Next Article in Journal
Fasting-Induced Molting Impacts the Intestinal Health by Altering the Gut Microbiota
Previous Article in Journal
Findings and Prognosis in 149 Horses with Histological Changes Compatible with Inflammatory Bowel Disease
Previous Article in Special Issue
Spatiotemporal Patterns of African Swine Fever in Wild Boar in the Russian Federation (2007–2022): Using Clustering Tools for Revealing High-Risk Areas
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Animals
Volume 14
Issue 11
10.3390/ani14111639
animals-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

Human–Wildlife Conflict Mitigation Based on Damage, Distribution, and Activity: A Case Study of Wild Boar in Zhejiang, Eastern China

by
Junchen Liu
1,
Shanshan Zhao
1,*,
Liping Tan
1,
Jianwu Wang
2,
Xiao Song
1,
Shusheng Zhang
3,
Feng Chen
2 and
Aichun Xu
1,*
1
College of Life Sciences, Yangtze River Delta Institute of Biodiversity Conservation and Utilization, China Jiliang University, Hangzhou 310018, China
2
Zhejiang Forest Resources Monitoring Center, Hangzhou 310020, China
3
The Management Center of Wuyanling National Natural Reserve in Zhejiang, Wenzhou 325500, China
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Animals 2024, 14(11), 1639; https://doi.org/10.3390/ani14111639
Submission received: 22 April 2024 / Revised: 25 May 2024 / Accepted: 29 May 2024 / Published: 30 May 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Management of Wild Boar Populations—Achievements and Problems)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:

Simple Summary

Human–wildlife conflict refers to conflicts that arise from the occurrence or behavior of wildlife that poses a threat to humans directly or indirectly. The wild boar, as one of the most widely distributed ungulates in the world, is known to dominate the species in mountain ecosystems in China. Here, we integrated data collected from damage and camera trap surveys to understand the damage status, abundance and density and activity rhythms of wild boar in Zhejiang, Eastern China. The damage distribution, density and activity rhythms provide specific priority management regions and activity intensity peaks for conflict mitigation. We believe that these findings could provide a scientific basis for mitigation management.

Abstract

Human–wildlife conflicts are becoming increasingly common worldwide and are a challenge to biodiversity management. Compared with compensatory management, which often focuses on solving emergency conflicts, mitigation management allows decision-makers to better understand where the damage is distributed, how the species are distributed and when the species conduct their activity. Here, we integrated data collected from 90 districts/counties’ damage surveys and 1271 camera traps to understand the damage status, abundance, density and activity rhythms of wild boar (Sus scrofa) in Zhejiang, Eastern China, from January 2019 to August 2023. We found that (1) wild boar–human conflicts were mainly distributed in the northwest and southwest mountainous regions of Zhejiang Province; (2) the total abundance of wild boar was 115,156 ± 24,072 individuals, indicating a growing trend over the past decade and a higher density in the western and southern regions; (3) wild boar exhibited different activity patterns across different damage regions, and the periods around 7:00, 11:00 and 16:00 represented activity peaks for wild boar in seriously damaged regions. The damage distribution, density, distribution and activity rhythms provide specific priority regions and activity intensity peaks for conflict mitigation. We believe that these findings based on the damage, distribution and activity could provide a scientific basis for mitigation management at the county level and enrich the framework of human–wildlife conflict mitigation.

1. Introduction

Human–wildlife conflict refers to conflicts that arise from the occurrence or behavior of wildlife that not only poses a threat to humans but also impacts their well-being. Such conflicts have negative impacts on both humans and wildlife [1] and even threaten biodiversity in many ways [2,3]. A great number of human–wildlife conflict reports have appeared in recent years [4]. There are dozens of species related to conflicts, such as Tibetan brown bears (Ursus arctos), Asian elephants (Elephas maximus), pumas (Puma concolor), wild boar (Sus scrofa) and others [5,6,7]. Various driving factors could lead to human–wildlife conflicts both directly and indirectly, and they can be divided into three aspects. (1) The implementation of ecological projects, such as natural forest protection, grain for green, nature reserves, and wildlife preservation [8], has led to continuous improvements in the quality of most habitats for wildlife. Consequently, the populations of wildlife have been steadily increasing, and their activities have expanded. (2) Human activities that are associated with the continuous utilization of natural resources have resulted in the fragmentation of wildlife habitats [9,10]. This has led to overlaps in habitats between humans and wildlife, and the fragmentation intensifies in the process of urbanization [11], thereby increasing the frequency with which wildlife enters cities and the conflicts between these two groups. (3) Climate change acts as an amplifier of conflict by exacerbating resource scarcities [12,13], which could cause increasing interactions between humans and wildlife by changing human–wildlife behavior and distributions [14]. In recent years, conflicts between humans and wildlife have become one of the key ecological issues in China [15]. The question of how to effectively protect humans and property while also safeguarding wildlife remains a significant challenge [4,16].
In comparison to compensatory management, which often focuses on addressing emergency conflicts, precautionary management allows decision-makers to better understand wildlife itself, such as where the damage is distributed, how the species are distributed and when the species conduct their activity [17]. Many studies on human–wildlife conflict have focused on the regional conflict status [18,19], mitigation measure development [20,21], the identification and prediction of risk areas [7,22], the cognition and tolerance of residents [23,24] and other areas, including both single aspects and multiple aspects. Moreover, adding a social perspective (identification tolerability and other key factors), public participation and shared governance could provide other perspectives in mitigation management [25]. However, few studies have been conducted that address human–wildlife conflict mitigation by integrating the damage, distribution and activity, which could enrich the human–wildlife conflict mitigation theory and frameworks.
The wild boar, as one of the most widely distributed ungulates in the world, is known to dominate the species in the mountain ecosystems in China [26]. Since the construction of a series of projects, such as the protection and restoration of natural forests and the return of farmland to forests [27], wild boar has been considered as the primary species that comes into conflict with humans [28]. Moreover, the shrinking distribution areas and declining numbers of tigers (Panthera tigris), clouded leopards (Neofelis nebulosa), wolves (Canis lupus) and other species have resulted in reduced hunting pressures faced by wild boar [29]. In addition, because of their omnivorous diets and strong reproductive capabilities [17,19,30], the population of wild boar has rapidly increased in recent years. Consequently, they have become notorious for causing extensive damage to crops, posing risks to human safety and spreading disease in many regions [31,32]. From 2000 to 2023, wild boar was listed among the “Terrestrial Wildlife with Important Ecological, Scientific and Social Value” in China; thus, it is protected by Chinese law and prohibited from being captured or killed. However, the National Forestry and Grassland Administration removed wild boar from the updated list in June 2023 [33]. This decision was intended to provide more space for comprehensive strategies to manage the growing abundance of wild boar and mitigate the associated conflicts. In our study, wild boar refers to purely wild forms and not pig–boar hybrids or feral hogs, as it plays a key role in ecosystems.
The Yangtze River Delta has emerged as one of the three crucial strategic core urban agglomerations along the Yangtze River Economic Belt [34]. Zhejiang Province is situated at the southern end of the Yangtze River Delta, and its economy has developed rapidly. Zhejiang Province, maintaining a forest coverage rate surpassing 60% [35], provides a suitable habitat for wild boar’s survival and reproduction. In recent years, numerous reports have indicated an increasing trend in the frequency, spatial scope and degree of damage caused by wild boar–human conflicts in Zhejiang Province, according to management authorities and local populations [36]. The government is confronted with the urgent task of controlling the population of wild boar and mitigating its impacts [37]. At the same time, most local residents hold the general belief that wild boar is more numerous and harmful than other species. However, we still lack scientific and effective assessments concerning the population of wild boar and the current situation of the conflict between wild boar and humans.
In this study, we aimed at quantifying the damage status, abundance, density and activity rhythms of this conflict species by integrating data collected from damage surveys and camera traps. We took Zhejiang Province of Eastern China as the study area and the wild boar as the study species. We investigated the wild boar’s damage across 90 districts and/or counties and deployed 1271 infrared cameras. By analyzing the data obtained from the infrared camera and damage surveys, we (1) analyzed the wild boar’s damage and drivers in all districts and counties in Zhejiang Province; (2) analyzed the distribution, population density and abundance of wild boar across the province; and (3) explored the rhythms and characteristics of the wild boar’s activity in different damage regions.

2. Material and Methods

2.1. Study Area

The Yangtze River Economic Belt spans the eastern, central and western regions of China. It holds a significant share of the population and gross domestic product (GDP), exceeding 40% of the country’s total [38]. Within the Belt, the Yangtze River Delta emerges as one of the three crucial strategic core urban agglomerations. Zhejiang Province, as one of the key urban agglomerations, lies on the southern flank of the Yangtze River Delta (118°01′~123°08′ E, 27°01′~31°10′ N). The total land area is 101,800 km2 [39]. The landscape of Zhejiang exhibits distinct characteristics across the different regions. The southwest is predominantly mountainous, and the central part is dominated by hills, while the northeast consists of low and flat alluvial plains [40]. Zhejiang Province has a humid monsoon climate. The weather is hot and rainy in summer and mild and rainy in winter [41]. In terms of the topographic distribution, mountains and hills cover 70.4% of the total area, with the main mountain extending in a southwest–northeast direction [42]. There are 11 cities and 90 districts and counties in Zhejiang Province.

2.2. Wild Boar Damage Survey

In order to mitigate human–wildlife conflicts, it is important to understand the spatial and temporal distribution and loss caused by human–wildlife conflicts [43] and predict the potential distribution areas of human–wildlife conflicts [22,44]. In the current study, we collaborated with the local forestry management department to conduct a wild boar damage survey across all districts and counties (n = 90) of Zhejiang Province. Based on the preliminary assessment of the damage caused by wild boar, we classified the damage into two categories: (1) physical injuries to local residents and (2) damage to crops (Table 1). The surveys included gathering data on (1) the number of injuries inflicted by wild boar on residents, (2) the extent of crop damage and (3) the amount of economic losses caused to residents in all 90 districts and counties, which included the damage to crops. In our study area, the economic losses were related to the type and degree of damaged crops.

2.3. Camera Trap Survey

Camera trapping, due to the advantages of accuracy, continuous operation and concealment [45], is widely used to estimate the abundance of species, as well as to investigate their activity rhythms [46,47,48]. The use of cameras might also help in assessing densities, i.e., it may be an important tool to verify data from other sources and, based on temporal trends, allow for actions aimed at minimizing a conflict before it escalates. Camera traps served as the primary means of data collection in the current study. From January 2019 to August 2023, we systematically selected 11 districts/counties (belonging to 8 cities) in Zhejiang Province (Table S1). The total camera survey area was 2761.74 km2 (mean ± standard error = 251 ± 144 km2). We divided them into fixed cells (1 km × 1 km) based on the GIS raster map. According to the elevation, slope, vegetation and orientation, we used the random sampling method to set infrared cameras (Ltl-6210). A total of 1271 infrared cameras were deployed in our study (Figure 1). In order to minimize the disturbance to animal behavior and prevent excessive animal attraction, we refrained from using lures or baits at the camera stations [49]. The camera settings were configured to capture a continuous sequence of 2 photographs, with a 5 s interval between shots and medium sensitivity. The cameras were fastened to tree trunks approximately 40~80 cm above the ground. We replaced the memory cards and batteries every 6~8 months.

2.4. Data Analyses

2.4.1. Wild Boar’s Damage and Its Potential Drivers

We sorted the damage of the 90 districts/counties and calculated the physical injures and damage to crops in each district/county. We scored the levels of injury to residents, damage to crops and economic losses to explore the damage degrees (Table 2). We defined the total damage as the sum of the scores of each damage type. We classified the damaged districts and counties into four categories: severely damaged (25%), moderately severely damaged (25%), generally damaged (25%) and slightly damaged (25%). We used ArcGIS (10.8) to display the damage distribution.
In order to explore the potential factors that drive wild boar’s damage, we analyzed the correlations between four types of damage (the amount of damage to crops, the area of the damage to crops, the amount of economic losses caused by wild boar to residents and the total damage) and four potential factors (the vegetation area, GDP, population and cultivated land area). We obtained the vegetation area and cultivated land of each district/county from the third national land survey of Zhejiang Province [50]. We collected the GDP and population size of each district/county from the Zhejiang Statistical Yearbook [51]. We used the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test to analyze the normality of all variables. We used the Spearman method to conduct a partial correlation analysis because all variables were non-normally distributed. As there were differences in the area of each district/county, we used the area of the district/country as a controlled factor in the partial correlation analysis.

2.4.2. Abundance and Density of Wild Boar

We used the classic random encounter model to estimate the abundance of wild boar [52]. Firstly, we defined records of the same species captured by the same camera as independent when the images were taken at least 30 min apart [53]. The manual identification of images obtained from the infrared cameras was conducted for data analysis. The density of wild boar in our study was estimated based on the random encounter model [54].
D = y t π vr 2 + θ × g
D is the density of wild boar (individual/km2). y is the total number of independent images of wild boar obtained in this research. t is the cumulative number of days for which all cameras were working normally. v is the average daily movement speed of wild boar (km/day). After sorting the daily movement distances of wild boar from the studies performed in China, we selected v = 2 km/day in the current study [55,56]. r is the radius of the effective monitoring area of the infrared camera. Combined with the vegetation conditions in the camera locations, we obtained r = 0.005 km. θ is the angle of the infrared camera detection area. The detection angle of the infrared camera used in this study was 0.91 rad (52°). g is the wild boar’s group size.
The average density of wild boar across Zhejiang Province was calculated using the weighted average method:
D ¯ = ∑ i = 1 n ( D i × S i ) ∑ i = 1 n S i
D ¯ represents the average density. D i represents the density of wild boar in the i sample survey district/county. S i is the vegetation area of the i sample survey district/county. n is the total number of survey districts/counties.
The abundance of wild boar in Zhejiang Province was calculated by summing the abundance of wild boar in each district/county. Following Yu (2021), we multiplied the average density by the vegetation area of each district/county. The vegetation area data of each district/county were extracted from the classified data of the third national land survey of Zhejiang Province [50].

2.4.3. Wild Boar’s Activity Rhythms

In order to explore the relationship between the activity rhythms of wild boar and the different damage levels, we selected two adjacent groups of severely damaged and generally damaged districts and counties and used the kernel density estimation method [57] to analyze the annual daily activity characteristics of wild boar in these two groups of regions. The data used to analyze the wild boar’s activity rhythms covered one year, including the breeding and wintering seasons. The two groups of districts and counties were as follows: in the northern region of Zhejiang Province, Linan District (severely damaged) and Anji County (generally damaged); in the southern region of Zhejiang Province, Suichang County (severely damaged) and Wucheng District (generally damaged). This method considers that each detection of a species is a random sample collected from the continuous distribution of the daily activity rhythms. This daily activity rhythm distribution describes the probability of detecting the species during specific time intervals. The horizontal axis is the time and the vertical axis (density) is the probability of the species being detected at this time point, and the integral value of the area under the curve is 1.
At the same time, we used the coefficient of overlap [58] to calculate the degree of overlap of the daily activity rhythms of wild boar in severely damaged regions and generally severely damaged regions, expressed as the area ratio Δ of the overlapping activity rhythm distribution curves of the two. Δ = 0 indicates complete separation, and Δ = 1 indicates complete overlap.
The kernel density estimation and coefficient of overlap analysis were conducted using the number of independent images as the basis. We used the “overlap” and “activity” packages of R 4.0.3 to conduct the activity analysis.

3. Results

3.1. Damage Status of Wild Boar and Its Drivers in Zhejiang Province

With the exception of Jiaxing City in Northern Zhejiang Province, damage caused by wild boar occurred in 10 cities. Specifically, wild boar damage occurred in 60% of the districts/counties (54/90) and 27.27% of the cities (3/11, Lishui, Jinhua and Quzhou City) in Zhejiang Province. There were 40 incidents of physical injury, 9593 instances of damage to crops and 33.82 km2 of damaged crops caused by wild boar, resulting in economic losses of 74.65 million yuan. We identified three cities (Lishui, Hangzhou and Jinhua) with severe losses based on four indicators: the frequency of damage, the damaged crop area, the amount of damage and the physical injuries (Figure 2). There were no significant correlations between each damage type and each factor (Table S2).

3.2. Abundance and Density of Wild Boar in Zhejiang Province

We selected 11 districts and counties in Zhejiang Province, deployed a total of 1271 infrared cameras (116 ± 17 units) and obtained 5226 independent images of wild boar. The density of wild boar in Zhejiang Province is 1.77 ± 0.37 individuals/km2 (Table 3).
The highest density of wild boar appeared in Linan District (3.01 ± 0.57 individuals/km2), followed by Xianju County (2.91 ± 0.58 individuals/km2) and Wucheng District (2.78 ± 0.34 individuals/km2), and the smallest occurred in Tonglu County (0.32 ± 0.10 individuals/km2, Table 3, Figure S1). The abundance of wild boar in Zhejiang Province was 115,156 ± 24,072. Among the prefecture-level cities, Lishui City had the largest population (25,199 ± 5268 individuals), followed by Hangzhou City (20,374 ± 4259 individuals) and Wenzhou City (12,927 ± 2702 individuals). We found that more than 5000 individuals occurred in the prefecture-level cities in Zhejiang Province, except Jiaxing and Zhoushan. More than 1000 wild boar individuals were detected in 51.11% (46/90) of the districts and counties. Additionally, 58 districts and counties possessed more than 500 individuals, accounting for 64.44% (Figure 3).

3.3. Activity Rhythms of Wild Boar in Zhejiang Province

Our findings revealed that the coefficient of overlap of the daily activity rhythms of wild boar between Suichang County (severely damaged) and Wucheng District (generally damaged) was relatively high (Δ = 0.90), and the coefficient of overlap between Linan District (severely damaged) and Anji County (generally damaged) was relatively low (Δ = 0.78). The activity rhythm of wild boar between Linan District and Suichang County was tripodal and concentrated during the day (6:00–18:00). However, the wild boar in Anji County displayed a bimodal pattern, with activity peaks observed during the morning and dusk, while Wucheng District maintained continuous activity without peaks during the day (Figure 4).

4. Discussion

4.1. Wild Boar’s Damage and Its Potential Drivers

The assessment of the damage caused by wild boar revealed that all cities in Zhejiang Province experienced such damage, except Jiaxing City. This indicates that the damage caused by wild boar is relatively widespread. The degree of damage inflicted by wild boar is influenced not only by their population size but also by various factors, including food resources, the surrounding vegetation, elevation and so on [23,59,60]. In Zhejiang Province, wild boar predominantly inhabit habitats characterized by a relatively dense canopy, such as deciduous broadleaf forests and mixed coniferous and broadleaf forests found at mid- to high altitudes [61]. These habitats offer favorable conditions with suitable shelter and facilitate the foraging and movement of wild boar [62,63]. No reports of wild boar damage have been published in Jiaxing City. This might be due to the fact that Jiaxing City is located in the Hangzhou–Jiaxing–Huzhou Plain and has a lower altitude with a smaller vegetation area (it accounts for only 0.84% of the entire province).
The crop regions in mountain areas, in comparison with eastern and northern plains, experience serious crop damage due to wild boar (Figure 2). The crops in mountains tend to be sporadically distributed in the mountains, which are close to breeding and foraging areas. Moreover, due to the undeveloped traffic, the crops in the mountains are not seriously influenced by human activity. Our results also show that the top three cities in terms of the area of crops damaged by wild boar are Hangzhou, Lishui and Wenzhou. The cultivated land in these three cities accounts for 32.81% of the entire province. The combined information reveals that crops in mountain areas should be the primary focus for the management and prevention of crop damage caused by wild boar.
Although seriously damaged districts/counties were identified in western and southern Zhejiang Province that possessed a larger vegetation area and lower GDP [50,51], there were no significant correlations between each damage type and each factor. This result might be due to the research scale and the attitudes and cognitions of residents. A regional-scale study in Kaihua of Zhejiang revealed that the crop types, landform, microhabitat, guarding intensity of farmers and other factors could lead to human–wild boar conflicts [64]. The current study was performed at the district/county scale, the findings of which also should be taken into consideration in mitigation management. The attitudes and cognitions of residents might disproportionately cause variations in the damage degree.

