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
. 2025 Apr 10;20(4):e0320316.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0320316. eCollection 2025.

Externalities in wild pig damages on U.S. crop and livestock farms: The role of landowner actions and landscape heterogeneity

Sophie C McKee  1   2 , Nathan D DeLay  3 , Daniel F Mooney  3 , Stephanie A Shwiff  1
Affiliations

Externalities in wild pig damages on U.S. crop and livestock farms: The role of landowner actions and landscape heterogeneity

Sophie C McKee et al. PLoS One. .

Abstract

Invasive wild pigs can impose significant economic costs on crop and livestock farms. Many factors influence the incidence and intensity of these losses, making efforts to reduce or eradicate these populations complex. While farm and ranch operators may perceive wild pigs as agricultural pests, other landowners often see them as wild game with recreational value. This study investigates the relationship between landowner practices that attract wild pigs and the likelihood of pig presence and damage on farm and ranch operations. It considers the farmers' own actions that attract wildlife, neighboring landowner actions, the heterogeneity of the surrounding landscape, and county-level factors. The findings show a significant and positive associations between neighbors' actions and the probability of wild pig presence and financial losses from wild pig damage. Additionally, increasingly heterogeneous landscapes may further exacerbate this challenge. This research indicates that the choices made by adjacent property owners can undermine the effectiveness of public and private efforts to manage wild pig populations. Conversely, the impacts of wild pig management likely extend beyond specific management areas. Holistic eradication or population control programs should consider these externalities to adequately and efficiently address their impacts.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Fig 1
Fig 1. Summary of wild pig presence and damages on U.S. Crop and Livestock farms.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Graham S, Metcalf AL, Gill N, Niemiec R, Moreno C, Bach T, et al.. Opportunities for better use of collective action theory in research and governance for invasive species management. Conserv Biol. 2019;33(2):275–87. doi: 10.1111/cobi.13266 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Epanchin-Niell RS, Hufford MB, Aslan CE, Sexton JP, Port JD, Waring TM. Controlling invasive species in complex social landscapes. Frontiers Ecol Environ. 2009;8(4):210–6. doi: 10.1890/090029 - DOI
    1. Graham S. A new perspective on the trust power nexus from rural Australia. Journal of Rural Studies. 2014;36:87–98. doi: 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2014.06.010 - DOI
    1. Ervin DE, Frisvold GB. Community-Based Approaches to Herbicide-Resistant Weed Management: Lessons from Science and Practice. Weed sci. 2016;64(SP1):609–26. doi: 10.1614/ws-d-15-00122.1 - DOI
    1. Keiter D, Mayer J, Beasley J. What is in a “common” name? A call for consistent terminology for nonnative Sus scrofa. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 2016;40(2):384–7.

LinkOut - more resources