J. For. Sci., 2023, 69(1):11-20 | DOI: 10.17221/139/2022-JFS

Selection of trees for rubbing by the wild boar (Sus scrofa) in the Sidi Boughaba forested Moroccan Ramsar site: Assessment, implications, and perspectivesOriginal Paper

Abdellah Ichen1, Saâd Hanane ORCID...2, Mohammed Bouaamama3, Mohamed Alaoui1, Najib Magri2, Abdelaziz Benhoussa1
1 Faculty of Sciences, Mohammed V University in Rabat, Rabat, Morocco
2 Center for Innovation, Research and Training, Water and Forests National Agency, Rabat, Morocco
3 North-West Regional Directorate for Water and Forests, Water and Forests National Agency, Kenitra, Morocco

Knowledge of mechanisms by which large mammals select rubbing trees (RT) is a major challenge for the effective management of forests and wildlife resources. In this study, we investigated this issue regarding the Wild boar (Sus scrofa) in the Moroccan forested site of Sidi Boughaba as a case study. We used data from four sets of variables, namely topography, forest type, landscape composition, and microhabitat, measured at 58 rub and control trees, to determine the factors associated with the occurrence of RT by means of generalized linear mixed models. Our results showed that the RT occurrence increased with a high density of red juniper trees and declined with distance to the nearest footpath. Variation partitioning analysis revealed that the pure fraction of microhabitat was the most robust in explaining this occurrence (adj. R2 = 0.17, P < 0.001), followed by that of forest type (adj. R2 = 0.05, P < 0.05). A scientific monitoring system must be set up to strike a balance between the availability of forest trees on the one hand and the pressure exerted by wild boars on this internationally importance site on the other. It is imperative to test the geographical generality of our results in other Mediterranean forests.

Keywords: rub trees; rubbing behaviour; tree selectivity; Sus scrofa; Morocco

Received: September 28, 2022; Accepted: December 13, 2022; Prepublished online: January 17, 2023; Published: January 25, 2023  Show citation

ACS AIP APA ASA Harvard Chicago Chicago Notes IEEE ISO690 MLA NLM Turabian Vancouver
Ichen A, Hanane S, Bouaamama M, Alaoui M, Magri N, Benhoussa A. Selection of trees for rubbing by the wild boar (Sus scrofa) in the Sidi Boughaba forested Moroccan Ramsar site: Assessment, implications, and perspectives. J. For. Sci. 2023;69(1):11-20. doi: 10.17221/139/2022-JFS.
Share...
Download citation
  • BibTeX (.bib)
  • Bookends (.ris)
  • EasyBib (.ris)
  • EndNote (.enw)
  • EndNote 8 (.xml)
  • ISI WoS (.isi)
  • Medlars (.medlars)
  • Mendeley (.ris)
  • MODS (.xml)
  • Papers (.ris)
  • RefWorks (.txt)
  • RefManager (.ris)
  • RIS (.ris)
  • MS Word (.xml)
  • Zotero (.ris)
    • Open full article

    References

    1. Acevedo P., Escudero M.A., Muñoz R., Gortázar C. (2006): Factors affecting wild boar abundance across an environmental gradient in Spain. Acta Theriologica, 51: 327-336. Go to original source...
    2. Barasona J.A., Carpio A., Boadella M., Gortazar C., Piñeiro X., Zumalacárregui C., Vicente J., Viñuela J. (2021): Expansion of native wild boar populations is a new threat for semi-arid wetland areas. Ecological Indicators, 125: 107563. Go to original source...
    3. Bartoñ K. (2015): MuMIn: Multi-Model Inference. R package. Version 1.15.1. Available at: https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/MuMIn
    4. Bates D., Maechler M., Bolker B., Walker S. (2015): lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4. R package version 1.1-7. Available at: http://cran.r-project.org/package=lme4
    5. Baubet E. (1998): Biologie du sanglier en montagne: Biodémographie, occupation de l'espace et régime alimentaire. [Ph.D. Thesis.] Lyon, Claude Bernard University.
    6. Burnham K.P., Anderson D.R. (2002): Model Selection and Inference: A Practical Information-Theoretic Approach. 2nd Ed. New York, Springer-Verlag: 488.
    7. Cappa F., Bani L., Meriggi A. (2021): Factors affecting the crop damage by wild boar (Sus scrofa) and effects of population control in the Ticino and Lake Maggiore Park (North-western Italy). Mammalian Biology, 101: 451-463. Go to original source...
    8. Charco J. Perea R., Gil L., Nanos N. (2016): Impact of deer rubbing on pine forests: Implications for conservation and management of Pinus pinaster populations. European Journal of Forest Research, 135: 719-729. Go to original source...
    9. Clapham M., Nevin O.T., Ramsay A.D., Rosell F. (2013): The function of strategic tree selectivity in the chemical signalling of brown bears. Animal Behaviour, 85: 1351-1357. Go to original source...
    10. Cocca G., Enrico S., Compare L., Ramanzin M. (2010): Wild boar (Sus scrofa) damages to mountain grassland. A case study in the Belluno province, eastern Italian Alps. Italian Journal of Animal Science, 6: 845-847. Go to original source...
    11. Cosandier B. (1998): Etude de la sélection de l'habitat par le sanglier (Sus scrofa scrofa) dans la réserve naturelle de Cudrefin, Canton de Vaud, Suisse. [MSc. Thesis.] Lausanne, Université de Lausanne. (in French)
    12. Dardaillon M. (1984): Le sanglier et le milieu camarguais, dynamique co-adaptative. [Ph.D. Thesis.] Toulouse, Université de Toulouse. (in French)
    13. Filipczyková E., Heitkönig I.M.A., Castellanos A., Hantson W., Steyaert S.M.J.G. (2017): Marking behavior of Andean bears in an Ecuadorian cloud forest: A pilot study. Ursus, 27: 122-128. Go to original source...
    14. Fox J., Weisberg S. (2011): An R Companion to Applied Regression. 2nd Ed. Thousand Oaks, Sage Publications: 449.
    15. Geisser H., Reyer H.U. (2005): The influence of food and temperature on population density of wild boar Sus scrofa in the Thurgau (Switzerland). Journal of Zoology, 267: 89-96. Go to original source...
    16. Giménez-Anaya A., Herrero J., Rosell C., Couto S., García-Serrano A. (2008): Food habits of wild boars (Sus scrofa) in a Mediterranean coastal wetland. Wetlands, 28: 197-203. Go to original source...
    17. Gonzalez-Bernardo E., Bagnasco C., Bombieri G., Zarzo-Arias A., Ruiz-Villar H., Morales-Gonzalez A., Lamamy C., Ordiz A., Canedo D., Diaz J., Chamberlain D.E., Penteriani V. (2021): Rubbing behavior of European brown bears: Factors affecting rub tree selectivity and density. Journal of Mammalogy, 102: 468-480. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    18. Hanane S., Bouaamama M., Bougnous A., Mihoubi H., Hajjaj D., Yassin M. (2022): Forest type, microhabitat conditions and human presence predict occurrence of two sympatric Columbidae species in the Mediterranean's largest mixed forest: Implications for management and conservation. Forest Ecology and Management, 520: 120411. Go to original source...
    19. Hartig F. (2020): DHARMa: Residual diagnostics for hierarchical (multi-level/mixed) regression models. R package version 0.3.1. Available at: http://florianhartig.github.io/DHARMa/
    20. HCEFLCD (Haut Commissariat aux Eaux et Forêts et à la Lutte Contre la Désertification) (2019): Arrêté portant ouverture, clôture et réglementation spéciale de la chasse pendant la saison de chasse 2018/2019. Rabat, HCEFLCD: 6. (in French)
