+ Site Statistics
References:
54,258,434
Abstracts:
29,560,870
PMIDs:
28,072,757
+ Search Articles
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
Most Shared
PDF Full Text
+ PDF Full Text
Request PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
Follow on LinkedIn
+ Translate
+ Recently Requested

Wild inside: Urban wild boar select natural, not anthropogenic food resources



Wild inside: Urban wild boar select natural, not anthropogenic food resources



Plos One 12(4): E0175127



Most wildlife species are urban avoiders, but some became urban utilizers and dwellers successfully living in cities. Often, they are assumed to be attracted into urban areas by easily accessible and highly energetic anthropogenic food sources. We macroscopically analysed stomachs of 247 wild boar (Sus scrofa, hereafter WB) from urban areas of Berlin and from the surrounding rural areas. From the stomach contents we determined as predictors of food quality modulus of fineness (MOF,), percentage of acid insoluble ash (AIA) and macronutrients such as amount of energy and percentage of protein, fat, fibre and starch. We run linear mixed models to test: (1) differences in the proportion of landscape variables, (2) differences of nutrients consumed in urban vs. rural WB and (3) the impact of landscape variables on gathered nutrients. We found only few cases of anthropogenic food in the qualitative macroscopic analysis. We categorized the WB into five stomach content categories but found no significant difference in the frequency of those categories between urban and rural WB. The amount of energy was higher in stomachs of urban WB than in rural WB. The analysis of landscape variables revealed that the energy of urban WB increased with increasing percentage of sealing, while an increased human density resulted in poor food quality for urban and rural WB. Although the percentage of protein decreased in areas with a high percentage of coniferous forests, the food quality increased. High percentage of grassland decreased the percentage of consumed fat and starch and increased the percentage of fibre, while a high percentage of agricultural areas increased the percentage of consumed starch. Anthropogenic food such as garbage might serve as fallback food when access to natural resources is limited. We infer that urban WB forage abundant, natural resources in urban areas. Urban WB might use anthropogenic resources (e.g. garbage) if those are easier to exploit and more abundant than natural resources. This study shows that access to natural resources still is mandatory and drives the amount of protein, starch, fat or fibre in wild boar stomachs in urban as well as rural environments.

(PDF emailed within 0-6 h: $19.90)

Accession: 060479404

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 28403244

DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0175127


Related references

Urban wild boars prefer fragmented areas with food resources near natural corridors. Science of the Total Environment 615: 282-288, 2017

Fluctuating food resources influence developmental plasticity in wild boar. Biology Letters 9(5): 20130419, 2013

Exploring the potential of wild food resources in the Mediterranean region: natural yield and gathering pressure of the wild asparagus (Asparagus acutifolius L.). Spanish Journal of Agricultural Research 10(4): 1090-1100, 2012

Into the urban wild: Collection of wild urban plants for food and medicine in Kampala, Uganda. Land Use Policy 63: 67-77, 2017

Significance of natural biocenoses and agrocenoses as the source of food for wild boar sus scrofa. Ekologia polska 29(1): 117-136, 1981

Habitat utilization of the wild boar and social organization of the wild boar sus scrofa l. in the donana reserve southwestern spain. Canadian Journal of Zoology 67(8): 2047-2051, 1989

Embryogenesis of the wild boar sus scrofa the state of external morphological characteristics in wild boar embryos in different stages of development. Zoologicheskii Zhurnal 56(3): 412-419, 1977

Are captive wild boar more introgressed than free-ranging wild boar? Two case studies in Italy. European Journal of Wildlife Research 60(3): 459-467, 2014

Domestic dog's behaviour in confrontation with wild boar: Utilization of dogs as aversive stimulus to wild boar. Animal Science Journal 72(10): J594-J604, 2001

Regulating wild boar populations is "somebody else's problem"! - Human dimension in wild boar management. Science of the Total Environment 554-555: 311-319, 2016

Wild boar kills and wild boar distribution in lower franconia west germany. Waldhygiene 12(4): 119-122, 1977

The wild boar attack--a case report of a wild boar inflicted injury and treatment. Collegium Antropologicum 38(4): 1211-1212, 2015

Genes from the wild. Using wild genetic resources for food and raw materials. Unknown, 1988

Genetic relationship and distribution of the Japanese wild boar (Sus scrofa leucomystax) and Ryukyu wild boar (Sus scrofa riukiuanus) analysed by mitochondrial DNA. Molecular Ecology 8(9): 1509-1512, 1999

Wild boar research 2002. A selection and edited papers from the 4th International Wild Boar Symposium, Lousa, (Portugal), 19 - 22 September 2002. Galemys, 16: 1-272 (Numero Especial), 2004