Content uploaded by András Náhlik
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by András Náhlik on Oct 13, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
Review
Received: 7 July 2014 Revised: 9 December 2014 Accepted article published: 16 December 2014 Published online in Wiley Online Library:
(wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI 10.1002/ps.3965
Wild boar populations up, numbers of hunters
down? A review of trends and implications for
Europe
Giovanna Massei,a* Jonas Kindberg,bAlain Licoppe,cDragan Gaˇ
ci´
c,dNikica
Šprem,eJiˇ
rí Kamler,fEric Baubet,gUlf Hohmann,hAndrea Monaco,iJanis
Ozoli ¸nš,jSandra Cellina,kTomasz Podgórski,lCarlos Fonseca,mNickolay
Markov,nBoštjan Pokorny,oCarme Rosellpand András Náhlikq
Abstract
Across Europe, wild boar numbers increased in the 1960s–1970s but stabilised in the 1980s; recent evidence suggests that
the numbers and impact of wild boar has grown steadily since the 1980s. As hunting is the main cause of mortality for this
species, we reviewed wild boar hunting bags and hunter populationtrends in 18 European countries from 1982 to 2012. Hunting
statistics and numbers of hunters were used as indicators of animal numbers and hunting pressure. The results confirmed that
wild boar increased consistently throughout Europe, while the number of hunters remained relatively stable or declined in
most countries. We conclude that recreational hunting is insufficient to limit wild boar population growth and that the relative
impact of hunting on wild boar mortality had decreased. Other factors, such as mild winters, reforestation, intensification of
crop production, supplementary feeding and compensatory population responses of wild boar to hunting pressure might also
explain population growth. As populations continue to grow, more human– wild boar conflicts are expected unless this trend is
reversed. New interdisciplinary approaches are urgently required to mitigate human–wild boar conflicts, which are otherwise
destined to grow further.
© 2014 Crown copyright. Pest Management Science © 2014 Society of Chemical Industry
Keywords: growth rate; hunting pressure; mortality; population control; Sus scrofa
1 INTRODUCTION
Wild boar (Sus scrofa) are among the most widely distributed large
mammals in the world. The natural range of the species extends
from Western Europe and the Mediterranean basin to Eastern Rus-
sia, Japan and South-east Asia.1In Europe, wild boar has recently
recolonised Sweden, Finlandand Estonia.2,3I n the UnitedK ingdom
and in Denmark the species has become re-established following
farm escapes.4–6The presence of wild boar in Sweden meant the
species was expected to recolonise Norway,7and in 2013 the first
wild boar was shot 40 km from Oslo (http://sciencenordic.com/
wild-boars-generate-worries-). Wild boar occur throughout a wide
spectrum of habitat types, ranging from semi-arid environments
to marshes, forests and alpine grasslands.1In Europe, increas-
ing numbers of wild boar sightings were reported in urban and
∗Correspondence to: Giovanna Massei, National Wildlife Management Cen-
tre, Animal and Plant Health Agency, Sand Hutton, York YO26 5LE, UK.
E-mail: giovanna.massei@apha.gsi.gov.uk
This article is published with the permission of the Controller of
HMSO and the Queen’s Printer for Scotland.
aNational Wildlife Management Centre, Animal and Plant Health Agency, York,
UK
bDepartment of Wildlife, Fish and Environmental Studies, Swedish University of
Agricultural Sciences, Umeå, Sweden
cSPW-DEMNA-DNE, Laboratoire de la Faune Sauvage et de Cynégétique, Gem-
bloux, Belgium
dFaculty of Forestry,University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia
eUniversity of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia
fMendel University, Brno, Czech Republic
gOffice National de la Chasse et de la Faune Sauvage, Birieux, France
hResearch Institute for Forest Ecology and Forestry Rhineland-Palatinate, Tripp-
stadt, Germany
iRegional Parks Agency – Lazio Region, Rome, Italy
jState Forest Research Institute ‘Silava’, Salaspils, Latvia
kAdministration de la Nature et des Forêts, Luxembourg, Luxembourg
lMammal Research Institute, Polish Academy of Sciences, Białowiė
za, Poland
mDepartment of Biology and CESAM, University of Aveiro, Aveiro, Portugal
nInstitute of Plant and Animal Ecology, Russian Academy of Sciences,Russia
oERICo Velenje and Environmental Protection College, Velenje, Slovenia
pMINUARTIA and FacultatBiologia Animal, Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona,
Spain
qUniversity of West Hungary, Sopron, Hungary
Pest Manag Sci (2015) www.soci.org © 2014 Crown copyright.
Pest Management Science © 2014 Society of Chemical Industry
www.soci.org G Massei et al.
suburban areas, for instance in Berlin, Barcelona, Rome, Vilnius and
Budapest (e.g. Náhlik A, unpublished; Monaco A, unpublished).8,9
In Belgrade, the number of wild boar killed in the suburban
area rose from 97 in 2004– 2005 to 374 in 2013–2014 (Ga ˇ
ci´
cD,
unpublished).
Among ungulates, wild boar are characterised by the highest
reproductive rate, with annual population growth rates that may
exceed 2.0.10–12 The main causes of natural mortality for this
species are starvation due to extreme weather conditions,13,14
diseases15 and predation by wolf (Canis lupus).16,17 However, hunt-
ing, and to a lesser extent road traffic accidents, make the greatest
contribution to wild boar mortality.12,17–22
The impact of wild boar on conservation and economic interests
includes spread of diseases to livestock and people, vehicle colli-
sions, and damage to crops and amenities, as well as reduction in
plant and animal abundance and richness.23–28 As wild boar num-
bers appear to increase in many European countries, their impact
is also increasing;3,12,19,20,29–31 and mitigating human –wild boar
conflicts will present a significant challenge.