    21. Honda T., Sujita M. (2007): Environmental factors affecting damage by wild boars (Sus scrofa) to rice fields in Yamanashi Prefecture, Central Japan. Mammal Study, 32: 173-176. Go to original source...
    22. Ichen A., Sehhar A. (2019): Le Sanglier (Sus scrofa barbarus) au Maroc: Estimation de l'abondance des populations suivant les prélèvements par battues. Bulletin de l'Institut Scientifique, Rabat, Section Science de la vie, 41: 7-14.
    23. Ikeda T., Kuninaga N., Suzuki T., Ikushima S., Suzuki M. (2019): Tourist-wild boar (Sus scrofa) interactions in urban wildlife management. Global Ecology and Conservation, 18: e00617. Go to original source...
    24. 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: 4. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    25. Jojola S.M., Rosell F., Warrington I., Swenson J.E., Zedrosser A. (2012): Subadult brown bears (Ursus arctos) discriminate between unfamiliar adult male and female anal gland secretion. Mammalian Biology, 77: 363-368. Go to original source...
    26. Karami P., Tavakoli S. (2022): Identification and analysis of areas prone to conflict with wild boar (Sus scrofa) in the vineyards of Malayer County, western Iran. Ecological Modelling, 471: 110039. Go to original source...
    27. Keuling O., Stier N., Roth M. (2009): Commuting, shifting or remaining?: Different spatial utilisation patterns of wild boar Sus scrofa L. in forest and field crops during summer. Mammalian Biology, 74: 145-152. Go to original source...
    28. Khalidah K.N., Wahdaniyah S., Kamarudin N., Lechner A.M., Azhar B. (2021): Spared from poaching and natural predation, wild boars are likely to play the role of dominant forest species in Peninsular Malaysia. Forest Ecology and Management, 496: 119458. Go to original source...
    29. Lee S.M., Lee W.S. (2014): Selection of the rubbing trees by wild boar (Sus scrofa) and its ecological role in a mixed forest, Korea. Journal of Korean Society of Forest Science, 103: 510-518. Go to original source...
    30. Legendre P. (2008): Studying beta diversity: Ecological variation partitioning by multiple regression and canonical analysis. Journal of Plant Ecology, 1: 3-8. Go to original source...
    31. Lewis J.S., VerCauteren K.C., Denkhaus R.M., Mayer J.J. (2020): Wild pig populations along the urban gradient. In: VerCauteren K.C., Beasley J.C., Ditchkoff S.S., Mayer J.J., Roloff G.J., Strickland B.K. (eds): Invasive Wild Pigs in North America: Ecology, Impacts, and Management. Boca Raton, CRC Press: 25. Go to original source...
    32. Lombardini M., Meriggi A., Fozzi A. (2017): Factors influencing wild boar damage to agricultural crops in Sardinia (Italy). Current Zoology, 63: 507-514. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    33. Luskin M.S., Johnson D.J., Ickes K., Yao T.L., Davies S.J. (2021): Wildlife disturbances as a source of conspecific negative density-dependent mortality in tropical trees. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 288: 20210001. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    34. Magin C. (2001): Morocco. In: Fishpool L.D.C., Evans M.I. (eds): Important Bird Areas in Africa and Associated Islands: Priority Sites for Conservation. Cambridge, Pisces Publications and Birdlife International: 603-626.
    35. Massei G., Kindberg J., Licoppe A., Gaèiæ D., ©prem N., Kamler J., Baubet E., Hohmann U., Monaco A., Ozoliņ¹ J., Cellina S., Podgórski T., Fonseca C., Markov N., Pokorny B., Rosell C., Náhlik A. (2015): Wild boar populations up, numbers of hunters down? A review of trends and implications for Europe. Pest Management Science, 71: 492-500. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    36. Matas A., Mac Nally R., Albacete S., Carles-Tolrá M., Domènech M., Vives E., Espadaler X., Pujade-Villar J., Maceda-Veiga A. (2021): Wild boar rooting and rural abandonment may alter food-chain length in arthropod assemblages in a European forest region. Forest Ecology and Management, 479: 118583. Go to original source...
    37. Morelle K., Podgórski T., Prévot C., Keuling O., Lehaire F., Lejeune P. (2015): Towards understanding wild boar Sus scrofa movement: a synthetic movement ecology approach. Mammal Review, 45: 15-29 Go to original source...
