Adapted RCP 4.5 and 8.5 climate change scenarios for invasive Sus scrofa in Mexico

• Autorzy: Halecki, Wiktor , Bedla, Dawid , Lopez, Nuria
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

Climate change is a common factor that contributes to the growth or decline of animal populations. The present study, conducted using the Species Distribution Model, highlights the fact that despite the recognized negative impact of wild boar (Sus scrofa) on semi-natural areas and agricultural systems worldwide, the species remains poorly studied. According to projections for Representative Concentration Pathways (RCP) 4.5 and 8.5, increased clusters of wild boar abundance are expected to emerge around fragmented species assemblages by 2070. Sus scrofa is an extremely destructive and rapidly spreading invasive species whose movement appears to be facilitated by humans. As a consequence, many endemic plants are threatened with extinction. Biological corridors between fragments with poor conservation status should be linked to priority areas for adequate protection. The creation of preserved landscapes in territories separated from semi-natural ecosystems is recommended. Additionally, these measures can help mitigate the negative impact of S. scrofa on local biodiversity. Continuous monitoring and adaptive management strategies will be crucial for long-term conservation of the affected areas. Environmental protection efforts must prioritize the restoration of natural habitats and the implementation of strict regulations to control the spread of this invasive species. Collaborations between conservation organizations, governments, farmers, and local communities are essential to ensure effective wild boar management and the preservation of arable land and forests. Moreover, public awareness campaigns about the environmental impact of wild boar and the importance of conservation efforts are critical for garnering broader support.

Słowa kluczowe

PL

ochrona biologiczna; scenariusze zmiany klimatu; inwazyjny gatunek obcy

EN

biological conservation; climate change scenario; invasive alien specie; species distribution model

• Czasopismo: Geomatics, Landmanagement and Landscape
• Rocznik: 2024
• Tom: no. 3
• Strony: 139--151
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 31 poz., rys., tab.

Twórcy

autor

Halecki, Wiktor

• Institute of Technology and Life Sciences, National Research Institute

autor

Bedla, Dawid

• Department of Ecology, Climatology and Air Protection, University of Agriculture in Krakow,

autor

Lopez, Nuria

• Instituto Nacional de Investigaciones Forestales, Agrícolas y Pecuarias, CENID RASPA

