Abstract
An individual’s spatial behavior is shaped by social and environmental factors and provides critical information about population processes to inform conservation and management actions. Heterogeneity in spatial overlap among conspecifics can be evaluated using estimates of home ranges and core areas and used to understand factors influencing space use and territoriality. To understand and test predictions about spatial behavior in an invasive large mammal, the wild pig (Sus scrofa), we examined variation in space use between sexes and seasons. We predicted that if animals were territorial that there would be a reduction in space-use overlap when comparing overlap of home ranges (HR–HR), to home ranges and core areas (HR–CA), and in-turn between core areas (CA–CA). Home ranges and core areas were estimated for 54 wild pigs at Buck Island Ranch, FL from GPS telemetry data. Overlap indices were calculated to estimate the strength (space-use overlap) and number of potential interactions within three wet seasons (June–October) and two dry seasons (December–April). Among sexes, home range size did not vary seasonally, and males exhibited larger home ranges compared to females (M = 10.36 ± 0.79 km2 (± SE), F = 3.21 ± 0.16 km2). Strength of overlap varied by season with wild pig home ranges overlapping more during the dry season. Males interacted with a greater number of individuals of both sexes, compared to females, and exhibited greater strength of overlap during the dry season. Consistent with our predictions, wild pigs appeared to exhibit territorial behavior, where strength of overlap decreased when comparing HR–HR to HR–CA and HR–CA to CA–CA. Our framework can be used to understand patterns of space use and territoriality in populations, which has important implications in understanding intraspecific interactions and population processes, such as how pathogens and parasites might spread within and among populations.
Similar content being viewed by others
Introduction
Variation in spatial interactions among animals can identify the selective pressures that shape spatial behavior. The relationship between the spatial organization of a species and dynamic interactions among individuals is expected to vary based on both behavioral and environmental factors. Differences between males and females in spatial behavior are related to differing reproductive strategies and spatial requirements allometrically scaling with body size1,2,3, which can influence home range size4 and habitat use5. Seasonal changes in behavioral and environmental influences can also modify spatial behavior and influence overlap and association of conspecifics4,6,7,8. Spatial overlap of individuals influences intraspecific interactions, which can drive population processes, such as disease transmission9, survival10,11, competition12, and reproduction13. Despite the growing evidence that spatial relationships affect a diverse range of socio-ecological processes14, variation in spatial overlap patterns between sexes and seasons is poorly understood for many species and is dependent on the individual’s spatial organization. Identifying factors that influence heterogeneity in spatial overlap can improve management and conservation decisions by understanding important time periods for disease transmission15, intraspecific competition12, and management actions16.
Spatial behavior through time can be characterized by an individual’s home range and territory. Home ranges are selected by animals to maximize their survival and reproduction, with territories traditionally defined as a reduced portion of the home range that is actively defended or exclusively used17,18,19,20. Territorial behavior can increase an individual’s fitness by excluding conspecifics from areas containing limiting resources, including food, cover, and mates. There is considerable variation, however, in how territories are defined and interpreted19,20 and they are often approximated by estimating core areas (i.e., areas of high probability of use within an animal’s home range21,22,23. Although the identification of core areas can be subjective, territoriality can be identified by examining overlap between adjacent individual’s home range and core areas24,25,26. Non-territorial species are expected to overlap with conspecifics at random which would result in overlap with a similar number of individuals in home ranges and core areas (Fig. 1). Conversely, territorial behavior creates spatial heterogeneity in the number and strength of conspecific interactions, leading to reduced overlap of core areas compared to home ranges (Fig. 1). In the paradigm proposed by Burt17 and Schoener18, territorial species overlap in their home ranges but have exclusive core areas and thus home ranges do not overlap core areas between neighboring individuals (Figs. 1, 2). Other studies have defined territoriality as occurring when core areas are mutually exclusive between animals, but home ranges overlap with core areas of adjacent individuals23,24,26,27,28 (Figs. 1, 2). It is predicted that if animals are territorial that there will be a reduction in spatial overlap when comparing overlap of home ranges (HR–HR), home ranges and core areas (HR–CA), and core areas (CA–CA) (Fig. 1). If animals are not territorial and spatial overlap among individuals is random, then it would be predicted that overlap would be similar when comparing HR–HR, HR–CA, and CA–CA (Fig. 1). Spatial overlap patterns could be used to quantify territoriality in many species and across a range of different social structures, but this approach could be particularly useful for species that exhibit heterogeneity in space use yet lack conspicuous territorial behaviors or exclusive core areas.
Wild pigs, Sus scrofa, are a large-bodied, gregarious species with an expansive native and invasive range, ecological role as an ecosystem engineer, and complex socio-spatial behavior29,30,31,32. Seasonal wild pig home ranges can vary inversely with forage availability and other landscape features33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40, which could influence spatial overlap41,42 and territorial patterns12,42,43. Although territorial patterns have been predicted for wild pigs44, previous studies have provided conflicting evidence. Female groups are argued to be territorial with other female groups where groups overlap in their home ranges, but exhibit mutually exclusive core areas27,45,46. This pattern, however, is not detected in other systems35,47,48 and the role of territoriality in wild pig social structure is unclear. Males are reported to be less territorial than females (but see Ref.35), with males exhibiting larger home ranges that overlap with both sexes49. How home range size, spatial overlap, and territoriality vary across seasons has not been widely evaluated for wild pigs and it is unclear how different behavioral and environmental factors influence space-use overlap.
Here we examined variation in the spatial behavior of wild pigs and used this information to understand patterns of territoriality. Our first objective was to examine variation in home range size and spatial overlap between sexes and seasons. We expected that males would (1) exhibit larger home ranges, (2) exhibit increased space-use overlap compared to females49,50 and (3) interact with a greater number of conspecifics within their home ranges. Our second objective was to evaluate how home range size and space-use overlap varied seasonally. Assuming forage availability to be lower during the dry season than the wet season51,52, we predicted that home range size and space-use overlap would be greater during dry seasons because animals would use larger areas to acquire sufficient resources38. Conversely, if resources are more concentrated and limiting during the dry season, then wild pigs might exhibit less space-use overlap during this season. Our third objective was to use measures of spatial overlap to evaluate territoriality of home ranges and core areas and how overlap varied by sex and season. If wild pigs exhibited territoriality, we expected that spatial overlap among individuals would be greatest for home range to home range (HR–HR) interactions, reduced for home range to core area (HR–CA) interactions, and lowest for core area to core area (CA–CA) interactions (Fig. 1). We predicted that males and females would differ in their spatial overlap, with females exhibiting more exclusive core areas. Territoriality was expected to be strongest during the dry season as resources are assumed to be more limiting.
Results
Spatial data from 54 individuals was used to create 80 seasonal wild pig home ranges across multiple years, with the number of monitored individuals and sex ratio varying by season and sampling period (Tables 1 and 2). Following predictions in objectives one and two, males and females differed in home range size with females having smaller home ranges than males in wet and dry seasons (Table 1). The highest ranked model for estimating home range size included sex and it accounted for 95% of model weight with no other models within Δ2 AIC (Supplementary Table S1a). For space-use overlap of home ranges, the highest ranked model included the covariates season and sex, with the top two models accounting for 77% of model weight (Supplementary Table S1b). Space-use overlap (Ave. ± SE) was greater during the dry season compared to the wet season (Fig. 3a.) and lowest for interactions among females (Dry = 0.010 ± 0.033, Wet = 0.098 ± 0.025), intermediate for interactions among males (Dry = 0.230 ± 0.041, Wet = 0.174 ± 0.052), and greatest for female-male interactions (Dry = 0.264 ± 0.065, Wet = 0.190 ± 0.048; Supplementary Fig. S1). For degree, the highest ranked model included sex (Supplementary Table S1c), and males overlapped with more individuals in both seasons, compared to females (Table 2, Fig. 3b). Season was also included in a competitive model with greater overlap during the dry season (Supplementary Table S1c). For analyses of both home range size and space-use overlap, including year as a random effect did not improve model fit and it was excluded from all models with fixed effects (Supplementary Table S1).
Wild pigs exhibited territorial behavior, which was consistent with our predictions for objective three (Figs. 1 and 3a). The highest ranked models for space-use overlap of HRHR–HRCA interactions included the variables level (HR–HR, HR–CA), season (Wet or Dry), the interaction between level and season, and sex. The top models accounted for 99% of the model weight (Table 3a). The highest ranked models for HRCA–CACA interactions included the variables level (HR–CA or CA–CA interactions), season (Wet or Dry), and the interaction between level and season. Sex was not included as a covariate in models within Δ2 AIC (Table 3b). Space-use overlap (Ave. ± SE) was greatest for HR–HR interactions (0.207 ± 0.035), intermediate for HR–CA interactions (0.098 ± 0.018) and lowest for CA–CA interactions (0.036 ± 0.008), and overlap was greater in the dry than wet season across home range levels (Fig. 3a). Space-use overlap was lowest for interactions among females, intermediate for male–male interactions, and greatest for female–male interactions. For both HRHR–HRCA and HRCA–CACA analyses of space-use overlap, including year as a random effect did not improve model fit and it was excluded from all models with fixed effects (Table 3a,b).
Further, the metric “degree”, also indicated that wild pigs exhibited territorial behavior. Models that included level, sex of the individual, season, and the interaction of sex and level were the most supported (Table 3c,d). Degree was greatest for HR–HR interactions (5.77 ± 0.24), intermediate for HR–CA interactions (4.89 ± 0.22) and lowest for CA–CA interactions (3.49 ± 0.18; Table 3c,d, Fig. 3b and Supplementary Fig. S2). Males consistently overlapped with a greater number of individuals than females (Table 2, Fig. 3b. and Supplementary Fig. S2). Wild pigs overlapped more conspecifics during the dry than wet season in both analyses and season was included in models within Δ2 AIC (Table 3c,d). The highest ranked models for HRHR–CACA and HRCA–CACA analyses accounted for 84% and 96% of model weight respectively.
Discussion
Heterogeneity in wild pig spatial behavior identified several factors that shape overlap of individuals and territorial patterns. Consistent with our predictions and previous research, males exhibited greater home range size and interacted with more conspecifics than females likely due to allometric requirements or to maximize reproductive potential1,2,3. Differences in the number of indirect interactions between males and females are likely due to differences in home range size, as individuals with larger home ranges are more likely to overlap with a greater number of neighboring animals53,54. This could influence important ecological processes, such as genetic structuring of populations and transmission of pathogens55,56. The role of sex in structuring spatial overlap was more nuanced when evaluating the strength of home range overlap. Space-use overlap of female home ranges was consistently lower than female-male and male-male overlap. It was common for male home ranges to completely overlap one or more female home ranges and males overlapped extensively. Female’s expression of territoriality was more robust than males, and the overlap patterns presented here support the hypothesis that females exhibit greater territoriality with neighboring females compared to associated males or between males50,57.
The influence of seasonality on wild pig spatial patterns varied depending on how space use was evaluated. Home range size did not vary seasonally in this system. Landscape structure33,39,58 and the presence of agriculture59 can influence seasonal space use by wild pigs but these factors were not present in this study, potentially limiting seasonal effects. High population density can also influence spatial patterns and potentially limit seasonal variation in home range size60, although changes in density have not elicited expansion or shifting of wild pig home ranges in other systems61. Although home range size did not vary seasonally, our results suggest that the strength and number interactions were greater during dry seasons. Wild pigs often forage on grasses and below the soil surface by rooting during the dry season, and utilization of these abundant but lower quality resources can mitigate the reductions in productivity51. Changes in foraging strategy may result in shifts in space-use within the home range40 and a reduction in territoriality41,62. Although environmental and social factors likely influenced how seasonal effects were expressed in spatial overlap, territorial patterns were consistently detected from the spatial behavior of wild pigs.
Territoriality exists on a continuum and is influenced by the species’ social structure and ecological conditions17,19,20. In our system, core areas were not exclusive, where home ranges of neighboring wild pigs overlapped conspecific core-areas, indicating wild pigs do not conform to some traditional definitions of territoriality17,18. Similar to recent work on wild pig territoriality43, core areas of neighboring individuals also overlapped based on the 80% cumulative probability isopleth selected for this study. We selected this cumulative probability isopleth to retain a similar proportion of the home range within the core area across individuals. It is challenging to monitor all neighboring social groups and the unknown influence of unmonitored conspecifics, as well as variation in the spatial distribution of monitored individuals, led us to evaluate overlap at predetermined isopleths. Where all neighboring groups are monitored, analysis of overlap at varying isopleth levels could identify a threshold where core area exclusivity is consistently expressed. Exclusive use of areas is likely maintained by indirect communication27,63,64 and limited direct interactions43,50,57,65. Interactions within shared space may also be limited due to temporal partitioning via avoidance, site specific dominance, or priority of access to resources19. Evaluating how wild pigs interact in both time and space, particularly under contrasting resource availability could identify how spatial behavior varies with ecological conditions.
The conceptual framework that we presented (Fig. 1) suggests that spatial overlap patterns can be used to evaluate territoriality in species without overt territorial behavior and non-exclusive core areas. However, there are several considerations about our study that suggest further work is needed to understand the role of territoriality in wild pig social structure. The presence of territoriality within wild pig populations suggests that the sharing of core areas between neighbors is limited and they may contain important and/or limiting resources62. Comparing habitat characteristics in core areas and shared home range space could identify limiting resources and improve our understanding of how resources shape territorial patterns in wild pigs19,43. Further, spatial interactions and territorial patterns could be evaluated in relation to important resources, such as mast producing trees, supplemental feeders, or at water locations where sharing of space likely occurs. Evaluation of how shared space is segregated temporally would identify the mechanisms maintaining territorial patterns of space use and inform transmission of pathogens50,66 affecting both livestock and humans67,68. Ultimately, better understanding patterns of territoriality and space use between animals can inform management and conservation plans aimed at understanding social interactions, disease dynamics, and movement patterns of animals43.
Study areas
Our work was conducted at Archbold’s—Buck Island Ranch (27° 10′ N, 81° 2 l′ W, elevation 6–12 m), located in a biologically diverse area of central Florida69. The study area (4250 hectare) contains over 600 ephemeral wetlands and an extensive network of drainage ditches. Common tree species on the ranch include live oak (Quercus virginiana) and cabbage palm (Sabal palmetto) which are interspersed within extensive areas of bahiagrass (Paspalum notatum) and native C4 grasses. Average temperatures range from 26 °C in July to 13 °C in January70. Rainfall averages 1365 mm per year with more than 60% of precipitation occurring between June and September. There are two biologically distinct seasons based on temperature and rainfall, a dry (December–April) and wet (June–October) season.
Methods
Animal capture
Wild pigs were captured between May 2015 and May 2017 using open-topped box traps (2.5 m deep × 1.25 m wide × 1.5 m high) and corral traps (5 m diameter), both with drop doors. Traps were pre- baited for 10–14 days with soured corn. After capture, adult wild pigs were immobilized using Telazol 50 mg/ml (Zoetis. Parsippany, New Jersey, USA) and Xylazine 100 mg/ml (Akorn Inc. Lake Forest, Illinois, USA ) mixed following the recommendations of established dosages (Telazol, 4.40 mg/kg; Xylazine, 2.5 mg/kg)71,72,73. During anesthesia wild pigs were measured, sexed, physiological samples taken for other studies and fitted with one of three global positioning system (GPS) collars (3300L Lotek Wireless Inc., Newmarket, Ontario, Canada; CatLog Gen 2 GPS, Perthold Engineering LLC, Dallas, Texas, USA 75243; or igot-U, Mobile Action Technology, Inc., Taiwan) that were programmed to record a location every 30 min. Wild pig capture and handling procedures were administered under approved University of Florida Animal Care and Use Committee protocols (#201408495 and #201808495) and all methods were performed in accordance with the relevant guidelines and regulations. The study complies with ARRIVE guidelines.
Space use and animal interactions
We estimated home ranges and core areas using the Brownian bridge movement model74 (BBMM) in the package “mkde”75 in program R76. Home ranges were estimated using a 99.999% cumulative probability and core areas were estimated using an 80% cumulative probability. An 80% cumulative probability was selected so that approximately 25% of the home range was conserved in the core area (following Sawyer and Kauffman77; Fig. 2). A minimum of six weeks of GPS data were required for an individual to be included in analyses and if more than one adult female was collared within the same social group, the individual with the greater number of locations was included in analyses. Spatial data were available for 3 wet and 2 dry seasons (Wet 2015, Dry 2016, Wet 2016, Dry 2017, Wet 2017), which we refer to as sampling periods to avoid confusion when wet and dry seasons are combined in analyses.
Overlap in space use was used to evaluate indirect interactions among individuals, which can be highly correlated with direct interactions (physical contact between individuals) and represents the potential for animals to interact78,79. Spatial overlap is a useful metric to evaluate potential interactions when GPS data is available at different time periods among animals and when it is unclear what distance between concurrent GPS locations should be used to define an interaction54,78,79,80. We estimated two overlap metrics that measure the strength (space-use overlap) and number (degree) of potential interactions. Space-use overlap among animals was estimated using the utilization distribution overlap index81 (UDOI), which is a normalized index ranging from 0, when there is no overlap, to > 1 if non-uniform utilization distributions exhibit a high degree of overlap. Degree measured the number of potential interactions by summing the number of animals an individual spatially overlapped with82,83.
For objectives one and two, we quantified the effects of sex and season on wild pig home range size and spatial overlap using generalized linear mixed-effect models regression models84 and AIC model selection85. We analyzed home range size using a Gamma distribution because home range size was non-normal and right skewed. We accounted for yearly variation and repeated observations of individuals by including year and individual as random effects (Year and ID, Supplementary Table S1a). We analyzed space-use overlap (UDOI) of home ranges for each interacting dyad (pair of individuals), using a log normal distribution. In models, random effects included the dyadic interaction and the year (Dyad and Year, Supplementary Table S1b). Finally, we evaluated degree using a negative binomial distribution because counts were over dispersed. We accounted for repeated measures by specifying individuals as a random effect (ID, Supplementary Table S1c). Because the number of monitored wild pigs varied among sampling periods (Table 2), we also controlled for differences in the maximum number of potential interactions by including sampling period (e.g. Wet 2015) as a random effect (SP, Supplementary Table S1c). For all analyses, fixed effects included sex of the individual or sexes within the dyad [female–female (F–F), female–male (F–M), or male–male (M–M)], season (Wet or Dry), and the interaction of sex and season (Supplementary Table S1). We generated 8 a priori models including an intercept only null model and combinations of random and fixed effects (Supplementary Table S1).
To evaluate patterns of territoriality, we evaluated what factors were important predictors of overlap by comparing home range to home range interactions (HR–HR) with home range to core area interactions (HR–CA), as well as HR–CA interactions with core area to core area (CA–CA) interactions. For each interacting dyad per sampling period, we estimated UDOI values from each interaction level (HR–HR, HR–CA, and CA–CA). Variation in UDOI was evaluated using a log normal distribution. In models, random effects included the dyadic interaction and the year. Fixed effects included the space use level, sexes within the dyad, season, and all two-way and three-way interaction terms (Table 3a,b). We also calculated degree per individual for each space use level and evaluated degree with a negative binomial distribution because counts were overdispersed. Random effects included individual animal and the sampling period. Fixed effects included space use level, sex, season, and all two-way and three-way interaction terms (Table 3c,d). For both UDOI and degree, 15 a priori models were identified that included an intercept-only model (i.e., model without any covariates) and all combinations of level, sex, season, and interaction terms (Table 3). We ranked models using Akaike Information Criterion86 and validated each model by graphically examining the residuals and inspecting the QQ-plot. All analyses were conducted in R version 3.5.276 using package “lme4”84.
References
Schoener, T. W. & Schoener, A. Intraspecific variation in home-range size in some Anolis lizards. Ecology 63, 809–823 (1982).
Grigione, M. M. et al. Ecological and allometric determinants of home-range size for mountain lions (Puma concolor). Anim. Conserv. 5(4), 317–324 (2002).
Wolf, J. B., Mawdsley, D., Trillmich, F. & James, R. Social structure in a colonial mammal: Unravelling hidden structural layers and their foundations by network analysis. Anim. Behav. 74, 1293–1302 (2007).
Gehrt, S. D. & Frttzell, E. K. Sexual differences in home ranges of raccoons. J. Mammal. 78, 921–931 (1997).
Clutton-Brock, T. H., Iason, G. R. & Guinness, F. E. Sexual segregation and density-related changes in habitat use in male and female Red deer (Cervus elaphus). J. Zool. 211(2), 275–289 (1987).
Ji, W., White, P. C. & Clout, M. N. Contact rates between possums revealed by proximity data loggers. J. Appl. Ecol. 42(3), 595–604 (2005).
Böhm, M., Palphramand, K. L., Newton-Cross, G., Hutchings, M. R. & White, P. C. Dynamic interactions among badgers: Implications for sociality and disease transmission. J. Anim. Ecol. 77, 735–745 (2008).
Hamede, R. K., Bashford, J., McCallum, H. & Jones, M. Contact networks in a wild Tasmanian devil (Sarcophilus harrisii) population: Using social network analysis to reveal seasonal variability in social behaviour and its implications for transmission of devil facial tumour disease. Ecol. Lett. 12, 1147–1157 (2009).
Ostfeld, R. S., Glass, G. E. & Keesing, F. Spatial epidemiology: An emerging (or re-emerging) discipline. Trends Ecol. Evol. 20, 328–336 (2005).
Mitani, J. C., Watts, D. P. & Amsler, S. J. Lethal intergroup aggression leads to territorial expansion in wild chimpanzees. Curr. Biol. 20, R507–R508 (2010).
Cubaynes, S. et al. Density-dependent intraspecific aggression regulates survival in northern Yellowstone wolves (Canis lupus). J. Anim. Ecol. 83, 1344–1356 (2014).
Wittemyer, G., Getz, W. M., Vollrath, F. & Douglas-Hamilton, I. Social dominance, seasonal movements, and spatial segregation in African elephants: A contribution to conservation behavior. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 61, 1919–1931 (2007).
McGuire, J. M., Scribner, K. T. & Congdon, J. D. Spatial aspects of movements, mating patterns, and nest distributions influence gene flow among population subunits of Blanding’s turtles (Emydoidea blandingii). Conserv. Genet. 14, 1029–1042 (2013).
Kurvers, R. H., Krause, J., Croft, D. P., Wilson, A. D. & Wolf, M. The evolutionary and ecological consequences of animal social networks: Emerging issues. Trends Ecol. Evol. 29, 326–335 (2014).
Loveridge, A. J. & Macdonald, D. W. Seasonality in spatial organization and dispersal of sympatric jackals (Canis mesomelas and C. adustus): Implications for rabies management. J. Zool. 253, 101–111 (2001).
Snijders, L., Blumstein, D. T., Stanley, C. R. & Franks, D. W. Animal social network theory can help wildlife conservation. Trends Ecol. Evol. 32(8), 567–577 (2017).
Burt, W. H. Territoriality and home range concepts as applied to mammals. J. Mammal. 24, 57–63 (1943).
