Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2018 May 16;13(5):e0193295.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0193295. eCollection 2018.

Wild boar mapping using population-density statistics: From polygons to high resolution raster maps

Affiliations

Wild boar mapping using population-density statistics: From polygons to high resolution raster maps

Claudia Pittiglio et al. PLoS One. .

Abstract

The wild boar is an important crop raider as well as a reservoir and agent of spread of swine diseases. Due to increasing densities and expanding ranges worldwide, the related economic losses in livestock and agricultural sectors are significant and on the rise. Its management and control would strongly benefit from accurate and detailed spatial information on species distribution and abundance, which are often available only for small areas. Data are commonly available at aggregated administrative units with little or no information about the distribution of the species within the unit. In this paper, a four-step geostatistical downscaling approach is presented and used to disaggregate wild boar population density statistics from administrative units of different shape and size (polygons) to 5 km resolution raster maps by incorporating auxiliary fine scale environmental variables. 1) First a stratification method was used to define homogeneous bioclimatic regions for the analysis; 2) Under a geostatistical framework, the wild boar densities at administrative units, i.e. subnational areas, were decomposed into trend and residual components for each bioclimatic region. Quantitative relationships between wild boar data and environmental variables were estimated through multiple regression and used to derive trend components at 5 km spatial resolution. Next, the residual components (i.e., the differences between the trend components and the original wild boar data at administrative units) were downscaled at 5 km resolution using area-to-point kriging. The trend and residual components obtained at 5 km resolution were finally added to generate fine scale wild boar estimates for each bioclimatic region. 3) These maps were then mosaicked to produce a final output map of predicted wild boar densities across most of Eurasia. 4) Model accuracy was assessed at each different step using input as well as independent data. We discuss advantages and limits of the method and its potential application in animal health.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Fig 1
Fig 1. Wild boar density by administrative units (original input data) and wild boar range.
Fig 2
Fig 2. Flowchart illustrating the 4 main steps of the wild boar (WB) density modelling approach.
Fig 3
Fig 3. Bioclimatic regions for the wild boar as defined by PCA and cluster analysis.
The cluster plot of the first and second components is shown in the inset. The symbols represent the administrative units grouped in the 4 clusters/regions: Asian (red), eastern (pink), western (green) and southern (blue).
Fig 4
Fig 4
Trend components derived from the regression relationship obtained for (A) the eastern, (B) western and (C) southern regions and extrapolated to the whole study area respectively. (D) Redefined bioclimatic regions and blending zones. The Asian region is not shown as it was excluded from the geostatistical analysis.
Fig 5
Fig 5
Model outputs: average trend (A), average geostatistical model (B) and mosaicked model (C).

References

    1. Ballari SA, Barrios-García MN (2014) A review of wild boar Sus scrofa diet and factors affecting food selection in native and introduced ranges. Mammal Review 44: 124–134.
    1. Massei G, Genov PV (2004) The environmental impact of wild boar Galemys; 16.
    1. Apollonio M, Anderson R, Putman R, editors (2010) European Ungulates and their Management in the 21st Century Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    1. Massei G, Kindberg J, Licoppe A, Gačić D, Šprem N, Kamler J, et al. (2015) Wild boar populations up, numbers of hunters down? A review of trends and implications for Europe. Pest Management Science 71: 492–500. doi: 10.1002/ps.3965 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Lewis JS, Farnsworth ML, Burdett CL, Theobald DM, Gray M, Miller RS (2016) Biotic and abiotic factors predicting the global distribution and population density of an invasive large mammal. Sci Rep. 2017;7:44152 doi: 10.1038/srep44152 - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources