Analysis of wild boar (Sus scrofa L., 1758) distribution in Northeast of European Russia: A quantitative approach

Markov N.I., Neifeld N.D., McDonald L.L.

P. 115-122

Analysis of a species’ distribution pattern in the marginal part of its geographic range is usually performed on a qualitative level. At the same time, quantitative estimation of area of occupancy could be of great importance for distinguishing the sites inhabited by the species from those where it is “occasionally” found. For large mammals in areas of current or recent expansion an analysis of the distribution patterns is especially complicated by high mobility of the animals, lack of data about habitat preferences and, consequently, the impossibility of using the assumptions of “closed-population models” for estimating area of occupancy. In this study we report a retrospective quantitative analysis of wild boar distribution in one of the areas of European Northeast Russia based on records of occasional detections for the period 1984–1999. Indices of “minimum site occupancy” and “constancy of species’ presence” (the proportion of years, when the species has been recorded within the study area) were used for estimation of species “extent of presence” for the whole study area and distinct parts of it. The wild boar is “vagrant” or not present in most areas situated close to the Ural Mountains. In the plains areas, the species has at least “visitor” status. Thus, only about 50% of the study area could be treated as part of wild boar geographic range. The quantitative method developed allows estimation of the species’ status within a study area and avoids biases in analysis of resource selection by excluding the territories where it is “occasional” or “vagrant”.DOI: 10.15298/rusjtheriol.4.2.04

• Brown J.H. 1984. On the relationship between abundance and distribution of species // American Naturalist. Vol.124. P.255-279.
• Fadeev E.V. 1987. [Wild boar] // Okhota i Okhotnich'e Khozyaistvo. No.2. P.10-13 [in Russian].
• Freitag S. & van Jaarsveld A.S. 1997. Relative occupancy, endemism, taxonomic distinctiveness and vulnerability: prioritizing regional conservation actions // Biodiversity and Conservation. Vol.6. No.2. P.211-232.
• Gaston K.J. 1991. How large is a species' geographic range? // Oikos. Vol.61. P.434-438.
• Hanski I. 1999. Metapopulation Ecology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 313 p.
• IUCN. 2003. Guidelines for Application of IUCN Red List Criteria at Regional Levels: Version 3.0. Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK: IUCN Species Survival Commission, IUCN. 26 p.
• Kern J.W., McDonald T.L., Amstrup S.C., Durner G.M. & Erickson W.P. 2003. Using the bootstrap and fast Fourier transform to estimate confidence intervals of 2D kernel densities // Environmental and Ecological Statistics. Vol.10. P.405-418.
• Ledermann W. (ed.). 1989. [Handbook of Applicable Mathematics]. T.1.Moskva: Finansy i statistica. 271 p. [in Russian].
• MacKenzie D.I., Nichols J.D., Lachman G.B., Droege S., Royle J.A. & Langtimm C.A. 2002. Estimating site occupancy rates when detection probabilities are less than one // Ecology. Vol.83. No.8. P.2248-2255.
• Manly B.F.J., McDonald L.L., Thomas D.L., McDonald T.L. & Erickson W.P. 2002. Resource Selection by Animals. Statistical Design and Analysis for Field Studies. Second edition. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. 221 p.
• Markov N.I., Neifeld N.D. & Estaf'ev A.A. 2004. Ecological aspects of dispersal of the wild boar, Sus scrofa L., 1758, in the Northeast of European Russia // Russian Journal of Ecology. Vol.35. No.2. P.131-135.
• Neifeld N.D. 1998. [Sus scrofa, the Wild Boar or Wild Pig] // [Fauna of Northeast of European Russia. Mammals. Tom 2. Part 2]. Sankt Peterburg: Nauka. P.243-246 [in Russian].
• Olenev A.M. 1965. [The Urals and Novaya Zemlya]. Moskva: Mysl'. 215 p. [in Russian].
• Pavlov M.P., Korsakova I.B. & Lavrov N.P. 1974. [The wild boar] // [Acclimation of Game Animals and Birds in the Soviet Union]. Kirov: VNIIOZ. P. 370-436 [in Russian].
• Pollock K.H., Nichols J.D., Simons T.R., Farnsworth G.L., Bailey L.L. & Sauer J.R. 2002. Large scale wildlife monitoring studies: statistical methods for design and analysis // Environmetrics. Vol.13. No.2. P.105-119.
• Rusakov O.S. & Timofeeva E.K. 1984. [The Wild Boar: Ecology, Resources, and Economic Significance in the Northwestern Soviet Union]. Leningrad: Izdatel'stvo Leningradskogo Gosudarstvennogo Universiteta. 207 p. [in Russian].
• Silvo T., Reino L. M. & Borralho R. 2002. A model for range expansion of an introduced species: the common waxbill Estrilda astrild in Portugal // Diversity and Distributions. Vol.8. No.6. P.319-326.
• Sneath P.H.A. & Sokal R.R. 1963. Numerical taxonomy. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman & Co. 369 p.
• Swihart R.K., Gehring T.M., Kolozsvary M.B. & Nupp T.E. 2003. Responses of 'resistant' vertebrates to habitat loss and fragmentation: the importance of niche breadth and range boundaries // Diversity and Distributions. Vol.9. No.1. P.1-18.