Drivers of wild boar abundance and hunting effectiveness in southern Tunisia

Drivers of wild boar abundance and hunting effectiveness in southern Tunisia | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Drivers of wild boar abundance and hunting effectiveness in southern Tunisia Aida Ghandri, Pelayo Acevedo, Mohsen Jarray, Ali Zaidi, Mohsen Chammem This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-4647284/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Published Journal Publication published 30 Sep, 2024 Read the published version in European Journal of Wildlife Research → Version 1 posted 7 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Over the past few decades, wild boar populations have surged globally, including in Tunisia, creating challenges that necessitate understanding the factors influencing their abundance and trends. Herein, we analyzed hunting statistics (number of seen and hunted animals during the hunting events) from 2008 to 2022 to examine the spatial pattern of wild boar abundance in the oases of Kebili and Gabés in south Tunisia. Using Generalized Linear Mixed Models, we examined the relationships between wild boar abundance (the number of animals seen during hunting activities) and hunting effectiveness (the ratio of hunted to seen animals during hunting activities), considering landscape structure, human infrastructure, and hunting pressure. Wild boar abundance was higher in Kebili than in Gabés, but in Gabés wild boar population trend was positive. Our results suggest that wild boar abundance was positively correlated with oasis size, mostly in oasis with presence of herb, shrub, and tree layers. Regarding hunting effectiveness, our results showed that it was significantly higher in Gabés and was positively correlated with the distance to the nearest road. This study underscores the distinct dynamics of wild boar populations in the two regions and highlights the potential risk of population increase based on environmental conditions. The results emphasize the importance of region-specific management strategies that influence both abundance and distribution, and the capability to regulate wild boar populations by hunting. It also underscores the significance of collecting reliable hunting statistics to monitor population dynamics and formulate effective wildlife policies. Wild boar oasis relative abundance index hunting statistics landscape structure arid environments Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Introduction The worldwide wild boar ( Sus scrofa ) expansion is leading to human-wildlife conflicts such as biodiversity conservation and socio-economic interests. It causes serious crop damages, impacts on soil macro and microfauna composition, and soil disturbance with important effects on the dynamics of native plant communities (Hajji and Zachos 2011 ). Wild boar can also spread infectious diseases to wildlife, livestock and people (Barrios-Garcia and Ballari 2012 ; Acevedo et al. 2014 ; Podgórski and Śmietanka 2018 ), is involved in traffic collisions (Langbein et al. 2011 ; Thurfjell et al. 2015 ) and damages to anthropogenic infrastructures (Giménez-Anaya et al. 2008 ; Graitson et al. 2018 ). Since the population expansion is far to stabilization (e.g. Massei et al. 2015 ), it is mandatory to monitor population distribution and abundance, especially in newly occupied areas and fragile ecosystems, to avoid conflicts and reduce potential damages. Various management strategies were used to control wild boar population size and population growth (Apollonio et al. 2010 ; Massei et al. 2015 ). Management of wild boar has recently focused on facilitating high hunting pressure to regulate population size (e.g. Apollonio et al. 2010 ; Keuling et al. 2013 ; Massei et al. 2015 ; Tombre et al. 2022 ; Vajas et al. 2023 ) reported that hunting is the main cause of wild boar mortality and therefore a feasible way to modulate its population dynamics (see also Quirós-Fernández et al. 2017 ). In this context, some authors raise that more knowledge on various aspects of wild boar ecology and hunting dynamics are needed to develop effective population control strategies. Specifically, they call for detailed studies on wild boar behavior, including their social structures and movement patterns, and hunting practices, such as techniques used, the intensity of hunting (the number of hunting days and of hunters involved) and catchability rates (Gaynor et al. 2024 ) These factors are requested to develop effective managements strategies that can mitigate the ecological and economic impacts of wild boar populations (e.g. Apollonio et al. 2010 ; Keuling et al. 2013 ; Vajas et al. 2020 , 2021 ). Estimations of population abundance and the drivers explaining their variations at a spatio-temporal scale are pivotal for decision making under an adaptive management perspective (e.g. Apollonio et al. 2017 ). Determining population abundance of wildlife in general and wild boar in particular is not straightforward, mainly when information is requested at large spatial scale (Enetwild-consortium et al. 2018). Specifically, in the case of wild boar monitoring at regional/national scales, the hunting statistics are widely used (Imperio et al. 2010 ; Vajas et al. 2020 ; Ruiz-Rodríguez et al. 2022 ). Hunting statistics, when collected under harmonized and standardized protocols (Ruiz-Rodríguez et al. 2023 ), are able to sustain efficient management programs under an adaptive management design (Moreno-Zarate et al. 2021 ). The wild boar is native to much of Eurasia and North Africa (Sales et al. 2017 ). It is well known that the wild boar has a remarkable plasticity to environment conditions (Frauendorf et al. 2016 ) and also a high potential for adapting to arid environments (Vetter et al. 2015 , 2020 ). Thus, in North Africa wild boar occurrence ranged from Morocco, eastward through Tunisia, to Egypt (Gharaibeh 1997 ). According to Hajji and Zachos ( 2011 ) the populations of this species have increased and expanded its range from the northwest into southward of the country since the early 1980s. Wildlife managers reported that some individuals, supposedly from southern Algeria, crossed Jebel Brikis in Tamarza near the border and occupied Tozeur. Thereafter its distribution ranges are expanding throughout the south, especially Gafsa, Kebili and Gabés (Hajji and Zachos 2011 ) (Fig. 1 ). In fact, in addition to the abandonment of agriculture-raised food, the species has also greatly benefited from the shelter availability bordering oases agrosystems, especially riverine vegetation, reed beds and forest, and the lack of large wild predator (Hajji and Zachos 2011 ; Amici et al. 2012 ). Wild boar hunting is an ancient tradition in Tunisia both as a traditional recreational activity and nowadays as an instrument to control population expansion and therefore, to reduce human-wild boar conflicts (Gharaibeh 1997 ; Hajji and Zachos 2011 ). This hunting activity, along with the economic benefits derived from hunting tourism, is regulated by the Department of Forest (hereafter DGF, Direction Générale des Forêts) and implemented in coordination with Tunisian wild boar hunting companies. The "battues administratives" are permitted not only in the northern region where the species is very abundant but also in the southern area, especially in wetlands such oasis. However, despite battues were regularly organized over the past decades, it is thought that the abundance and range of wild boar populations continue to increase. Potential reasons for this population increasing are explained by the fact that knowledge about population status and trends in southern Tunisia is still lacking and therefore there is not basal information for designing effective management programs. In this context, this study attempted to provide detailed data on the population status of the wild boar in oases agrosystems of southern Tunisia and outline its trends through the analysis of hunting data. More specifically, we aimed to i ) estimate the wild boar abundance and current population trends, and ii ) characterize the hunting effectiveness, and finally iii ) assess the possible drivers related to landscape structure and composition on wild boar abundance and hunting effectiveness. We hypothesized that wild boar population abundance would be modulated by the vegetation-structure complexity in the oasis, the availability of shelter areas near of pastures and the water sources. The results attain relevance for providing basic information for designing effective monitoring and management program of the species in this fragile ecosystem. Materials and methods Study area Our study area covers two oases in southern Tunisia, namely Gabés (33°52’53’’N, 10°05’53’’E) and Kebili (33°42’18’’N, 8°57’54’’E). These oases are categorized as either "traditional" or "modern," depending on factors such as seniority, cropping systems, and governance structures (Lasram, 1990 ). In Tunisia, traditional oases constitute 47% of the total, while modern ones make up the remaining 53% (CDCGE 2017). Kebili, in particular, is notable for its prevalence of modern oases, characterized by expansive farms and a low density of palm trees (100 to 150 per hectare) arranged in a well-aligned, single vertical layer (Sghaier 2010 ; Ben Ahmed Zaag 2017 ; Benmoussa et al. 2022 ). On the other hand, nearly all of Gabés' littoral oasis falls into the category of traditional oases. These are characterized by smaller farms employing a three-layer vertical structure. The upper layer comprises palm trees, exceeding 150 trees per hectare, the intermediate layer features olive trees and other fruit trees, and the lower layer is dedicated to cultivating various vegetables and fodder (Ben Ahmed Zaag 2017 ; Santora et al. 2020 ; Benmoussa et al. 2022 ). The Littoral oases of Gabés and the continental oases of Kebili occupy an area of about 7000 and 23,000 ha, respectively (Lasram 1990 ; Sghaier 2010 ). Both types of oases lie under arid Mediterranean climate marked by drought, heat and an erratic, annual, seasonal, or daily rainfall. Despite the challenging climate, the presence of significant faults has led to the emergence of fossil groundwater, forming springs that human populations utilize for irrigating oasis agrosystems (Kassah 1996 ; Jaradat 2011 ). Consequently, the oases create a local microclimate that strongly contrasts with the harsh climatic conditions of the surrounding (Riou 1990 ; Kassah 1996 ). Moreover, these oases, both littoral and continental, serve as vital habitats for wildlife, including wild boar (e.g., Ballari and Barrios-Garcia 2004). Beyond providing a source of food, these oases offer resting sites, facilitating the concentration of high-abundance wild boar populations (e.g., Amici et al. 2012 ; Hajji and Zachos 2011 ). Data collection Each region was subdivided into Management Units (MUs), defined as homogeneous areas based on habitat, topography, hunting activities, and crops (Maillard et al. 2008 ). The identification of oasis types within each MU was essential, as it serves as a significant indicator of food availability for wild boar. The oasis type was treated as a categorical variable with three levels, categorized by the number of vegetation strata (herb layer, shrub layer and tree layer): Type 1 (oasis with a single layer of palm trees), Type 2 (oasis with two different vegetation layers), and Type 3 (oasis with three vegetation layers). Kebili, specifically, was divided into 25 MUs, varying in size from 0.68 to 10.7 km 2 . These MUs were characterized by the distribution of oasis types, with 68%, 20%, and 12% of the total MUs falling into Types 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Gabés was subdivided into 13 MU, varying in size from 0.96 to 22.34 km 2 . Almost all the MU (12 out of 13 MU) were Type 3, with only one MU having a Type 2. Each MU comprises agricultural land for sustenance and concealed resting areas resembling nests. These resting areas are strategically situated in dry, wind-sheltered plots, serving as both sleeping and wallowing sites, along with offering potential refuge from predators. The resting areas ranged from 0.056 to 1.85 km² in Kebili and from 0.15 to 3.2 km² in Gabés. Each hunting activity covers one MU and each MU is managed independently of each other. Landscape structure and human infrastructure variables : We exported Google earth imagery to the QGIS software 22.6 for the purpose of quantifying the surface area of oases (hereafter called AREAOA) and the resting areas (or shelter, referred to as AREASH) within each MU. We also measured the mean distance from each MU to the nearest water sources (DSHWS), recognizing the essential role of water sources for wild boar in their mud baths. Furthermore, we calculated the distance to the closest urban village (with more than five inhabitants, referred to as DZU) and the distance to the nearest road (DNR). These distances were considered important factors potentially influencing the distribution and abundance of wild boar in this environment (Morais et al. 2019 ). Hunting statistics dataset The hunting data utilized in this study were obtained from the DGF. These data encompass hunting statistics compiled across 12 hunting seasons spanning from 2008 to 2022 in Kebili and six hunting seasons from 2012 to 2022 in Gabés. The main hunting season in both regions extends from early September to late March. The hunting method employed in oasis agroecosystems was the drive hunt, conducted by a group of hunters (ranging from 3 to 12 individuals) during daylight hours. Hunters are posted in strategic points around the hunting area. They maintain their positions, awaiting wild boar driven by beaters with dogs from their resting areas. An assistant from the DGF recorded the dataset for all hunting activities. This dataset includes information such as date (year, month, and day), locality (referred to as GOUV, representing the Governorate or province of Tunisia), and village. Additionally, it comprises the number of participating hunters (NHU), the number of wild boar seen (NWBS), and the number of wild boar hunted (NWBK). NHU and NWBK were considered proxies for hunting pressure. Data analyses Two Generalized Linear Mixed Models (GLMM) were performed to assess drivers influencing NWBS and hunting effectiveness (HE; ratio between NWBK and NWBS). For modelling NWBS we performed GLMM, incorporating a negative binomial distribution (to control the overdispersion in the data) and a log link function, and considered GOUV, oasis type (TYPE), AREAOA DSHWS, DZU, DNR and year (to assess temporal trends) as explanatory variables. In addition, interactions between region (categorized into two levels) and hunting season (treated as continuous variable), as well as between oasis type (categorized into three levels) and AREAOA (treated as a continuous variable) were tested. The shelter area's surface (AREASH) log-transformed was included as an offset term, and oasis ID was included as random effect factor. For modelling HE we used a binary logistic regression with logit link function to identify the more relevant explanatory variables. We used the same predictors and random effects as described for the previous model. In both NWBW and HE models we used a backward stepwise procedure based on AIC to select the most parsimonious models. All statistical analyses were computed using lme4 R package for statistical modelling (Bates et al. 2015 ). Results Relationship between the number of wild boar seen and the number of wild boar hunted The results show a range per hunting event of 0 to 50 and 0 to 60 individuals seen (NWBS) in each respective region, while the NWBK ranged from 0 to 13 and 0 to 18 (NWBK). Regarding the NWBK per hunter, in Kebili, hunters averaged 1.857 NWBK per hunter, whereas in Gabes, the average was 2 NWBK per hunter, indicating a slightly higher hunting success rate in Gabes. A preliminary exploration of the data showed a positive significant relationship between NWBS and NWBK, after controlling by region and oasis ID (Fig. 2 ). Population abundance model Results of the model parameterized to explore the drivers of NWBS are reported in Table 1 . Notably, the model retained interactions between region and year, as well as between TYPE and AREAOA. Table 1 Generalized linear mixed model (negative binomial distribution and log