    38. Nakagawa S., Schielzeth H. (2013): A general and simple method for obtaining R2 from generalized linear mixed-effects models. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 4: 133-142. Go to original source...
    39. Oksanen J., Blanchet F.G., Kindt R., Legendre P., Minchin P.R., O'Hara R.B., Simpson G.L., Solymos P., Stevens M.H.H., Wagner H.H. (2013): Vegan: Community Ecology package. R package version 2.0-10. Available at: http://CRAN.Rproject.org/package=vegan
    40. Paradis E., Claude J., Strimmer K. (2004): APE: Analyses of phylogenetics and evolution in R language. Bioinformatics, 20: 289-290. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    41. Quantum GIS Development Team (2017): QGIS Geographic Information System. Open Source Geospatial Foundation Project. Available at: http://qgis.osgeo.org
    42. Quinn G.P., Keough M.J. (2002): Experimental Design and Data Analysis for Biologists. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press: 553. Go to original source...
    43. Ramos J.A., Bugalho M.N., Cortez P., Iason G.R. (2006): Selection of trees for rubbing by red and roe deer in forest plantations. Forest Ecology and Management, 222: 39-45. Go to original source...
    44. Ramsar (2003): Fiche descriptive Ramsar. Merja Sidi Boughaba, Secrétariat de la Convention de Ramsar: 8. (in French)
    45. Rho P. (2015): Using habitat suitability model for the wild boar (Sus scrofa Linnaeus) to select wildlife passage sites in extensively disturbed temperate forests. Journal of Ecology and Environment, 38: 163-173. Go to original source...
    46. Rosell C., Carretero M.A., Bassols E. (1998): Seguimiento de la evolución demográfica del Jabalí (Sus scrofa) y efectos del incremento de presión cinegética en el Parque Natural de la Zona Volcánica de la Garrotxa. Galemys, Boletín SECEM, 10: 59-74. (in Spanish)
    47. Rutten A., Casaer J., Swinnen K.R.R., Herremans M., Leirs H. (2019): Future distribution of wild boar in a highly anthropogenic landscape: Models combining hunting bag and citizen science data. Ecological Modelling, 411: 108804. Go to original source...
    48. Sardin T., Cargnelutti B. (1987): Typologie des arbres marqués par le sanglier dans une région à faible taux de boisement. Monitore Zoologico Italiano - Italian Journal of Zoology, 21: 345-354. (in French)
    49. Sarwar M. (2019): Raiding of agricultural crops and forests by wild boar (Sus scrofa L.) and its mitigation tricks. Journal of Scientific Agriculture, 3: 1-5.
    50. Sergiel A., Naves J., Kujawski P., Maslak R., Serwa E., Ramos D., Fernández-Gil A., Revilla E., Zwijacz-Kozica T., Zieba F., Painer J., Selva N. (2017): Histological, chemical and behavioural evidence of pedal communication in brown bears. Scientific Reports, 7: 1052. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    51. Tarvydas A., Belova O. (2022): Effect of wild boar (Sus scrofa L.) on forests, agricultural lands and population management in Lithuania. Diversity, 14: 801. Go to original source...
    52. Thurfjell H., Ball J.P., Åhlén P.A., Kornacher P., Dettki H., Sjöberg K. (2009): Habitat use and spatial patterns of wild boar Sus scrofa (L.): agricultural fields and edges. European Journal of Wildlife Research, 55: 517-523. Go to original source...
    53. Toger M., Benenson I., Wang Y., Czamanski D., Malkinson D. (2018): Pigs in space: An agent-based model of wild boar (Sus scrofa) movement into cities. Landscape and Urban Planning, 173: 70-80. Go to original source...
    54. Tomiyasu J., Kondoh D., Sakamoto H., Matsumoto N., Sasaki M., Kitamura N., Haneda S., Matsui M. (2017): Morphological and histological features of the vomeronasal organ in the brown bear. Journal of Anatomy 231: 749-757. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    55. Zuur A.F., Ieno E.N., Elphick C.S. (2010): A protocol for data exploration to avoid common statistical problems. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 1: 3-14. Go to original source...

    This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY NC 4.0), which permits non-comercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original publication is properly cited. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.


    Return to the content