4.2. Wild Boar’s Abundance and Density

The abundance and density of wild boar have increased over the past two decades in Zhejiang Province. The density of wild boar in Zhejiang Province is 1.77 ± 0.37 individuals/km2, higher than the density of 1.38 ± 0.18 individuals/km2 surveyed in the area from 2014 to 2016 [65]. The estimated abundance of wild boar in Zhejiang Province is 115,156 ± 24,072 individuals, which is comparable to the abundance in Shaanxi Province, China (128,707 ± 16,718 individuals) [66]. The abundance of wild boar is 3.97 times higher than that in 2000 and 1.15 times higher than that in 2016 (Figure S2). The highest abundance of wild boar is found in Lishui City (25,199 ± 5268 individuals), which is in line with the findings of the “Zhejiang Special Investigation of Wild Boar” [65]. However, it should be noted that the “Zhejiang Special Investigation of Wild Boar” performed in 2016 used the method of transects and infrared cameras [65], which might have had an impact on the estimation of the wild boar’s abundance.

4.3. Wild Boar’s Activity Rhythm

An activity rhythm is a biological phenomenon formed by animals to adapt to environmental changes [67]. Wild boar exhibit significant variations in their activity rhythms and possess strong adaptability to external factors [68]. We found that there were significant differences in the daily activity rhythms of wild boar between the severely damaged region (Linan District) and generally damaged region (Anji County) in Northern Zhejiang. The variable activity rhythm hints at the behavioral plasticity of wild boar, which could explain the increasing human–wild boar conflicts in recent years.
The peaks in the wild boar activity patterns between the severely damaged regions (such as Linan District) and generally damaged regions (such as Anji County) are not consistent throughout the year. In generally damaged regions, wild boar exhibit a bimodal activity pattern with peaks at dawn and dusk, and they tend to show higher activity at 5:00–7:00 and 17:00–19:00. In severely damaged regions, wild boar show a three-peak pattern, with higher activity around 7:00, 11:00 and 16:00. Although the elevation, vegetation, predators and other elements are factors influencing the activity rhythms of wildlife [69,70,71], the specific activity patterns of wild boar identified in the different damaged regions in the current study could provide temporal evidence to reduce the encounters between local residents and wild boar.
In our study, wild boar exhibited a concentration of diurnal activity, which is in accordance with observations in Northeastern China [72] and Southwestern China [73]. However, wild boar exhibit nocturnal activity patterns in Central Argentina [17], Central Italy [68] and Northern Germany [74]. This discrepancy may be attributed to the reduced presence of large carnivores in the study area and the implementation of laws that prohibit the use of firearms by residents in China since 1996 [61]. Although there have historically been great numbers of large carnivores in Zhejiang, they have almost disappeared in recent years. No large carnivores (tigers, clouded leopards, wolves) were recorded both during the daytime and the nighttime in our study area. Moreover, the hunting of wild animals is not allowed in China, which alleviates the risk of their death. Consequently, wild boar may not need to evade predators and humans frequently during the daytime [75].

4.4. Management Implications

Due to the increasing human–wildlife conflicts around the world, it is essential to take several actions to mitigate such conflicts in order to achieve coexistence. Human–wildlife conflicts involve multiple scales, such as humans, habitats, property, animals and so on. In the current study, we integrated data collected from camera traps and field surveys to understand the damage status (degree and distribution), abundance and density (distribution) and activity rhythms (activity intensity/peaks) of the conflict species (Figure 5), which could improve the understanding of the animal and property perspectives.
In our study, at the district and county level, we recommend that the government should pay attention to districts and counties with serious wild boar damage and a high density and enhance the intensity of damage control and formulate macro policies. At the local level, targeted prevention and control efforts should be strengthened in regions experiencing frequent human–wildlife conflicts, such as farmland, orchards and agricultural and forestry areas. Moreover, other practical measures, such as the establishment of electronic fences [76,77], the utilization of sound and light intimidation techniques [20] and interference coupled with legal hunting [78] and planning arrangements, such as the construction of ecological corridors [79] and the adjustment of land use [18], also should be integrated into the current management. Finally, public campaigns targeting residents can be implemented [80]. Meanwhile, the local residents can provide valid support in providing regularly updated data on the fauna, which could create a valuable system that increases the cooperation between the residents and management authorities and their connection with the territory.

4.5. Limitations

It is important to note that due to the limitations of the data collection, the survey time of the infrared cameras varied across the different districts and counties included in our study. As the selected districts and counties involved several projects, we attempted to sort the data to shorten the differences in the survey time. This lack of uniformity in the survey time may have an impact on the accuracy of the results. We believe that the damage status (degree and distribution), abundance and density (distribution) and activity rhythms (activity intensity/peaks) based on similar survey times could contribute to mitigating the conflicts.

5. Conclusions

We conclude that (1) wild boar–human conflicts are mainly distributed in the northwest and southwest mountainous regions of Zhejiang Province; (2) the total abundance of wild boar is 115,156 ± 24,072 individuals, indicating a growing trend over the past decade and a higher density in the western and southern regions; (3) wild boar exhibit different activity patterns across different damage regions, and the periods around 7:00, 11:00 and 16:00 represent activity peaks for wild boar in seriously damaged regions. The specific damage, abundance/density distribution and activity rhythms (intensity/peaks) of the target species will benefit conflict mitigation. The findings of our study provide a scientific foundation for the control of the wild boar population, damage protection strategies and compensation frameworks at the district and county level.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/ani14111639/s1, Table S1: Survey areas and survey times in Zhejiang of Eastern China. Table S2. Results of partial correlation analysis between damage types and factors in Zhejiang of Eastern China. Figure S1. Density of wild boar in each district and county surveyed in Zhejiang of Eastern China. Figure S2. Changes in wild boar’s abundance in Zhejiang of Eastern China.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, J.L., S.Z. (Shanshan Zhao), A.X. data curation, J.L., S.Z. (Shanshan Zhao), A.X.; formal analysis, J.L., S.Z. (Shanshan Zhao), A.X.; funding acquisition, X.S., A.X.; investigation, J.L., S.Z. (Shanshan Zhao), L.T., J.W., X.S., S.Z. (Shusheng Zhang), F.C.; methodology, J.L., S.Z. (Shusheng Zhang); project administration, A.X.; resources, L.T., J.W., X.S., S.Z. (Shusheng Zhang), F.C.; software, J.L.; supervision, S.Z. (Shanshan Zhao), A.X.; validation, A.X.; visualization, writing—original draft, J.L., S.Z. (Shanshan Zhao), A.X.; writing—review and editing, J.L., S.Z. (Shanshan Zhao), A.X. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the National Natural Foundation of China (grant number: 32101405) and the Zhejiang Rare and Endangered Wildlife Rescue and Conservation Project (2021–2025).

Institutional Review Board Statement

The current study intended to create a human–wildlife conflict mitigation framework based on the species’ damage, abundance and distribution and activity by using camera traps and damage surveys, which did not involve touching, capturing, killing or selling animals. Thus, ethical review and approval were waived for this study.

Informed Consent Statement

The current study used camera traps and damage surveys to conduct the research, which did not involve touching, capturing, killing and selling animals. Thus, it is not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available upon request from the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Chunmei Pang from the Administrative Bureau of Tianmushan National Nature Reserve; Rui Guo from the Administrative Bureau of Qingliangfeng National Nature Reserve; Feng Yu from the Forestry Bureau of Jiande City; Jiasen Wu from Zhejiang Agriculture and Forestry University; Wei Jin from the Zhejiang Forest Resource Monitoring Center; E Zhao from the Shaoxing Bureau of Natural Resources and Planning; Juncan Yu from the Shengzhou Bureau of Natural Resources and Planning; Junjie Li and Qingqing Wen from the Jinhua Wucheng Nanshan Provincial Nature Reserve Management Center; Jiajun Wu from the Nanjing Institute of Environmental Sciences, Ministry of Ecology and Environment; Yu Wang from the Jiulong Mountain National Nature Reserve; and Jianping Yu from the Qianjiangyuan National Park Administration for supporting the data collection. We also acknowledge the assistance of the Zhejiang Administration of Wildlife Conservation in conducting the wild boar damage investigation. We also thank Ben Li from East China Normal University for the comments on initial version of manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. IUCN-SSC. IUCN SSC Guidelines on Human-Wildlife Conflict and Coexistence, 1st ed.; IUCN: Gland, Switzerland, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  2. Gortazár, C.; Fernandez-de-Simon, J. One tool in the box: The role of hunters in mitigating the damages. Eur. J. Wildl. Res. 2022, 68, 28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Nyhus, P.J. Human–Wildlife Conflict and Coexistence. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2016, 41, 143–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Ridwan, Q.; Wani, Z.A.; Anjum, N.; Bhat, J.A.; Hanief, M.; Pant, S. Human-wildlife conflict: A bibliometric analysis during 1991–2023. Reg. Sustain. 2023, 4, 309–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Baral, K.; Bhandari, S.; Adhikari, B.; Kunwar, R.M.; Sharma, H.P.; Aryal, A.; Ji, W. Anthropogenic mortality of large mammals and trends of conflict over two decades in Nepal. Ecol. Evol. 2022, 12, e9381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Dai, Y.C.; Hacker, C.E.; Zhang, Y.G.; Li, Y.; Li, J.; Xue, Y.D.; Li, D.Q. Conflicts of human with the Tibetan brown bear (Ursus arctos pruinosus) in the Sanjiangyuan Region, China. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 2020, 22, e01039. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Teichman, K.J.; Cristescu, B.; Nielsen, S.E. Does sex matter? Temporal and spatial patterns of cougar-human conflict in British Columbia. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e74663. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Yang, H.B.; Lupi, F.; Zhang, J.D.; Liu, J.G. Hidden Cost of Conservation: A demonstration using losses from human-wildlife conflicts under a payments for ecosystem services program. Ecol. Econ. 2020, 169, 106462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Chase, J.M.; Blowes, S.A.; Knight, T.M.; Gerstner, K.; May, F. Ecosystem decay exacerbates biodiversity loss with habitat loss. Nature 2020, 584, 238–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Nyhus, P.; Tilson, R. Agroforestry, elephants, and tigers: Balancing conservation theory and practice in human-dominated landscapes of Southeast Asia. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2004, 104, 87–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Su, K.W.; Ren, J.; Yang, J.; Hou, Y.L.; Wen, Y.L. Human-elephant conflicts and villagers’ attitudes and knowledge in the Xishuangbanna Nature Reserve, China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 8910. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Li, J.; Xue, Y.D.; Hacker, C.E.; Zhang, Y.; Li, Y.; Cong, W.; Jin, L.X.; Li, G.; Wu, B.; Li, D.Q.; et al. Projected impacts of climate change on snow leopard habitat in Qinghai Province, China. Ecol. Evol. 2021, 11, 17202–17218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Martay, B.; Brewer, M.J.; Elston, D.A.; Bell, J.R.; Harrington, R.; Brereton, T.M.; Barlow, K.E.; Botham, M.S.; Pearce-Higgins, J.W. Impacts of climate change on national biodiversity population trends. Ecography 2017, 40, 1139–1151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Fulgione, D.; Buglione, M. The boar war: Five hot factors unleashing boar expansion and related emergency. Land 2022, 11, 887. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Anand, S.; Radhakrishna, S. Investigating trends in human-wildlife conflict: Is conflict escalation real or imagined? J. Asia Pac. Biodivers. 2017, 10, 154–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Carter, N.H.; Linnell, J.D.C. Co-adaptation is key to coexisting with large carnivores. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2016, 31, 575–578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Caruso, N.; Valenzuela, A.E.J.; Burdett, C.L.; Luengos Vidal, E.M.; Birochio, D.; Casanave, E.B. Summer habitat use and activity patterns of wild boar Sus scrofa in rangelands of central Argentina. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0206513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Matseketsa, G.; Muboko, N.; Gandiwa, E.; Kombora, D.M.; Chibememe, G. An assessment of human-wildlife conflicts in local communities bordering the western Part of Save Valley Conservancy, Zimbabwe. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 2019, 20, e00737. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Liu, Q.; Yan, K.; Lu, Y.F.; Li, M.; Yan, Y.Y. Conflict between wild boars (Sus scrofa) and farmers: Distribution, impacts, and suggestions for management of wild boars in the Three Gorges Reservoir Area. J. Mt. Sci. 2019, 16, 2404–2416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Cui, S.; Liu, B.W. The research on the time continuity and space popularization of the control measures of wild boar. Acta Theriol. Sin. 2020, 4, 364–373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Campbell-Smith, G.; Sembiring, R.; Linkie, M. Evaluating the effectiveness of human–orangutan conflict mitigation strategies in Sumatra. J. Appl. Ecol. 2012, 49, 367–375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Zheng, B.M.; Lin, X.J.; Qi, X.H. Identifying the risk regions of wild boar (Sus scrofa) incidents in China. Animals 2023, 13, 3186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Khattak, R.H.; Teng, L.; Mehmood, T.; Ahmad, S.; Liu, Z. Impacts of the wild boar (Sus scrofa) on the livelihood of rural communities in Pakistan and understanding public attitudes towards wild boars. Animals 2022, 12, 3381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Xu, F.; Cai, T.J.; Ju, C.Y.; Chen, F.Y. Factors Influencing of residents’ tolerance towards wild boar in and near nature reserve: Taking the Heilongjiang Fenghuangshan Nature Reserve as the example. Acta Ecol. Sin. 2013, 33, 5935–5942. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Zhao, Q.; Diao, Y.; Weng, Y.; Huang, Z.; Gu, B.; Wu, Y.; Wang, Y.; Zhao, Q.; Wang, F. Predicting future distributions and dispersal pathways for precautionary management of human-raccoon dog conflicts in metropolitan landscapes. Environ. Res. Lett. 2022, 17, 104036. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Guo, W.; Cao, G.H.; Quan, R.C. Population dynamics and space use of wild boar in a tropical forest, Southwest China. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 2017, 11, 115–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Liu, J.G.; Li, S.X.; Ou Yang, Z.Y.; Tam, C.; Chen, X. Ecological and socioeconomic effects of china’s policies for ecosystem services. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2008, 105, 9477–9482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Giefer, M.; An, L. Synthesizing remote sensing and biophysical measures to evaluate human–wildlife conflicts: The case of wild boar crop raiding in rural China. Remote Sens. 2020, 12, 618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Liu, W.; Song, X.H.; Wang, R.G.; Shuai, L.Y.; Xiao, S.P.; Bu, Y.Z. The impact of wild boars on the temporal resource utilization of silver pheasants in South China. Wildl. Res. 2023, 51, WR23043. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Robeson, M.S.; Khanipov, K.; Golovko, G.; Wisely, S.M.; White, M.D.; Bodenchuck, M.; Smyser, T.J.; Fofanov, Y.; Fierer, N.; Piaggio, A.J. Assessing the utility of metabarcoding for diet analyses of the omnivorous wild pig (Sus scrofa). Ecol. Evol. 2018, 8, 185–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Lombardini, M.; Meriggi, A.; Fozzi, A. Factors influencing wild boar damage to agricultural crops in Sardinia (Italy). Curr. Zool. 2017, 63, 507–514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Oliveira, Ê.S.D.; Rodrigues, M.L.D.F.; Severo, M.M.; Santos, T.G.D.; Kasper, C.B. Who’s afraid of the big bad boar? Assessing the effect of wild boar presence on the occurrence and activity patterns of other mammals. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0235312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. National Forestry and Grassland Administration. The Adjusted List of Terrestrial Wildlife with Important Ecological, Scientific and Social Value. Available online: https://www.forestry.gov.cn/c/www/gkgjlyjgb/509743.jhtml (accessed on 30 June 2023).
  34. Wang, J.; Jiang, H.; Liu, N.; Hu, M.; Wang, C.; Zhong, Y.; Cai, H.; Wu, W. Development strategy for urban agglomerations in Yangtze River Economic Belt considering environmental carrying capacity. Chin. J. Eng. Sci. 2022, 24, 148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Wang, N.; Xu, C.Y.; Kong, F.B. Value realization and optimization path of forest ecological products—Case study from Zhejiang Province, China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 7538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Gao, Y.P. Inquiry into compensation to damage by wild animals in Zhejiang Province. J. Zhejiang Sci. Technol. 2022, 42, 102–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Wang, Y.H.; Yang, A.X.; Yang, Q.Y.; Kong, X.B.; Fan, H. Spatiotemporal characteristics of human-boar conflicts in China and its implications for ecosystem “anti-service”. Acta Geogr. Sin. 2023, 78, 163–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Muga, G.; Hu, S.; Wang, Z.; Tong, L.; Hu, Z.; Huang, H.; Qu, S. The efficiency of urban–rural integration in the Yangtze River Economic Belt and its optimization. Sustainability 2023, 15, 2419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Wu, C.P.; Fan, J.Z.; Xu, Y.H.; Jiang, B.; Jiao, J.J.; Yao, L.J. Adaptability analysis of the evergreen pioneer tree species Schima superba to climate change in Zhejiang Province. Forests 2023, 14, 2438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Ding, B.Y.; Jin, X.F.; Zhang, Y.H.; Li, G.Y.; Chen, Z.H.; Zhang, F.G. Distribution pattern and floristic regionalization of wild seed plants in Zhejiang Province, China. Biodivers. Sci. 2023, 31, 48–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Jiang, Y.; Li, Y. The extraction of forest information and the spatial distribution of its change in Zhejiang Province. Acta Ecol. Sin. 2014, 34, 7261–7270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Wang, Y.; Zhu, Y.M.; Yu, M.J.; Xu, J. Quantitative evaluation and spatial differentiation of eco-environmental livability in Zhejiang Province, China. J. Mt. Sci. 2020, 17, 1491–1508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Minin, E.D.; Slotow, R.; Fink, C.; Bauer, H.; Packer, C. A pan-African spatial assessment of human conflicts with lions and elephants. Nat. Commun. 2021, 12, 2978. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Honda, T. Environmental factors affecting the distribution of the wild boar, sika deer, Asiatic black bear and Japanese macaque in Central Japan, with implications for human-wildlife conflict. Mamm. Study 2009, 34, 107–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Gracanin, A.; Minchinton, T.E.; Mikac, K.M. Estimating the density of small mammals using the selfie trap is an effective camera trapping method. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2022, 67, 467–482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Dénes, F.V.; Silveira, L.F.; Beissinger, S.R. Estimating abundance of unmarked animal populations: Accounting for imperfect detection and other sources of zero inflation. Methods Ecol. Evol. 2015, 6, 543–556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Lazzeri, L.; Fazzi, P.; Lucchesi, M.; Mori, E.; Velli, E.; Cappai, N.; Ciuti, F.; Ferretti, F.; Fonda, F.; Paniccia, C.; et al. The rhythm of the night: Patterns of activity of the European wildcat in the Italian Peninsula. Mamm. Biol. 2022, 102, 1769–1782. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Rivieccio, E.; Troiano, C.; Petrelli, S.; Maselli, V.; De Filippo, G.; Fulgione, D.; Buglione, M. Population development and landscape preference of reintroduced wild ungulates: Successful rewilding in Southern Italy. PeerJ 2022, 10, e14492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Li, Z.Z.; Du, M.T.; Zhu, Y.X.; Wang, D.W.; Li, Z.L.; Wang, T.M. A practical guide for estimating the density of unmarked populations using camera traps. Biodivers. Sci. 2023, 31, 173–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Department of Natural Resources of Zhejiang Province; Zhejiang Provincial Bureau of Statistics. Main Data Bulletin of the Third National Land Survey of Zhejiang Province 2021. Available online: https://zrzyt.zj.gov.cn/art/2021/12/3/art_1289924_58988385.html (accessed on 3 December 2021).
  51. Zhejiang Provincial Bureau of Statistics; Survey Office of the National Bureau of Statistics in Zhejiang. Zhejiang Statistical Yearbook 2022; China Statistics Press: Beijing, China, 2022. Available online: https://tjj.zj.gov.cn/art/2022/10/11/art_1525563_58954684.html (accessed on 11 October 2022).
  52. Iijima, H. A review of wildlife abundance estimation models: Comparison of models for correct application. Mamm. Study 2020, 45, 177–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Michalski, F.; Peres, C.A. Disturbance-mediated mammal persistence and abundance-area relationships in Amazonian forest fragments. Conserv. Biol. 2007, 21, 1626–1640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Rowcliffe, J.M.; Field, J.; Turvey, S.T.; Carbone, C. Estimating animal density using camera traps without the need for individual recognition. J. Appl. Ecol. 2008, 45, 1228–1236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Wang, J.X. Study on Seasonal Home Range and Habitat Selection of Wild Boar in Southern Lesser Khingan Mountains Based on GPS Tracking Technology. Master’s Thesis, Northeast Forestry University, Harbin, China, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  56. Peng, C.C. Preliminary Analysis on Basic Characteristics, Activity Rhythm and Genetic Diversity of Wild Boar Population in Mountainous Environment of Guizhou. Master’s Thesis, Guizhou University, Guiyang, China, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  57. Ridout, M.S.; Linkie, M. Estimating overlap of daily activity patterns from camera trap data. J. Agric. Biol. Environ. Stat. 2008, 14, 322–337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Zanni, M.; Brivio, F.; Grignolio, S.; Apollonio, M. Estimation of spatial and temporal overlap in three ungulate species in a mediterranean environment. Mamm. Res. 2021, 66, 149–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Jin, Y.C.; Kong, W.Y.; Yan, H.; Bao, G.D.; Liu, T.; Ma, Q.F.; Li, X.; Zou, H.F.; Zhang, M.H. Multi-scale spatial prediction of wild boar damage risk in Hunchun: A key tiger range in China. Animals 2021, 11, 1012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Massei, G.; Kindberg, J.; Licoppe, A.; Gačić, D.; Šprem, N.; Kamler, J.; Baubet, E.; Hohmann, U.; Monaco, A.; Ozoliņš, J.; et al. Wild boar populations up, numbers of hunters down? A review of trends and implications for Europe. Pest Manag. Sci. 2015, 71, 492–500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Liu, P.H.; Wang, Z.C.; An, K.; Tan, Y.C.; Ji, W.H.; Su, J.H. Possibility of wild boar harm occurring in five provinces of Northwest China. Animals 2023, 13, 3788. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Ko, C.; Ko, D.W.; Cho, W. Predicting disparity between asf-managed areas and wild boar habitats: A case of South Korea. Animals 2023, 13, 3482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Xie, P.G.; Hu, J.; Li, T.T.; Guo, R.; Xu, L.; Song, X.; Li, J.Q.; Xu, A.C. Distribution and activity patterns of wild boar (Sus scrofa) in the Qingliangfeng National Nature Reserve, Zhejiang Province. Acta Theriol. Sin. 2022, 42, 168–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Chen, X.N.; Tian, J.; Liu, M.Z.; Shen, Y.Y.; Yu, J.; Liu, F.; Shen, X.L.; Li, S. Estimating the population size of wild boar (Sus scrofa) in Kaihua County, Zhejiang Province using camera-trapping data. Acta Theriol. Sin. 2023, 43, 523–532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Bao, Y.X. Survey and Assessment Report on Wild Boar Population in Zhejiang Province; Zhejiang Forestry Bureau: Hangzhou, China, 2016.
  66. Zhu, Q.F.; Jin, X.L. The study on the abundance and distribution of wild boar in Shaanxi Province. In The Compilation of Abstracts from the 8th Western China Zoological Symposium, Proceedings of the 8th Western China Zoological Symposium, Guizhou Normal University, Guiyang, China, 18–21 July 2019; Guizhou Normal University: Guiyang, China, 2019; p. 24. [Google Scholar]
  67. Shi, J.B.; Dunbar, R.I.M.; Buckland, D.; Miller, D. Daytime activity budgets of feral goats (Capra hircus) on the Isle of Rum: Influence of season, age, and sex. Can. J. Zool. 2003, 81, 803–815. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Brivio, F.; Grignolio, S.; Brogi, R.; Benazzi, M.; Bertolucci, C.; Apollonio, M. An analysis of intrinsic and extrinsic factors affecting the activity of a nocturnal species: The wild boar. Mamm. Biol. 2017, 84, 73–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Johann, F.; Handschuh, M.; Linderoth, P.; Heurich, M.; Dormann, C.F.; Arnold, J. Variability of daily space use in wild boar Sus scrofa. Wildl. Biol. 2020, 2020, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Keuling, O.; Stier, N.; Roth, M. How Does Hunting influence activity and spatial usage in wild boar (Sus scrofa) L.? Eur. J. Wildl. Res. 2008, 54, 729–737. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Doormaal, N.V.; Ohashi, H.; Koike, S.; Kaji, K. Influence of human activities on the activity patterns of Japanese sika deer (Cervus nippon) and wild boar (Sus scrofa) in Central Japan. Eur. J. Wildl. Res. 2015, 61, 517–527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Jiang, H.L.; Zhou, S.C.; Zhang, M.H.; Xu, W.P.; Li, W.; Liu, J.Y. Activity rhythm of wild boar and roe deer and its relationship with moonlight cycle in sympatric distribution. Acta Ecol. Sin. 2023, 43, 3128–3136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Wang, X.; Li, F.; Li, C.Q.; Li, T.F.; Yang, L.Y.; Yang, R. Analysis on the activity rhythm and damage of wild boar (Sus scrofa) in Xishui National Nature Reserve. Acta Ecol. Sin. 2022, 43, 323–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Reinke, H.; König, H.J.; Keuling, O.; Kuemmerle, T.; Kiffner, C. Zoning has little impact on the seasonal diel activity and distribution patterns of wild boar (Sus scrofa) in an UNESCO Biosphere Reserve. Ecol. Evol. 2021, 11, 17091–17105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Keuling, O.; Stier, N.; Roth, M. Annual and seasonal space use of different age classes of female wild boar (Sus scrofa) L. Eur. J. Wildl. Res. 2008, 54, 403–412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Mckillop, I.G.; Sibly, R.M. Animal Behaviour at Electric Fences and the Implications for Management. Mamm. Rev. 1988, 18, 91–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Sapkota, S.; Aryal, A.; Baral, S.R.; Hayward, M.W.; Raubenheimer, D. Economic analysis of electric fencing for mitigating human-wildlife conflict in Nepal. J. Resour. Ecol. 2014, 5, 237–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Croft, S.; Franzetti, B.; Gill, R.; Massei, G. Too many wild boar? Modelling fertility control and culling to reduce wild boar numbers in isolated populations. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0238429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Li, B.; Zhang, W.; Shu, X.X.; Pei, E.; Yuan, X.; Wang, T.H.; Wang, Z.H. Influence of breeding habitat characteristics and landscape heterogeneity on anuran species richness and abundance in urban parks of Shanghai, China. Urban For. Urban Green 2018, 32, 56–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Haley, A.L.; Lemieux, T.A.; Piczak, M.L.; Karau, S.; D’Addario, A.; Irvine, R.L.; Beaudoin, C.; Bennett, J.R.; Cooke, S.J. On the effectiveness of public awareness campaigns for the management of Invasive species. Environ. Conserv. 2023, 50, 202–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Animals 14 01639 g001
Figure 1. Locations of camera trap stations and sampling areas in Zhejiang Province (due to the map resolution, the points in Figure 1 are fragmented or scattered).
Figure 1. Locations of camera trap stations and sampling areas in Zhejiang Province (due to the map resolution, the points in Figure 1 are fragmented or scattered).
Animals 14 01639 g001
Animals 14 01639 g002
Figure 2. Distribution of wild boar damage in Zhejiang Province.
Figure 2. Distribution of wild boar damage in Zhejiang Province.
Animals 14 01639 g002
Animals 14 01639 g003
Figure 3. Abundance of wild boar in Zhejiang Province.
Figure 3. Abundance of wild boar in Zhejiang Province.
Animals 14 01639 g003
Animals 14 01639 g004
Figure 4. (a) Overlap of daily activity rhythms of wild boar in severely damaged (Linan District) and generally damaged (Anji County) regions. (b) Overlap of daily activity rhythms of wild boar in severely damaged (Suichang County) and generally damaged (Wucheng District) regions. (c) Daily activity rhythms of wild boar in Zhejiang Province.
Figure 4. (a) Overlap of daily activity rhythms of wild boar in severely damaged (Linan District) and generally damaged (Anji County) regions. (b) Overlap of daily activity rhythms of wild boar in severely damaged (Suichang County) and generally damaged (Wucheng District) regions. (c) Daily activity rhythms of wild boar in Zhejiang Province.
Animals 14 01639 g004
Animals 14 01639 g005
Figure 5. Framework of human–wildlife conflict mitigation. Precautionary management could be conducted based on this framework to determine where and how wild boar’s damage and population are distributed to mitigate conflicts at a district and county level.
Figure 5. Framework of human–wildlife conflict mitigation. Precautionary management could be conducted based on this framework to determine where and how wild boar’s damage and population are distributed to mitigate conflicts at a district and county level.
Animals 14 01639 g005
Table 1. The damage research content regarding wild boar in Zhejiang Province.
Table 1. The damage research content regarding wild boar in Zhejiang Province.
CategoryContentDescription
Physical injuries to local residentsNumber of injuries to residentsNumber of injuries and casualties caused by wild boar to humans (times)
Damage to cropsAmount of damage to cropsAmount of damage to local crops caused by wild boar (times)
Area of damage to cropsArea of wild boar damage to local crops (m2)
Amount of economic losses caused by wild boar to residentsAmount of money lost by residents after wild boar caused damage to local crops (CNY), which is related to the type and degree of damaged crops
Table 2. Assignment of wild boar damage surveyed across 90 districts/counties in Zhejiang.
Table 2. Assignment of wild boar damage surveyed across 90 districts/counties in Zhejiang.
Investigation ContentAssignment
Number of injuries to residentsThe number of injuries to residents per county: 0 time = 0, 1~2 times = 1, 3~4 times = 2, 5~6 times = 3, 7~8 times = 4, 9~10 times = 5, 11~12 times = 6, more than 13 times = 7
Amount of damage to cropsThe amount of damage: 0 time = 0, 1~100 times = 1, 101~200 times = 2, 201~300 times = 3, 301~400 times = 4, 401~500 times = 5, 501~600 times = 6, more than 601 times = 7
Area of damage to cropsThe area of damage: 0 Mu = 0, 1~200 Mu = 1, 201~400 Mu = 2, 401~600 Mu = 3, 601~800 Mu = 4, 801~1000 Mu = 5, 1001~1200 Mu = 6, more than 1201 Mu = 7
Amount of economic losses caused by wild boar to residentsThe amount of economic losses: 0 million yuan = 0, 1~50 million yuan = 1, 51~100 million yuan = 2, 101~150 million yuan = 3, 151~200 million yuan = 4, 201~250 million yuan = 5, 251~300 million yuan = 6, more than 301 million yuan = 7
Note: 1 Mu ≈ 666.67 m2 in China.
Table 3. Density of wild boar in each surveyed district and county.
Table 3. Density of wild boar in each surveyed district and county.
CityDistrict/CountyPopulation Density of Wild Boar (Individuals/km2)
HangzhouLinan3.01 ± 0.57
Jiande1.25 ± 0.15
Tonglu0.32 ± 0.10
WenzhouTaishun0.50 ± 0.11
HuzhouAnji1.89 ± 0.41
ShaoxingShengzhou0.68 ± 0.13
JinhuaWucheng2.78 ± 0.34
TaizhouXianju2.91 ± 0.58
LishuiQingtian1.82 ± 0.54
Suichang1.47 ± 0.17
QuzhouKaihua2.02 ± 0.73
Average density 1.77 ± 0.37
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

Liu, J.; Zhao, S.; Tan, L.; Wang, J.; Song, X.; Zhang, S.; Chen, F.; Xu, A. Human–Wildlife Conflict Mitigation Based on Damage, Distribution, and Activity: A Case Study of Wild Boar in Zhejiang, Eastern China. Animals 2024, 14, 1639. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani14111639

AMA Style

Liu J, Zhao S, Tan L, Wang J, Song X, Zhang S, Chen F, Xu A. Human–Wildlife Conflict Mitigation Based on Damage, Distribution, and Activity: A Case Study of Wild Boar in Zhejiang, Eastern China. Animals. 2024; 14(11):1639. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani14111639

Chicago/Turabian Style

Liu, Junchen, Shanshan Zhao, Liping Tan, Jianwu Wang, Xiao Song, Shusheng Zhang, Feng Chen, and Aichun Xu. 2024. "Human–Wildlife Conflict Mitigation Based on Damage, Distribution, and Activity: A Case Study of Wild Boar in Zhejiang, Eastern China" Animals 14, no. 11: 1639. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani14111639

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