Schoener, T. W. Sizes of feeding territories among birds. Ecology 49, 123–141 (1968).
Kaufman, J. H. On the definitions and functions of dominance and territoriality. Biol. Revue 58, 1–20 (1983).
Maher, C. R. & Lott, D. F. Definitions of territoriality used in the study of variation in vertebrate spacing systems. Anim. Behav. 49, 1581–1597 (1995).
Powell, R. A. Animal home ranges and territories and home range estimators. Res. Tech. Anim. Ecol. Controversies Conseq. 1, 476 (2000).
Kerr, G. D. & Bull, C. M. Exclusive core areas in overlapping ranges of the sleepy lizard, Tiliqua rugosa. Behav. Ecol. 17, 380–391 (2006).
DiPierro, E., Molinari, A., Tosi, G. & Wauters, L. A. Exclusive core areas and intrasexual territoriality in Eurasian red squirrels (Sciurus vulgaris) revealed by incremental cluster polygon analysis. Ecol. Res. 23, 529–542 (2008).
Poole, K. G. Spatial organization of a lynx population. Can. J. Zool. 73, 632–641 (1995).
Chamberlain, M. J. & Leopold, B. D. Spatio-temporal relationships among adult raccoons (Procyon lotor) in central Mississippi. Am. Midl. Nat. 148, 297–309 (2002).
Darden, S. K. & Dabelsteen, T. Acoustic territorial signaling in a small, socially monogamous canid. Anim. Behav. 75(3), 905–912 (2008).
Gabor, T. M., Hellgren, E. C., Van Den Bussche, R. A. & Silvy, N. J. Demography, sociospatial behaviour and genetics of feral pigs (Sus scrofa) in a semi-arid environment. J. Zool. 247(3), 311–322 (1999).
Seiler, N., Boesch, C., Mundry, R., Stephens, C. & Robbins, M. M. Space partitioning in wild, non-territorial mountain gorillas: The impact of food and neighbours. R. Soc. Open Sci. 4(11), 170720 (2017).
Podgórski, T. et al. Spatiotemporal behavioral plasticity of wild boar (Sus scrofa) under contrasting conditions of human pressure: Primeval forest and metropolitan area. J. Mammal. 94, 109–119 (2013).
Podgórski, T., Lusseau, D., Scandura, M., Sonnichsen, L. & Jedrzejewska, B. Long-lasting, kin-directed female interactions in a spatially structured wild boar social network. PLoS One 9, 1–11 (2014).
Keiter, D. A. & Beasley, J. C. Hog heaven? Challenges of managing introduced wild pigs in natural areas. Nat. Areas J. 37, 6–16 (2017).
Lewis, J. S. et al. Biotic and abiotic factors predicting the global distribution and population density of an invasive large mammal. Sci. Rep. 7, 44152 (2017).
Singer, F. J., Otto, D. K., Tipton, A. R. & Hable, C. P. Home ranges, movements, and habitat use of European wild boar in Tennessee. J. Wildl. Manag. 45, 343–353 (1981).
Saunders, G. & Kay, B. Movements of feral pigs at Sunny Corner, New South Wales. Wildl. Res. 18, 49–61 (1990).
Boitani, L., Mattei, L., Nonis, D. & Corsi, F. Spatial and activity patterns of wild boars in Tuscany, Italy. J. Mammal. 75, 600–612 (1994).
Dexter, N. The influence of pasture distribution, temperature and sex on home-range size of feral pigs in a semi-arid environment. Wildl. Res. 26, 755–762 (1999).
Calenge, C., Maillard, D., Vassant, J. & Brandt, S. Summer and hunting season home ranges of wild boar (Sus scrofa) in two habitats in France. Game Wildl. Sci. 19, 281–301 (2002).
Hayes, R., Riffell, S., Minnis, R. & Holder, B. Survival and habitat use of feral hogs in Mississippi. Southeast. Nat. 8, 411–427 (2009).
Fattebert, J., Baubet, E., Slotow, R. & Fischer, C. Landscape effects on wild boar home range size under contrasting harvest regimes in a human-dominated agro-ecosystem. Eur. J. Wildl. Res. 63(2), 32 (2017).
Clontz, L. M., Pepin, K. M., VerCauteren, K. C., & Beasley, J. C. Influence of biotic and abiotic factors on home range size and shape of invasive wild pigs (Sus scrofa). Pest Manag. Sci. 78(3), 914–928 (2021).
Mcloughlin, P. D., Ferguson, S. H. & Messier, F. Intraspecific variation in home range overlap with habitat quality: A comparison among brown bear populations. Evol. Ecol. 14, 39–60 (2000).
Golabek, K. A., Ridley, A. R. & Radford, A. N. Food availability affects strength of seasonal territorial behaviour in a cooperatively breeding bird. Anim. Behav. 83, 613–619 (2012).
Kilgo, J. C. et al. Food resources affect territoriality of invasive wild pig sounders with implications for control. Sci. Rep. 11(1), 1–11 (2021).
Geist, V. A comparison of social adaptations in relations to ecology in gallinaceous bird and ungulate societies. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 8, 193–207 (1977).
Ilse, L. M. & Hellgren, E. C. Resource partitioning in sympatric populations of collared peccaries and feral hogs in southern Texas. J. Mammal. 76, 784–799 (1995).
Sparklin, B. D., Mitchell, M. S., Hanson, L. B., Jolley, D. B. & Ditchkoff, S. S. Territoriality of feral pigs in a highly persecuted population on Fort Benning, Georgia. J. Wildl. Manag. 73, 497–502 (2009).
Barrett, R. The feral hog at Dye Creek ranch, California. Hilgardia 46, 283–355 (1978).
Baber, D. W. & Coblentz, B. E. Density, home range, habitat use, and reproduction in feral pigs on Santa Catalina Island. J. Mammal. 67, 512–525 (1986).
Kay, S. L. et al. Quantifying drivers of wild pig movement across multiple spatial and temporal scales. Mov. Ecol. 5, 14 (2017).
Pepin, K. M. et al. Contact heterogeneities in feral swine: implications for disease management and future research. Ecosphere 7(3), e01230. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.1230 (2016).
Singh, J. S. & Yadava, P. S. Seasonal variation in composition, plant biomass, and net primary productivity of a tropical grassland at Kurukshetra, India. Ecol. Monogr. 44(3), 351–376 (1974).
Swemmer, A. M., Knapp, A. K. & Snyman, H. A. Intra-seasonal precipitation patterns and above-ground productivity in three perennial grasslands. J. Ecol. 95, 780–788 (2007).
Harless, M. L., Walde, A. D., Delaney, D. K., Pater, L. L. & Hayes, W. K. Home range, spatial overlap, and burrow use of the desert tortoise in the West Mojave Desert. Copeia 2, 378–389 (2009).
Lewis, J. S. et al. Contact networks reveal potential for interspecific interactions of sympatric wild felids driven by space use. Ecosphere 8(3), e01707 (2017).
Weber, N. et al. Badger social networks correlate with tuberculosis infection. Curr. Biol. 23(20), R915–R916 (2013).
Vander Waal, K. L. et al. The “strength of weak ties” and helminth parasitism in giraffe social networks. Behav. Ecol. 27(4), 1190–1197 (2016).
Podgórski, T., Apollonio, M. & Keuling, O. Contact rates in wild boar populations: Implications for disease transmission. J. Wildl. Manag. 82, 1210–1218 (2018).
D’Andrea, L., Durio, P., Perrone, A. & Pirone, S. Preliminary data of the wild boar (Sus scrofa) space use in mountain environment. IBEX J. Mountain Ecol. 3, 117–121 (2014).
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. 54, 403–412 (2008).
Hixon, M. A. Food production and competitor density as the determinants of feeding territory size. Am. Nat. 115(4), 510–530 (1980).
Bastille-Rousseau, G. et al. Multi-level movement response of invasive wild pigs (Sus scrofa) to removal. Pest Manag. Sci. 77(1), 85–95 (2021).
Maher, C. R. & Lott, D. F. A review of ecological determinants of territoriality within vertebrate species. Am. Midl. Nat. 143(1), 1–30 (2000).
Mendl, M., Randle, K. & Pope, S. Young female pigs can discriminate individual differences in odours from conspecific urine. Anim. Behav. 64, 97–101 (2002).
Marsh, M. K., Hutchings, M. R., McLeod, S. R. & White, P. C. L. Spatial and temporal heterogeneities in the contact behaviour of rabbits. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 65, 183–195 (2011).
Yang, A. et al. Effects of social structure and management on risk of disease establishment in wild pigs. J. Anim. Ecol. 90(4), 820–833 (2021).
Lavelle, M. J. et al. Assessing risk of disease transmission: Direct implications for an indirect science. Bioscience 64, 524–530 (2014).
Gortázar, C., Ferroglio, E., Hofle, U., Frolich, K. & Vicente, J. Diseases shared between wildlife and livestock: A European perspective. Eur. J. Wildl. Res. 53, 241–256 (2007).
Miller, R. S. et al. Cross-species transmission potential between wild pigs, livestock, poultry, wildlife, and humans: Implications for disease risk management in North America. Sci. Rep. 7, 7821 (2017).
Abrahamson, W. G., Johnson, A. F., Layne, J. N. & Peroni, P. A. Vegetation of the Archbold Biological Station, Florida: An example of the southern Lake Wales ridge. Florida Sci. 47, 209–250 (1984).
Boughton, E. H. & Boughton, R. K. Modification by an invasive ecosystem engineer shifts a wet prairie to a monotypic stand. Biol. Invasions 16(10), 2105–2114 (2014).
Ko, J., Williams, B., Smith, V., McGrath, C. & Jacobson, J. Comparison of Telazol, Telazol–ketamine, Telazol–xylazine, and Telazol–ketamine–xylazine as chemical restraint and anesthetic induction combination in swine. Lab Anim. Sci. 43(5), 476–480 (1993).
Gabor, T. M., Hellgren, E. C. & Silvy, N. J. Immobilization of collared peccaries (Tayassu tajacu) and feral hogs (Sus scrofa) with Telazol® and xylazine. J. Wildl. Dis. 33(1), 161–164 (1997).
Sweitzer, R. A. et al. Immobilization and physiological parameters associated with chemical restraint of wild pigs with Telazol® and xylazine hydrochloride. J. Wildl. Dis. 33(2), 198–205 (1997).
Horne, J. S., Garton, E. O., Krone, S. M. & Lewis, J. S. Analyzing animal movements using Brownian bridges. Ecology 88, 2354–2363 (2007).
Tracey, J. A. mkde. R Core Development Team. (2014). https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/mkde/index.Html. Accessed 27 Mar 2021
R Development Core Team. R: a language and environment for statistical computing, version 3.5.1. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. (2018). https://www.r-project.org/. Accessed 27 Mar 2021
Sawyer, H. & Kauffman, M. J. Stopover ecology of a migratory ungulate. J. Anim. Ecol. 80, 1078–1087 (2011).
Vander Wal, E., Laforge, M. P. & McLoughlin, P. D. Density dependence in social behaviour: Home range overlap and density interacts to affect conspecific encounter rates in a gregarious ungulate. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 68(3), 383–390 (2014).
Schauber, E. M., Nielsen, C. K., Kjær, L. J., Anderson, C. W. & Storm, D. J. Social affiliation and contact patterns among white-tailed deer in disparate landscapes: Implications for disease transmission. J. Mammal. 96(1), 16–28 (2015).
Robert, K., Garant, D. & Pelletier, F. Keep in touch: Does spatial overlap correlate with contact rate frequency?. J. Wildl. Manag. 76(8), 1670–1675 (2012).
Fieberg, J. & Kochanny, C. O. Quantifying home-range overlap: The importance of the utilization distribution. J. Wildl. Manag. 69, 1346–1359 (2005).
Newman, M. E. The structure and function of complex networks. SIAM Rev. 45, 167–256 (2003).
Wey, T., Blumstein, D. T., Shen, W. & Jordan, F. Social network analysis of animal behaviour: A promising tool for the study of sociality. Anim. Behav. 75, 333–344 (2008).
Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. lme4: linear mixed effects models using Eigen and S4. R package version 1.1-9. (2014) https://cran.rproject.org/package/lme4. (accessed 30 Jan 2019).
Burnham, K. P. & Anderson, D. R. A Practical Information-Theoretic Approach. Model Selection and Multi-model Inference 2nd edn. (Springer, 2002).
Akaike, H. Information theory and an extension of the maximum likelihood principle. In Second international symposium on information theory. (eds. Petrov, B. N. & Csaki, F.) 267–281 (Academiai Kiado, 1973).
Acknowledgements
We thank Arizona State University, University of Florida, Conservation Science Partners, and the US Department of Agriculture for the support of this project. K. M. Pepin provided critical insight about our statistical analyses. This work would not have been possible without the long-term relationship held with the staff of Archbold’s Buck Island Ranch, especially G. Lollis, L. Lollis, and E. Boughton. Graduate field technicians C. Crank, K. Zhang, and M. Merrill. This work has been supported by USDA cooperative agreement #9200-03910 with RKB and 9200-0390 to JSL.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
P.E.S. and J.S.L. conceived the study. P.E.S. wrote the manuscript with input from J.S.L., R.K.B., K.C.V., and R.S.M. Field work study design was developed by J.S.L., R.K.B., and R.S.M and R.K.B., W.A. and B.W. carried out fieldwork. P.E.S. analyzed the data with input from J.S.L. and R.S.M. R.S.M. and J.S.L. secured funding. All authors edited and approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher's note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Schlichting, P.E., Boughton, R.K., Anderson, W. et al. Seasonal variation in space use and territoriality in a large mammal (Sus scrofa). Sci Rep 12, 4023 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-07297-y
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-07297-y
This article is cited by
-
Density-dependent dinner: Wild boar overuse agricultural land at high densities
European Journal of Wildlife Research (2024)
Comments
By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.