Co‐occurrence of native white‐tailed deer and invasive wild pigs: Evidence for competition?. Issue 3 (13th March 2023)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Garabedian, James E.; Cox, Kyle J.; Vukovich, Mark; Kilgo, John C.
• Is Part Of: Ecosphere. Volume 14:Issue 3(2023)
• Page Start: n/a
• Page End: n/a
• Publication Date: 2023-03-13
• Subjects: behavior -- control -- density -- interspecific competition -- invasive species -- non‐native competitor -- resource partitioning -- space use -- spatiotemporal interactions -- suid -- ungulate; Ecology -- Periodicals; Ecology; Periodicals; 577.05
• DOI: 10.1002/ecs2.4435
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2150-8925

Abstract

Abstract: Understanding whether invasive and native species compete for shared resources where they co‐occur is essential for mitigating the negative impacts of invasive species on native ecosystems. Here, we examined how the presence and density of an invasive species, wild pigs ( Sus scrofa ), affect native white‐tailed deer ( Odocoileus virginianus ; hereafter, deer) on the Savannah River Site, SC, USA. We examined potential changes in deer areas of use, temporal overlap, and occupancy to evaluate the effects of wild pig occurrence and density on deer space use, diel activity, and co‐occurrence with wild pigs across 9 months during 2018 and 2019. Wild pig density had the strongest effect on deer space use in high‐ and moderate‐use areas. Declines in deer space use in response to wild pig density were most pronounced in March and October 2018 and April 2019 for females, while male space use declined in response to wild pig density in October and December 2018. Both species were largely nocturnal with high overlap in diel activity across months. Deer occupancy responses to wild pig density varied across months, with negative responses in May and October 2018 and positive responses in July 2018 and April 2019. Deer and wild pigs co‐occurred at 30%–59% of camera stations across months, with broadscale co‐occurrence patterns being unaffected by changes in shared cover or wild pig occurrence. Overall, our results suggest that deer make fine‐scale behavioral adjustments to avoid wild pigs, providing evidence that competition is likely occurring even where wild pig density is relatively low. Such fine‐scale behavioral plasticity in deer appears to mitigate the costs of competition with wild pigs and may be a mechanism enabling long‐term co‐existence of deer and wild pigs. Our study provides novel insight on the complexities of spatiotemporal relationships between invasive wild pigs and native deer and suggests that the negative effects of interactions between deer and wild pigs may be more pronounced when deer life history needs are particularly demanding. In areas where eradication of invasive wild pigs may be impossible, maintaining low wild pig densities may help mitigate, but may not eliminate, the negative effects of wild pigs on deer.