Bibliografia

• Aguirre-Muñoz A., Croll D.A., Donlan C.J., Henry R.W., Hermosillo M.A., Howald G.R., ... Wood B. 2008. High-impact conservation: invasive mammal eradications from the islands of western Mexico. AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment, 37(2), 101–107.
• Ballari S.A., Barrios-García M.N. 2022. Mismatch between media coverage and research on invasive species: The case of wild boar (Sus scrofa) in Argentina. Plos one, 17(12), e0279601.
• Barasona J.A., Carpio A., Boadella M., Gortazar C., Pineiro X., Zumalacárregui C., ... Vinuela J. 2021. Expansion of native wild boar populations is a new threat for semi-arid wetland areas. Ecological Indicators, 125, 107563.
• Barrios-Garcia M.N., Gonzalez-Polo M., Simberloff D., Classen A.T. 2022. Wild boar rooting impacts soil function differently in different plant community types. Biological Invasions, 1–10.
• Bosch J., Iglesias I., Martínez M., De la Torre A. 2020. Climatic and topographic tolerance limits of wild boar in Eurasia: implications for their expansion. Geography, Environment, Sustainability, 13(1), 107–114.
• Brogi R., Merli E., Grignolio S., Chirichella R., Bottero E., Apollonio M. 2022. It is time to mate: population-level plasticity of wild boar reproductive timing and synchrony in a changing environment. Current Zoology, 68(4), 371–380.
• Cerasoli F., D’Alessandro P., Biondi M. 2022. Worldclim 2.1 versus Worldclim 1.4: Climatic niche and grid resolution affect between – version mismatches in Habitat Suitability Models predictions across Europe. Ecology and Evolution, 12(2), e8430.
• Cuevas M.F., Novillo A., Campos C., Dacar M.A., Ojeda R.A. 2010. Food habits and impact of rooting behaviour of the invasive wild boar, Sus scrofa, in a protected area of the Monte Desert, Argentina. Journal of Arid Environments, 74(11), 1582–1585.
• De-la-Rosa-Arana J.L., Ponce-Noguez J.B., Reyes-Rodríguez N.E., Vega-Sánchez V., ZepedaVelázquez A.P., Martínez-Juárez V.M., Gómez-De-Anda F.R. 2021. Helminths of the Wild Boar (Sus scrofa) from Units of Conservation Management and Sustainable Use of Wildlife Installed in the Eastern Economic Region of Mexico. Animals, 11(1), 98.
• Didero N.M., Ernst K.H., McKee S.C., Shwiff S.A. 2022. A call and suggested criteria for standardizing economic estimates of wild pig damage. Crop Protection, 106149.
• Escobar L.E., Qiao H., Phelps N.B., Wagner C.K., Larkin D.J. 2016. Realized niche shift associated with the Eurasian charophyte Nitellopsis obtusa becoming invasive in North America. Scientific Reports, 6(1), 1–15.
• Flores-Armillas V.H., López-Medellín X., García Barrios R., MacGregor-Fors I., ValenzuelaGalván D. 2020. Landscape features associated with damage to maize (Zea mays) fields in Central México: a comparison of wind and wildlife damage. Agriculture, 10(10), 460.
• Giorgetta M.A., Roeckner E., Mauritsen T., Bader J., Crueger T., Esch M., ... Stevens B. 2013. The atmospheric general circulation model ECHAM6-model description.
• Guibrunet L., Gerritsen P.R.W., Sierra‐Huelsz J.A., Flores‐Díaz A.C., García‐Frapolli E., García‐Serrano E., ... Balvanera P. 2021. Beyond participation: How to achieve the recognition of local communities’ value‐systems in conservation? Some insights from Mexico. People and Nature, 3(3), 528–541.
• Hadjisterkotis E. 2000. The introduction of wild boar Sus scrofa in Cyprus: an alien species in a highly endemic area. Biogeographia – The Journal of Integrative Biogeography, 21(1).
• Halecki W., López-Hernández N.A. 2023. Ecological implications: nature capital loss and the spread of invasive European wild rabbit in Mexico. Annales Universitatis Paedagogicae Cracoviensis Studia Naturae.
• Johann F., Handschuh M., Linderoth P., Dormann C.F., Arnold J. 2020. Adaptation of wild boar (Sus scrofa) activity in a human-dominated landscape. BMC Ecology, 20, 1–14.
• Kappes P.J., Benkwitt C.E., Spatz D.R., Wolf C.A., Will D.J., Holmes N.D. 2021. Do Invasive Mammal Eradications from Islands Support Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation?. Climate, 9(12), 172.
• Kramer C.J., Boudreau M.R., Powers R., Ver Cauteren K.C., Miller R.S., Brook R.K. 2024. Potential landscape connectivity for invasive wild pigs (Sus scrofa) across the northern prairies of North America. Biological Invasions, 1–14.
• Lewis J.S., Corn J.L., Mayer J.J., Jorda T.R., Farnsworth M.L., Burdett C.L., ... Miller R.S. 2019. Historical, current, and potential population size estimates of invasive wild pigs (Sus scrofa) in the United States. Biological Invasions, 21(7), 2373–2384.
• Martínez-Meyer E., Díaz-Porras D., Peterson A.T., Yáñez-Arenas C. 2013. Ecological niche structure and rangewide abundance patterns of species. Biology letters, 9(1), 20120637.
• Qiao H., Peterson A.T., Campbell L.P., Soberón J., Ji L., Escobar L.E. 2016. Niche: creating virtual species and ecological niches in multivariate environmental scenarios. Ecography, 39(8), 805–813.
• Rico-Sánchez A.E., Haubrock P.J., Cuthbert R.N., Angulo E., Ballesteros-Mejia L., LópezLópez E., ... Courchamp F. 2021. Economic costs of invasive alien species in Mexico. NeoBiota, 67, 459–483.
• Rosalino L.M., Teixeira D., Camarinha C., Pereira G., Magalhães A., Castro G., ... Fonseca C. 2022. Even generalist and resilient species are affected by anthropic disturbance: evidence from wild boar activity patterns in a Mediterranean landscape. Mammal Research, 1–9.
• Ruiz-Rodríguez C., Fernández-López J., Vicente J., Blanco-Aguiar J.A., Acevedo P. 2022. Revisiting wild boar spatial models based on hunting yields to assess their predictive performance on interpolation and extrapolation areas. Ecological Modelling, 471, 110041.
• Silveira de Oliveira Ê., Ludwig da Fontoura Rodrigues M., Machado Severo M., Gomes dos Santos T., Kasper C.B. 2020. 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, 15(7), e0235312.
• Siller-Clavel P., Badano E.I., Villarreal-Guerrero F., Prieto-Amparán J.A., Pinedo-Alvarez A., Corrales-Lerma R., ... Hernández-Quiroz N.S. 2022. Distribution Patterns of Invasive Buffelgrass (Cenchrus ciliaris) in Mexico Estimated with Climate Niche Models under the Current and Future Climate. Plants, 11(9), 1160.
• Tabak M.A., Piaggio A.J., Miller R.S., Sweitzer R.A., Ernest H.B. 2017. Anthropogenic factors predict movement of an invasive species. Ecosphere, 8(6), e01844.
• Titus C.L., Bowden C.F., Smyser T.J., Webb S.L., Beasley J.C. 2022. Genomic tools reveal complex social organization of an invasive large mammal (Sus scrofa). Biological Invasions, 1–18.
• Ureta C., Ramírez‐Barrón M., Sánchez‐García E.A., Cuervo‐Robayo A.P., Munguía‐Carrara M., Mendoza‐Ponce A., ... Sánchez‐Cordero. Species, taxonomic, and functional group diversities of terrestrial mammals at risk under climate change and land‐use/cover change scenarios in Mexico. Global Change Biology. 2022, 28:6992–7008.
• Westhoff K.M., Fetzer A., Büttner K., Schuler G., Lang J., Lierz M. 2022. Stress Assessment of Wild Boar (Sus scrofa) in Corral-Style Traps Using Serum Cortisol Levels. Animals, 12(21), 3008.

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.15576/GLL/2024.3.09