link function) parameterized to explore the drivers of wild boar abundance (number of wild boar seen during hunting activities) (*= P < 0.05, **= P < 0.01and ***= P |z|) (Intercept) 2.87 0.20 14.297 *** YEAR -0.13 0.06 -2.157 * Gabés -1.09 0.51 -2.112 * TYPE 2 -0.30 0.36 -0.834 TYPE 3 -0.30 0.48 -0.619 AREAOA -0.36 0.31 -1.180 YEAR:Gabés 0.48 0.15 3.282 ** TYPE2:AREAOA 0.47 0.36 1.304 TYPE3:AREAOA 0.97 0.40 2.439 * The population trend in NWBS varied between Kebili and Gabés; a slight decline was observed in Kebili, while the trend was in Gabés (Fig. 3 ). The impact of AREAOA on NWBS was influenced by oasis type (Fig. 4 ), indicating that numbers remain relatively consistent regardless of oasis area in TYPE 1 and 2, while the area has a significant and positive effect in oasis TYPE 3. Hunting effectiveness model The results indicate varying levels of HE between Kebili and Gabés: ranged from 22.68–66.68%, averaging 37.24% in Kebili, while in Gabés ranged from 35.48–62.5%, averaging 51.67% (Fig. 5 ). Furthermore, the model showed a significant a negative relationship between HE and DNR (Table 2 ). Table 2 Generalized linear mixed model (binomial distribution and logit link function) parameterized to explore the drivers of the hunting effectiveness (ratio between wild boar culled and seen) ( ns = P > 0.05 , *= P < 0.05, **= P < 0.01 and ***= P |z|) (Intercept) -0.83 0.10 -8.344 *** Gabés 0.79 0.20 3.909 *** TYPE 2 -0.29 0.19 -1.589 ns TYPE 3 -0.15 0.21 -0.724 ns DNR -0.13 0.06 -2.172 * Discussion We investigated the spatial pattern of wild boar population abundance and hunting effectiveness by analyzing hunting statistics from the oases in two regions of southern Tunisia, specifically Kebili and Gabés. Overall, this study highlights the significant role that oases play in providing refuge for wild boar. The abundance of wild boar was greater in Kebili compared to Gabés; however, the population trend in Gabés was positive. The population dynamics of wild boar in these two regions were distinct, with a potential risk of population growth depending on environmental conditions. The hunting effectiveness and therefore the capacity for regulating population with hunting was higher in Gabés. Thus, different scenarios were reported, one with high population abundance and stabilized populations and another with lower abundance, increasing populations and where hunting could be still enough to regulate wild boar populations. Wild boar population abundance Although wild boar is a significant and intrinsic element of the forest ecosystem (Acevedo et al. 2006 ; Tarvydas and Belova 2022 ), our results indicate that oases play a crucial role as a habitat for wild boar in Tunisia. This could be explained by the fact that these contrasting habitats within the desert provide an appropriate patch system where wild boar can access high-energy food sources. Particularly, the availability of food resources emerges as a critical factor influencing habitat selection for wild boar (Ballari and Barrios-García 2014 ; Lee and Lee 2014 ). These resources could include dates roots, and nuts (authors, unpublished data), as well as crops such as corn, sorghum, or legumes (Salah 2011 ), that can thrive in desert conditions with appropriate irrigation. Furthermore, the presence of water resources and the availability of shelter constructed by patches of dense vegetation around oases provide refuge from extreme temperatures and predators. These factors contribute significantly to the appropriateness of these habitats for wild boar. These findings align with previous studies (Amici et al. 2012 ; Hajji and Zachos 2011 ) and affirm the remarkable adaptability of wild boar to varying environmental conditions (Podgórski et al. 2013 ; Frauendorf et al. 2016 ), highlighting their significant capacity to thrive in oases agrosystems (Vetter et al. 2015 , 2020 ) due to their flexible feeding behaviors (Schley and Roper 2003 ) and life history plasticity (Gamelon et al. 2013 ). Interestingly, we found that both wild boar abundance showed differences in temporal trends in each region. This indicates that hunting pressure might be insufficient in some areas to effectively manage populations, particularly because regulatory adjustments are not based on scientific data. Additionally, the year-to-year fluctuations in abundance can be attributed to various factors, with human activities and climate and weather conditions playing a significant role in shaping these dynamics (Melis et al. 2006 ). These conditions can affect reproduction, food availability, and survival rates (Massei et al. 1996 ; Keuling et al. 2008 ). Predation by natural predators, notably wolves (Eddine et al. 2017 ), and susceptibility to diseases may also play a role as contributing factors (Vicente et al. 2006 ). Additionally, our results indicate that wild boar abundance in Kebili have consistently been the highest, although showing a slight decrease over the years. This trend may be related to the dispersion and movement of wild boar into new areas, influenced by the connectivity between oases as well as a variety range of environmental and human factors (Schley et al. 2008 ). In contrast, wild boar populations in Gabés have shown a positive trend. This indicates that Gabés, in comparison to Kebili where traditional oases are scarce (Ben Ahmed Zaag 2017 ; CDCGE 2017), likely offers a more favorable ecological environment for wild boar. It's noteworthy that the majority of oases in Gabés fall into the category of type 3 layered oases (88%), renowned for their diverse feed offerings (Anonymous, 2015 ; Belarbi et al., 2004 ; Santoro, 2023 ). Furthermore, these traditional oases, classified as agroforestry systems in accordance with the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) definition, have fostered crucial microhabitats for wildlife and indigenous plant species (McNeely et al. 1995 ; Nair et al. 2021). Additionally, coastal systems are of significance to wild boar due to their pivotal role in supplying crucial resources and habitat features necessary for their survival and well-being (Dardaillon 1986 ). It should be also noted that wild boar tends to favor expansive fields, which is consistent with the results of previous works on game species and their preference for cultivated areas relative to the total sown area (Bleier et al. 2012 ). Indeed, larger oases not only provide various resources to fulfill the food, water, and protection requirements of wild boar but also have the capacity to accommodate larger populations, facilitating social interactions, breeding opportunities, and population stability. Wild boar hunting effectiveness We found that the number of boar killed per hunter was less than two, with 1.8 and 2 boars killed per hunter in Kebili and Gabés, respectively. These values are notably lower compared to the wild boar harvest through drive hunts in Europe. For example, in northwestern Spain, as well as in the experimental forest of Châteauvillain-Arc-en-Barrois in Northeastern France, the harvest yield averaged 4.6 ± 2 (Giménez-Anaya et al. 2016 ) and 6.67 ± 5.84 (Vajas et al. 2020 ), respectively. Considering that increased hunting effort results in more culled animals (Grau and Grau 1980; Rist 2007 ; Rivrud et al. 2014 ; Diekert et al. 2016 ), it appears that controlled hunting, which involves a limited number of posted hunters and a short hunting season (less than 60 days from September to late March each year), does not significantly influence or contribute to the effective control and regulation of wild boar numbers. Furthermore, the proficiency of the hunter could play a role in the restricted efficacy of wild boar hunting in oasis settings. Moreover, the skill level of the hunter might play a role in the restricted efficacy of wild boar hunting in oasis environments. Hunters may be deficient in certain aspects including familiarity with the oasis landscape, the ability to stealthily navigate these surroundings to approach their targets, and understanding animal behavior such as feeding habits, movement patterns, and responses to potential threats. This understanding is crucial for predicting the presence of wild boar and enhancing the likelihood of a successful hunt (Apollonio et al. 2010 ; Meijaard and Melletti 2017 ). Weather conditions, notably temperature and wind can impact hunting success. Extreme temperatures could influence animal behavior, prompting them to seek shelter or change their activity patterns (Taylor et al. 2018 ), whereas strong winds may disperse scents, increasing the difficulty for hunters to evade detection (Stankowich and Coss 2011 ; Jezierski et al. 2014 ; Kokocińska et al. 2021). It’s also possible that the presence or frequency of farming activities, particularly during the hunting season (from September to late March each year), coinciding with the season for harvesting dates and maintaining the oases, could indirectly impact hunting effectiveness. This might occur by altering wild boar behaviour or posing challenges for hunters in accessing specific areas. According to Jensen et al. ( 2017 ) we also expected that oasis would encompass more suitable hiding zones, or may provide reduced disturbance regarding the hunt. Currently, hunters in Gabés are likely able to regulate the wild boar population size, whereas in Kebili, where the population is higher, it surpasses the hunters' capacity to manage it. Population abundance emerges as a critical factor, potentially diminishing hunters' effectiveness due to several reasons. As wild boars grow, they become increasingly difficult to track and hunt, adapting to avoid hunters by utilizing denser vegetation and remote areas (Keuling et al. 2008 ). This abundance can overwhelm hunters, spreading their efforts thin and reducing success rates (Massei et al. 2015 ). Moreover, increased numbers may lead to overestimating population control and heightened competition for resources, resulting in smaller, healthier, and more elusive individuals (Vetter et al. 2015 ). On the other hand, the difference in the hunting effectiveness of wild boar between Gabés and Kebili may stem from various interacting factors, including landscape characteristics such as afforested areas, shelterbelts, and vegetation density, as well as disparities in climate and topography. Resource availability is undeniably pivotal, potentially influencing the behavior and vulnerability of wild boar to hunting pressures, as noted by several studies (Acevedo et al. 2009 ; Barrios-Garcia and Ballari 2012 ; Ekroos et al. 2020 ). Furthermore, it is evident that, the availability of resources significantly influences the behavior and susceptibility of wild boar to hunting pressure (Acevedo et al. 2009 ; Barrios-Garcia and Ballari 2012 ; Ekroos et al. 2020 ). For instance, recent research (Gabsi et al. 2024) highlights that the isopods, potentially part of the wild boar's diet, are distributed along an east-west gradient, with coastal oases exhibiting the highest species diversity and Saharan oases displaying the lowest. Nevertheless, comprehensively addressing the issue of hunting effectiveness variation between Gabés and Kebili necessitates a multidisciplinary approach integrating ecological, socio-economic, and cultural viewpoints. Interestingly, our findings indicate that the structural complexity of habitat layers does not appear to impact hunting effectiveness. No noticeable differences in hunting effectiveness were observed among one-layer, two-layer, or three-layer oases. This implies that hunting effectiveness refers specifically to the ratio between the number of animals that are successfully hunted and the number of animals that are sighted, without accounting for habitat organization (Apollonio et al. 2010 ). On the other hand, we found that hunting success show a negative relationship with the distance to roads. This result is consistent with those done by Rowland et al. ( 2021 ) who illustrate in their study, concerning the mule deer ( Odocoileus hemionus ) and elk ( Cervus canadensis ) in northeastern Oregon, USA, that unsuccessful archers was highest near open roads but remained relatively high up to about 2 km distant for this group and for successful rifle elk hunters. The negative relationship between hunting success and the distance to roads can be attributed to various factors. One possible explanation is that wild boar avoid areas closer to roads due to increased human activity and disturbance like pollution, noise. Additionally, hunting pressure near roads may lead to depleted wildlife populations, further reducing hunting success in these areas. Conclusion This study delineates the spatial and temporal dynamics of a hunted wild boar population within the oases of two southern regions in Tunisia. Overall, results suggest that these oases agrosystems serve as significant habitats for wild boar. This underscores the importance of these particular ecosystems in sustaining the population and ecological balance of wild boar in the region. Additionally, it aligns with the environmental plasticity linked to this species. Furthermore, despite considering various factors that may explain wild boar abundance and hunting effectiveness, such as time, types and size of oases, and proximity to roads, further data collection, including population demographics in the two oasis habitats and details from hunting logbooks such as the number of beaters, the number of dogs, the moment of the hunting day are needed to improve population management strategies. On the other hand, considering the current abundance and population trend of wild boar in our study area, it is imperative to anticipate their expected evolution. With low hunting effectiveness potentially allowing the population to grow continually, the wild boar abundance could indeed reach unsustainable levels. This scenario could leading to ecological imbalances and increased human-wildlife conflicts. To mitigate these risks, efforts could be made to improve hunting effectiveness through various strategies such as enhancing hunter skills, optimizing hunting techniques, and implementing stricter regulations. Declarations Funding Declaration: This research received no external funding. Animal Ethics and Consent to Participate declarations : not applicable’. Author Contribution Conceptualization (A), Methodology (B), Investigation (C), Data curation (D) Formal analysis (E), Writing - Original Draft (F) Validation (G) and Supervision(H)- Ghandri Aida: A.B.C.D.E.F.- Acevedo Pelayo: A.B.E.F.G.- Jarray Mohsen: C.- Zaidi Ali : C.- Chammem Mohsen : A.B.E.F.G.H. References Acevedo P, Escudero MA, Muńoz R, Gortázar C (2006) Factors affecting wild boar abundance across an environmental gradient in Spain. Acta Theriol 51 (3), 327–336 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03192685 Acevedo P, Quirós-Fernández F, Casal J, Vicente J (2014) Spatial distribution of wild boar population abundance: Basic information for spatial epidemiology and wildlife management. Ecol Indic 36:594–600. 10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.09.019 Acevedo P, Vicente J, Alzaga V, Gortázar C (2009) Wild boar abundance and hunting effectiveness in Atlantic Spain: Environmental constraints. Galemys 21(2):13–29. 10.7325/Galemys.2009.2.A2 Amici A, Serrani F, Rossi CM et al (2012) Increase in crop damage caused by wild boar (Sus scrofa L.): the refuge effect. Agron Sustain Dev 32 (3), 683–692 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-011-0057-6 Anonymous (2015) Ministère de l’environnement et de développement durable. Stratégie de Développement Durable des Oasis en Tunisie. Direction générale de l’environnement et de la qualité de la vie: Tunis, Tunisia, 2015 Apollonio M, Anderson R, Putman R (eds) (2010) European ungulates and their management in the 21st Century. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32350377 Apollonio M, Belkin VV, Borkowski J, Borodin OI, Borowik T, Cagnacci F, Danilkin AA, Danilov PI, Faybich A, Ferretti F, Gaillard JM, Hayward M, Heshtaut P, Heurich M, Hurynovich A, Kashtalyan A, Kerley GIH, Kjellander P, Kowalczyk R, Kozorez A, Matveytchuk S, Milner JM, Mysterud A, Ozoliņš J, Panchenko DV, Peters W, Podgórski T, Pokorny B, Rolandsen CM, Ruusila V, Schmidt K, Sipko TP, Veeroja R, Velihurau P, Yanuta G (2017) Challenges and science-based implications for modern management and conservation of European ungulate populations. Mamm Res 62 (3), 209–217 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13364-017-0321-5 Ballari SA, Barrios-García MN (2014) A review of wild boar Sus scrofa diet and factors affecting food selection in native and introduced ranges. Mamm Rev 44(2):124–134. 