A review of wild boar population trends carried out in the
1980s32 showed that the simultaneous increases in wild boar
numbers in different European countries between the 1960s
and the 1980s followed a logistic curve, with a sharp increase
in growth rate between 1965 and 1975 and a plateau in the
following decade, when numbers appeared to stabilise. These
trends in wild boar numbers were attributed to a combination
of species-specific biological factors (e.g. very high reproduc-
tive output and dispersal potential), as well as to other changes,
which included lack of large predators, reforestation, deliberate
releases for sport hunting, supplementary feeding, habitat alter-
ation due to human activities and mild winters which improved
survival.2,29,33 –38
Three decades later, many of these factors are still operat-
ing, and current trends of landscape development indicate that
human–ungulate conflicts, and in particular human –wild boar
conflicts, are increasing.39–49 In parallel, the apparent decline in
hunter numbers observed in several western countries42 suggests
that the relative importance of hunting, as the main cause of
wild boar mortality, will decrease. Analysing wild boar population
trends in recent decades and understanding the factors affecting
these trends are crucial to managing the presence of this species
and its impact in the near future.
The aims of this paper were: (1) to describe wild boar population
trends in European countries over the last three decades; (2) to
illustrate hunter population trends in the same timeframe; (3) to
discuss the implications of wild boar and hunter population trends
for mitigation of human– wild boar conflicts.
2METHODS
Wild boar population numbers were derived from hunting bags
provided by local and national hunters associations or by focal
points (academic and research institutions, local authorities, etc.)
(see Appendix 1) from 18 selected European countries. Although
some countries have maintained hunting statistics since 1930,
most started collecting data in the mid-1970s. As trends for some
European wild boar populations had been analysed up to the early
1980s,32 this review focused on the last three decades, from 1982
to 2012 or 2013. For ease of presentation, countries were divided
into four arbitrary groups, based on the numbers of wild boar
harvested in the latest year as follows: <10 000, 10 000 –50 000,
50 001 –200 000 and >200 000.
For most countries, data were available at the national scale. For
some countries, data were collected only for part of the national
territory or extrapolated to the whole country as follows:
Italy A complete dataset was available for five out of the 21
regions. Based on hunting bags in other regions in recent years,
these five regions represent 73% of the total number of wild boar
harvested.43 The data reported in Fig. 1 are extrapolated to the
whole country (100%) by adding 27% of the wild boar annually
harvested in the five regions to the actual numbers harvested
in these five regions. However, the National Ungulate Databank
suggests that these statistics might be widely underestimated.43
Thus, we can hypothesise that the total number of wild boar culled
in Italy in recent years could be as high as 300 000 animals instead
of the ca 200 000 reported here (Monaco A, unpublished).
Belgium Wild boar are present throughout the country, but data
are reported only for the southern part of the country (Wallonia),
as wild boar colonised Flanders (North Belgium) only a few years
ago (data from 2006). Data from Wallonia in 2012 represented 98%
of the total hunting bag.
Russia The official statistics reported here are likely to underesti-
mate the true numbers of wild boar harvested, although the bias
was impossible to quantify.
Germany Owing to reunification in 1989/90, data on number of
hunters and wild boar harvested were likely to be accurate after
1989/90 (Hohmann U, private communication).
Croatia, Serbia and Slovenia The splitting of former Yugoslavia
into several countries did not influence the hunting statistics of
these countries, as population management and national hunting
statistics have been separated for each country since the 1950s.
However, data on the number of wild boar harvested in Serbia
and Croatia are highly underestimated (by >30%), while data from
Slovenia are very accurate (Pokorny B, unpublished).
Although the accuracy of hunting bags was acknowledged to
vary significantly between countries, we assumed that potential
biases would be relatively constant within each country over time,
and that these data would provide the best available indicators of
wild boar population trends.
To quantify wild boar population trends during the last three
decades, an index of annual population growth rate was esti-
mated for each country by dividing the number of wild boar har-
vested in one year by the number harvested the previous year.
Values were averaged across all the countries and reported for
the 1983–2012 period. The quinquennial changes in number of
wild boar were also considered because 5 year timeframes are
often used when planning population control strategies.42 The
quinquennial changes in number of wild boar harvested were
expressed by dividing the average number of animals harvested
in a 5 year period by the average number of wild boar harvested in
the previous 5 years. Values were averaged across all the countries
and reported for the 1986–2012 period.
Data on the number of hunters or on the number of hunting
licences (hereafter referred to as ‘number of hunters’) were derived
from the sources reported in Appendix 1 for 17 countries. While
in most instances it was not possible to determine the actual
proportion of hunters engaged in wild boar hunting, out of the
total population of hunters, the data were used as indicators of
trends at the national level. For ease of presentation, data on the
number of hunters were divided into four arbitrary groups, based
on latest numbers recorded, as follows: <30 000, 30 000 –100 000,
100 001 –500 000 and >500,000.
For each country, a linear regression was fitted between years
and the number of hunters; to account for autocorrelation in the
wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/ps © 2014 Crown copyright. Pest Manag Sci (2015)
Pest Management Science © 2014 Society of Chemical Industry
wild boar and hunter trends in Europe www.soci.org
Figure 1. Wild boar hunting bags from selected European countries.
data, an autoregressive model [AR(1)] was fitted to the error term.
To analyse overall trends in number of hunters versus number
of wild boar harvested in Europe, a linear regression was fitted
between these variables for the period between 1991 and 2011,
using the 16 countries for which these data were available. To
account for autocorrelation in the data, an autoregressive model
[AR(1)] was fitted to the error term. All analyses were carried out in
GenStat 17.1.
To illustrate overall trends in number of hunters and number
of wild boar harvested in Europe, the total number of wild boar
harvested and the total number of hunters across all countries
were plotted against time for the period between 1991 and 2011
when data were available for all countries.
3RESULTS
3.1 Wild boar population trends
The most recent wild boar hunting bags, in 2012 and 2013, indicate
that some countries such as Spain, Poland, France, Italy and Ger-
many harvest between 200 000 and 640 000 wild boar per year. The
trends in hunting bags are consistent with population growth in
all countries throughout the last three decades, although growth
rates differed among countries (Fig. 1). In many countries the num-
ber of wild boar harvested often appeared to stabilise for a few
years before further increase was observed. The mean annual pop-
ulation growth rate index (Fig.2) averaged across all countries
showed a fairly regular pattern, with peaks followed by troughs
at 3–4 year intervals. In four out of the 30 years considered for
the analysis, the mean wild boar population growth index across
Europe was lower than 1 (with 1 =stable population), while in
all other years the growth rate index varied between 1.00 and
1.46. The quinquennial population growth rate index mirrored the
yearly regular pattern and varied between 1.40 and 1.73.
