Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 786

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 28 of the 28 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Wild boar populations up, numbers of hunters down? A review of trends and implications for Europe

Massei, Giovanna, Kindberg, Jonas, Licoppe, Alain, Gačić, Dragan, Šprem, Nikica, Kamler, Jiří, Baubet, Eric, Hohmann, Ulf, Monaco, Andrea, Ozoliņš, Janis, Cellina, Sandra, Podgórski, Tomasz, Fonseca, Carlos, Markov, Nickolay, Pokorny, Boštjan, Rosell, Carme, Náhlik, András·2015·Pest Management Science

Abstract

Across Europe, wild boar numbers increased in the 1960s–1970s but stabilised in the 1980s; recent evidence suggests that the numbers and impact of wild boar has grown steadily since the 1980s. As hunting is the main cause of mortality for this species, we reviewed wild boar hunting bags and hunter population trends in 18 European countries from 1982 to 2012. Hunting statistics and numbers of hunters were used as indicators of animal numbers and hunting pressure. The results confirmed that wild boar increased consistently throughout Europe, while the number of hunters remained relatively stable or declined in most countries. We conclude that recreational hunting is insufficient to limit wild boar population growth and that the relative impact of hunting on wild boar mortality had decreased. Other factors, such as mild winters, reforestation, intensification of crop production, supplementary feeding and compensatory population responses of wild boar to hunting pressure might also explain population growth. As populations continue to grow, more human–wild boar conflicts are expected unless this trend is reversed. New interdisciplinary approaches are urgently required to mitigate human–wild boar conflicts, which are otherwise destined to grow further. © 2014 Crown copyright. Pest Management Science © 2014 Society of Chemical Industry

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/ps.3965

Cites

28 of 28 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 28 references

Cited by

See all 786

Metadata

Authors
Massei, G., Kindberg, J., Licoppe, A., Gačić, D., Šprem, N., Kamler, J., Baubet, E., Hohmann, U., Monaco, A., Ozoliņš, J., Cellina, S., Podgórski, T., Fonseca, C., Markov, N., Pokorny, B., Rosell, C., & Náhlik, A.
Venue
Pest Management Science
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2015-01-29
Volume
71
Issue
4
Pages
492-500
ISSN
  • 1526-498X (ISSN-L)
  • 1526-4998
OpenAlex
W1899411624
Cited by
786
References
28
FWCI
26.29
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Wild boar populations up, numbers of hunters down? A review of trends and implications for Europe. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/ps.3965
The paper
Massei, G., Kindberg, J., Licoppe, A., Gačić, D., Šprem, N., Kamler, J., Baubet, E., Hohmann, U., 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 Management Science. https://doi.org/10.1002/ps.3965

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.