10.1111/mam.12015 Barrios-Garcia MN, Ballari SA (2012) Impact of wild boar (Sus scrofa) in its introduced and native range: a review. Biol Invasions 14(11):2283–2300. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10530-012-0229-6 Bates D, Mächler M, Bolker B, Walker S (2015) Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using lme4. J Stat Softw 67(1):1–48. 10.18637/jss.v067.i01 Belarbi A, Bouayad A, Diaou M, Kaassis N, Maliki MT Agrobiodiversity and Sustainability of Oasis Production Systems in the Palm Groves of Aoufouss, Errachidia (2004) Morocco; (Serie de Documents de Travail-Agropolis International, (121)); Agropolis International: Montpellier, France, 2004 Ben Ahmed Zaag D (2017) The economic importance of dates production in Tunisia. Paper presented at the International Conference on the Red Palm Weevil in Tunisia, May 3–5, 32 pp Benmoussa H, El kadri N, Ben Aissa N, Ben Mimoun M (2022) A field survey suggests changes in oasis characteristics in the Kebili region of southern Tunisia. New Medit special issue 2022. 10.30682/nm2205a Bleier N, Lehoczki R, Újváry D, Szemethy L, Csányi S (2012) Relationships between wild ungulates density and crop damage in Hungary. Acta Theriol 57, 351–359 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13364-012-0082-0 CDCGE (Consulting en Développement Communautaire et en Gestion d’Entreprise), 2017. Atlas des oasis traditionnelles de Tunisie, 153 pp Dardaillon M (1986) Seasonal variations in habitat selection and spatial distribution of wild boar (Sus Scrofa) in the Camargue, Southern France, Behav Process,13 (3), 251–268, SSN 0376–6357, https://doi.org/10.1016/0376-6357(86)90088-4 Diekert FK, Richter A, Rivrud IM, Mysterud A (2016) How constraints affect the hunter’s decision to shoot a deer. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(50), 14450–14455. 10.1073/pnas.1607685113 Eddine A, Mostefai N, De Smet K, Klees D, Ansorge H, Karssene Y, Nowak C, Der Leer PV (2017) Diet composition of a Newly Recognized Canid Species, the African Golden Wolf (Canis anthus), in Northern Algeria. Ann Zool Fenn 54(5–6), 347–356, (1 November 2017). https://doi.org/10.5735/086.054.0506 Ekroos J, Kleijn D, Batáry P, Albrecht M, Báldi A, Blüthgen N, Knop E, Kovács-Hostyánszki A, Smith HG (2020) High land-use intensity in grasslands constrains wild bee species richness in Europe. Biol Conserv 241108255. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2019.108255 Frauendorf M, Gethöffer F, Siebert U, Keuling O (2016) The influence of environmental and physiological factors on the litter size of wild boar ( Sus scrofa ) in an agriculture dominated area in Germany. Sci Total Environ 541:877–882. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.09.128 Gabsi F, Ehsine M, Laifi N, Ouni A, Medini-Bouaziz L (2023) Terrestrial isopod diversity and species-area relations in Tunisian traditional oases. Biol 79(1):239–249. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11756-023-01524-1 Gamelon M, Douhard M, Baubet E, Gimenez O, Brandt S, Gaillard JM (2013) Fluctuating food resources influence developmental plasticity in wild boar. Biol Lett 9(5):20130419–20130419. 10.1098/rsbl.2013.0419 Gaynor K, Mcinturff A, Abrahms BL, Smith AM (2024) Hunting mode and habitat selection mediate the success of human hunters. Mov Ecol 12(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40462-024-00471-z Gharaibeh BM (1997) Systematics, distribution, and zoogeography of mammals of Tunisia. PhD Thesis, Texas Tech University Giménez-Anaya A, Herrero J, García-Serrano A, García-González R, Prada C (2016) Wild boar battues reduce crop damages in a protected area. Folia Zool 65(3):214–220. https://doi.org/10.25225/fozo.v65.i3.a6.2016 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(1):197–203. https://doi.org/10.1672/07-18.1 Graitson E, Barbraud C, Bonnet X (2018) Catastrophic impact of wild boar: insufficient hunting pressure pushes snakes to the brink. Anim Conserv 22(2):165–176. https://doi.org/10.1111/acv.12447 Hajji GEM, Zachos FE (2011) Mitochondrial and nuclear DNA analyses reveal pronounced genetic structuring in Tunisian wild boar Susscrofa. Eur J Wildl Res 57:449–456 Imperio S, Ferrante M, Grignetti A, Santini G, Focardi S (2010) Investigating population dynamics in ungulates: Do hunting statistics make up a good index of population abundance? Wildl Biol 16(2):205–214. http://dx.doi.org/10.2981/08-051 Jaradat AA (2011) Biodiversity of Date Palm. Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems: Land Use, Land Cover and Soil Sciences, vol 31. Eolss, Oxford, UK Jensen GH, Pellissier L, Tombre IM, Madsen J (2017) Landscape selection by migratory geese: implications for hunting organisation. Wildl Biol 2017(1):1–12. http://dx.doi.org/10.2981/wlb.00192 Jezierski T, Adamkiewicz E, Walczak M, Sobczynska M, Górecka-Bruzda A, Ensminger J, Papet E (2014) Efficacy of drugdetection by fully-trained police dogs varies by breed, training level, type of drug and search environment. Forensic Sci 237:112–118. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2014.01.013 Kassah A (1996) Les oasis tunisiennes, aménagement hydroagricole et développement en zone aride, Publications CERES série géographique n°13 Tunis, 345 p Keuling O, Baubet E, Duscher A, Ebert C, Fischer C, Monaco A, Podgórski T, Prevot C, Ronnenberg K, Sodeikat G, Stier N, Thurfjell H (2013) Mortality rates of wild boar Sus scrofa L. in central Europe. Eur J Wildl Res 59, 805–814 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10344-013-0733-8 Keuling O, Sange M, Acevedo P, Podgorski T, Smith G, Scandura M, Apollonio M, Ferroglio E, Vicente J (2018) Guidance on estimation of wild boar population abundance and density: methods, challenges, possibilities. EFSA Supp Publ 15:1449E. http://dx.doi.org/10.2903/sp.efsa.2018.en-1449 Keuling O, Stier N, Roth M (2008) How does hunting influence activity and spatial usage in wild boar Sus scrofa L? Eur J Wildl Res 54(4):729–737. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10344-008-0204-9 Kokocińska-Kusiak A, Woszczyło M, Zybala M, Maciocha J, Barłowska K, Dzięcioł M (2021) Canine Olfaction: Physiology, Behavior, and Possibilities for Practical Applications. Anim 2021, 11, 2463. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34438920 Langbein J, Putman R, Pokorny B (2011) Traffic collisions involving deer and other ungulates in Europe and available measures for mitigation. Ungulate Manage Europe 215–259 Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511974137.009 Lasram M (1990) Les systèmes agricoles oasiens dans le Sud de la Tunisie. In: Dollé V. (ed.), Toutain G. (ed.). Les systèmes agricoles oasiens. Montpellier, CIHEAM, 1990. pp. 21–27 Lee JH, Lee WS (2014) Diet of The Wild boar (Sus scrofa) in Agricultural Land of Geochang, Gyeongnam Province, Korea. J Korean Soc 103(2):307–312. http://dx.doi.org/10.14578/jkfs.2014.103.2.307 Maillard D, Roc L, Mela O (2008) Principes et intérêts d’un découpage bio-géographique en unités de gestion (cas du département de l’hérault). Modalité de Gestion du Sanglier Massei G, Genov PV, Staines BW (1996) Diet, food availability and reproduction of wild boar in a Mediterranean coastal area. Acta Theriol 41:307–320. http://dx.doi.org/10.4098/at.arch.96-29 Massei G, Kindberg J, Licoppe A, Gačić M, Šprem N, Kamler J, Baubet E, Hohmann, Ulf, Monaco A, Ozoliņš 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 Manag Sci 71(4):492–500. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ps.3965 McNeely JA, Gadgil M, Levèque C, Padoch C, Redford K (1995) Human influences on biodiversity. In The Global Biodiversity Assessment; HEYWOOD VH (Eds.) 1995. United Nations Environment Programme. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Pp. 711–821 Meijaard E, Melletti M (2017) Ecology, conservation and management of wild pigs and peccaries. Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/9781316941232 Melis C, Szafrańska PA, Jędrzejewska B, Bartoń K (2006) Biogeographical variation in the population density of wild boar (Sus scrofa) in western Eurasia. J Biogeogr 33(5):803–811. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2699.2006.01434.x Morais TA, Rosa CA, Azevedo CS, Viana-Junior AB, Santos P, Passamani M (2019) Factors affecting space use by wild boars ( Sus scrofa ) in high-elevation tropical forests. Can J Zool 97:971–978. dx.doi.org/10.1139/cjz-2019-0130 Moreno-Zarate L, Arroyo B, Peach W (2021) Effectiveness of hunting regulations for the conservation of a globally-threatened species: The case of the European turtle-dove in Spain. Biol Conserv. 256, 2021/04,109067, ISSN 0006-3207 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2021.109067 Nair PKR, Kumar BM, NairVD (2021) Classification of Agroforestry Systems. An Introduction to Agroforestry. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-75358-0_3 Podgórski T, Baś G, Jędrzejewska B, Sönnichsen L, Śnieżko S, Jędrzejewski W, Okarma H (2013) Spatiotemporal behavioral plasticity of wild boar (Sus scrofa) under contrasting conditions of human pressure: primeval forest and metropolitan area. J Mammal 94(1):109–119. http://dx.doi.org/10.1644/12-mamm-a-038.1 Podgórski T, Śmietanka K (2018) Do wild boar movements drive the spread of African Swine Fever? Transbound Emerg Dis 65(6):1588–1596. https://doi.org/10.1111/tbed.12910 Quirós-Fernández F, Marcos J, Acevedo P, Gortázar C (2017) Hunters serving the ecosystem: the contribution of recreational hunting to wild boar population control. Eur J Wildl Res 63(3). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10344-017-1107-4 Riou C (1990) Bioclimatologie des oasis. Options Méditerranéenne A 11:207–220 Rist J (2007) Bushmeat catch per unit effort in space and time:a monitoring tool for bushmeat hunting. Ph.D. thesis. Department of Life Sciences, Imperial College, London. http://www.iccs.org.uk/thesis.htm Rivrud IM, Meisingset EL, Loe LE, Mysterud A (2014) Interaction effects between weather and space use on harvesting effort and patterns in red deer. Ecol Evol 4(24):4786–4797. 10.1002/ece3.1318 Rowland MM, Nielson RM, Wisdom MJ, Johnson BK, Findholt S, Clark D, Didonato GT, Hafer JM, Naylor BJ (2021) Influence of Landscape Characteristics on Hunter Space Use and Success. J Wild Manage 85:1394–1409. https://doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.22107 Ruiz-Rodríguez C, Blanco-Aguiar JA, Gómez-Molina A, Illanas S, Fernández-López J, Acevedo P, Vicente J (2023) Towards standardising the collection of game statistics in Europe: a case study. Eur J Wildl Res 69:122. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10344-023-01746-3 Ruiz-Rodríguez C, Fernández-López J, Vicente J, Blanco-Aguiar JA, Acevedo P (2022) Revisiting wild boar spatial models based on hunting yields to assess their predictive performance on interpolation and extrapolation areas, Ecol Model, 471, 2022, 110041, ISSN 0304–3800, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2022.110041 Salah M, Ben (2011) Agro-biodiversity and Traditional Knowledge on Tunisian Coastal Oases. J Environ Sci Eng 5:303–308. http://dx.doi.org/10.17265/1934-7391/2015.05.007 Sales LP, Ribeiro BR, Hayward MW, Paglia A, Passamani M, Loyola R (2017) Niche conservatism and the invasive potential of the wild boar. J Anim Ecol 86(5):1214–1223. 10.1111/1365-2656.12721 Santora JA, Mantua NJ, Schroeder ID et al (2020) Habitat compression and ecosystem shifts as potential links between marine heatwave and record whale entanglements. Nat Commun 11, 536 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-14215-w Santoro A (2023) Traditional oases in Northern Africa as multifunctional agroforestry systems: a systematic literature review of the provided Ecosystem Services and of the main vulnerabilities. Agroforest Syst 97, 81–96 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-022-00789-w Schley L, Dufrêne M, Krier A, Frantz AC (2008) Patterns of crop damage by wild boar (Sus scrofa) in Luxembourg over a 10-year period. Eur J Wildl Res 54(4):589–599. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10344-008-0183-x Schley L, Roper TJ (2003) Diet of wild boar Sus scrofa in Western Europe, with particular reference to consumption of agricultural crops. Mamm Rev 33(1):43–56. 10.1046/j.1365-2907.2003.00010.x Sghaier M (2010) Etude de la gouvernance des ressources naturelles dans les oasis. Cas des oasis en Tunisie. UICN & UKAID Stankowich T, Coss RG (2011) The effect of wind on the detectability of scent by animals. Olfaction and Electronic Nose, Proceedings of the 14th International Symposium on Olfaction and Electronic Nose Tarvydas A, Belova O (2022) Effect of Wild Boar ( Sus scrofa L.) on Forests, Agricultural Lands and Population Management in Lithuania. Diversity 2022, 14(10), 801; https://doi.org/10.3390/d14100801 Taylor CM, Laughlin AJ, Hall RJ (2018) The response of migratory populations to phenological change: a Migratory Flow Network modelling approach. J Anim Ecol 85(3):648–659. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1365-2656.12494 Thurfjell H, Spong G, Olsson M, Ericsson G (2015) Avoidance of high traffic levels results in lower risk of wild boar-vehicle accidents, Landsc Urban Plan. 133:98–104 ISSN 0169–2046. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.09.015 Tombre IM, Fredriksen F, Jerpstad O, Østnes JE, Eythórsson E (2022) Population control by means of organised hunting effort: Experiences from a voluntary goose hunting arrangement. Ambio 51:728–742. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-021-01590-2 Vajas P, Calenge C, Gamelon M, Girard F, Melac O, Chandosne C, Richard E, Said S, Baubet E (2021) Catch-effort model used as a management tool in exploited populations: Wild boar as a case study. Ecol Indic 124:107–442. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2021.107442 Vajas P, Calenge C, Richard E, Fattebert J, Rousset C, Saïd S, Baubet E (2020) Many, large and early: Hunting pressure on wild boar relates to simple metrics of hunting effort. Sci Total Environ 134–251. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.134251 Vajas P, Von Essen E, Tickle L, Gamelon M (2023) Meeting the challenges of wild boar hunting in a modern society: The case of France. Ambio 52, 1359–1372 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-023-01852-1 Vetter SG, Puskas Z, Bieber C, Ruf T (2020) How climate change and wildlife management affect population structure in wild boars. Sci Rep 10, 7298 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-64216-9 Vetter SG, Ruf T, Bieber C, Arnold W (2015) What is a mild winter? Regional differences in within-species responses to climate change. PLoS ONE, 10(7), e0132178 Vicente J, Ruiz-Fons F, Vidal D, Höfle U, Acevedo P, Villanúa D, Fernández‐de‐Mera IG, Martín MP, Gortázar C (2006) Serosurvey of Aujeszky's disease virus infection in European wild boar in Spain. Vet Rec 159(13):399–403. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/vr.156.13.408 Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Published Journal Publication published 30 Sep, 2024 Read the published version in European Journal of Wildlife Research → Version 1 posted Editorial decision: Revision requested 03 Sep, 2024 Reviews received at journal 30 Aug, 2024 Reviewers agreed at journal 02 Aug, 2024 Reviewers invited by journal 02 Aug, 2024 Editor assigned by journal 02 Aug, 2024 Submission checks completed at journal 01 Jul, 2024 First submitted to journal 27 Jun, 2024 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-4647284","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":321480606,"identity":"adae9a97-7db6-4260-98fc-eb82d1b2d233","order_by":0,"name":"Aida Ghandri","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Institut des Régions Arides (IRA)","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Aida","middleName":"","lastName":"Ghandri","suffix":""},{"id":321480607,"identity":"654b0015-e86e-4e85-b854-2247a4c516c9","order_by":1,"name":"Pelayo Acevedo","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Instituto de Investigación en Recursos Cinegéticos, IREC (CSIC-UCLM-JCCM)","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Pelayo","middleName":"","lastName":"Acevedo","suffix":""},{"id":321480608,"identity":"935f3680-0ce3-4413-9b96-6c93e2d6ecbe","order_by":2,"name":"Mohsen Jarray","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Institut des Régions Arides (IRA)","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Mohsen","middleName":"","lastName":"Jarray","suffix":""},{"id":321480609,"identity":"e7d8c8be-d69c-459e-89b9-a98dea641f3e","order_by":3,"name":"Ali Zaidi","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Institut des Régions Arides (IRA)","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Ali","middleName":"","lastName":"Zaidi","suffix":""},{"id":321480610,"identity":"d353da75-78ec-435c-9ff6-89182056a9f2","order_by":4,"name":"Mohsen Chammem","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Institut des Régions Arides (IRA)","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Mohsen","middleName":"","lastName":"Chammem","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2024-06-27 09:14:22","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-4647284/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-4647284/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[{"content":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10344-024-01856-6","type":"published","date":"2024-09-30T15:57:55+00:00"}],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":60973871,"identity":"29c92125-ddc1-438b-9421-b15c76b2cd45","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-07-24 07:44:00","extension":"jpeg","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":335679,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eLocalization of the study areas (a): in kebili and (b) in Gabés with circles show wild boar’s shelters (n = 13 and n =29, respectively; they are the management units) where data on wild boar abundance and hunting effectiveness were obtained\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"image1.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4647284/v1/eb40f8bd21b1e3948e099244.jpeg"},{"id":60973869,"identity":"1834b707-9e86-44e7-a8c8-3f5117a37a9c","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-07-24 07:44:00","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":61683,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eRelationship between the number of wild boar seen and the number of wild boar hunted in Kebili and Gabés (Tunisia).\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"image2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4647284/v1/47ce7ba26c60db07ea59727b.png"},{"id":60973874,"identity":"1eabc609-ca6b-4885-8785-535f9f56e373","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-07-24 07:44:00","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":174134,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eTemporal trend of the wild boar abundance (number of wild boar seen) in the two studied regions, Kebili and Gabés according to the model described in Table 1.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"image3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4647284/v1/46c09ce7f0bc67c903d2fba9.png"},{"id":60973872,"identity":"0118ef03-24a0-40d8-a01f-50b76d7d482f","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-07-24 07:44:00","extension":"png","order_by":4,"title":"Figure 4","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":65158,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eVariation in the relationship between wild boar abundance (number of wild boar seen) and the surface of oasis (Km\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e) between the three types of oasis according to the model described in Table 1.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"image4.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4647284/v1/97193c917b975a41fe7289ce.png"},{"id":60973873,"identity":"0725dc66-5610-43e7-bc0a-a8496bc15db4","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-07-24 07:44:00","extension":"png","order_by":5,"title":"Figure 5","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":83947,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eVariation of hunting effectiveness according to the two governorates, Kebili and Gabés (left) and to the distance to the nearest road (km; right) according to the model described in Table 2.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"image5.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4647284/v1/067628d741ca8b36ebdabacf.png"},{"id":66097663,"identity":"54ba62a5-ac55-42c2-8495-52c65b254dba","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-10-07 16:14:55","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1223265,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4647284/v1/cff62912-4585-4240-aa39-8b77d9ea3eae.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Drivers of wild boar abundance and hunting effectiveness in southern Tunisia","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe worldwide wild boar (\u003cem\u003eSus scrofa\u003c/em\u003e) expansion is leading to human-wildlife conflicts such as biodiversity conservation and socio-economic interests. It causes serious crop damages, impacts on soil macro and microfauna composition, and soil disturbance with important effects on the dynamics of native plant communities (Hajji and Zachos \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e). Wild boar can also spread infectious diseases to wildlife, livestock and people (Barrios-Garcia and Ballari \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e; Acevedo et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e; Podg\u0026oacute;rski and Śmietanka \u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e), is involved in traffic collisions (Langbein et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e; Thurfjell et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR69\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e) and damages to anthropogenic infrastructures (Gim\u0026eacute;nez-Anaya et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e; Graitson et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). Since the population expansion is far to stabilization (e.g. Massei et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e), it is mandatory to monitor population distribution and abundance, especially in newly occupied areas and fragile ecosystems, to avoid conflicts and reduce potential damages.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eVarious management strategies were used to control wild boar population size and population growth (Apollonio et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e; Massei et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). Management of wild boar has recently focused on facilitating high hunting pressure to regulate population size (e.g. Apollonio et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e; Keuling et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e; Massei et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e; Tombre et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR70\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Vajas et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR73\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e) reported that hunting is the main cause of wild boar mortality and therefore a feasible way to modulate its population dynamics (see also Quir\u0026oacute;s-Fern\u0026aacute;ndez et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). In this context, some authors raise that more knowledge on various aspects of wild boar ecology and hunting dynamics are needed to develop effective population control strategies. Specifically, they call for detailed studies on wild boar behavior, including their social structures and movement patterns, and hunting practices, such as techniques used, the intensity of hunting (the number of hunting days and of hunters involved) and catchability rates (Gaynor et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e) These factors are requested to develop effective managements strategies that can mitigate the ecological and economic impacts of wild boar populations (e.g. Apollonio et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e; Keuling et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e; Vajas et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR72\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR71\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eEstimations of population abundance and the drivers explaining their variations at a spatio-temporal scale are pivotal for decision making under an adaptive management perspective (e.g. Apollonio et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). Determining population abundance of wildlife in general and wild boar in particular is not straightforward, mainly when information is requested at large spatial scale (Enetwild-consortium et al. 2018). Specifically, in the case of wild boar monitoring at regional/national scales, the hunting statistics are widely used (Imperio et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e; Vajas et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR72\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Ruiz-Rodr\u0026iacute;guez et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR58\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). Hunting statistics, when collected under harmonized and standardized protocols (Ruiz-Rodr\u0026iacute;guez et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR57\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e), are able to sustain efficient management programs under an adaptive management design (Moreno-Zarate et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR48\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe wild boar is native to much of Eurasia and North Africa (Sales et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR60\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). It is well known that the wild boar has a remarkable plasticity to environment conditions (Frauendorf et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e) and also a high potential for adapting to arid environments (Vetter et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR75\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR74\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). Thus, in North Africa wild boar occurrence ranged from Morocco, eastward through Tunisia, to Egypt (Gharaibeh \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1997\u003c/span\u003e). According to Hajji and Zachos (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e) the populations of this species have increased and expanded its range from the northwest into southward of the country since the early 1980s. Wildlife managers reported that some individuals, supposedly from southern Algeria, crossed Jebel Brikis in Tamarza near the border and occupied Tozeur. Thereafter its distribution ranges are expanding throughout the south, especially Gafsa, Kebili and Gab\u0026eacute;s (Hajji and Zachos \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e) (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e). In fact, in addition to the abandonment of agriculture-raised food, the species has also greatly benefited from the shelter availability bordering oases agrosystems, especially riverine vegetation, reed beds and forest, and the lack of large wild predator (Hajji and Zachos \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e; Amici et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWild boar hunting is an ancient tradition in Tunisia both as a traditional recreational activity and nowadays as an instrument to control population expansion and therefore, to reduce human-wild boar conflicts (Gharaibeh \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1997\u003c/span\u003e; Hajji and Zachos \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e). This hunting activity, along with the economic benefits derived from hunting tourism, is regulated by the Department of Forest (hereafter DGF, Direction G\u0026eacute;n\u0026eacute;rale des For\u0026ecirc;ts) and implemented in coordination with Tunisian wild boar hunting companies. The \"battues administratives\" are permitted not only in the northern region where the species is very abundant but also in the southern area, especially in wetlands such oasis. However, despite battues were regularly organized over the past decades, it is thought that the abundance and range of wild boar populations continue to increase. Potential reasons for this population increasing are explained by the fact that knowledge about population status and trends in southern Tunisia is still lacking and therefore there is not basal information for designing effective management programs. In this context, this study attempted to provide detailed data on the population status of the wild boar in oases agrosystems of southern Tunisia and outline its trends through the analysis of hunting data. More specifically, we aimed to \u003cem\u003ei\u003c/em\u003e) estimate the wild boar abundance and current population trends, and \u003cem\u003eii\u003c/em\u003e) characterize the hunting effectiveness, and finally \u003cem\u003eiii\u003c/em\u003e) assess the possible drivers related to landscape structure and composition on wild boar abundance and hunting effectiveness. We hypothesized that wild boar population abundance would be modulated by the vegetation-structure complexity in the oasis, the availability of shelter areas near of pastures and the water sources. The results attain relevance for providing basic information for designing effective monitoring and management program of the species in this fragile ecosystem.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Materials and methods","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eStudy area\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eOur study area covers two oases in southern Tunisia, namely Gab\u0026eacute;s (33\u0026deg;52\u0026rsquo;53\u0026rsquo;\u0026rsquo;N, 10\u0026deg;05\u0026rsquo;53\u0026rsquo;\u0026rsquo;E) and Kebili (33\u0026deg;42\u0026rsquo;18\u0026rsquo;\u0026rsquo;N, 8\u0026deg;57\u0026rsquo;54\u0026rsquo;\u0026rsquo;E). These oases are categorized as either \"traditional\" or \"modern,\" depending on factors such as seniority, cropping systems, and governance structures (Lasram, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1990\u003c/span\u003e). In Tunisia, traditional oases constitute 47% of the total, while modern ones make up the remaining 53% (CDCGE 2017). Kebili, in particular, is notable for its prevalence of modern oases, characterized by expansive farms and a low density of palm trees (100 to 150 per hectare) arranged in a well-aligned, single vertical layer (Sghaier \u003cspan citationid=\"CR65\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e; Ben Ahmed Zaag \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Benmoussa et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). On the other hand, nearly all of Gab\u0026eacute;s' littoral oasis falls into the category of traditional oases. These are characterized by smaller farms employing a three-layer vertical structure. The upper layer comprises palm trees, exceeding 150 trees per hectare, the intermediate layer features olive trees and other fruit trees, and the lower layer is dedicated to cultivating various vegetables and fodder (Ben Ahmed Zaag \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Santora et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR61\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Benmoussa et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe Littoral oases of Gab\u0026eacute;s and the continental oases of Kebili occupy an area of about 7000 and 23,000 ha, respectively (Lasram \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1990\u003c/span\u003e; Sghaier \u003cspan citationid=\"CR65\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e). Both types of oases lie under arid Mediterranean climate marked by drought, heat and an erratic, annual, seasonal, or daily rainfall. Despite the challenging climate, the presence of significant faults has led to the emergence of fossil groundwater, forming springs that human populations utilize for irrigating oasis agrosystems (Kassah \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1996\u003c/span\u003e; Jaradat \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e). Consequently, the oases create a local microclimate that strongly contrasts with the harsh climatic conditions of the surrounding (Riou \u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1990\u003c/span\u003e; Kassah \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1996\u003c/span\u003e). Moreover, these oases, both littoral and continental, serve as vital habitats for wildlife, including wild boar (e.g., Ballari and Barrios-Garcia 2004). Beyond providing a source of food, these oases offer resting sites, facilitating the concentration of high-abundance wild boar populations (e.g., Amici et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e; Hajji and Zachos \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec4\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eData collection\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eEach region was subdivided into Management Units (MUs), defined as homogeneous areas based on habitat, topography, hunting activities, and crops (Maillard et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e). The identification of oasis types within each MU was essential, as it serves as a significant indicator of food availability for wild boar. The oasis type was treated as a categorical variable with three levels, categorized by the number of vegetation strata (herb layer, shrub layer and tree layer): Type 1 (oasis with a single layer of palm trees), Type 2 (oasis with two different vegetation layers), and Type 3 (oasis with three vegetation layers). Kebili, specifically, was divided into 25 MUs, varying in size from 0.68 to 10.7 km\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e. These MUs were characterized by the distribution of oasis types, with 68%, 20%, and 12% of the total MUs falling into Types 1, 2, and 3, respectively.