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
1982 1987 1992 1997 2002 2007 2012
Mean (SE) growth rate
Annual growth rate
Five-year growth rate
Figure 2. Mean (SE) estimated growth rate of wild boar populations in
Europe, derived from hunting bag statistics calculated for each country
and averaged across 18 countries. Annual growth rate=number of wild
boar harvested per year divided by the number of animals harvested the
previous year.Five-year growth rate =mean number of wild boar harvested
in 5 years divided by the number of animals harvested the previous 5 years.
3.2 Trends in numbers of hunters
The trends in number of hunters suggest that, in 12 of the 17
countries examined, hunter numbers either declined (n=8 coun-
tries) or remained stable (n=4 countries) (Fig. 3). For, Luxembourg,
Serbia, France, Slovenia, Portugal, Sweden, Italy and Spain, we
found a negative correlation between year and number of hunters
(P<0.05 for all countries). Hunter numbers remained stable in
Montenegro, Croatia, the Czech Republic and Russia, with the
regression slope not significantly different from zero (P>0.05 for
all countries). In the remaining five countries, Belgium, Poland,
Austria, Hungary and Germany, we found a positive correlation
between year and number of hunters (P<0.05 for all countries).
In Belgium, Poland, Austria, Hungary and Germany the numbers
of hunters in 2012 were respectively 1.3, 1.2, 1.1, 1.5 and 1.2 times
Pest Manag Sci (2015) © 2014 Crown copyright. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/ps
Pest Management Science © 2014 Society of Chemical Industry
www.soci.org G Massei et al.
Figure 3. Trends in the number of hunters in selected European countries. Numbersrefer either to hunters or to hunting licences.
higher than those recorded in 1990. In the same period, the num-
bers of wild boar harvested in Belgium, Poland, Austria, Hungary
and Germany in 2012 were respectively 4.4, 1.9, 3.8, 3.4 and 1.3
times higher than numbers harvested in 1990.
For most countries, it was impossible to establish whether the
actual number of wild boar hunters followed the same pattern as
the total number of hunters. For instance, in Sweden, while the
total number of hunters decreased owing to a decline in moose
population, the relative number of wild boar hunters increased
(Kindberg J, unpublished). In other countries, such as Italy, about
37–42% of the hunters in Tuscany (one of the five regions from
which the national data were extrapolated, accounting for 36.8%
of the total harvest in Italy) are wild boar hunters.43,44 In the same
region, while the number of hunters declined from 47 000 in 1999
to 41 000 in 2011, the proportion of hunters over 60 years of age
increased in the same period from 34% in 1998 to 55% in 2012. This
indicates an ageing population of hunters that are not replaced by
equivalent numbers of newcomers. Similar trends have occured
in other European countries: in Slovenia the current (2014) age
of hunters is 55.6 years old and has been increasing annually by
ca 0.3–0.4 years for the last two decades;45 in France the average
age of hunters was 45 years old in 1983– 1984 and 50 years old in
1998–1999 (Baubet E, unpublished).
The overall trends in total number of hunters and in number of
wild boar harvested in Europe (Fig.4) showed that since the early
1990s the number of hunters has decreased by about 18%, while in
the same period the number of wild boar harvested has increased
by about 150%.
There was a strong negative correlation (R2=0.873, F1,19 =131.3,
P<0.0001) between the total number of hunters and the number
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
Number of hunters and wild
boar
Total number of hunters
Total number of wild boar harvested
Figure 4. Total number of hunters (in millions) and wild boar harvested
(in millions) in selected European countries between 1991 and 2011, when
data for both variables were available for the following 16 countries:
Luxembourg, Serbia, Slovenia, Belgium, Croatia, Portugal, Austria, Russia,
Sweden, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Italy, Poland, France, Spain and
Germany.
of wild boar harvested in 16 European countries between 1991 and
2011 (Fig. 5).
4 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
The review showed the continued growth of wild boar numbers
throughout Europe between 1982 and 2013. In 2012, a minimum
of 2.2 million wild boar were harvested across the 18 countries,
against ca 864 000 harvested in 1992 (when for the first time data
became available for all 18 countries). If the remaining countries
that were not included in this analysis were added, the total
number of wild boar annually harvested in Europe would be in
wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/ps © 2014 Crown copyright. Pest Manag Sci (2015)
Pest Management Science © 2014 Society of Chemical Industry
wild boar and hunter trends in Europe www.soci.org
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
2.2
2.4
7.2 7.4 7.6 7.8 8.0 8.2 8.4 8.6 8.8 9.0 9.2
Number of wild boar harvested
Number of hunters
1991
2011
Figure 5. Relationship between the total number of hunters (in millions)
and wild boar harvested (in millions) in selected European countries
between 1991 and 2011. The shade of the symbol indicates the year,
progressing from early years (in white) to recent years (in black).
excess of 3 million. Although numbers are expected eventually
to stabilise, the average growth rate index, expressed as annual
or quinquennial rate, has consistently exceeded 1 over the past
three decades, with the exception of four years. Over the same
period, the number of hunters has been comparatively stable or
even declined in most European countries.
As it was impossible to differentiate between hunting effort
(expressed, for instance, as the number of wild boar hunters,
or guns, or hunter-days, or distance covered by hunters46)and
hunting pressure, defined as the effect of hunting on wild boar
population dynamics,18,47,48 the number of hunters was used here
as a generic indicator of the potential impact of hunting on wild
boar numbers.
Assuming that the hunting bag statistics reflect the actual num-
ber of animals present, and that the number of hunters is a rea-
sonable indicator for mortality due to hunting, these findings have
several implications:
1. There is a mismatch between the consistent growth in number
of harvested wild boar across Europe and the numbers of
hunters, which in most countries are stable or declining. This
suggests that hunters may have increased their effort over time
and become more proficient, or that wild boar numbers have
grown. This latter hypothesis is supported by the increase in the
number of vehicle collisions and crop damage involving wild
boar.29,39
2. For European wild boar populations, the relative mortality due
to hunting has declined over the past three decades, i.e. the
proportion of wild boar removed by hunters in each country
has been lower in recent years than in the 1980s or in the 1990s.
This means that recreational hunting per se is currently not
sufficient to limit wild boar population growth.
3. There is no indication that the growth rate index of wild
boar populations has decreased in recent years, as would be
expected if populations stabilised. If the main cause of wild boar
mortality, namely hunting, is decreasing or remaining stable,
and the growth rate index remains >1(with1=no growth,
<1=decline, >1=growth), then wild boar populations will
continue to increase and more human– wild boar conflicts will
be expected.
The limitations of data based on hunting bags or on number
of hunters have been widely acknowledged,39,49 and the accuracy
of reports of wild boar harvested is difficult to assess. In some
countries the number of wild boar harvested is linked to hunting
quotas imposed by local authorities; in these instances, hunters
may under- or overreport the number of animals harvested to
meet these quotas.39
Biases in actual numbers harvested may also be due to poaching
or illegal hunting, which was not accounted for by official statistics,
changes in hunting seasons across the years and differences in
equipment and hunting practices in different countries (including
the use of more efficient guns, spotlight or infrared binoculars or
scopes, and off-road vehicles). In addition, some countries have
poor records and/or lack centralised data collation, particularly at
the national scale.
Although some of these factors may affect the total number of
wild boar harvested, as well as the slope of the trend between
some years, the generally consistent pattern of growth through-
out Europe suggests that wild boar numbers have significantly
increased since 1982. The fact that these trends have been par-
alleled by a simultaneous growth in number of vehicle collisions
and wild boar agricultural damage further supports the hypoth-
esis that the number of animals has grown. For instance, in Swe-
den the number of wild boar–vehicle collisions rose from about
50 per year in the early 2000 to ca 1000 in 2005 and over 4000
in 201230 (www.viltolycka.se). In the Netherlands this number rose
from 142 in 1995 to 320 in 2003,50 and in Switzerland, in the same
period, the number increased from 212 to 412.51 In Germany, out
of the 227 000 traffic accidents with deer and wild boar in 2005,
13 700 involved wild boar.43 In Catalonia (north-eastern Spain)
the number of accidents involving animals increased by 41.6%
between 2007 and 2011, with wild boar responsible for 85% of the
accidents.52 In terms of impact on crops, compensation for crop
damage caused by wild boar in France rose from ca €2.5 million
in 1973 to €21 million in 2005 and €32.5 million in 2008.53,54 In
Luxembourg, compensation for crop damage caused by wild boar
increased from ca €100 000 in 1971 to €900 000 in 2004,55 and in
Slovenia from €292 000 in 2005 to €575000 in 2013.56
The number of hunters across Europe appears to have been sta-
ble or even declining over the past three decades, and recruitment
to hunter populations is low. These data reflect those reported for
large game hunters in other countries. Declining trends in number
of big game hunters have been recorded in the United States,
Canada and Japan for a number of years, in parallel with increased
numbers of ungulates.42,57 The growing mismatch and increasing
gap between the number of hunters and the number of wild boar
harvested means that the relative impact of hunting on wild boar
population dynamics has probably decreased. If this is correct,
trends in numbers of wild boar culled may underestimate the
true growth of boar populations. Although wild boar mortality
due to road traffic accidents has also increased, this is still small
compared with hunting-induced mortality. For instance, between
2004 and 2010, hunting was the cause of death for ca 38% of the
1613 tagged wild boar in Wallonia, while road traffic accidents
accounted for less than 1% of the recorded deaths.22 In Sweden,
94% of wild boar mortality is caused by hunting, 4% is due to
traffic accidents and 2% is ascribed to natural mortality.7These
figures are even more extreme in Slovenia, where hunting repre-
sents 97–98% of wild boar mortality, road mortality accounts for
1–1.5% and natural mortality for <1%.45
Other factors frequently quoted to explain the increase in wild
boar numbers in Europe are the scarcity of large predators, refor-
estation, supplementary feeding and mild winters, which have
improved survival. The wolf is the only large predator that has
an impact on wild boar mortality, and in the last 30 years the
populations of wolves across Europe have increased or remained
stable.16,58–63 The mortality of wild boar owing to wolf predation
Pest Manag Sci (2015) © 2014 Crown copyright. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/ps
Pest Management Science © 2014 Society of Chemical Industry
www.soci.org G Massei et al.
is relatively small when compared with the mortality imposed
by hunters.64 For instance, in Poland, wolves annually removed
19–38 wild boar per 100 km2(or 4 –8% of spring– summer den-
sities of wild boar), compared with hunters who annually har-
vested 45– 142 wild boar per 100 km2.60 In Spain, estimated wolf
predation caused 12% of the mortality of wild boar, compared with
31% caused by hunting.16
The mortality due to hunters and predators affects different
wild boar age classes: predators such as wolves remove pri-
marily young wild boar, while hunters remove relatively more
adult animals.12,16,60–65 The implications for population dynam-
ics are significant: as young animals have lower survival rates
than adults, some of the mortality due to predation replaces mor-
tality that might otherwise be affected by other natural causes,
such as starvation.66 Conversely, higher mortality of adult animals
owing to hunting removes individuals that might have survived
longer and would have contributed more to population growth.
Thus, hunters have greater potential than wolves for regulating
populations.12,67,68
Hunting can also induce compensatory population response:
where hunting pressure is high, wild boar may give birth earlier,
which in turn allows juvenile females to grow for longer and to
reach the threshold size for giving birth at 1 year of age.18 In
addition, under high hunting pressure, a higher proportion of
yearling females give birth compared with populations where
hunting pressure is less pronounced.47
Reforestation and climate change have often been quoted to
explain the increased densities of ungulates in Europe.32,47 Over
the last 20 years, the forest area has expanded in all European
regions.69 The increased cover of forests, as well as the shelter
provided by some crops such as rapeseed, sunflower and maize,
is likely to have favoured the spread of wild boar to previously
unoccupied areas, although this is not the case for boreal forests
in Northern Europe (Kindberg J, unpublished).70,71 Milder winters
and reduced winter mortality are also likely to affect recruitment
via increased survival of all age classes.15,64,72
Supplementary feeding of wild boar, which is widespread across
most European countries, as well as an increased availability of
agricultural crops throughout the year, has certainly contributed
to increase survival.10,29,73 The highest litter size and reproductive
output recorded for wild boar are associated with availability of
energy-rich crops (maize and sunflower) in summer and autumn,
often coupled with supplementary food provided by hunters in
winter.36,74,75
Wild boar reproductive rates are significantly affected by food
availability;35,73,76 –78 the fact that sows can maximise reproductive
success by adjusting their relative allocation to littermates in
relation to the amount of food available could also contribute to
population growth.79
In conclusion, wild boar have increased significantly across
Europe during the past three decades, probably facilitated by a
decrease in numbers of hunters but also by a combination of other
extrinsic factors. Although the importance of each of these fac-
tors is likely to be country specific, a major finding of this review
is that, across the continent, recreational hunting has not pre-
vented the growth of wild boar populations and is unlikely to
do so in the near future without substantial changes to hunting
practices. Although in most European countries wild boar are val-
ued as game, hunters might have little incentive for reducing wild
boar populations even when the market value of carcasses out-
weighs the costs that hunters accrue via compensation payments
to farmers for crop damage caused by this species.39,80 An ageing
extant hunter population coupled with low hunter recruitment
suggests that new strategies may be required if the number of
wild boar and their impacts are to be controlled.81 With regard to
hunters, these strategies could include identifying and address-
ing the reasons for lack of retention of hunters and promotion
of hunter recruitment.42 Preventing further wild boar population
growth will rely on shifting the focus of hunters towards specific
age classes,12,67,79,82 involving other stakeholders as well as profes-
sional hunters, introducing more effective hunting methods and
equipment and exploring the use of new tools for hunting. More-
over, educating the public in wild boar control83,84 and testing
new methods such as fertility control in areas where hunting is
unfeasible40,85 may assist in controlling wild boar. It is conceivable
that recreational hunting of wild boar will be progressively sub-
stituted by professional hunting, community service or civic duty
carried out by other stakeholder groups.42 Cooperation between
landowners, hunters and conservation groups, as well as educa-
tion in wild boar hunting and provision of equipment to increase
hunting efficiency, will play an important role in decreasing wild
boar populations in the future. Adopting effective strategies to
reduce human– wild boar conflicts will be a major challenge in
the future.39,41 Successfully meeting this challenge could provide
a model for mitigating other human– wildlife conflicts.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Many thanks to Stéphane Pietravalle for statistical advice.
APPENDIX
Table A1 Source of data and acknowledgements
Austria STAT cube – statistical database of statistics,
Austria (http://statcube.at/
statistik.at/ext/superweb/loadDatabase.do)
Belgium Service Public de Wallonie – Département
de la Nature et des Forêts. Thanks to
Michel Villers
Croatia Ministry of Agriculture, Information System
of Central Hunting Records
(https://lovistarh.mps.hr/sle/login.aspx?
ReturnUrl=%2fsle%2fdefault.aspx),
Croatian Hunting Association. Thanks to
Ivica Budor and Marko Tomljanovi´
c
Czech Republic Ministry of Agriculture of the Czech Republic
France Réseau Ongulés Sauvages ONCFS-FNC-FDC
(Wild UngulatesNetwork
ONCFS-FNC-FDC)
(http://www.oncfs.gouv.fr/Reseau-Ongules-
sauvages-ru104).
ONCFS =French National Agency for
Wildlife
(http://www.oncfs.gouv.fr/Reseau-Ongules-
sauvages-ru104); FNC =National Hunters
Feder ation; FDC =Departmental Hunters
Federation. ONCFS – Validation of
hunting license (Budget Division). Thanks
to C Saint-Andrieux (ONCFS) and field
staff at the Réseau Ongulés Sauvages, and
to D Soulie (ONCFS)
Germany Deutscher Jagdschutzverband (German
Hunter Association) (see
http://www.jagdnetz.de/datenundfakten
/jahresstrecken?meta_id =267 and
http://www.jagdnetz.de/datenundfakten?
meta_id=116)
wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/ps © 2014 Crown copyright. Pest Manag Sci (2015)
Pest Management Science © 2014 Society of Chemical Industry
wild boar and hunter trends in Europe www.soci.org
Table A1 (continued)
Hungary National Game Management Database,
Gödöll˝
o, Hungary.
Thanks to the Foundation of the
Hungarian Government (USZT) within
project VKSZ_12-1-2013-0034
Agroclimate 2
Italy National Ungulates Databank, ISPRA
(Institute for Environmental Protection
and Research)
(http://www.isprambiente.gov.it/it).
Italian National Institute of Statistics
(http://www.istat.it). Thanks to Maria
Luisa Zanni, Enrico Merli, Andrea Marsan,
Maddalena Mattii, Aurelio Perrone,
Sandro Bertolino and Barbara Franzetti
Latvia The State Forest Service of Latvia (SFS)
(www.vmd.gov.lv)
Luxembourg Administration de la Nature et des Forêts,
Luxembourg.
Ministère du Développement Durable et
des Infrastructures, Département de
l’Environnement, Luxembourg. Thanks
toPGrivet,PCalmesandJMBerg
Poland Forestry Statistical Yearbooks (1975–2013),
Central Statistical Office of Poland
Portugal Portuguese Institute for Nature
Conservation and Forests (www.icnf.pt).
Portuguese Science Foundation (FCT)
within project PEst-C/MAR/LA0017/2013
Russia Russian Committee for Statistics
Roskomstat (www.rks.ru)
Serbia Statistical Office of the Republic of Serbia
(www.stat.gov.rs). Hunting Association
of Serbia
Slovenia Statistic Yearbooks of the Republic of
Slovenia (1982-2012), annual hunting
management plans for all 15 Hunting
Management Districts (2009-2013)
Slovene hunting information system
(2001-2013). Thanks to Marko Jonozoviˇ
c,
Department for Wildlife and Hunting,
Slovenia Forest Service
Spain Spanish Ministry of Agriculture, Food and
Environment and Spanish Hunters
Federation. Thanks to Antonio Solís from
the Spanish Ministry of Agriculture
Sweden The Swedish Association for Hunting and
Wildlife Management, Swedish
Environmental Protection Agency
Switzerland Office Fédéral de l’Environnement OFEV
Statistique de la Chasse
REFERENCES
1 Sjarmidi A and Gerard J, Autour de la systématique et la distribution
des suidés. Monit Zool Ital 22:415 –448 (1988).
2 Erkinaro E, Heikura K, Lindgren E, Pulliainen E and Sulkava S, Occur-
rence and spread of the wild boar (Sus scrofa) in eastern Fennoscan-
dia. Mem Soc Fauna Flora Fenn 58:39– 47 (1982).
3 Veeroja R and Männil P, Population development and reproduction of
wild boar (Sus scrofa)inEstonia.Wildl Biol Pract 10:17 –21 (2014).
4 Wilson CJ, Feral wild boar in England: status, impact and management.
Defra, London, UK (2005).
5 Wilson CJ, The establishment and distribution of feral wild boar (Sus
scrofa L.) in England. Wildl Biol Pract 10:1–6 (2014).
6 Andersen R and Holthe V, Ungulates and their management in Den-
mark, in European Ungulates and their Management in the 21st
Century, ed. by Apollonio M, Andersen R and Putman R. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 71–85 (2010).
7 Rosvold J and Andersen R, Wild boar in Norway – is climate a limiting
factor? – NTNU Vitenskapsmuseet. Rapp Zool Ser 1:1– 23 (2008).
8 Cahill S, Limona F and Gracia J, Spacing and nocturnal activity of wild
boar Sus scrofa in a Mediterranean metropolitan park. Wildl Biol
9:13– 33 (2003).
9 Jansen A, Luge E, Guerra B, Wittschen P, Gruber AD, Loddenkemper C
et al., Leptospirosis in urban wild boars, Berlin, Germany. EmergInfect
Dis 13:739– 742 (2007).
10 Bieber C and Ruf T, Population dynamics in wild boar Sus scrofa:ecol-
ogy, elasticity of growth rate and implications for the management
of pulsed resource consumers. J Appl Ecol 42:1203–1213 (2005).
11 Holland EP, Burrow JF, Dytham C and Aegerter JN, Modelling with
uncertainty: introducing a probabilistic framework to predict animal
population dynamics. Ecol Model 220:1203 –1217 (2009).
12 Keuling O, Baubet E, Duscher A, Ebert C, Fischer C, Monaco A et al.,
Mortality rates of wild boar Sus scrofa L. in central Europe. Eur J Wildl
Res 59:805– 814 (2013).
13 Okarma H, Jedrzejewska B, Jederzejewski W, Krasinski ZA and
Milkowski L, The roles of predation, snow cover, acorn crop, and
man-related factors on ungulate mortality in Bialowieza Primeval
Forest, Poland. Acta Theriol 40:197– 217 (1995).
14 Massei G, Genov PV, Staines BW and Gorman ML, Mortality of wild
boar in a Mediterranean area in relation to sex and age. J Zool Lond
242:394– 400 (1997).
15 Rossi S, Toigo C, Hars J, Pol F, Hamann JL, Depner K et al., New insights
on the management of wildlife diseases using multi-state recapture
models: the case of classical swine fever in wild boar. PLoS ONE
6:e24257 (2011).
16 J
¸
edrzejewski W, J
¸
edrzejewska B, Okarma H and Ruprecht AL, Wolf pre-
dation and snow cover as mortality factors in the ungulate com-
munity of the Bialowie ̇
za National Park, Poland. Oecologia 1:27– 36
(1992).
17 Nores C, Llaneza L and Álvarez A, Wild boar Sus scrofa mortality by
hunting and wolf Canis lupus predation: an example in northern
Spain. Wildl Biol 14:44 –51 (2008).
18 Toïgo C, Servanty S, Gaillard J-M, Brandt S and Baubet E, Disentangling
natural from hunting mortality in an intensively hunted wild boar
population. J Wildl Manag 72:1532–1539 (2008).
19 GamelonM,BesnardA,GaillardJM,ServantyS,BaubetE,BrandtSet al.,
High hunting pressure selects for earlier birth date: wild boar as a
case study. Evolution 65:3100– 3112 (2011).
20 Šprem N, Dudukovi´
c D, Keros T and Konjevi´
c D, Wildlife– vehicle
collisions in Croatia – a hazardfor humans and animals. Coll Antropol
37:531– 535 (2013).
21 Morelle K, Lehaire F and Lejeune P, Spatio-temporal patterns of
wildlife– vehicle collisions in a region with a high-density road net-
work. Nat Conserv 5:53– 73 (2013).
22 Prevot C and Licoppe A, Comparing red deer (Cervus elaphus L.) and
wild boar (Sus scrofa L.) dispersal patterns in southern Belgium. Eur J
Wildl Res 59:795–803 (2013).
23 Welander J, Spatial and temporal dynamics of wild boar (Sus scrofa)
rooting in a mosaic landscape. J Zool Lond 252:263–271 (2000).
24 Hone J, Feral pigs in Namadgi National park, Australia: dynamics,
impacts and management. Biol Conserv 105:231 –242 (2002).
25 Schley L and Roper TJ, Diet of wild boar Sus scrofa in Western Europe,
with particular reference to consumption of agricultural crops.
Mamm Rev 33:43 –56 (2003).
26 Massei G and Genov P, The environmental impact of wild boar. Galemys
16:135– 145 (2004).
27 Bueno CG, Barrio IC, Garcia-Gonzalez R, Alados CL and Gomez-Garcia
D, Does wild boar rooting affect livestock grazing areas in alpine
grasslands? Eur J Wildl Res 56:765–770 (2010).
28 Barrios-Garcia M and Ballari S, Impact of wild boar Sus scrofa in its
introduced and native range: a review. Biol Invasions 14:2283– 2300
(2012).
29 Geisser H and Reyer H-U, The influence of food and temperature on
population density of wild boar Sus scrofa in the Thurgau (Switzer-
land). J Zool Lond 267:89–96 (2005).
30 Liberg O, Bergstrom R, Kindberg J and Von Essen H, Ungulates and their
management in Sweden, in European Ungulates and their Manage-
ment in the 21st Century, ed. by Apollonio M, Andersen R and Putman
R. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 37–70 (2010).
31 Wotschikowsky U, Ungulates and their management in Germany, in
European Ungulates and their Management in the 21st Century,ed.by
Pest Manag Sci (2015) © 2014 Crown copyright. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/ps
Pest Management Science © 2014 Society of Chemical Industry
www.soci.org G Massei et al.
Apollonio M, Andersen R and Putman R. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, UK, pp. 201– 222 (2010).
32 Sáez-Royuela C and Tellería JL, The increased population of the wild
boar (Sus scrofa L.) in Europe. Mamm Rev 16:97 –101 (1986).
33 Genov P, Significance of natural biocenoses and agrocenoses as the
source of food for wild boar (Sus scrofa L.). Ekol Pol 29:117 –136
(1981).
34 Fonseca C, Alves da Silva A, Alves J, Vingada J and Soares AMVM,
Reproductive performance of wild boar females in Portugal. Eur J
Wildl Res 57:363–371 (2011).
35 Gethöffer F, Sodeikat G and Pohlmeyer K, Reproductive parameters of
wild boar (Sus scrofa) in three different parts of Germany. Eur J Wildl
Res 53:287– 297 (2007).
36 Cellina S, Effects of Supplemental Feeding on the Body Condition and
Reproductive State of Wild Boar Sus scrofa in Luxembourg. PhD, Uni-
versity of Sussex (2008).
37 BorowikT,CornulierTandJ
¸
edrzejewska B, Environmental factors
shaping ungulate abundance in Poland. Acta Theriol 58:403–413
(2013).
38 Jerina K, Pokorny B and Stergar M, First evidence of long-distance
dispersal of adult female wild boar (Sus scrofa) with piglets. EurJ Wildl
Res 60:367– 370 (2014).
39 Apollonio M, Andersen R and Putman R (eds), European Ungulates and
their Management in the 21st Century. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, UK, 604 pp. (2010).
40 Massei G, Roy S and Bunting R, Too many hogs? A review of methods
to mitigate impact by wild boar and feral pigs. Hum– Wildl Interact
5:79– 99 (2011).
41 Glikman JA and Frank B, Human dimensions of wildlife in Europe: the
Italian way. Hum Dimens Wildl 16:368–377 (2011).
42 Riley SJ, Decker DJ, Enck JW, Curtis PD and Lauber TB, Deer populations
up, hunter populations down: implications of interdependence of
deer and hunter population dynamics on management. Ecoscience
10:455– 461 (2003).
43 Carnevali L, Pedrotti L, Riga F and Toso S, Ungulates in Italy. Status, dis-
tribution, abundance, management and hunting of ungulate pop-
ulations in Italy. Report 2001–2005. Biol Conserv Fauna 117:1 –168
(2009).
44 Regione Toscana,2012 (in Italian).[Online]. Piano Regionale Agricolo
Forestale (PRAF), 525 pp. (2012–2015). Available: http://www.
regione.toscana.it/-/piano-regionale-agricolo-forestale-praf- [14
September 2014].
45 Lisjak IS, SloveneHunting Information System. [Online]. (2014). Available:
http://apl.logos.si/LIS/login.aspx [23 May 2014].
46 Brøseth H and Pedersen HC, Hunting effort and game vulner-
ability studies on a small scale: a new technique combining
radio-telemetry, GPS and GIS. J Appl Ecol 37:182 –190 (2000).
47 Servanty S, Gaillard J-M, Ronchi F, Focardi S, Baubet E and Gimenez
O, Influence of harvesting pressure on demographic tactics: impli-
cations for wildlife management. J Appl Ecol 48:835–843 (2011).
48 Cleveland SM, Hebblewhite M, Thompson M and Henderson R, Linking
elk movement and resource selection to hunting pressure in a
heterogeneous landscape. Wildl Soc Bull 36:658 –668 (2012).
49 Evaluation of possible mitigation measures to prevent introduction
and spread of African swine fever virus through wild boar. EFSA J
12:1– 23 (2014).
50 Van Vieren SE and Groot-Bruinderink WTA, Ungulates and their man-
agement in the Netherlands, in European Ungulates and their Man-
agement in the 21st Century, ed. by Apollonio M, Andersen R and
Putman R. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp.265 –183
(2010).
51 Imesh-Bebie’ N, Gander H and Schnidrig-Petrig R, Ungulates and their
management in Switzerland, in European Ungulates and their Man-
agement in the 21st Century, ed. by Apollonio M, Andersen R and
Putman R. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp.357 –391
(2010).
52 Rosell C, Fernández-Bou M, Camps F, Boronat C, Navàs F, Martínez
Met al., Animal– vehicle collisions: a new cooperative strategy is
needed to reduce the conflict. Proc ICOET 2013 Int Conf on Ecology
and Transportation, Scottsdale, AZ (2013).
53 Guibert B, Bilan national de l’indemnisation des degats agricoles de
sangliers. Modalités de gestion du sanglier, in Actes du Colloque
Reims (Marne), 1– 2 Mars 2007, ed. by Klein F, Guibert B and Baubet.
EFNC-ONCFS, Paris, France, pp. 73–78 (2008).
54 Maillard D, Gaillard JM, Hewison M, Ballon P, Duncan P, Loison A et al.,
Ungulates and their management in France, in European Ungulates
and their Management in the 21st Century, ed. by Apollonio M,
Andersen R and Putman R. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
UK, pp. 441– 474 (2010).
55 Schley L, Dufrêne M, Krier A and Frantz AC, Patterns of crop damage
by wild boar (Sus scrofa) in Luxembourg over a 10-year period. Eur J
Wildl Res 54:589–599 (2008).
56 Yearly hunting management plans for all Slovene hunting manage-
ment districts for 2014 (in Slovene). Slovenia Forest Service, Ljubl-
jana, Slovenia (2014).
57 Ueda G and Kanzaki N, Wild boar hunters profile in Shimane Prefecture,
Western Japan. Wildl Biol Pract 1:146– 151 (2005).
58 Linnell JDC, Swenson JE and Andersen R, Predators and people: con-
servation of large carnivores is possible at high human densities if
management policy is favourable. Anim Conserv 4:345–349 (2001).
59 Kaczensky P, Chapron G, von Arx M, Huber D, Andrén H and Linnell J,
Status, Management and Distribution of Large Carnivores – Bear, Lynx,
Wolf and Wolverine in Europe. Part 1. [Online]. LCIE, 72 pp. (2013).
Available: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/conservation/
species/carnivores/pdf/task_1_part1_statusoflcineurope.pdf [10
September 2014].
60 J
¸
edrzejewski W, J
¸
edrzejewska B, Okarma H, Schmidt K, Zub K and
Musiani M, Prey selection and predation by wolves in Bialowie ̇
za
Primeval Forest, Poland. JMamm81:197 –212 (2000).
61 Andersone Z and Ozoli ¸nš J, Food habits of wolves Canis lupus in Latvia.
Acta Theriol 49:357 –367 (2004).
62 Valdmann H, Andersone-Lilley Z, Koppa O, Ozolins J and Bagrade G,
Winter diets of wolf Canis lupus and lynx Lynx lynx in Estonia and
Latvia. Acta Theriol 50:521 –527 (2005).
63 Mattioli L, Capitani C, Gazzola A, Scandura M and Apollonio M,
Prey selection and dietary response by wolves in a high-density
multi-species ungulate community. Eur J Wildl Res 57:909–922
(2011).
64 Melis C, Szafranska P, J
¸
edrzejewska B and Barton K, Biogeographical
variation in the population density of wild boar (Sus scrofa)in
western Eurasia. J Biogeogr 33:803 –811 (2006).
65 Koryntin NS, Bol’shakov VN, Markov NI and Pogodin NL, The state of
populations and selective hunting of game ungulates in the Middle
Urals. Russian J Ecol 33:178 –185 (2002).
66 Náhlik A and Sándor G, Birth rate and offspring survival in a
free-ranging wild boar Sus scrofa population. Wildl Biol 9:37–42
(2003).
67 Genov PW, Massei G and Kostova W, Die Nutzung des Wildschweins
(Sus scrofa)inEuropainTheorieundPraxis. Z Jagdwiss 40:263–267
(1994).
68 Braga C, Alexandre N, Fernández-Llario P and Santos P, Wild boar (Sus
scrofa) harvesting using the espera hunting method: side effects and
management implications. Eur J Wildl Res 56:465–469 (2010).
69 State of Europe’s forests 2011. Forest Europe Ministerial Conf, Oslo, 14
June 2011. Forest Europe Liaison Office, UN-OECE-FAO, Oslo, Norway
(2011).
70 Herrero J, Garcia-Serrano A, Couto S, Ortuno VM and Garc𝚤a-Gonzalez
R, Diet of wild boar Sus scrofa L. and crop damage in an intensive
agroecosystem. Eur J Wildl Res 52:245 –250 (2006).
71 Keuling O, Stier N and Roth M, Commuting, shifting or remaining?
Different spatial utilisation patterns of wild boar Sus scrofa L. in forest
and field crops during summer. Mamm Biol 74:145 –152 (2009).
72 J
¸
edrzejewska B, J
¸
edrzejewski W, Bunevich AN, Miłkowski L and
Krasi´
nski ZA, Factors shaping population densities and increase
rates of ungulates in Białowie ̇
za Primeval Forest (Polandand Belarus)
in the 19th and 20th centuries. Acta Theriol 42:399–451 (1997).
73 Andrzejewski R and Jezierski W, Management of a wild boar population
and its effects on commercial land. Acta Theriol 23:309 –339 (1978).
74 Rosell C, Navàs F and Romero S, Reproduction of wild boar in a
cropland and coastal wetland area: implications for management.
Anim Biodivers Conserv 35:209 –217 (2012).
75 Servanty S, Gaillard J-M,Toïgo C, Brandt S and Baubet E, Pulsed
resources and climate-induced variation in the reproductive traits of
wild boar under high hunting pressure.JAnimEcol78:1278 –1290
(2009).
76 Massei G, Genov PV and Staines BW, Diet, food availability and repro-
ductionofwildboarinaMediterraneancoastalarea.Acta Theriol
41:307– 320 (1996).
77 Maillard D and Fournier P, Timing and synchrony of births in the wild
boar (Sus scrofa Linnaeus, 1758) in a Mediterranean habitat: the
effect of food availability. Galemys 16:67– 74 (2004).
wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/ps © 2014 Crown copyright. Pest Manag Sci (2015)
Pest Management Science © 2014 Society of Chemical Industry
wild boar and hunter trends in Europe www.soci.org
78 Groot Bruinderink GWTA, Hazebroek E and van der Voot H, Diet and
condition of wild boar, Sus scrofa scrofa, without supplementary
feeding. J Zool 233:631–648 (1994).
79 Gamelon M, Douhard M, Baubet E, Gimenez O, Brandt S and Gaillard
J-M, Fluctuating food resources influence developmental plasticity
in wild boar. Biol Lett 9:1 –4 (2013).
80 Hohmann U, Do we have a wild boar problem? Proc International
Union of Game Biologists. [Online]. IUGB, Brussels, Belgium (2013).
Available: http://www.iugb2013.org/docs/O.WH.03_Hohmann.pdf
[10 September 2014].
81 Ueda G, Kanzaki N and Koganezawa M, Changes in the structure of the
Japanese hunter population from 1965 to 2005. Hum Dimens Wildl
15:16– 26 (2010).
82 Gamelon M, Gaillard J-M, Servanty S, Gimenez O, Toigo C, Baubet
Eet al., Making use of harvest information to examine alternative
management scenarios: a body weight-structured model for wild
boar. J Appl Ecol 49:833 –841 (2012).
83 Cruz F, Josh JC, Campbell K and Carron V, Conservation action in the
Galàpagos: feral hog (Sus scrofa) eradication from Santiago Island.
Biol Conserv 121:473 –478 (2005).
84 Parkes JP, Ramsey DS, Macdonald N, Walker K, McKnight S, Cohen BS
et al., Rapid eradication of feral hogs (Sus scrofa)fromSantaCruz
Island, California. Biol Conserv 143:634 –641 (2010).
85 Massei G and Cowan P, Fertility control to mitigate human– wildlife
conflicts: a review. Wildl Res 41:1–21 (2014).
Pest Manag Sci (2015) © 2014 Crown copyright. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/ps
Pest Management Science © 2014 Society of Chemical Industry
