United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Wildlife Services, National Wildlife Research Center, Florida Field Station, Gainesville, FL 32641, USA.
Prev Vet Med. 2012 May 1;104(3-4):249-57. doi: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2012.01.001. Epub 2012 Feb 1.
We studied the effects of baiting on feral swine (Sus scrofa) movements and corresponding likelihood of disease spread under real and simulated culling pressure. Our objectives were to determine the proportion of feral swine that used the bait station site, and if baiting of feral swine altered areas of utilization, distances from location centroids to treatment location (control or bait station), and movement rates by survivors during culling activities. We hypothesized that the bait station would increase the sedentary nature of feral swine, thus reducing the potential for dispersal and hence disease dispersal. Our experiment was conducted between February and May 2011 on the Rob and Bessie Welder Wildlife Foundation (WWF) in San Patricio County, Texas. We trapped 83 feral swine and placed GPS collars on 21 animals. We established and maintained a centralized bait station on one side of the WWF from 13 March to 27 April. We conducted population-wide culling activities, including trapping, controlled shooting, drive shooting, and aerial gunning, from 3 to 27 April and removed 143 feral swine (4.6feral swine/km(2)). Areas of utilization did not differ between treatments (control or bait station). However, we found location centroids of bait station site feral swine to be closer to the treatment location than those of control site animals and daily movement rates of bait station site feral swine to be 39% greater than movement rates of control site animals. Based on our observation that only 62% of feral swine trapped in proximity to the bait station used it, we cannot recommend baiting as an alternative to fences for containing animals during culling activities. However, there is value in using bait stations to describe patterns of feral swine movements, facilitate observation, and improve efficacy when conducting removals.
我们研究了诱饵对野猪（Sus scrofa）运动的影响，以及在实际和模拟扑杀压力下疾病传播的相应可能性。我们的目标是确定使用诱饵站地点的野猪比例，如果诱饵对野猪的诱捕改变了利用区域、到处理地点（控制或诱饵站）的距离以及幸存者在扑杀活动中的移动速度。我们假设诱饵站会增加野猪的定居性，从而减少扩散的可能性，进而减少疾病的扩散。我们的实验于 2011 年 2 月至 5 月在德克萨斯州圣帕特里西奥县的 Rob 和 Bessie Welder 野生动物基金会（WWF）进行。我们捕获了 83 头野猪，并在 21 头动物身上安装了 GPS 项圈。我们从 3 月 13 日至 4 月 27 日在 WWF 的一侧建立并维护了一个集中的诱饵站。我们从 3 月 3 日至 4 月 27 日进行了全面的扑杀活动，包括诱捕、受控射击、驱赶射击和空中射击，并清除了 143 头野猪（4.6 头/平方公里）。处理方法（控制或诱饵站）之间的利用区域没有差异。然而，我们发现诱饵站地点野猪的位置中心比对照地点动物更接近处理地点，并且诱饵站地点野猪的日移动速度比对照地点动物的移动速度快 39%。根据我们的观察，只有 62%的靠近诱饵站捕获的野猪使用了它，因此我们不能建议将诱饵作为在扑杀活动中围堵动物的替代方法。然而，使用诱饵站来描述野猪运动模式、促进观察和提高清除效率是有价值的。
