Abstract A study of vigilance in a wild boar population was carried out 50–80 years following the creation of the Sikhote-Alin Nature Reserve, Russian Far East, and the cessation of hunting. The defensive behavior of the wild boar depends especially strongly on the tiger (Panthera tigris tigris) and the brown bear (Ursus arctos). Based on 298 encounters, the following responses were determined: (a) reactions of wild boars to stimuli associated with danger and (b) parameters of alertness (3.2 h of measured time, frequency of observed postures and movements). The response features to different signals were also determined using snow-tracking. Nonparametric and, after normalization, parametric criteria were applied. Vigilance towards humans is maintained due to a generalized reaction to real danger (large predators) and probably because the wild boar population of the nature reserve is not isolated from the surrounding areas. In more than 70% encounters, wild boars detected danger by sounds accompanying movements (from almost 0.6–0.8 km). Visual scanning of movements and identification by smell are important in detecting the close presence of a predator, which is essential in the tiger’s usual hunting methods. The reaction to the smell of human or tiger tracks intensified during the periods of frequent visits by the predator to the wild boar’s habitat, as well as after its long absence, depended on the meeting place. The vigilance decreased during periods of famine. Wild boars showed the ability to extrapolate quickly the direction of the movement of a dangerous object. Guards and boars over two years old in maternal groups were seen in 35.7% of cases; in 16% of cases, there was no obvious guard; in 48.3% of cases the situation was not determined (for small groups in 89.9%). Wild boar guards in a calm situation spent an average of 8–9% of their time on vigilance when resting and 11–12% when grazing. Vigilance rates increased 16.2–41.3 times in different individuals and at different times in the same wild boars with the risk of a predator encounter or extraneous sounds. Only a small percentage (≈2%) of other individuals, with alternating vigilance in groups, complemented the general vigilance of the groups. Individual differences in vigilance at different times in the same wild boars were determined. Small average values of alertness (with frequent reactions) seem to be consistent with the hunting tactics of the tiger, which alternates pursuit of the wild boar with long breaks and hunting in other areas, as well as with the ability of the wild boar to react to an unexpected attack by a predator.

Displays of Vigilance in Wild Boar (Sus scrofa ussuricus) Groups in a Protected Area of Central Sikhote-Alin

期刊论文
发表日期：

2025年12月1日

查看全文

V. A. Zaitsev

摘要

Abstract

A study of vigilance in a wild boar population was carried out 50–80 years following the creation of the Sikhote-Alin Nature Reserve, Russian Far East, and the cessation of hunting. The defensive behavior of the wild boar depends especially strongly on the tiger (Panthera tigris tigris) and the brown bear (Ursus arctos). Based on 298 encounters, the following responses were determined: (a) reactions of wild boars to stimuli associated with danger and (b) parameters of alertness (3.2 h of measured time, frequency of observed postures and movements). The response features to different signals were also determined using snow-tracking. Nonparametric and, after normalization, parametric criteria were applied. Vigilance towards humans is maintained due to a generalized reaction to real danger (large predators) and probably because the wild boar population of the nature reserve is not isolated from the surrounding areas. In more than 70% encounters, wild boars detected danger by sounds accompanying movements (from almost 0.6–0.8 km). Visual scanning of movements and identification by smell are important in detecting the close presence of a predator, which is essential in the tiger’s usual hunting methods. The reaction to the smell of human or tiger tracks intensified during the periods of frequent visits by the predator to the wild boar’s habitat, as well as after its long absence, depended on the meeting place. The vigilance decreased during periods of famine. Wild boars showed the ability to extrapolate quickly the direction of the movement of a dangerous object. Guards and boars over two years old in maternal groups were seen in 35.7% of cases; in 16% of cases, there was no obvious guard; in 48.3% of cases the situation was not determined (for small groups in 89.9%). Wild boar guards in a calm situation spent an average of 8–9% of their time on vigilance when resting and 11–12% when grazing. Vigilance rates increased 16.2–41.3 times in different individuals and at different times in the same wild boars with the risk of a predator encounter or extraneous sounds. Only a small percentage (≈2%) of other individuals, with alternating vigilance in groups, complemented the general vigilance of the groups. Individual differences in vigilance at different times in the same wild boars were determined. Small average values of alertness (with frequent reactions) seem to be consistent with the hunting tactics of the tiger, which alternates pursuit of the wild boar with long breaks and hunting in other areas, as well as with the ability of the wild boar to react to an unexpected attack by a predator.