Comprehensive Economic Impacts of Wild Pigs on Producers of Six Crops in the South-Eastern US and California

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper addresses the global issue of wild boar damage, particularly in the South-Eastern U.S. and California. It highlights the critical problems caused by wild boars, such as crop damage and significant economic costs. The findings of this study offer valuable insights for controlling wild boar damage. For instance, statewide population estimates for wild pigs in most surveyed states either increased or remained relatively stable. Trapping and hunting/shooting were the most commonly used control measures, with hunting with dogs being the most effective method for reducing wild pig populations. Additionally, electric fencing proved to be the most effective exclusion method. Overall, the paper presents impressive evidence and makes an original contribution. However, minor revisions are needed before it can be accepted for publication. These revisions include:

1. Presenting habitat attributes of wild boars to help readers better understand the damage issues addressed in the paper.

2. The authors have developed a basic theoretical framework, but it needs to be presented more clearly and concisely.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript faces a relevant worldwide issue as wild boar damages to agriculture. Wild boar damages are huge and represent a serious problem for agriculture in the USA. Even if the subject is important and the amount of information huge, it is not suitable for publication in its present format as it lacks a number of critical aspects. It is a local study that does not consider the worldwide scientific and technical knowledge on this subject. This is reflected by the absence of a proper literature review, which limits the interpretation, conclusions and recommendations. I make a number of recommendations to improve the manuscript to make if more suitable for a scientific international journal.

Abstract

Line 9. There have been other surveys of this kind worldwide. This statement has to refer to the study area in this first sentence.

L12. Do not put brackets or underline Latin name of species. Follow the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. Latin words should be in italics.

L17. The estimated amount is not a relevant result per se and should be related to other variables. It is difficult to understand if damages are important or not only considering money alone.

L20. The way the abstract is written looks more like a technical report, rather than a scientific article.

L21. Do not repeat words of the title in the abstract

Introduction

L24. The most accepted common word in English for the wild form of Sus scrofa is wild boar. The rest of terms are used in English speaking countries were the species is introduced and where there are different populations of wild boar, feral pigs and the cross of both varieties, both wild and domestic. A mention on these varieties is needed. Also the history of the presence and spread of wild boar in the study areas. This enables to understand many aspects of damage, as intensity, avoidance, local laws, hunt, culling. All this has to be mentioned in the introduction for an international public. Why did you choose these states for your survey? Which is the current distribution of the species in USA? This helps in the interpretation of results. When considering it an invasive species, first of all it must be mentioned (not in line 26) that it is such in America and many other areas of the world, out if its natural range.

L26. A worldwide view of wild boar is needed, not only the one in USA. Where it is native, were introduced, and the problems posed derived from their damages.

L32. There are many other kind of damages done by wild boar, as for instance damaging irrigation facilities.

L33. There are numerous studies with economic estimations of wild boar damages that should be quoted. It looks like the literature review has only been done in the case of USA wild boar damages, some in Australia, but not worldwide.

L77. What does Tier 1 mean? Why do you decide to use this term to refer to the damaged species?

L79. The introduction lacks a proper scientific literature review which enables to understand the work which is going to be developed. It only refers to very few technical and scientific literature. An international scientific review is needed.

Materials and methods

L108. Only the opinion of the farmers was considered. Independent evaluators did not check the damages, their extension, the species that produced it or estimated the economic impact. Did farmers use some kind of tool or method to avoid damages? Please explain.

Results

L149. Figure 1 should show the situation of study areas (states) at least in North America.

L225. An explanation on the characteristics of damages is needed. As an example for corn: when, on what stage of the agricultural cycle (plantation, seeding, mature), other damages (damage to irrigation system because of bathing), etc.

L286. The amount of loses depends on the number of farmers surveyed? In that case damages per state are not comparable as samples differ in size.

L293. Improve quality of Table 4 (it’s a copy past).

L302. Foot note should appear after the text mentions it, not before.

L306. Table 5. The explanation of Table 5 must go in its title, not in the text, table must be self-explanatory.  Standard Error should be stated in the lable, not below the table.

L308-310. Tables and figures should be self-explanatory; the sentence should go on the table’s label.

L312-320. These differences in culling should be interpreted afterwards.

L321. What does share of producers mean? What do they share?

L331. A line should appear on top of the last line of Table 6.

L337-338. No demonstration on population size has appeared in the results section. This estimation is not even part of the objectives of the manuscript. Results of Table 7 obliges to modify the whole objective of the manuscript, its methodology and results. We are in the Discussion section now. There is no information until now regarding the population size estimation, and probably it is not needed for the purpose of the paper.

L345. Results should not be given in the Discussion, only in the Results section.

L347-349. This is the Discussion section, where Results are interpreted. Results should not appear in this section, as “high percentages of produces reporting…”. This is a result, not an interpretation.

L351. I suppose that quoting authors directly in the text implies giving the number of its quotation in the references list (Salassi).

L355-356. This is a result, not an interpretation. It should go to the Introduction, explaining the different approaches of each state.

L359-360. Reduction. No results on wild boar reduction until now.

L359-360. This interesting comment does not come from the Results section, which has to be interpreted in the Discussion section.

L361. Table 6 main findings have to be used to interpret the results. They appear in the Discussion section; it is not adequate.

L365-374. There is a huge amount of scientific information on wild boar damages to crops which is not used in the manuscript.

L375-382. Avoid giving results in the Discussion section, interpret results in the frame of what is known on the subject worldwide.

L389. Conservative. Interesting statement which is normally not considered when analysing damages.

L390. Property. Results have to be interpreted in this section

L391-400. Property. These statements are adequate in the Introduction section.

L404. I suppose quotations (Tanger) must have a number in brackets to refer to the references list. Throughout the manuscript.

L413. Control. It is important to differentiate hunting, which is a sports activity, and culling, aiming to reduce damages and consequently population of wild boar.

L421. Did Tian et al. analyse the role of culling, results, efforts?

L424-429. Respondents. Interpret the result. The effectiveness, in terms of applied efforts and obtained results, deserves some clarification. Is it an opinion or a sound scientific result? I attach a paper on this subject.

L505 onwards Appendix A. Most of the information requested in the inquiry is not used in the manuscript. Results reflect the most relevant data coming from the inquiry, it is enough and this Figure 1 (appendix in fact) can be deleted. It is not needed to understand the manuscript.

L508. know, not Know.

L520. Is all the information requested in Figure A2 used in the manuscript? Consider including it only if necessary.

L533. Figure A3. Ídem Figure A2.

L547. In the table: know, not Know.

L636. A cell is shaded in grey.

L659. It looks like most of the information coming from the inquiry is not reflected in the Results section. Results in Table B7 seem to come from the total amount of hours spent replanting. This would mean that all the farmers were interviewed, which is impossible. How do you know the amount of hours spent?

L659. The labels of Tables B6 and B7 are the same (Additional expenses spent replanting because of wild pigs in 2021, by state), but the results are different.

L680. Additional hours. It is not clear how do you know the amount of extra hours. Idem Table B10 and so on. How was the information obtained? Is it an extrapolation? In that case explain how was it obtained.

L710, 722. Improve the quality of the table.

L736. References. Only from USA (22), one from Australia. Almost no literature from abroad. There is no worldwide view of wild boar control research. No proper literature review.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments are in attachment

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Comments are in the  attachment

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The entire approach of writing the abstract is still something I'm not satisfied with. Most importantly, I fail to understand the necessity of this sentence at the end. The total yearly cost to producers in seven states in 2021 from a variety of wild pig diseases was $678.8 million, according to a conservative estimate.

Abstract is better but it is not perfect

Overall proof reading is required

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The entire approach of writing the abstract is still something I'm not satisfied with. Most importantly, I fail to understand the necessity of this sentence at the end. The total yearly cost to producers in seven states in 2021 from a variety of wild pig diseases was $678.8 million, according to a conservative estimate.

Overall proof reading is required, Abstract is better but it is not perfect

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf