Population response of eastern wild turkey to removal of wild pigs

IF 1.9 3区 环境科学与生态学 Q3 ECOLOGY
Matthew T. McDonough, Stephen J. Zenas, Robert A. Gitzen, Mark D. Smith, Kurt C. VerCauteren, Stephen S. Ditchkoff
{"title":"Population response of eastern wild turkey to removal of wild pigs","authors":"Matthew T. McDonough,&nbsp;Stephen J. Zenas,&nbsp;Robert A. Gitzen,&nbsp;Mark D. Smith,&nbsp;Kurt C. VerCauteren,&nbsp;Stephen S. Ditchkoff","doi":"10.1002/jwmg.22662","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>There is insufficient understanding of interspecific interactions with the eastern wild turkey (<i>Meleagris gallopavo silvestris</i>) and wild pigs (<i>Sus scrofa</i>). Wild pigs compete with wild turkeys and predate nests and adults; however, population-level effects on wild turkeys are not clear. Using cameras, we assessed responses of wild turkey populations to wild pig removal in central Alabama, USA, from 2018–2021. We compared wild turkey relative abundance and occupancy on 3 large-scale pig-removal treatment sites (3,407–5,531 ha) relative to a control site (2,510 ha) during 1 pre-treatment year and 2 post-treatment years, with analyses including a covariate expressing the cumulative number of pigs removed from each site standardized by the initial pig abundance on the site. We removed 1,851 wild pigs from the 3 treatment sites over 22 months. Based on N-mixture modeling, when the number of pigs removed was equal to our baseline population estimates (i.e., 100% removal relative to initial population), there were 1.50 (95% CL = 1.01–2.23) times as many wild turkeys, and detection of wild turkeys was 2.01 (95% CL = 1.49–2.70) times as likely. Additionally, poults were 3.49 (95% CL = 1.12–10.89) times as likely to occupy an area when the number of pigs removed was equal to our baseline population estimates compared with poult occupancy at baseline pig abundance. Our data suggests that reduction of wild pig populations may lead to a localized increase in populations of wild turkeys.</p>","PeriodicalId":17504,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Wildlife Management","volume":"88 8","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Wildlife Management","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jwmg.22662","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

There is insufficient understanding of interspecific interactions with the eastern wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo silvestris) and wild pigs (Sus scrofa). Wild pigs compete with wild turkeys and predate nests and adults; however, population-level effects on wild turkeys are not clear. Using cameras, we assessed responses of wild turkey populations to wild pig removal in central Alabama, USA, from 2018–2021. We compared wild turkey relative abundance and occupancy on 3 large-scale pig-removal treatment sites (3,407–5,531 ha) relative to a control site (2,510 ha) during 1 pre-treatment year and 2 post-treatment years, with analyses including a covariate expressing the cumulative number of pigs removed from each site standardized by the initial pig abundance on the site. We removed 1,851 wild pigs from the 3 treatment sites over 22 months. Based on N-mixture modeling, when the number of pigs removed was equal to our baseline population estimates (i.e., 100% removal relative to initial population), there were 1.50 (95% CL = 1.01–2.23) times as many wild turkeys, and detection of wild turkeys was 2.01 (95% CL = 1.49–2.70) times as likely. Additionally, poults were 3.49 (95% CL = 1.12–10.89) times as likely to occupy an area when the number of pigs removed was equal to our baseline population estimates compared with poult occupancy at baseline pig abundance. Our data suggests that reduction of wild pig populations may lead to a localized increase in populations of wild turkeys.

东部野生火鸡对清除野猪的种群反应
人们对东部野生火鸡(Meleagris gallopavo silvestris)与野猪(Sus scrofa)之间的种间相互作用了解不足。野猪与野生火鸡竞争,捕食火鸡巢穴和成鸟;然而,野猪对野生火鸡种群水平的影响尚不清楚。我们使用照相机评估了美国阿拉巴马州中部野生火鸡种群对 2018-2021 年野猪迁移的反应。我们比较了3个大规模野猪清除处理点(3,407-5,531公顷)与一个对照点(2,510公顷)在处理前1年和处理后2年的野生火鸡相对丰度和占有率,分析包括一个协变量,表示从每个处理点清除的累计野猪数量,以该处理点的初始野猪丰度为标准。在 22 个月的时间里,我们从 3 个处理地点清除了 1851 头野猪。根据 N-混合物模型,当清除的猪数量等于我们的基线种群估计值(即相对于初始种群清除 100%)时,野生火鸡的数量是原来的 1.50 倍(95% CL = 1.01-2.23),发现野生火鸡的可能性是原来的 2.01 倍(95% CL = 1.49-2.70)。此外,当清除的野猪数量等于我们的基线种群数量估计值时,与野猪数量基线时的野鸡占据率相比,野鸡占据一个区域的可能性是后者的 3.49 倍(95% CL = 1.12-10.89)。我们的数据表明,野猪数量的减少可能会导致野生火鸡数量的局部增加。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Wildlife Management
Journal of Wildlife Management 环境科学-动物学
CiteScore
4.00
自引率
13.00%
发文量
188
审稿时长
9-24 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Wildlife Management publishes manuscripts containing information from original research that contributes to basic wildlife science. Suitable topics include investigations into the biology and ecology of wildlife and their habitats that has direct or indirect implications for wildlife management and conservation. This includes basic information on wildlife habitat use, reproduction, genetics, demographics, viability, predator-prey relationships, space-use, movements, behavior, and physiology; but within the context of contemporary management and conservation issues such that the knowledge may ultimately be useful to wildlife practitioners. Also considered are theoretical and conceptual aspects of wildlife science, including development of new approaches to quantitative analyses, modeling of wildlife populations and habitats, and other topics that are germane to advancing wildlife science. Limited reviews or meta analyses will be considered if they provide a meaningful new synthesis or perspective on an appropriate subject. Direct evaluation of management practices or policies should be sent to the Wildlife Society Bulletin, as should papers reporting new tools or techniques. However, papers that report new tools or techniques, or effects of management practices, within the context of a broader study investigating basic wildlife biology and ecology will be considered by The Journal of Wildlife Management. Book reviews of relevant topics in basic wildlife research and biology.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信