave us permission to use his photograph of a sounder in a palm-tree landscape; Andrés de Miguel, and members of hunters’ associations: R. Bourband, J. Fabre, C. Gómez, H. and S. Larrachao, M. Morend, E. Portillo, and M. Sabaño. In memoriam of Horacio Lalo Sabaño. J. E. C. thanks Roseanne Benjamin for assistance during this work.

Funding

The participation of R.E.G. was supported by the University of Buenos Aires (UBACYT 20020170100779BA) and Agencia Nacional de Promoción Científica y Técnica of Argentina (PICT-2015–2921 and PICT 2018–4193). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, the decision to publish, and the preparation of the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales, Laboratory of Eco-Epidemiology, Universidad de Buenos Aires, Ciudad Universitaria, C1428EHA, Buenos Aires, Argentina

    Ricardo E. Gürtler

  2. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas-Universidad de Buenos Aires. Instituto de Ecología, Genética y Evolución de Buenos Aires (IEGEBA), Ciudad Universitaria, C1428EHA, Buenos Aires, Argentina

    Ricardo E. Gürtler

  3. Parque Nacional Nahuel Huapi (CENAC-APN). Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (CONICET), San Carlos de Bariloche, Río Negro, Argentina

    Sebastián A. Ballari

  4. Administración de Parques Nacionales, Parque Nacional El Palmar, Ruta Nac. 14, Km 198, 3287, Ubajay, Entre Ríos, Argentina

    Aristóbulo A. Maranta

  5. Laboratory of Populations, Rockefeller University, New York, NY, 10065, USA

    Joel E. Cohen

  6. Earth Institute and Department of Statistics, Columbia University, New York, NY, 10027, USA

    Joel E. Cohen

  7. Department of Statistics, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, 60637, USA

    Joel E. Cohen

Authors
  1. Ricardo E. Gürtler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sebastián A. Ballari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Aristóbulo A. Maranta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Joel E. Cohen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

REG and JEC originally formulated the idea; AAM and SAB designed and performed the experiments; REG and JEC analyzed the data; REG wrote the manuscript; other authors provided editorial advice.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ricardo E. Gürtler.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval

As the culling of exotic ungulates was conducted as part of regular pest control measures in a federally protected area, no approval by an ethics committee was required.

Consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gürtler, R.E., Ballari, S.A., Maranta, A.A. et al. Controlling the abundance of invasive exotic wild boar (Sus scrofa) improves palm-tree conservation in north-eastern Argentina. Eur J Wildl Res 69, 40 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10344-023-01668-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10344-023-01668-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation