Next Article in Journal
Biodiversity as a Tool in the Assessment of the Conservation Status of Coastal Habitats: A Case Study from Calabria (Southern Italy)
Previous Article in Journal
Two-Decade Changes in the Ciliate Assemblage Feeding Pattern Reflect the Reservoir Nutrient Load
Previous Article in Special Issue
Synergistic Threats to Wild Fauna in Ecuador: Using a Novel Data Source to Estimate the Impacts of Trafficking and Human–Wildlife Conflict
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Diversity
Volume 16
Issue 9
10.3390/d16090532
diversity-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Analysis of the Raccoon (Procyon lotor) and Common Raccoon Dog (Nyctereutes procyonoides) Spatiotemporal Changes Based on Hunting Bag Data in Hungary

by
Gergely Schally
1,2,*,
Hanna Bijl
1,2,*,
Bhraaz Kashyap
1,
Mihály Márton
1,2,
Szilvia Bőti
1,
Krisztián Katona
1,2,
Zsolt Biró
1,2,
Miklós Heltai
1,2 and
Sándor Csányi
1,2
1
Department of Wildlife Biology and Management, Institute for Wildlife Management and Nature Conservation, Hungarian University of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Páter Károly Str. 1, H-2100 Gödöllő, Hungary
2
National Laboratory for Health Security, Hungarian University of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Páter Károly Str. 1, H-2100 Gödöllő, Hungary
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Diversity 2024, 16(9), 532; https://doi.org/10.3390/d16090532
Submission received: 28 June 2024 / Revised: 16 July 2024 / Accepted: 29 July 2024 / Published: 2 September 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Human Wildlife Conflict across Landscapes—Second Edition)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Sustainable wildlife management requires reliable data on population, habitat, and the interaction between them. Since 1993, Hungary has maintained the National Game Management Database, which collects data on game populations and hunting bags annually. During the last three decades, populations of medium-sized predators have remarkably increased in the country. Our study analyzed changes in hunting bag data and spatial distribution of two invasive alien species, the raccoon (Procyon lotor) and the raccoon dog (Nyctereutes procyonoides), utilizing annual game management reports from Game Management Units from 1997 to 2021. For spatial analysis, we employed a UTM grid system (10 × 10 km) covering the country. Our findings confirmed increasing trends in the hunting bag and area (number of grid cells) containing hunting bags for both species. From the first (1997–2001) to the last (2017–2021) period, the average annual hunting bag increased (raccoon: 0.40 → 11.00 ind/year; raccoon dog: 3.40 → 8.00 ind/year), and the average number of cells with hunting bags also expanded significantly (raccoon: 2.00 → 9.60 UTM cells/year; raccoon dog: 5.80 → 15.20 UTM cells/year). These trends and the size of potentially suitable habitats suggest a further spread and population increase, posing challenges for nature conservationists and wildlife managers.

1. Introduction

1.1. Raccoon and Raccoon Dog in Europe

Humans have historically translocated or unintentionally introduced animals worldwide [1,2]. The Columbian exchange intensified these events after 1492, leading to the global transport of wild and domesticated plant and animal species between the Americas and other continents, resulting in irreversible biodiversity changes [3]. The transfer of species to meet the needs of the growing human population has been a critical factor in spreading non-native plants and animals across different parts of the world [1]. Consequently, native flora and fauna globally contain non-native or alien elements due to these long-term introductions [4], which, without human support of (un)intentional introductions, would have never reached their new area [5].
According to the EU Regulation (1143/2014), “‘invasive alien species’ means an alien species whose introduction or spread has been found to threaten or adversely impact upon biodiversity and related ecosystem services” and “‘invasive alien species of Union concern’ means an invasive alien species whose adverse impact has been deemed such as to require concerted action at Union level” [6].
While introducing alien species can provide short-term benefits and economic profit for specific societal sectors, they may also harm biodiversity and natural resources in the long term. Recent IPBES (Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services) data indicate that the number of invasive alien species (IAS) is likely underestimated and expected to increase, with 461 alien vertebrates (14%) known to be invasive globally [7]. Moreover, IAS are one of the most important direct drivers of biodiversity loss and ecosystem service changes, posing the greatest threat to fragile ecosystems like islands [6]. Additionally, IAS affects human life and health and causes severe economic damage to agriculture, forestry and fisheries [7,8], costing Europe at least EUR 12 billion annually [2].
These invasive species (neozoa) cause severe changes to the local ecosystem, with some adaptable species outcompeting native ones. Between 1960 and 2020, the estimated cost of damage caused by invasive species in Europe was around 136 billion EUR [9]. The 22 vertebrate IAS of Union concern includes species such as coypu (Myocastor coypus), grey squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), muntjac deer (Muntiacus reevesi), muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus), raccoon (Procyon lotor), and raccoon dog (Nyctereutes procyonoides) [10,11,12].
The raccoon (Procyon lotor) and raccoon dog (Nyctereutes procyonoides) are among the most well-known invasive species in Europe [11,12]. The raccoon is a member of the half-bear family Procyonidae and is native to Central and North America, where they are notorious mesocarnivores and scavengers [13,14]. Introduced in Europe in the late 1920s, raccoon population numbers and range expansion rates have grown significantly since the 1970s after a lag period. In addition, recent introductions through the pet trade have established new feral raccoon populations. Therefore, the raccoon spatial distribution results from multiple introductions and range expansion from the primary raccoon populations in Central and Eastern Europe over the last 40 years. The first individuals escaped from fur farms or were released for hunting [14,15]. Over the past four decades, these initial populations have been the foundation for further spread and establishment throughout various European habitats.
The raccoon dog is a canid species native to far Eastern Asia (East China, Japan, Korean Peninsula and Far East Russia). It is generally omnivorous and opportunistic [16]. Approximately 9100 individuals were introduced to European parts of the former Soviet Union between 1929 and 1955 for the fur trade, but they established populations in Eastern Europe and Southwest Asia [17]. They are now expanding westwards across Central Europe to Western Europe [18]. Both species have shown specific adaptabilities contributing to their persistence in diverse European habitats, effectively utilizing sparsely used niches in the ecosystem [13,18,19]. They are listed among the Invasive Alien Species of Union concern in Europe, meaning they cannot be imported, bred, transported, commercialized, or intentionally released into the environment across the European Union [20].

1.2. Raccoon and Raccoon Dog in Hungary

The legal status of the raccoon was unclear in the 1980s [21], and for a long time, hunting the raccoon dog was unrestricted by authorities. However, from 1982 to 1993, the species was allowed to be hunted with a permit from the county hunting authority and the nature conservation authority [22]. The 8/1993 (I. 30.) agricultural ministerial decree on game management and hunting listed the raccoon and raccoon dog as huntable species (small game) all year round [23]. The 41/2010 (II. 26.) government decree on the keeping and distribution of pets designated the North American raccoon and the raccoon dog as dangerous species for the native flora and fauna of the country, prohibiting their keeping as a hobby and being sold [24]. Furthermore, both species are present in the analytical document “Comprehensive analysis and assessment of the distribution pathways of alien invasive species on the EU list in Hungary and action plans for the distribution pathways” [25,26].
Moreover, the presence of the raccoon and the raccoon dog implies new disease and parasite vectors, possible urban human-wildlife conflicts, and threats to protected species. Several studies correlate the two species as pathogen vectors in their natural and invaded habitats [27,28,29]. Therefore, controlling invasive species requires understanding of their population dynamics and dispersal.
Since 1993, data on game populations (stock levels of big and small game) and annual hunting bags (number of animals hunted in a hunting territory during a given hunting year [30]), also known as hunting statistics, have been consistently collected and stored in the National Game Management Database (NGMD) [31]. However, there are some less documented reports of raccoon occurrence in the wild in Hungary dating back to 1948 and 1982, but no proofing specimens were collected. The first killing data was reported from North Hungary, which was not confirmed by independent sources [32]. In September 1998, a pregnant female was caught alive in a trap at a pheasant breeding facility near Gödöllő in Central Hungary [33]. Since the 1998/1999 hunting year, raccoon hunting bags have been reported annually [34].
Similarly, a raccoon dog skull of unknown origin in the Museum of Natural Sciences was probably an escaped fur farm specimen shot at the end of October 1943. The next killing data of raccoon dogs in Hungary was recorded at the end of March 1961 from the Lónya forest near the Tisza River in Northeast Hungary. In 1962, two more female and male specimens were reportedly shot in the same area [35]. A raccoon dog was observed in Békés County in 1970 [36]. In November 1980, the killing of a young male was reported in Szeged [37]. In 1981, killing of six individuals was reported in the country [38]. On 31 March 1983, a raccoon dog was shot in Pécel, near Budapest [39]. The first NGMD data on raccoon dog hunting bags appeared in 1995 [34]. Heltai et al. [32] assessed the possible spread of the raccoon dog with a questionnaire survey in 1997, 1998, and 2000. Based on the answers of game managers, occurrences were reported in all 19 counties. Lastly, annual raccoon and raccoon dog hunting bag records have been maintained since the first officially reported killings in 1998 [32].
Since the mid-1990s, three mesocarnivores have occurred in Hungary: the golden jackal (Canis aureus), the raccoon, and the raccoon dog [32]. The golden jackal is a native and well-studied species in the country due to its rapid population explosion and effects on game populations [40]. However, the long-term population dynamics (>20 years) and the spatial spread of the two other species in Hungary have yet to be studied.
Given the growing populations of invasive species in Hungary and the requirements of the EU legislation, studying their population dynamics is essential. Until now, only one paper from 2001 [32] based on the initial years of hunting bag data has documented the population changes of both species. Since then, the hunting bags of raccoons and raccoon dogs have shown an undecided pattern of increase in space and numbers around the country [34]. Therefore, it becomes pressing to track the distribution and growth of the populations of both these invasive species on a spatial and temporal basis.
In this study, we assessed (1) annual changes in the population increase of the raccoon and the raccoon dog in Hungary, and (2) the changes in the spatial distribution of the two species in the country between 1997 and 2021. We hypothesized that the population increased significantly in Hungary both temporally and spatially, similarly to other European countries and IAS [11,12].

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Data Collection

Official hunting bag data (hunting statistics) of the raccoon and raccoon dog were obtained from the NGMD from 1997 until 2021 [31], which can be found in the Supplementary Material Table S1. Hungary is divided into Game Management Units (GMUs; n = 1448 in 2023), each of which reports its hunting bag (and population estimations) data to the NGMD at the end of the hunting year (from 1 March to the last day of next February). Since 1993, the two species have been huntable throughout the year using all legal methods of shooting and trapping (listed in Act LV of 1996 on Game Conservation, Game Management, and Hunting [41]). Additionally, Hungarian hunting legislation mandates that GMUs report any game species’ annual takings. Although hunting bags are not a systematic method for monitoring wildlife populations and can have a certain degree of error [42], they often serve as the only available data source indicating the presence and trends of these species across the country.
Given the full coverage of the country, unrestricted hunting of these two invasive species, and mandatory reporting, the annual sampling effort is 100%. Therefore, long-term hunting statistics are considered a surrogate for population dynamics [30], compared to population estimates. Also, all reporting is verified by the hunting authorities and NGMD to ensure accuracy and eliminate any potential errors. Furthermore, because these species are not common enough to be specifically targeted by hunters, and with no aimed trapping efforts in place, they are considered novel or “intriguing” species. As a result, these animals are often hunted upon encounter, reinforcing that hunting bags are the most comprehensive indicators (surrogates or proxies) of the population changes of the two species [42].

2.2. Data Analysis

2.2.1. Hunting Bag

The hunting bag records were analyzed to determine the annual trends of the raccoon and raccoon dog populations. Descriptive statistics were calculated to understand the overall population dynamics [43]. Temporal trends in the population of both species were analyzed using the same hunting bag data; Pearson correlation analyses were performed to investigate long-term occurrence and growth patterns to comprehend the population dynamics over time. We aggregated the data into five-year intervals to minimize impacts of large deviations in the annual data and to account for any irregularities in the sampling effort. Additionally, the finite rate of increase (λ) per year was calculated for the five-year periods for the hunting bag, UTM cells with registered hunting bags, and density data higher than zero for both species.

2.2.2. Distribution Range

GMU boundaries change repeatedly due to changes in legislation or landownership, so to prevent bias, the Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) grid system of the country was used to reduce the effects of these territorial changes [44]. The UTM grid system ensures data standardization by directly tying it to a constant distance measuring system. In this system, each grid cell is uniformly sized, covering an area of 100 km2, dividing the entire country into 1046 grid cells. Using QGIS 3.36 [45], the UTM grid was overlaid on the existing GMU boundaries, with intersecting borders between the two. The hunting bag data for each GMU was associated with multiple parts of nearby UTM grid cells. To account for this overlap, ratios were calculated by comparing the areas belonging to different UTM grid cells to the total size of the GMUs. Subsequently, the hunting bag data for each GMU was multiplied by the corresponding ratio to distribute the values appropriately across the UTM grid cells. Only the areas with at least 10% coverage in the corresponding UTM cell were taken into account in this phase. The resulting values were then summarized and rounded for each UTM grid cell.

2.2.3. Spatial Analysis

We fitted a simple linear regression model to describe the relationship between the number of UTM cells with registered hunting bags (x) and the annual increase in the cells with registered hunting bags (y), and a polynomial model to describe the relationship between the area occupied (ha) (x) and the annual increase in occupied area (%) (y) for the raccoon and raccoon dog, similar to Bijl et al. (2024) [39]. Normality of the model’s residuals was checked by Shapiro-Wilk’s test. The dependence between the independent variables and the residuals was tested graphically. As the normality of the residuals was violated for the raccoon dog, we transformed the dependent variables by adding 25 and 78.79 to avoid negative values for the linear regression and polynomial regression, respectively. Then, we applied Box-Cox transformation (λ = 0.61 and 0.34, respectively). Analyses were performed in PAST 4.03 [46].

3. Results

3.1. Hunting Bag and Distribution Range of Raccoons

A significant increasing linear trend could be identified in the raccoon’s annual hunting bag size between 1997 and 2021 (Pearson’s r = 0.73; p < 0.001) (Figure 1). The yearly hunting bag of 0.40 individuals (SD = 0.55) reported for 1997–2001 increased to 11.00 individuals (SD = 7.94) for 2017–2021 (Table 1). Also, the annual number of UTM cells with registered raccoon hunting bags increased significantly (Pearson’s r = 0.68; p < 0.001) (Figure 2). The average number of 2.00 cells/year (SD = 3.08) with hunting bags reported for 1997–2001 increased to 9.60 cells/year (SD = 3.29) for 2017–2021. The distribution range and the density of individuals increased from 0.15 individuals/100 km2 (SD = 0.15) in 1997–2001 to 1.04 individual/100 km2 (SD = 0.48) for 2017–2021. The annual trend of the density was also significant (Pearson’s r = 0.75; p < 0.001). It is important to note that there was a significant leap in the annual hunting bag of raccoons in 2020 and 2021. Moreover, raccoons have mainly been present in Central Hungary but can be found in small patches throughout the country (Figure 3).

3.2. Hunting Bag and Distribution Range of Raccoon Dogs

Similarly, a significant increasing trend could be observed in the raccoon dogs’ annual hunting bag size between 1997 and 2021 (Pearson’s r = 0.40; p < 0.05) (Figure 1). The yearly hunting bag of 3.40 individuals (SD = 2.51) reported for 1997–2001 increased to eight individuals (SD = 2.92) for 2017–2021 (Table 2). The annual number of UTM cells with registered raccoon dog hunting bags also increased significantly (Pearson’s r = 0.46; p < 0.05) (Figure 2); the average number of 5.80 cells/year (SD = 3.90) reported for 1997–2001 increased to 15.20 cells/year (SD = 5.54) for 2017–2021. In contrast, the density of individuals did not increase from 1997 to 2021, and the annual trend was not statistically significant. Moreover, the raccoon dog has mainly been present in eastern Hungary, with smaller patches in southern and northern areas (Figure 4).

3.3. Spatial Analysis

For both the raccoon and the raccoon dog, the relationship between the UTM cells with registered hunting bags vs. annual increase in UTM cells with registered hunting bags was weak but significant (raccoon: R2 = 0.26; p < 0.01 and raccoon dog: R2 = 0.41; p < 0.01). Also, the relationship between the area occupied vs. annual increase in occupied area (%) was weak but significant for the raccoon (R2 = 0.59; p < 0.001) and not significant for the raccoon dog (R2 = 0.22; p = 0.07).

4. Discussion

Our analysis revealed a growing trend in raccoon and raccoon dog occurrences across the country, with an increasing frequency of these species being hunted. The gradual increase in hunting bags can be attributed to several factors. Due to their relatively low population density, sparse occurrence, and cryptic nature, neither species is a popular target for hunting in the country, allowing their populations to hide without pronounced human intervention. This slow population buildup aligns with the historical introduction of raccoons in Europe in the late 1920s, with significant growth and range expansion starting only in the 1970s after a relatively long lag period [14]. In the lag phase, the introduced populations are already established in an area, but these “sleeper populations” still persist at low abundance for decades before being triggered by an environmental factor to become abundant and problematic [47], like fallow deer in Tasmania [48]. Moreover, the lack of a strong relationship between the area occupied and the annual increase is likely because both species are in the early phase of expansion (lag phase); consequently, the numbers are small, individuals are few, and population dynamics are still uncertain. This was not the case for the golden jackal in the same region, as we found a strong relationship between the occupied area and the expansion rate [40], and the golden jackal has surpassed both species during the same period.
Biological invasion is a staged process where an alien species must cross various spatial, environmental, and biological barriers to become a successful invader. Many species that enter a new area either fail to establish or initially have no significant impact due to small population sizes; in this phase, they persist as “sleeper species” [47]. However, after several generations, some populations can become problematic [49]. An alien species may fail at any step from introduction to aggressive invasiveness. Low initial population numbers usually mean a slight chance of establishing reproducing populations. Still, higher numbers or prolonged initial phases improve establishment chances, known as the lag phase [5] and the sleeper population [47]. Compared to data from two decades ago [33], our findings indicate both species were in this lag phase during the analyzed period. The next step occurs when the alien species produces a surplus reproduction, allowing modest spread. The species may adapt to its new environment, often called a bottleneck, transitioning from the lag phase to the log phase [5].
Multiple factors, including the level of hunting pressure, influence hunting bags. The species in question are not explicitly culled by hunters due to their elusive behaviors and lack of appeal as trophy animals, resulting in low hunting pressure. Consequently, these species can increase their numbers relatively undetected, leading to potentially biased and infrequent sightings [14], and thus facilitating their expansion in the future. Moreover, the incentives are based only on government-sanctioned hunting; the Minister of Agriculture amendment raised the hunting compensation for raccoons, raccoon dogs, and golden jackals to 12.000 HUF/individual taken by shooting or trapping [41]. It is too early to tell if this incentive is enough to control the population, but given the increasing trend, it seems control should be strengthened. Therefore, given their early phase in the expansion process but significant increase, management should not be focused on hunting only but on combining control measures, especially in areas with a relatively elevated density of these species. This approach is to prevent further spreading to areas with suitable (optimal) habitats of the species and where potential damage to native fauna could be done.
Although the hunting bags of the raccoon dog are relatively small, the marked presence in northeast Hungary may indicate that it has already passed the lag phase, and its spread can accelerate in the coming years. In the subsequent log phase, the alien species reaches more suitable habitats, which allows higher reproduction [5]. In this phase, the spread and the population dynamics of raccoon dogs in Hungary can become similar to that of the golden jackal [40].
Moreover, the spatial distribution of the hunting bag data does not reveal any pattern of directional spread or the source of the raccoons. This can be a consequence of the pet trade and the potential for sporadic killings [33] or the establishment of new feral raccoon populations not connected to a metapopulation. Therefore, similar to the European distribution, the raccoon’s spatial distribution in Hungary might result from multiple introductions and range expansion from the primary raccoon populations [14].
Apart from shooting as the primary control method, the manual for managing vertebrate IAS of Union concern has additional available methods, which include using cage traps, hunting dogs (tracking/baying) for both species, and using Judas animals for the raccoon dog [12]. In line with the Hungarian hunting legislation and traditions, these methods, except for using Judas animals, are widespread. However, to increase the culling pressure and limit further population growth, more density-dependent methods, like cage traps, should be employed (alongside shooting), as this would require relatively less effort per catch than shooting.
Additionally, raccoons and raccoon dogs, due to their generalist nature, are highly adaptable animals, capable of exploiting various habitats and food sources. Their ability to thrive in diverse environments, including urban, rural, and natural landscapes, allows them to exploit available resources and adapt to changing conditions effectively. Also, Hungary’s climate closely resembles the original climate of these species. With a continental climate characterized by distinct seasons and moderate temperatures, the environmental conditions provide a suitable habitat for raccoons and raccoon dogs [50]. Moreover, the presence of water bodies, such as rivers, lakes and wetlands, near various preferred habitats can enhance their survival, as these species are known to be skilled swimmers and foragers near water sources [51].
Consequently, the more pronounced presence of the raccoon dog in the northeastern part of Hungary can be linked to the Tisza River and its main tributaries. The rivers serve as a pathway for slow dispersal, and colonization may also be facilitated by protected areas (Hortobágy National Park, Tisza Lake) where hunting is limited or inefficient in wetlands. Thus, the absence of solid hunting pressure, their exceptional adaptability, and the moderate climate in Hungary have created an advantageous environment for the proliferation of raccoons and raccoon dogs [33].
Many concerns exist about potential issues that may arise from the population growth of these two invasive species. Firstly, even though their records are not as extensive yet, their growth can become similar to the initial years of the golden jackal in Hungary [40]. By the end of the 19th century, the jackal was nearly extinct in Hungary, only returning by the 1980s and hunted in small numbers. Since the 1990s, the hunting bag has increased exponentially until 2006 [52]. This trend of the jackal matches that of the hunting bag of raccoons in Germany, where the population was stable for decades and witnessed an exponential increase in the last decade [53]. This is a concerning parallel that elicits close inspection of the population in the years to come.
Second, their spread in a non-native ecosystem may cause ecological damage and conflicts with native species. For example, raccoons predate on hibernating bats wintering in Poland [54]. While there are instances of raccoon dogs engaging in facilitative interactions with native mesocarnivores, such as European badgers (Meles meles) and red foxes (Vulpes vulpes) [55], these cases are not typical and should not overshadow the potential negative impacts. Furthermore, the highly omnivorous and adaptable diets of raccoon dogs can contribute to the nest predation of several protected ground-nesting birds in Hungary [56]. Consequently, they have already been shown to be damaging to isolated island ecosystems of the Mediterranean [57].
Thirdly, their incidence, spread, and population growth will likely result in human–animal conflict [58]. Raccoons are a known problematic species in their native ecosystem, causing tremendous damage to property and homes in human habitations [13]. There are reports of invasive raccoons in Japan causing damage to agriculture and stealing feed from livestock [59]. They are also well-known urban residents in their native habitat and now in Japan [60].
Fourth, raccoons and raccoon dogs have been suspected vectors of several diseases [61]. Several studies have examined raccoon dogs as carriers for viruses, parasites, and other pathogens [19,62,63] and for raccoons especially as rabies vectors [64]. They have also been documented as tick-borne disease carriers [65].

5. Conclusions

The raccoon and raccoon dog populations have increased significantly in the last three decades based on the increasing trend in the hunting bag and occupied areas in Hungary and is likely to further increase. Based on our findings, heavier control measures are recommended to eradicate or limit raccoon and raccoon dog populations before their growth trends become exponential. According to the Hungarian action plan, the cross-border arrival of these species from neighboring countries is prioritized as significant [25]. However, it is the most challenging pathway to take adequate measures against, as it is only possible to focus on eradicating established species. It is difficult to predict its importance and change over time, given that it depends mainly on the measures taken or to be taken in other countries. In fact, in Hungary, some species (e.g., raccoon, raccoon dog and coypu) have only begun to conquer the area, and the importance of the pathway may even increase [25].
Both species should be controlled when its population is small, and its distribution is insular, but when its distribution is more widespread, it is practically ineradicable [26]. Therefore, the increased hunting compensation issued by the government would hopefully alter the chances of their population growing in the coming years and prevent any negative impact on the existing native habitats and species, as well as the residents of the country.
Moreover, having an integrated approach that involves relevant stakeholders such as (professional) hunters, nature conservationists, wildlife biologists, and governmental bodies is crucial. Additionally, launching programs on the potential negative impacts of AIS could enhance public understanding and awareness.
Thus, we recommend adjusting IAS management strategies to the specific phase of each invasion and species, integrating preventative measures in areas currently free of invasive species, and implementing quick action to halt the spread upon detection of new introductions. This adaptive approach ensures both the effectiveness and long-term viability of the management of IAS.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/d16090532/s1, Table S1: Raccoon and raccoon dog hunting bag data Hungary (1997–2021).

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, S.C., M.M., K.K., Z.B. and G.S.; methodology, M.M. and G.S.; software, G.S. and H.B.; validation, M.H. and S.C.; formal analysis, M.M. and G.S.; investigation, B.K., M.M., G.S. and H.B.; resources, B.K. and S.B.; data curation, S.B. and M.M.; writing—original draft preparation, B.K., G.S, H.B. and S.C.; writing—review and editing, B.K., G.S., S.C., K.K., H.B. and Z.B.; visualization, G.S.; supervision, M.H. and S.C.; project administration, S.C.; funding acquisition, K.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was supported by the National Research, Development and Innovation Office in Hungary within the framework of the National Laboratory for Health Security programme (RRF-2.3.1-21-2022-00006).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available in the Supplementary Information.

Acknowledgments

The Ministry of Agriculture has financed the operation of the National Game Management Database of Hungary since 1993.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest. The funders had no role in the study’s design, data collection, analysis, interpretation, manuscript writing, or decision to publish the results.

References

  1. Caughley, G.; Gunn, A. Conservation Biology in Theory and Practice; Blackwell Science: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1996; p. 459. [Google Scholar]
  2. Scalera, R.; Genovesi, P.; Essl, F.; Rabitsch, W. The Impacts of Invasive Alien Species in Europe; EEA Technical Report, No 16/2012; European Environment Agency: Copenhagen, Denmark, 2012; p. 114. Available online: https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/impacts-of-invasive-alien-species (accessed on 25 June 2024).
  3. Crosby, A.W. The Columbian Exchange: Biological and Cultural Consequences of 1492, 30th Anniversary edition; Bloomsbury Publishing: London, UK, 2003; p. 283. [Google Scholar]
  4. Early, R.; Bradley, B.A.; Dukes, J.S.; Lawler, J.J.; Olden, J.D.; Blumenthal, D.M.; Gonzalez, P.; Grosholz, E.D.; Ibañez, I.; Miller, L.P.; et al. Global threats from invasive alien species in the twenty-first century and national response capacities. Nat. Commun. 2016, 7, 12485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Nentwig, W.; Josefsson, M. Introduction. BioRisk 2010, 4, 5–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. EU. Regulation (EU) No 1143/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2014 on the Prevention and Management of the Introduction and Spread of Invasive Alien Species; L 317, 4.11.2014; Official Journal of the European Communities: Brussels, Belgium, 2014; pp. 35–55. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv%3AOJ.L_.2014.317.01.0035.01.ENG&toc=OJ%3AL%3A2014%3A317%3ATOC (accessed on 24 June 2024).
  7. Roy, H.E.; Pauchard, A.; Stoett, P.; Renard Truong, T. Thematic Assessment Report on Invasive Alien Species and Their Control of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services; IPBES secretariat: Bonn, Germany, 2023; p. 890. [Google Scholar]
  8. EU Environment DG. LIFE and Invasive Alien Species; Publications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2014; p. 78. Available online: https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/2c794885-75c9-4708-a359-d50dfd7c9ced (accessed on 25 June 2024).
  9. Henry, M.; Leung, B.; Cuthbert, R.N.; Bodey, T.W.; Ahmed, D.A.; Angulo, E.; Balzani, P.; Briski, E.; Courchamp, F.; Hulme, P.E.; et al. Unveiling the hidden economic toll of biological invasions in the European Union. Environ. Sci. Eur. 2023, 35, 43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Genovesi, P.; Carnevali, L.; Alonzi, A.; Scalera, R. Alien mammals in Europe: Updated numbers and trends, and assessment of the effects on biodiversity. Integr. Zool. 2012, 7, 247–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. DAISIE. Handbook of Alien Species in Europe; Springer Science+Business Media B.V.: Berlin, Germany, 2008; p. 399. [Google Scholar]
  12. Smith, K.G.; Nunes, A.L.; Aegerter, J.; Baker, S.E.; Di Silvestre, I.; Ferreira, C.C.; Griffith, M.; Lane, J.; Muir, A.; Binding, S.; et al. A Manual for the Management of Vertebrate Invasive Alien Species of Union Concern, Incorporating Animal Welfare. Technical Report Prepared for the European Commission within the Framework of the Contract No. 07.027746/2019/812504/SER/ENV.D.2. Available online: https://easin.jrc.ec.europa.eu/easin/Document/Final-deliverables-humane/Manual_management_vertebrate_IAS_incl_welfare_medres.pdf (accessed on 25 June 2024).
  13. Zeveloff, S.I. Raccoons: A Natural History; Smithsonian Institution Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2002; p. 200. [Google Scholar]
  14. Stope, M.B. The Raccoon (Procyon lotor) as a Neozoon in Europe. Animals 2023, 13, 273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Salgado, I. Is the raccoon (Procyon lotor) out of control in Europe? Biodivers. Conserv. 2018, 27, 2243–2256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Mulder, J.L. A review of the ecology of the raccoon dog (Nyctereutes procyonoides) in Europe. Lutra 2012, 55, 101–127. [Google Scholar]
  17. Kauhala, K.; Kowalczyk, R. Invasion of the raccoon dog Nyctereutes procyonoides in Europe: History of colonization, features behind its success, and threats to native fauna. Curr. Zool. 2011, 57, 584–598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Kauhala, K.; Kowalczyk, R. The raccoon dog (Nyctereutes procyonoides) in the community of medium-sized carnivores in Europe: Its adaptations, impact on native fauna and management of the population. In Carnivores: Species, Conservation, and Management; Álvares, F.I., Mata, G.E., Eds.; Nova Science Publishers: Hauppauge, NY, USA, 2012; pp. 1–30. [Google Scholar]
  19. Sutor, A.; Schwarz, S.; Conraths, F.J. The biological potential of the raccoon dog (Nyctereutes procyonoides, Gray 1834) as an invasive species in Europe—New risks for disease spread? Acta Theriol. 2014, 59, 49–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. EU. Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1263 of 12 July 2017 Updating the List of Invasive Alien Species of Union Concern Established by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1141 Pursuant to Regulation (EU) No 1143/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council; L 182, 13.7.2017 (C/2017/4755); Official Journal of the European Communities: Brussels, Belgium, 2017; pp. 37–39. Available online: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2017/1263/oj (accessed on 25 June 2024).
  21. Fodor, T. Ante Portas. Nimród 1980, 100, 442–443. [Google Scholar]
  22. Oroszi, S. Vadfajokból Védett Állatfajok; Erdészettörténeti Közlemények; Országos Erdészeti Egyesület Erdészettörténeti Szakosztály: Budapest, Hungary, 1996. [Google Scholar]
  23. FM. 8/1993. (I. 30.) FM Rendelet a Vadgazdálkodásról és a Vadászatról [8/1993 (I. 30.) (FM Decree on Game Management and Hunting). Magyar Közlöny. 1993. Available online: https://jogkodex.hu/jsz/1993_8_fm_rendelet_1788576 (accessed on 25 June 2024).
  24. MK. 41/2010. (II. 26.) Korm. Rendelet—A Kedvtelésből Tartott Állatok Tartásáról és Forgalmazásáról (Government Decree 41/2010 (26.II.)—On the Keeping and Marketing of Pet Animals). 2010. Available online: https://net.jogtar.hu/jogszabaly?docid=a1000041.kor (accessed on 25 June 2024).
  25. Nagy, G.G.; Czirák, Z.; Demeter, A.; Dóka, R.; Fadel, N.; Jónás, B.; Riskó, A.; Schmidt, A.; Sulyán, P.; Váczi, O.; et al. Az Európai Uniós Jegyzéken Szereplő Idegenhonos Inváziós Fajok Terjedési Útvonalainak Magyarországi Átfogó Elemzése és Értékelése, Valamint a Terjedési Útvonalak Cselekvési Tervei [Comprehensive Analysis and Assessment of the Distribution Pathways of Alien Invasive Species on the EU List in Hungary and Action Plans for the Distribution Pathways]; Agrárminisztérium; Természetmegőrzési Főosztály: Budapest, Hungary, 2020; p. 109. [Google Scholar]
  26. Haraszthy, L. Özönállatfajok Magyarországon. Rosalia Kézikönyvek 5; Duna–Ipoly Nemzeti Park Igazgatóság—Külgazdasági és Külügyminisztérium: Budapest, Hungary, 2022; p. 464. [Google Scholar]
  27. Daněk, O.; Lesiczka, P.M.; Hammerbauerova, I.; Volfova, K.; Juránková, J.; Frgelecová, L.; Modrý, D.; Hrazdilova, K. Role of invasive carnivores (Procyon lotor and Nyctereutes procyonoides) in epidemiology of vector-borne pathogens: Molecular survey from the Czech Republic. Parasites Vectors 2023, 16, 219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Duscher, T.; Hodžić, A.; Glawischnig, W.; Duscher, G.G. The raccoon dog (Nyctereutes procyonoides) and the raccoon (Procyon lotor)—Their role and impact of maintaining and transmitting zoonotic diseases in Austria, Central Europe. Parasitol. Res. 2017, 116, 1411–1416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Raizman, E.A.; Dharmarajan, G.; Beasley, J.C.; Wu, C.C.; Pogranichniy, R.M.; Rhodes, O.E., Jr. Serologic Survey for Selected Infectious Diseases in Raccoons (Procyon lotor) in Indiana, USA. J. Wildl. Dis. 2009, 45, 531–536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. ENETWILD Consortium; Illanas, S.; Croft, S.; Smith, G.C.; Vicente, J.; Blanco-Aguiar, J.A.; Scandura, M.; Apollonio, M.; Ferroglio, E.; Keuling, O.; et al. Wild carnivore occurrence and models of hunting yield abundance at European scale: First models for red fox and badger. EFSA Support. Publ. 2023, 20, 7894E. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Csányi, S.; Lehoczki, R.; Sonkoly, K. National Game Management Database of Hungary. Int. J. Inf. Syst. Soc. Chang. 2010, 1, 34–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Heltai, M.; Szemethy, L.; Lanszki, J.; Csányi, S. Returning and new mammal predators in Hungary: The status and distribution of Golden jackal (Canis aureus), Raccoon dog (Nyctereutes procyonoides) and Raccon (Procyon lotor). Beitr. zur Jagd-und Wildforsch. 2001, 26, 95–102. [Google Scholar]
  33. Heltai, M.; Szemethy, L.; Biró, Z. Új fajok a hazi faunában: Az aranysakál, a nyestkutya és a mosómedve Magyarországon. Vadbiológia 2000, 7, 63–71. [Google Scholar]
  34. Csányi, S.; Márton, M.; Bőti, S.; Schally, G. Vadgazdálkodási Adattár—2022/2023. Vadászati Év; Országos Vadgazdálkodási Adattár: Gödöllő, Hungary, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  35. Szunyoghy, J. Egy új emlős megjelenése Magyarországon. Állattani Közlemények 1963, 50, 175–179. [Google Scholar]
  36. Sterbetz, I. A nyestkutya (Nyctereutes procyonoides Gray, 1834) előfordulása Békés-megyében. Állattani Közlemények 1971, 58, 173. [Google Scholar]
  37. Csizmazia, G. Adatok Szeged város Mammalia-Faunájához. Acta Acad Paedagog 1981, 2, 33–47. [Google Scholar]
  38. Fodor, T. Hívatlan vendég. Nimród 1981, 101, 542–543. [Google Scholar]
  39. Kristó, L. Nyestkutyát lőttek Pécelen. Nimród 1983, 103, 330. [Google Scholar]
  40. Bijl, H.; Schally, G.; Márton, M.; Heltai, M.; Csányi, S. From invaders to residents: The golden jackal (Canis aureus) expansion in Hungary since the mid-1990s. PLoS ONE 2024, 19, e0306489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. FVM. 79/2004. (V. 4.) FVM Rendelet a Vad Védelméről, a Vadgazdálkodásról, Valamint a Vadászatról Szóló 1996. Évi LV. Törvény Végrehajtásának Szabályairól [Decree 79/2004 (4.V.) FVM on the Rules for the Implementation of Act LV of 1996 on Game Conservation, Game Management and Hunting]. Magyar Közlöny. 2023. Available online: https://net.jogtar.hu/jogszabaly?docid=a0400079.fvm (accessed on 26 June 2024).
  42. Myrberget, S. Hunting statistics as indicators of game population size and composition. Stat. J. United Nations Econ. Comm. Eur. 1988, 5, 289–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Juliano, S.A. Population dynamics. J. Am. Mosq. Control Assoc. 2007, 23, 265–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Horváth, F.; Molnár, Z.; Bölöni, J.; Pataki, Z.; Polgár, L.; Révész, A.; Krasser, D.; Illyés, E. Fact sheet of the MÉTA Database 1.2. Acta Bot. Hung. 2008, 50, 11–34. Available online: www.novenyzetiterkep.hu (accessed on 25 June 2024). [CrossRef]
  45. QGIS. Development Team. QGIS Geographic Information System; QGIS Association: Bern, Switzerland, 2024; Available online: http://www.qgis.org (accessed on 25 June 2024).
  46. Hammer, Ø.; Harper, D.A.T.; Ryan, P.D. PAST 4.03: Paleontological Statistics Software Package for Education and Data Analysis. Palaeontol. Electron. 2001, 4, 1–9. [Google Scholar]
  47. Spear, M.J.; Walsh, J.R.; Ricciardi, A.; Zanden, M.J.V. The invasion ecology of sleeper populations: Prevalence, persistence, and abrupt shifts. BioScience 2021, 71, 357–369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Cunningham, C.X.; Perry, G.L.W.; Bowman, D.M.J.S.; Forsyth, D.M.; Driessen, M.M.; Appleby, M.; Brook, B.W.; Hocking, G.; Buettel, J.C.; French, B.J.; et al. Dynamics and predicted distribution of an irrupting ‘sleeper’ population: Fallow deer in Tasmania. Biol. Invasions 2022, 24, 1131–1147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Clout, M.N.; Williams, P.A. Invasive Species Management. A Handbook of Principles and Techniques; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  50. Cunze, S.; Klimpel, S.; Kochmann, J. Land cover and climatic conditions as potential drivers of the raccoon (Procyon lotor) distribution in North America and Europe. Eur. J. Wildl. Res. 2023, 69, 62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Dorney, R.S. Ecology of Marsh Raccoons. J. Wildl. Manag. 1954, 18, 217–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Szabó, L.; Heltai, M.; Szűcs, E.; Lanszki, J.; Lehoczki, R. Expansion range of the golden jackal in Hungary between 1997 and 2006. Mammalia 2009, 73, 307–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Fischer, M.L.; Sullivan, M.J.P.; Greiser, G.; Guerrero-Casado, J.; Heddergott, M.; Hohmann, U.; Keuling, O.; Lang, J.; Martin, I.; Michler, F.-U.; et al. Assessing and predicting the spread of non-native raccoons in Germany using hunting bag data and dispersal weighted models. Biol. Invasions 2016, 18, 57–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Cichocki, J.; Ważna, A.; Bator-Kocoł, A.; Lesiński, G.; Grochowalska, R.; Bojarski, J. Predation of invasive raccoon (Procyon lotor) on hibernating bats in the Nietoperek reserve in Poland. Mamm. Biol. 2021, 101, 57–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Kowalczyk, R.; Jędrzejewska, B.; Zalewski, A.; Jędrzejewski, W. Facilitative interactions between the Eurasian badger (Meles meles), the red fox (Vulpes vulpes), and the invasive raccoon dog (Nyctereutes procyonoides) in Białowieża Primeval Forest, Poland. Can. J. Zool. 2008, 86, 1389–1396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Jasiulionis, M.; Stirkė, V.; Balčiauskas, L. The Distribution and Activity of the Invasive Raccoon Dog in Lithuania as Found with Country-Wide Camera Trapping. Forests 2023, 14, 1328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Lassnig, N.; Colomar, V.; Picó, G.; Perelló, E.; Febrer-Serra, M.; Truyols-Henares, F.; Pinya, S. Assessment of the invasion process of the common raccoon Procyon lotor (Carnivora: Procyonidae) on a Mediterranean island a decade after its introduction. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 699, 134191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Hygnstrom, S.E.; Timm, R.M.; Larson, G.E. Prevention and Control of Wildlife Damage, 1st ed.; University of Nebraska Cooperative Extension, Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of Nebraska—Lincoln: Lincoln, NE, USA, 1994. [Google Scholar]
  59. Ikeda, T.; Asano, M.; Matoba, Y.; Abe, G. Present Status of Invasive Alien Raccoon and its Impact in Japan. Glob. Environ. Res. 2004, 8, 125–131. [Google Scholar]
  60. Mitsuhashi, I.; Sako, T.; Teduka, M.; Koizumi, R.; Saito, M.U.; Kaneko, Y. Home range of raccoon dogs in an urban green area of Tokyo, Japan. J. Mammal. 2018, 99, 732–740. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Beltrán-Beck, B.; García, F.J.; Gortázar, C. Raccoons in Europe: Disease hazards due to the establishment of an invasive species. Eur. J. Wildl. Res. 2011, 58, 5–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Laurimaa, L.; Süld, K.; Moks, E.; Valdmann, H.; Umhang, G.; Knapp, J.; Saarma, U. First report of the zoonotic tapeworm Echinococcus multilocularis in raccoon dogs in Estonia, and comparisons with other countries in Europe. Vet. Parasitol. 2015, 212, 200–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Veronesi, F.; Deak, G.; Diakou, A. Wild Mesocarnivores as Reservoirs of Endoparasites Causing Important Zoonoses and Emerging Bridging Infections across Europe. Pathogens 2023, 12, 178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Vos, A.; Ortmann, S.; Kretzschmar, A.S.; Köhnemann, B.; Michler, F. The raccoon (Procyon lotor) as potential rabies reservoir species in Germany: A risk assessment. Berl. Münchener Tierärztliche Wochenschr. 2012, 125, 222–235. [Google Scholar]
  65. André, M.R. Diversity of Anaplasma and Ehrlichia/Neoehrlichia Agents in Terrestrial Wild Carnivores Worldwide: Implications for Human and Domestic Animal Health and Wildlife Conservation. Front. Vet. Sci. 2018, 5, 293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Diversity 16 00532 g001
Figure 1. Annual hunting bag (individuals) of raccoon and raccoon dog in Hungary between 1997 and 2021.
Figure 1. Annual hunting bag (individuals) of raccoon and raccoon dog in Hungary between 1997 and 2021.
Diversity 16 00532 g001
Diversity 16 00532 g002
Figure 2. Spatial coverage of the hunting bag of raccoon and raccoon dog in Hungary between 1997–2021, grouped in five-year periods.
Figure 2. Spatial coverage of the hunting bag of raccoon and raccoon dog in Hungary between 1997–2021, grouped in five-year periods.
Diversity 16 00532 g002
Diversity 16 00532 g003
Figure 3. Spatial pattern of raccoon hunting bag data in Hungary. Colors indicate the number of years with a registered hunting bag of the species. Blue colors represent rivers and water bodies.
Figure 3. Spatial pattern of raccoon hunting bag data in Hungary. Colors indicate the number of years with a registered hunting bag of the species. Blue colors represent rivers and water bodies.
Diversity 16 00532 g003
Diversity 16 00532 g004
Figure 4. Spatial pattern of raccoon dog hunting bag data in Hungary. Colors indicate the number of years with a registered hunting bag of the species. Blue colors represent rivers and water bodies.
Figure 4. Spatial pattern of raccoon dog hunting bag data in Hungary. Colors indicate the number of years with a registered hunting bag of the species. Blue colors represent rivers and water bodies.
Diversity 16 00532 g004
Table 1. Descriptive statistics (mean and standard deviation (SD)) and the finite rate of increase (λ) per year for the raccoon hunting bag, UTM cells with registered hunting bags, and density (higher than zero) between 1997 and 2021 grouped in five-year periods.
Table 1. Descriptive statistics (mean and standard deviation (SD)) and the finite rate of increase (λ) per year for the raccoon hunting bag, UTM cells with registered hunting bags, and density (higher than zero) between 1997 and 2021 grouped in five-year periods.
Time PeriodHunting BagUTM Cells w/Hunting BagDensity (ind/100 km2)
MeanSDλ/YearMeanSDλ/YearMeanSDλ/Year
1997–20010.400.551.262.003.081.170.090.151.21
2002–20061.001.001.253.804.711.050.200.221.31
2007–20112.401.671.184.603.361.090.600.231.08
2012–20164.602.411.246.403.441.110.830.491.06
2017–202111.007.94 9.603.29 1.040.48
Table 2. Descriptive statistics (mean and standard deviation (SD)) and the finite rate of increase (λ) per year for the raccoon dog hunting bag, UTM cells with registered hunting bags, and density (higher than zero) between 1997 and 2021 grouped in five-year periods.
Table 2. Descriptive statistics (mean and standard deviation (SD)) and the finite rate of increase (λ) per year for the raccoon dog hunting bag, UTM cells with registered hunting bags, and density (higher than zero) between 1997 and 2021 grouped in five-year periods.
Time PeriodHunting BagUTM Cells w/Hunting BagDensity (ind/100 km2)
MeanSDλ/YearMeanSDλ/YearMeanSDλ/Year
1997–20013.402.511.045.803.901.150.570.100.93
2002–20064.003.081.1310.209.041.050.430.071.05
2007–20116.603.581.0612.204.821.060.520.110.97
2012–20168.408.960.9915.6011.780.990.460.161.05
2017–20218.002.92 15.205.54 0.550.24
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Schally, G.; Bijl, H.; Kashyap, B.; Márton, M.; Bőti, S.; Katona, K.; Biró, Z.; Heltai, M.; Csányi, S. Analysis of the Raccoon (Procyon lotor) and Common Raccoon Dog (Nyctereutes procyonoides) Spatiotemporal Changes Based on Hunting Bag Data in Hungary. Diversity 2024, 16, 532. https://doi.org/10.3390/d16090532

AMA Style

Schally G, Bijl H, Kashyap B, Márton M, Bőti S, Katona K, Biró Z, Heltai M, Csányi S. Analysis of the Raccoon (Procyon lotor) and Common Raccoon Dog (Nyctereutes procyonoides) Spatiotemporal Changes Based on Hunting Bag Data in Hungary. Diversity. 2024; 16(9):532. https://doi.org/10.3390/d16090532

Chicago/Turabian Style

Schally, Gergely, Hanna Bijl, Bhraaz Kashyap, Mihály Márton, Szilvia Bőti, Krisztián Katona, Zsolt Biró, Miklós Heltai, and Sándor Csányi. 2024. "Analysis of the Raccoon (Procyon lotor) and Common Raccoon Dog (Nyctereutes procyonoides) Spatiotemporal Changes Based on Hunting Bag Data in Hungary" Diversity 16, no. 9: 532. https://doi.org/10.3390/d16090532

APA Style

Schally, G., Bijl, H., Kashyap, B., Márton, M., Bőti, S., Katona, K., Biró, Z., Heltai, M., & Csányi, S. (2024). Analysis of the Raccoon (Procyon lotor) and Common Raccoon Dog (Nyctereutes procyonoides) Spatiotemporal Changes Based on Hunting Bag Data in Hungary. Diversity, 16(9), 532. https://doi.org/10.3390/d16090532

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop