Population dynamics in wild boar Sus scrofa: ecology, elasticity of growth rate and implications for the management of pulsed resource consumers

By C. Bieber, Thomas Ruf. 2005

420 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Ecology, Nature and Landscape Conservation

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/b400a424213c45a2974c0003c0b127e52fea0616

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Ecology

1. O. Keuling
2. N. Stier
3. M. Roth
4. G. Ericsson
5. G. Spong
6. Henrik Thurfjell
7. Kirstin Lauterbach
8. J. Gaillard

In Nature and Landscape Conservation

1. J. Gaillard
2. A. Krier
3. N. Stier
4. L. Schley
5. K. Schmidt
6. M. Roth
7. Marc Dufrêne
8. S. Brandt

Citations in the corpus

• Annual and seasonal space use of different age classes of female wild boar Sus scrofa L. (2008, methodology): “Consequently, farmers and animal health authorities claim for a reduction of wild boar populations by various methods (Kaden 1999; Bieber and Ruf 2005; Massei et al. 2006).”
• Hunter feedback of individually marked wild boar Sus scrofa L.: dispersal and efficiency of hunting in northeastern Germany (2010, background): “It is of big importance to shoot more piglets at an early age (Genov et al. 1994; Bieber and Ruf 2005) to prevent them from becoming pubescent to reduce population increase.”
• Responding to spatial and temporal variations in predation risk: space use of a game species in a changing landscape of fear (2009, background): “Forests also provide abundant food (Schley and Roper 2003; Bieber and Ruf 2005) and shelter (Boitani et al.”
• Litter size and fetal sex ratio adjustment in a highly polytocous species: the wild boar (2007, methodology): “In our study site, mast production was assessed indirectly by the analysis of stomach contents (for a similar approach, see Bieber and Ruf 2005).”
• How does hunting influence activity and spatial usage in wild boar Sus scrofa L.? (2008, background): “Consequently, farmers and animal health authorities claim for a stringent reduction of wild boar populations (Bieber and Ruf 2005; Killian et al. 2006; Sodeikat and Pohlmeyer 2007).”
• To feed or not to feed? Evidence of the intended and unintended effects of feeding wild ungulates (2014, background): “This is especially true for species with a high reproductive capacity such as wild boar (Bieber and Ruf 2005, Imesch-Bebié et al. 2010), and has been observed where long-term feeding (>20 years) was associated with a high landscape-scale browsing impact as moose population density increased…”
• Effects of hunting on wild boar Sus scrofa behaviour (2013, background): “Wild boar can cause significant damage to crops (Genov 1981, Feichtner 1998, Bieber & Ruf 2005, Schley et al. 2008) and is alsooneof themorepopular game species for recreational hunting (Geisser & Reyer 2004).”
• Influence of harvesting pressure on demographic tactics: implications for wildlife management. (2011, methodology): “When calculating the generation time of wild boar for the three types of years defined in relation to food availability by Bieber & Ruf (2005), it varies from 3Æ9 years in poor years to 2Æ1 years in good years.”
• Patterns of crop damage by wild boar (Sus scrofa)in Luxembourg over a 10-year period (2008, methodology): “Our data suggest that in Luxembourg, damage seems to be more severe than in other parts of Europe.”