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eGab\u0026eacute;s was subdivided into 13 MU, varying in size from 0.96 to 22.34 km\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e. Almost all the MU (12 out of 13 MU) were Type 3, with only one MU having a Type 2. Each MU comprises agricultural land for sustenance and concealed resting areas resembling nests. These resting areas are strategically situated in dry, wind-sheltered plots, serving as both sleeping and wallowing sites, along with offering potential refuge from predators. The resting areas ranged from 0.056 to 1.85 km\u0026sup2; in Kebili and from 0.15 to 3.2 km\u0026sup2; in Gab\u0026eacute;s. Each hunting activity covers one MU and each MU is managed independently of each other.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec5\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e\u003cb\u003eLandscape structure and human infrastructure variables\u003c/b\u003e:\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eWe exported Google earth imagery to the QGIS software 22.6 for the purpose of quantifying the surface area of oases (hereafter called AREAOA) and the resting areas (or shelter, referred to as AREASH) within each MU. We also measured the mean distance from each MU to the nearest water sources (DSHWS), recognizing the essential role of water sources for wild boar in their mud baths. Furthermore, we calculated the distance to the closest urban village (with more than five inhabitants, referred to as DZU) and the distance to the nearest road (DNR). These distances were considered important factors potentially influencing the distribution and abundance of wild boar in this environment (Morais et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec6\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eHunting statistics dataset\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003e The hunting data utilized in this study were obtained from the DGF. These data encompass hunting statistics compiled across 12 hunting seasons spanning from 2008 to 2022 in Kebili and six hunting seasons from 2012 to 2022 in Gab\u0026eacute;s. The main hunting season in both regions extends from early September to late March. The hunting method employed in oasis agroecosystems was the drive hunt, conducted by a group of hunters (ranging from 3 to 12 individuals) during daylight hours. Hunters are posted in strategic points around the hunting area. They maintain their positions, awaiting wild boar driven by beaters with dogs from their resting areas.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAn assistant from the DGF recorded the dataset for all hunting activities. This dataset includes information such as date (year, month, and day), locality (referred to as GOUV, representing the Governorate or province of Tunisia), and village. Additionally, it comprises the number of participating hunters (NHU), the number of wild boar seen (NWBS), and the number of wild boar hunted (NWBK). NHU and NWBK were considered proxies for hunting pressure.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec7\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eData analyses\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eTwo Generalized Linear Mixed Models (GLMM) were performed to assess drivers influencing NWBS and hunting effectiveness (HE; ratio between NWBK and NWBS). For modelling NWBS we performed GLMM, incorporating a negative binomial distribution (to control the overdispersion in the data) and a log link function, and considered GOUV, oasis type (TYPE), AREAOA DSHWS, DZU, DNR and year (to assess temporal trends) as explanatory variables. In addition, interactions between region (categorized into two levels) and hunting season (treated as continuous variable), as well as between oasis type (categorized into three levels) and AREAOA (treated as a continuous variable) were tested. The shelter area's surface (AREASH) log-transformed was included as an offset term, and oasis ID was included as random effect factor. For modelling HE we used a binary logistic regression with logit link function to identify the more relevant explanatory variables. We used the same predictors and random effects as described for the previous model. In both NWBW and HE models we used a backward stepwise procedure based on AIC to select the most parsimonious models. All statistical analyses were computed using lme4 R package for statistical modelling (Bates et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec9\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eRelationship between the number of wild boar seen and the number of wild boar hunted\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe results show a range per hunting event of 0 to 50 and 0 to 60 individuals seen (NWBS) in each respective region, while the NWBK ranged from 0 to 13 and 0 to 18 (NWBK). Regarding the NWBK per hunter, in Kebili, hunters averaged 1.857 NWBK per hunter, whereas in Gabes, the average was 2 NWBK per hunter, indicating a slightly higher hunting success rate in Gabes.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eA preliminary exploration of the data showed a positive significant relationship between NWBS and NWBK, after controlling by region and oasis ID (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec10\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003ePopulation abundance model\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eResults of the model parameterized to explore the drivers of NWBS are reported in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e. Notably, the model retained interactions between region and year, as well as between TYPE and AREAOA.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGeneralized linear mixed model (negative binomial distribution and log link function) parameterized to explore the drivers of wild boar abundance (number of wild boar seen during hunting activities) (*=\u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05, **=\u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.01and ***=\u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001). The shelter area's surface (log-transformed) was included as an offset term, and the oasis ID was considered a random effect factor.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"5\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEstimate\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSE\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eZ Value\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e(\u0026gt;|z|)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e(Intercept)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.87\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.20\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e14.297\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e***\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eYEAR\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.13\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.06\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-2.157\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e*\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eGab\u0026eacute;s\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-1.09\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.51\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-2.112\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e*\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eTYPE 2\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.30\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.36\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.834\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eTYPE 3\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.30\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.48\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.619\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eAREAOA\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.36\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.31\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-1.180\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eYEAR:Gab\u0026eacute;s\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.48\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.15\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.282\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eTYPE2:AREAOA\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.47\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.36\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.304\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eTYPE3:AREAOA\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.97\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.40\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.439\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e*\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe population trend in NWBS varied between Kebili and Gab\u0026eacute;s; a slight decline was observed in Kebili, while the trend was in Gab\u0026eacute;s (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe impact of AREAOA on NWBS was influenced by oasis type (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e), indicating that numbers remain relatively consistent regardless of oasis area in TYPE 1 and 2, while the area has a significant and positive effect in oasis TYPE 3.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eHunting effectiveness model\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe results indicate varying levels of HE between Kebili and Gab\u0026eacute;s: ranged from 22.68\u0026ndash;66.68%, averaging 37.24% in Kebili, while in Gab\u0026eacute;s ranged from 35.48\u0026ndash;62.5%, averaging 51.67% (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig5\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e). Furthermore, the model showed a significant a negative relationship between HE and DNR (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGeneralized linear mixed model (binomial distribution and logit link function) parameterized to explore the drivers of the hunting effectiveness (ratio between wild boar culled and seen) (\u003cem\u003ens\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;P\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;0.05\u003c/em\u003e, *=\u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05, **=\u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.01 and ***=\u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001). The shelter area's surface (log-transformed) was included as an offset term, and the oasis ID was considered a random effect factor.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"5\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEstimate\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSE\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eZ Value\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e(\u0026gt;|z|)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e(Intercept)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.83\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.10\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-8.344\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e***\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eGab\u0026eacute;s\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.79\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.20\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.909\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e***\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eTYPE 2\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.29\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.19\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-1.589\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ens\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eTYPE 3\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.15\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.21\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.724\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ens\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eDNR\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.13\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.06\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-2.172\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e*\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eWe investigated the spatial pattern of wild boar population abundance and hunting effectiveness by analyzing hunting statistics from the oases in two regions of southern Tunisia, specifically Kebili and Gab\u0026eacute;s. Overall, this study highlights the significant role that oases play in providing refuge for wild boar. The abundance of wild boar was greater in Kebili compared to Gab\u0026eacute;s; however, the population trend in Gab\u0026eacute;s was positive. The population dynamics of wild boar in these two regions were distinct, with a potential risk of population growth depending on environmental conditions. The hunting effectiveness and therefore the capacity for regulating population with hunting was higher in Gab\u0026eacute;s. Thus, different scenarios were reported, one with high population abundance and stabilized populations and another with lower abundance, increasing populations and where hunting could be still enough to regulate wild boar populations.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eWild boar population abundance\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eAlthough wild boar is a significant and intrinsic element of the forest ecosystem (Acevedo et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e; Tarvydas and Belova \u003cspan citationid=\"CR67\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e), our results indicate that oases play a crucial role as a habitat for wild boar in Tunisia. This could be explained by the fact that these contrasting habitats within the desert provide an appropriate patch system where wild boar can access high-energy food sources. Particularly, the availability of food resources emerges as a critical factor influencing habitat selection for wild boar (Ballari and Barrios-Garc\u0026iacute;a \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e; Lee and Lee \u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e). These resources could include dates roots, and nuts (authors, unpublished data), as well as crops such as corn, sorghum, or legumes (Salah \u003cspan citationid=\"CR59\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e), that can thrive in desert conditions with appropriate irrigation. Furthermore, the presence of water resources and the availability of shelter constructed by patches of dense vegetation around oases provide refuge from extreme temperatures and predators. These factors contribute significantly to the appropriateness of these habitats for wild boar. These findings align with previous studies (Amici et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e; Hajji and Zachos \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e) and affirm the remarkable adaptability of wild boar to varying environmental conditions (Podg\u0026oacute;rski et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e; Frauendorf et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e), highlighting their significant capacity to thrive in oases agrosystems (Vetter et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR75\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR74\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e) due to their flexible feeding behaviors (Schley and Roper \u003cspan citationid=\"CR64\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e) and life history plasticity (Gamelon et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eInterestingly, we found that both wild boar abundance showed differences in temporal trends in each region. This indicates that hunting pressure might be insufficient in some areas to effectively manage populations, particularly because regulatory adjustments are not based on scientific data. Additionally, the year-to-year fluctuations in abundance can be attributed to various factors, with human activities and climate and weather conditions playing a significant role in shaping these dynamics (Melis et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e). These conditions can affect reproduction, food availability, and survival rates (Massei et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1996\u003c/span\u003e; Keuling et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e). Predation by natural predators, notably wolves (Eddine et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e), and susceptibility to diseases may also play a role as contributing factors (Vicente et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR76\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e). Additionally, our results indicate that wild boar abundance in Kebili have consistently been the highest, although showing a slight decrease over the years. This trend may be related to the dispersion and movement of wild boar into new areas, influenced by the connectivity between oases as well as a variety range of environmental and human factors (Schley et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR63\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e). In contrast, wild boar populations in Gab\u0026eacute;s have shown a positive trend. This indicates that Gab\u0026eacute;s, in comparison to Kebili where traditional oases are scarce (Ben Ahmed Zaag \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; CDCGE 2017), likely offers a more favorable ecological environment for wild boar. It's noteworthy that the majority of oases in Gab\u0026eacute;s fall into the category of type 3 layered oases (88%), renowned for their diverse feed offerings (Anonymous, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e; Belarbi et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e; Santoro, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR62\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Furthermore, these traditional oases, classified as agroforestry systems in accordance with the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) definition, have fostered crucial microhabitats for wildlife and indigenous plant species (McNeely et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1995\u003c/span\u003e; Nair et al. 2021). Additionally, coastal systems are of significance to wild boar due to their pivotal role in supplying crucial resources and habitat features necessary for their survival and well-being (Dardaillon \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1986\u003c/span\u003e). It should be also noted that wild boar tends to favor expansive fields, which is consistent with the results of previous works on game species and their preference for cultivated areas relative to the total sown area (Bleier et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e). Indeed, larger oases not only provide various resources to fulfill the food, water, and protection requirements of wild boar but also have the capacity to accommodate larger populations, facilitating social interactions, breeding opportunities, and population stability.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec14\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eWild boar hunting effectiveness\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eWe found that the number of boar killed per hunter was less than two, with 1.8 and 2 boars killed per hunter in Kebili and Gab\u0026eacute;s, respectively. These values are notably lower compared to the wild boar harvest through drive hunts in Europe. For example, in northwestern Spain, as well as in the experimental forest of Ch\u0026acirc;teauvillain-Arc-en-Barrois in Northeastern France, the harvest yield averaged 4.6\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;2 (Gim\u0026eacute;nez-Anaya et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e) and 6.67\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;5.84 (Vajas et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR72\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e), respectively. Considering that increased hunting effort results in more culled animals (Grau and Grau 1980; Rist \u003cspan citationid=\"CR54\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e; Rivrud et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR55\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e; Diekert et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e), it appears that controlled hunting, which involves a limited number of posted hunters and a short hunting season (less than 60 days from September to late March each year), does not significantly influence or contribute to the effective control and regulation of wild boar numbers. Furthermore, the proficiency of the hunter could play a role in the restricted efficacy of wild boar hunting in oasis settings. Moreover, the skill level of the hunter might play a role in the restricted efficacy of wild boar hunting in oasis environments. Hunters may be deficient in certain aspects including familiarity with the oasis landscape, the ability to stealthily navigate these surroundings to approach their targets, and understanding animal behavior such as feeding habits, movement patterns, and responses to potential threats. This understanding is crucial for predicting the presence of wild boar and enhancing the likelihood of a successful hunt (Apollonio et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e; Meijaard and Melletti \u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). Weather conditions, notably temperature and wind can impact hunting success. Extreme temperatures could influence animal behavior, prompting them to seek shelter or change their activity patterns (Taylor et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR68\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e), whereas strong winds may disperse scents, increasing the difficulty for hunters to evade detection (Stankowich and Coss \u003cspan citationid=\"CR66\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e; Jezierski et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e; Kokocińska et al. 2021). It\u0026rsquo;s also possible that the presence or frequency of farming activities, particularly during the hunting season (from September to late March each year), coinciding with the season for harvesting dates and maintaining the oases, could indirectly impact hunting effectiveness. This might occur by altering wild boar behaviour or posing challenges for hunters in accessing specific areas. According to Jensen et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e) we also expected that oasis would encompass more suitable hiding zones, or may provide reduced disturbance regarding the hunt.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eCurrently, hunters in Gab\u0026eacute;s are likely able to regulate the wild boar population size, whereas in Kebili, where the population is higher, it surpasses the hunters' capacity to manage it. Population abundance emerges as a critical factor, potentially diminishing hunters' effectiveness due to several reasons. As wild boars grow, they become increasingly difficult to track and hunt, adapting to avoid hunters by utilizing denser vegetation and remote areas (Keuling et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e). This abundance can overwhelm hunters, spreading their efforts thin and reducing success rates (Massei et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). Moreover, increased numbers may lead to overestimating population control and heightened competition for resources, resulting in smaller, healthier, and more elusive individuals (Vetter et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR75\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). On the other hand, the difference in the hunting effectiveness of wild boar between Gab\u0026eacute;s and Kebili may stem from various interacting factors, including landscape characteristics such as afforested areas, shelterbelts, and vegetation density, as well as disparities in climate and topography.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eResource availability is undeniably pivotal, potentially influencing the behavior and vulnerability of wild boar to hunting pressures, as noted by several studies (Acevedo et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e; Barrios-Garcia and Ballari \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e; Ekroos et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). Furthermore, it is evident that, the availability of resources significantly influences the behavior and susceptibility of wild boar to hunting pressure (Acevedo et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e; Barrios-Garcia and Ballari \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e; Ekroos et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). For instance, recent research (Gabsi et al. 2024) highlights that the isopods, potentially part of the wild boar's diet, are distributed along an east-west gradient, with coastal oases exhibiting the highest species diversity and Saharan oases displaying the lowest. Nevertheless, comprehensively addressing the issue of hunting effectiveness variation between Gab\u0026eacute;s and Kebili necessitates a multidisciplinary approach integrating ecological, socio-economic, and cultural viewpoints.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eInterestingly, our findings indicate that the structural complexity of habitat layers does not appear to impact hunting effectiveness. No noticeable differences in hunting effectiveness were observed among one-layer, two-layer, or three-layer oases. This implies that hunting effectiveness refers specifically to the ratio between the number of animals that are successfully hunted and the number of animals that are sighted, without accounting for habitat organization (Apollonio et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e). On the other hand, we found that hunting success show a negative relationship with the distance to roads. This result is consistent with those done by Rowland et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR56\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e) who illustrate in their study, concerning the mule deer (\u003cem\u003eOdocoileus hemionus\u003c/em\u003e) and elk (\u003cem\u003eCervus canadensis\u003c/em\u003e) in northeastern Oregon, USA, that unsuccessful archers was highest near open roads but remained relatively high up to about 2 km distant for this group and for successful rifle elk hunters. The negative relationship between hunting success and the distance to roads can be attributed to various factors. One possible explanation is that wild boar avoid areas closer to roads due to increased human activity and disturbance like pollution, noise. Additionally, hunting pressure near roads may lead to depleted wildlife populations, further reducing hunting success in these areas.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study delineates the spatial and temporal dynamics of a hunted wild boar population within the oases of two southern regions in Tunisia. Overall, results suggest that these oases agrosystems serve as significant habitats for wild boar. This underscores the importance of these particular ecosystems in sustaining the population and ecological balance of wild boar in the region. Additionally, it aligns with the environmental plasticity linked to this species.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFurthermore, despite considering various factors that may explain wild boar abundance and hunting effectiveness, such as time, types and size of oases, and proximity to roads, further data collection, including population demographics in the two oasis habitats and details from hunting logbooks such as the number of beaters, the number of dogs, the moment of the hunting day are needed to improve population management strategies.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOn the other hand, considering the current abundance and population trend of wild boar in our study area, it is imperative to anticipate their expected evolution. With low hunting effectiveness potentially allowing the population to grow continually, the wild boar abundance could indeed reach unsustainable levels. This scenario could leading to ecological imbalances and increased human-wildlife conflicts. To mitigate these risks, efforts could be made to improve hunting effectiveness through various strategies such as enhancing hunter skills, optimizing hunting techniques, and implementing stricter regulations.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFunding Declaration:\u003c/strong\u003e This research received no external funding.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAnimal Ethics and Consent to Participate declarations\u003c/strong\u003e: not applicable\u0026rsquo;.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eAuthor Contribution\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eConceptualization (A), Methodology (B), Investigation (C), Data curation (D) Formal analysis (E), Writing - Original Draft (F) Validation (G) and Supervision(H)- Ghandri Aida: A.B.C.D.E.F.- Acevedo Pelayo: A.B.E.F.G.- Jarray Mohsen: C.- Zaidi Ali : C.- Chammem Mohsen : A.B.E.F.G.H.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAcevedo P, Escudero MA, Muńoz R, Gort\u0026aacute;zar C (2006) Factors affecting wild boar abundance across an environmental gradient in Spain. Acta Theriol 51 (3), 327\u0026ndash;336 (2006). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/BF03192685\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/BF03192685\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAcevedo P, Quir\u0026oacute;s-Fern\u0026aacute;ndez F, Casal J, Vicente J (2014) Spatial distribution of wild boar population abundance: Basic information for spatial epidemiology and wildlife management. Ecol Indic 36:594\u0026ndash;600. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.09.019\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.09.019\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAcevedo P, Vicente J, Alzaga V, Gort\u0026aacute;zar C (2009) Wild boar abundance and hunting effectiveness in Atlantic Spain: Environmental constraints. Galemys 21(2):13\u0026ndash;29. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.7325/Galemys.2009.2.A2\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.7325/Galemys.2009.2.A2\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAmici A, Serrani F, Rossi CM et al (2012) Increase in crop damage caused by wild boar (Sus scrofa L.): the refuge effect. Agron Sustain Dev 32 (3), 683\u0026ndash;692 (2012). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-011-0057-6\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s13593-011-0057-6\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAnonymous (2015) Minist\u0026egrave;re de l\u0026rsquo;environnement et de d\u0026eacute;veloppement durable. Strat\u0026eacute;gie de D\u0026eacute;veloppement Durable des Oasis en Tunisie. Direction g\u0026eacute;n\u0026eacute;rale de l\u0026rsquo;environnement et de la qualit\u0026eacute; de la vie: Tunis, Tunisia, 2015\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eApollonio M, Anderson R, Putman R (eds) (2010) European ungulates and their management in the 21st Century. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32350377\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32350377\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eApollonio M, Belkin VV, Borkowski J, Borodin OI, Borowik T, Cagnacci F, Danilkin AA, Danilov PI, Faybich A, Ferretti F, Gaillard JM, Hayward M, Heshtaut P, Heurich M, Hurynovich A, Kashtalyan A, Kerley GIH, Kjellander P, Kowalczyk R, Kozorez A, Matveytchuk S, Milner JM, Mysterud A, Ozoliņš J, Panchenko DV, Peters W, Podg\u0026oacute;rski T, Pokorny B, Rolandsen CM, Ruusila V, Schmidt K, Sipko TP, Veeroja R, Velihurau P, Yanuta G (2017) Challenges and science-based implications for modern management and conservation of European ungulate populations. Mamm Res 62 (3), 209\u0026ndash;217 (2017). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s13364-017-0321-5\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s13364-017-0321-5\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBallari SA, Barrios-Garc\u0026iacute;a MN (2014) A review of wild boar Sus scrofa diet and factors affecting food selection in native and introduced ranges. Mamm Rev 44(2):124\u0026ndash;134. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1111/mam.12015\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1111/mam.12015\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBarrios-Garcia MN, Ballari SA (2012) Impact of wild boar (Sus scrofa) in its introduced and native range: a review. Biol Invasions 14(11):2283\u0026ndash;2300. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttp://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10530-012-0229-6\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s10530-012-0229-6\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBates D, M\u0026auml;chler M, Bolker B, Walker S (2015) Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using lme4. J Stat Softw 67(1):1\u0026ndash;48. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.18637/jss.v067.i01\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.18637/jss.v067.i01\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBelarbi A, Bouayad A, Diaou M, Kaassis N, Maliki MT Agrobiodiversity and Sustainability of Oasis Production Systems in the Palm Groves of Aoufouss, Errachidia (2004) Morocco; (Serie de Documents de Travail-Agropolis International, (121)); Agropolis International: Montpellier, France, 2004\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBen Ahmed Zaag D (2017) The economic importance of dates production in Tunisia. Paper presented at the International Conference on the Red Palm Weevil in Tunisia, May 3\u0026ndash;5, 32 pp\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBenmoussa H, El kadri N, Ben Aissa N, Ben Mimoun M (2022) A field survey suggests changes in oasis characteristics in the Kebili region of southern Tunisia. New Medit special issue 2022. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.30682/nm2205a\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.30682/nm2205a\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBleier N, Lehoczki R, \u0026Uacute;jv\u0026aacute;ry D, Szemethy L, Cs\u0026aacute;nyi S (2012) Relationships between wild ungulates density and crop damage in Hungary. Acta Theriol 57, 351\u0026ndash;359 (2012). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s13364-012-0082-0\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s13364-012-0082-0\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCDCGE (Consulting en D\u0026eacute;veloppement Communautaire et en Gestion d\u0026rsquo;Entreprise), 2017. Atlas des oasis traditionnelles de Tunisie, 153 pp\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDardaillon M (1986) Seasonal variations in habitat selection and spatial distribution of wild boar (Sus Scrofa) in the Camargue, Southern France, Behav Process,13 (3), 251\u0026ndash;268, SSN 0376\u0026ndash;6357, \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/0376-6357(86)90088-4\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/0376-6357(86)90088-4\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDiekert FK, Richter A, Rivrud IM, Mysterud A (2016) How constraints affect the hunter\u0026rsquo;s decision to shoot a deer. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(50), 14450\u0026ndash;14455. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1073/pnas.1607685113\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1073/pnas.1607685113\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEddine A, Mostefai N, De Smet K, Klees D, Ansorge H, Karssene Y, Nowak C, Der Leer PV (2017) Diet composition of a Newly Recognized Canid Species, the African Golden Wolf (Canis anthus), in Northern Algeria. Ann Zool Fenn 54(5\u0026ndash;6), 347\u0026ndash;356, (1 November 2017). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.5735/086.054.0506\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.5735/086.054.0506\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEkroos J, Kleijn D, Bat\u0026aacute;ry P, Albrecht M, B\u0026aacute;ldi A, Bl\u0026uuml;thgen N, Knop E, Kov\u0026aacute;cs-Hosty\u0026aacute;nszki A, Smith HG (2020) High land-use intensity in grasslands constrains wild bee species richness in Europe. Biol Conserv 241108255. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2019.108255\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.biocon.2019.108255\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFrauendorf M, Geth\u0026ouml;ffer F, Siebert U, Keuling O (2016) The influence of environmental and physiological factors on the litter size of wild boar (\u003cem\u003eSus scrofa\u003c/em\u003e) in an agriculture dominated area in Germany. Sci Total Environ 541:877\u0026ndash;882. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.09.128\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.09.128\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGabsi F, Ehsine M, Laifi N, Ouni A, Medini-Bouaziz L (2023) Terrestrial isopod diversity and species-area relations in Tunisian traditional oases. Biol 79(1):239\u0026ndash;249. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s11756-023-01524-1\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s11756-023-01524-1\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGamelon M, Douhard M, Baubet E, Gimenez O, Brandt S, Gaillard JM (2013) Fluctuating food resources influence developmental plasticity in wild boar. Biol Lett 9(5):20130419\u0026ndash;20130419. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1098/rsbl.2013.0419\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1098/rsbl.2013.0419\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGaynor K, Mcinturff A, Abrahms BL, Smith AM (2024) Hunting mode and habitat selection mediate the success of human hunters. Mov Ecol 12(1). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1186/s40462-024-00471-z\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1186/s40462-024-00471-z\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGharaibeh BM (1997) Systematics, distribution, and zoogeography of mammals of Tunisia. PhD Thesis, Texas Tech University\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGim\u0026eacute;nez-Anaya A, Herrero J, Garc\u0026iacute;a-Serrano A, Garc\u0026iacute;a-Gonz\u0026aacute;lez R, Prada C (2016) Wild boar battues reduce crop damages in a protected area. Folia Zool 65(3):214\u0026ndash;220. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.25225/fozo.v65.i3.a6.2016\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.25225/fozo.v65.i3.a6.2016\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGim\u0026eacute;nez-Anaya A, Herrero J, Rosell C, Couto S, Garc\u0026iacute;a-Serrano A (2008) Food habits of wild boars (Sus Scrofa) in a mediterranean coastal wetland. Wetlands 28(1):197\u0026ndash;203. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1672/07-18.1\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1672/07-18.1\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGraitson E, Barbraud C, Bonnet X (2018) Catastrophic impact of wild boar: insufficient hunting pressure pushes snakes to the brink. Anim Conserv 22(2):165\u0026ndash;176. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/acv.12447\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1111/acv.12447\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHajji GEM, Zachos FE (2011) Mitochondrial and nuclear DNA analyses reveal pronounced genetic structuring in Tunisian wild boar Susscrofa. Eur J Wildl Res 57:449\u0026ndash;456\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eImperio S, Ferrante M, Grignetti A, Santini G, Focardi S (2010) Investigating population dynamics in ungulates: Do hunting statistics make up a good index of population abundance? Wildl Biol 16(2):205\u0026ndash;214. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttp://dx.doi.org/10.2981/08-051\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.2981/08-051\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJaradat AA (2011) Biodiversity of Date Palm. Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems: Land Use, Land Cover and Soil Sciences, vol 31. Eolss, Oxford, UK\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJensen GH, Pellissier L, Tombre IM, Madsen J (2017) Landscape selection by migratory geese: implications for hunting organisation. Wildl Biol 2017(1):1\u0026ndash;12. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttp://dx.doi.org/10.2981/wlb.00192\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.2981/wlb.00192\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJezierski T, Adamkiewicz E, Walczak M, Sobczynska M, G\u0026oacute;recka-Bruzda A, Ensminger J, Papet E (2014) Efficacy of drugdetection by fully-trained police dogs varies by breed, training level, type of drug and search environment. Forensic Sci 237:112\u0026ndash;118. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2014.01.013\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.forsciint.2014.01.013\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKassah A (1996) Les oasis tunisiennes, am\u0026eacute;nagement hydroagricole et d\u0026eacute;veloppement en zone aride, Publications CERES s\u0026eacute;rie g\u0026eacute;ographique n\u0026deg;13 Tunis, 345 p\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKeuling O, Baubet E, Duscher A, Ebert C, Fischer C, Monaco A, Podg\u0026oacute;rski T, Prevot C, Ronnenberg K, Sodeikat G, Stier N, Thurfjell H (2013) Mortality rates of wild boar Sus scrofa L. in central Europe. Eur J Wildl Res 59, 805\u0026ndash;814 (2013). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s10344-013-0733-8\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s10344-013-0733-8\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKeuling O, Sange M, Acevedo P, Podgorski T, Smith G, Scandura M, Apollonio M, Ferroglio E, Vicente J (2018) Guidance on estimation of wild boar population abundance and density: methods, challenges, possibilities. EFSA Supp Publ 15:1449E. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttp://dx.doi.org/10.2903/sp.efsa.2018.en-1449\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.2903/sp.efsa.2018.en-1449\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKeuling O, Stier N, Roth M (2008) How does hunting influence activity and spatial usage in wild boar Sus scrofa L? Eur J Wildl Res 54(4):729\u0026ndash;737. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s10344-008-0204-9\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s10344-008-0204-9\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKokocińska-Kusiak A, Woszczyło M, Zybala M, Maciocha J, Barłowska K, Dzięcioł M (2021) Canine Olfaction: Physiology, Behavior, and Possibilities for Practical Applications. Anim 2021, 11, 2463. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34438920\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34438920\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLangbein J, Putman R, Pokorny B (2011) Traffic collisions involving deer and other ungulates in Europe and available measures for mitigation. Ungulate Manage Europe 215\u0026ndash;259 Cambridge University Press. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttp://dx.doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511974137.009\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1017/cbo9780511974137.009\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLasram M (1990) Les syst\u0026egrave;mes agricoles oasiens dans le Sud de la Tunisie. In: Doll\u0026eacute; V. (ed.), Toutain G. (ed.). Les syst\u0026egrave;mes agricoles oasiens. Montpellier, CIHEAM, 1990. pp. 21\u0026ndash;27\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLee JH, Lee WS (2014) Diet of The Wild boar (Sus scrofa) in Agricultural Land of Geochang, Gyeongnam Province, Korea. J Korean Soc 103(2):307\u0026ndash;312. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttp://dx.doi.org/10.14578/jkfs.2014.103.2.307\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.14578/jkfs.2014.103.2.307\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMaillard D, Roc L, Mela O (2008) Principes et int\u0026eacute;r\u0026ecirc;ts d\u0026rsquo;un d\u0026eacute;coupage bio-g\u0026eacute;ographique en unit\u0026eacute;s de gestion (cas du d\u0026eacute;partement de l\u0026rsquo;h\u0026eacute;rault). Modalit\u0026eacute; de Gestion du Sanglier\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMassei G, Genov PV, Staines BW (1996) Diet, food availability and reproduction of wild boar in a Mediterranean coastal area. Acta Theriol 41:307\u0026ndash;320. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttp://dx.doi.org/10.4098/at.arch.96-29\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.4098/at.arch.96-29\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMassei G, Kindberg J, Licoppe A, Gačić M, Šprem N, Kamler J, Baubet E, Hohmann, Ulf, Monaco A, Ozoliņš J, Cellina S, Podg\u0026oacute;rski T, Fonseca C, Markov N, Pokorny B, Rosell C, N\u0026aacute;hlik A (2015) Wild boar populations up, numbers of hunters down? A review of trends and implications for Europe. Pest Manag Sci 71(4):492\u0026ndash;500. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttp://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ps.3965\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1002/ps.3965\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMcNeely JA, Gadgil M, Lev\u0026egrave;que C, Padoch C, Redford K (1995) Human influences on biodiversity. In The Global Biodiversity Assessment; HEYWOOD VH (Eds.) 1995. United Nations Environment Programme. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Pp. 711\u0026ndash;821\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMeijaard E, Melletti M (2017) Ecology, conservation and management of wild pigs and peccaries. Cambridge University Press. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttp://dx.doi.org/10.1017/9781316941232\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1017/9781316941232\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMelis C, Szafrańska PA, Jędrzejewska B, Bartoń K (2006) Biogeographical variation in the population density of wild boar (Sus scrofa) in western Eurasia. J Biogeogr 33(5):803\u0026ndash;811. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2699.2006.01434.x\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1111/j.1365-2699.2006.01434.x\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMorais TA, Rosa CA, Azevedo CS, Viana-Junior AB, Santos P, Passamani M (2019) Factors affecting space use by wild boars (\u003cem\u003eSus scrofa\u003c/em\u003e) in high-elevation tropical forests. Can J Zool 97:971\u0026ndash;978. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003edx.doi.org/10.1139/cjz-2019-0130\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1139/cjz-2019-0130\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMoreno-Zarate L, Arroyo B, Peach W (2021) Effectiveness of hunting regulations for the conservation of a globally-threatened species: The case of the European turtle-dove in Spain. Biol Conserv. 256, 2021/04,109067, ISSN 0006-3207 \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2021.109067\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.biocon.2021.109067\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNair PKR, Kumar BM, NairVD (2021) Classification of Agroforestry Systems. An Introduction to Agroforestry. Springer, Cham. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-75358-0_3\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/978-3-030-75358-0_3\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePodg\u0026oacute;rski T, Baś G, Jędrzejewska B, S\u0026ouml;nnichsen L, Śnieżko S, Jędrzejewski W, Okarma H (2013) Spatiotemporal behavioral plasticity of wild boar (Sus scrofa) under contrasting conditions of human pressure: primeval forest and metropolitan area. J Mammal 94(1):109\u0026ndash;119. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttp://dx.doi.org/10.1644/12-mamm-a-038.1\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1644/12-mamm-a-038.1\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePodg\u0026oacute;rski T, Śmietanka K (2018) Do wild boar movements drive the spread of African Swine Fever? Transbound Emerg Dis 65(6):1588\u0026ndash;1596. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/tbed.12910\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1111/tbed.12910\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eQuir\u0026oacute;s-Fern\u0026aacute;ndez F, Marcos J, Acevedo P, Gort\u0026aacute;zar C (2017) Hunters serving the ecosystem: the contribution of recreational hunting to wild boar population control. Eur J Wildl Res 63(3). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s10344-017-1107-4\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s10344-017-1107-4\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRiou C (1990) Bioclimatologie des oasis. Options M\u0026eacute;diterran\u0026eacute;enne A 11:207\u0026ndash;220\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRist J (2007) Bushmeat catch per unit effort in space and time:a monitoring tool for bushmeat hunting. Ph.D. thesis. Department of Life Sciences, Imperial College, London. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttp://www.iccs.org.uk/thesis.htm\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"http://www.iccs.org.uk/thesis.htm\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRivrud IM, Meisingset EL, Loe LE, Mysterud A (2014) Interaction effects between weather and space use on harvesting effort and patterns in red deer. Ecol Evol 4(24):4786\u0026ndash;4797. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1002/ece3.1318\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1002/ece3.1318\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRowland MM, Nielson RM, Wisdom MJ, Johnson BK, Findholt S, Clark D, Didonato GT, Hafer JM, Naylor BJ (2021) Influence of Landscape Characteristics on Hunter Space Use and Success. J Wild Manage 85:1394\u0026ndash;1409. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.22107\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1002/jwmg.22107\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRuiz-Rodr\u0026iacute;guez C, Blanco-Aguiar JA, G\u0026oacute;mez-Molina A, Illanas S, Fern\u0026aacute;ndez-L\u0026oacute;pez J, Acevedo P, Vicente J (2023) Towards standardising the collection of game statistics in Europe: a case study. Eur J Wildl Res 69:122. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttp://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10344-023-01746-3\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s10344-023-01746-3\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRuiz-Rodr\u0026iacute;guez C, Fern\u0026aacute;ndez-L\u0026oacute;pez J, Vicente J, Blanco-Aguiar JA, Acevedo P (2022) Revisiting wild boar spatial models based on hunting yields to assess their predictive performance on interpolation and extrapolation areas, Ecol Model, 471, 2022, 110041, ISSN 0304\u0026ndash;3800, \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2022.110041\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2022.110041\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSalah M, Ben (2011) Agro-biodiversity and Traditional Knowledge on Tunisian Coastal Oases. J Environ Sci Eng 5:303\u0026ndash;308. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttp://dx.doi.org/10.17265/1934-7391/2015.05.007\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.17265/1934-7391/2015.05.007\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSales LP, Ribeiro BR, Hayward MW, Paglia A, Passamani M, Loyola R (2017) Niche conservatism and the invasive potential of the wild boar. J Anim Ecol 86(5):1214\u0026ndash;1223. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1111/1365-2656.12721\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1111/1365-2656.12721\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSantora JA, Mantua NJ, Schroeder ID et al (2020) Habitat compression and ecosystem shifts as potential links between marine heatwave and record whale entanglements. Nat Commun 11, 536 (2020). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-14215-w\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1038/s41467-019-14215-w\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSantoro A (2023) Traditional oases in Northern Africa as multifunctional agroforestry systems: a systematic literature review of the provided Ecosystem Services and of the main vulnerabilities. Agroforest Syst 97, 81\u0026ndash;96 (2023). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-022-00789-w\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s10457-022-00789-w\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSchley L, Dufr\u0026ecirc;ne M, Krier A, Frantz AC (2008) Patterns of crop damage by wild boar (Sus scrofa) in Luxembourg over a 10-year period. Eur J Wildl Res 54(4):589\u0026ndash;599. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttp://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10344-008-0183-x\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s10344-008-0183-x\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSchley L, Roper TJ (2003) Diet of wild boar Sus scrofa in Western Europe, with particular reference to consumption of agricultural crops. Mamm Rev 33(1):43\u0026ndash;56. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1046/j.1365-2907.2003.00010.x\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1046/j.1365-2907.2003.00010.x\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSghaier M (2010) Etude de la gouvernance des ressources naturelles dans les oasis. Cas des oasis en Tunisie. UICN \u0026amp; UKAID\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eStankowich T, Coss RG (2011) The effect of wind on the detectability of scent by animals. Olfaction and Electronic Nose, Proceedings of the 14th International Symposium on Olfaction and Electronic Nose\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTarvydas A, Belova O (2022) Effect of Wild Boar (\u003cem\u003eSus scrofa\u003c/em\u003e L.) on Forests, Agricultural Lands and Population Management in Lithuania. Diversity 2022, 14(10), 801; \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3390/d14100801\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3390/d14100801\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTaylor CM, Laughlin AJ, Hall RJ (2018) The response of migratory populations to phenological change: a Migratory Flow Network modelling approach. J Anim Ecol 85(3):648\u0026ndash;659. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttp://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1365-2656.12494\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1111/1365-2656.12494\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eThurfjell H, Spong G, Olsson M, Ericsson G (2015) Avoidance of high traffic levels results in lower risk of wild boar-vehicle accidents, Landsc Urban Plan. 133:98\u0026ndash;104 ISSN 0169\u0026ndash;2046. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.09.015\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.09.015\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTombre IM, Fredriksen F, Jerpstad O, \u0026Oslash;stnes JE, Eyth\u0026oacute;rsson E (2022) Population control by means of organised hunting effort: Experiences from a voluntary goose hunting arrangement. Ambio 51:728\u0026ndash;742. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-021-01590-2\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s13280-021-01590-2\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eVajas P, Calenge C, Gamelon M, Girard F, Melac O, Chandosne C, Richard E, Said S, Baubet E (2021) Catch-effort model used as a management tool in exploited populations: Wild boar as a case study. Ecol Indic 124:107\u0026ndash;442. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2021.107442\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.ecolind.2021.107442\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eVajas P, Calenge C, Richard E, Fattebert J, Rousset C, Sa\u0026iuml;d S, Baubet E (2020) Many, large and early: Hunting pressure on wild boar relates to simple metrics of hunting effort. Sci Total Environ 134\u0026ndash;251. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.134251\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.134251\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eVajas P, Von Essen E, Tickle L, Gamelon M (2023) Meeting the challenges of wild boar hunting in a modern society: The case of France. Ambio 52, 1359\u0026ndash;1372 (2023). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-023-01852-1\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s13280-023-01852-1\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eVetter SG, Puskas Z, Bieber C, Ruf T (2020) How climate change and wildlife management affect population structure in wild boars. Sci Rep 10, 7298 (2020). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-64216-9\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1038/s41598-020-64216-9\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eVetter SG, Ruf T, Bieber C, Arnold W (2015) What is a mild winter? Regional differences in within-species responses to climate change. PLoS ONE, 10(7), e0132178\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eVicente J, Ruiz-Fons F, Vidal D, H\u0026ouml;fle U, Acevedo P, Villan\u0026uacute;a D, Fern\u0026aacute;ndez‐de‐Mera IG, Mart\u0026iacute;n MP, Gort\u0026aacute;zar C (2006) Serosurvey of Aujeszky's disease virus infection in European wild boar in Spain. Vet Rec 159(13):399\u0026ndash;403. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttp://dx.doi.org/10.1136/vr.156.13.408\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1136/vr.156.13.408\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":true,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"european-journal-of-wildlife-research","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"ejwr","sideBox":"Learn more about [European Journal of Wildlife Research](http://link.springer.com/journal/10344)","snPcode":"10344","submissionUrl":"https://submission.nature.com/new-submission/10344/3","title":"European Journal of Wildlife Research","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"Springer Hybrid","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false},"keywords":"Wild boar, oasis, relative abundance index, hunting statistics, landscape structure, arid environments","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-4647284/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-4647284/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eOver the past few decades, wild boar populations have surged globally, including in Tunisia, creating challenges that necessitate understanding the factors influencing their abundance and trends. Herein, we analyzed hunting statistics (number of seen and hunted animals during the hunting events) from 2008 to 2022 to examine the spatial pattern of wild boar abundance in the oases of Kebili and Gab\u0026eacute;s in south Tunisia. Using Generalized Linear Mixed Models, we examined the relationships between wild boar abundance (the number of animals seen during hunting activities) and hunting effectiveness (the ratio of hunted to seen animals during hunting activities), considering landscape structure, human infrastructure, and hunting pressure. Wild boar abundance was higher in Kebili than in Gab\u0026eacute;s, but in Gab\u0026eacute;s wild boar population trend was positive. Our results suggest that wild boar abundance was positively correlated with oasis size, mostly in oasis with presence of herb, shrub, and tree layers. Regarding hunting effectiveness, our results showed that it was significantly higher in Gab\u0026eacute;s and was positively correlated with the distance to the nearest road. This study underscores the distinct dynamics of wild boar populations in the two regions and highlights the potential risk of population increase based on environmental conditions. The results emphasize the importance of region-specific management strategies that influence both abundance and distribution, and the capability to regulate wild boar populations by hunting. It also underscores the significance of collecting reliable hunting statistics to monitor population dynamics and formulate effective wildlife policies.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Drivers of wild boar abundance and hunting effectiveness in southern Tunisia","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2024-07-24 07:43:55","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-4647284/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"decision","content":"Revision requested","date":"2024-09-03T14:21:19+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2024-08-30T19:19:16+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"298792919337735494549451753374779153036","date":"2024-08-02T18:39:46+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2024-08-02T17:00:40+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2024-08-02T16:57:37+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2024-07-02T03:45:06+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"European Journal of Wildlife Research","date":"2024-06-27T09:12:14+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"european-journal-of-wildlife-research","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"ejwr","sideBox":"Learn more about [European Journal of Wildlife Research](http://link.springer.com/journal/10344)","snPcode":"10344","submissionUrl":"https://submission.nature.com/new-submission/10344/3","title":"European Journal of Wildlife Research","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"Springer Hybrid","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"9fa88139-acca-4567-af4b-fcd2ea3e558a","owner":[],"postedDate":"July 24th, 2024","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"published-in-journal","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2024-10-07T16:11:44+00:00","versionOfRecord":{"articleIdentity":"rs-4647284","link":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10344-024-01856-6","journal":{"identity":"european-journal-of-wildlife-research","isVorOnly":false,"title":"European Journal of Wildlife Research"},"publishedOn":"2024-09-30 15:57:55","publishedOnDateReadable":"September 30th, 2024"},"versionCreatedAt":"2024-07-24 07:43:55","video":"","vorDoi":"10.1007/s10344-024-01856-6","vorDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10344-024-01856-6","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-4647284","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-4647284","identity":"rs-4647284","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"qtupq5eGEP_6zYnWcrvyt","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}