English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Context. Fertility control is being promoted as a non-lethal means of managing wildlife populations. We recently evaluated a single-dose injectable immunocontraceptive vaccine (GonaCon™) on captive female wild boar for effectiveness and potential side effects; reproductive output was inhibited for 4–6 years, with no obvious detrimental effects on physiology and behaviour. Aims. We injected individual free-living wild boar individuals with the fertility-control vaccine GonaCon™ to examine its effectiveness (measured as raised levels of GnRH antibodies) and looked for potential changes in movement and activity patterns. Methods. We trapped, fitted telemetry devices to, and released wild boar individuals living in woodland in the West Midlands region of England between 2006 and 2010. We compared data on movements and activity among 10 adult females treated with the vaccine and 11 controls treated with saline only. We measured anti-GnRH antibody titres in six recaptured boar individuals as an indicator of the effectiveness of the vaccine. Key results. Post-treatment GnRH antibody titres varied among the boar individuals; four of five treated sows resampled between 9 and 30 weeks post-injection had antibody titres high enough to block reproduction (detectable at 1 : 32 000–1 : 64 000 dilution). At least three treated females were pregnant at the time of vaccination; there was no subsequent evidence that the vaccine interfered with pregnancy. According to the distances moved per hour over a 24-h cycle and the daily activity cycle in relation to season, there were no differences in the behaviour of treated and control females that were likely to be biologically significant. The behaviour of two treated females monitored soon after vaccination and again 12 months later also showed no major differences. Conclusions. Free-living wild boar responded to treatment with a 1.0-mL (1000 µg) dose of an anti-GnRH vaccine and no major adverse effects on activity and movement were subsequently detected. Implications. Our results indicated that the vaccine could be more widely evaluated in the field against overabundant or nuisance populations. Such populations are increasingly found in urban areas and parks, where culling may not be an option. We suggest that further refinement of this approach for managing wild boar populations, including development of an oral vaccine, are warranted.

Effects of a GnRH vaccine on the movement and activity of free-living wild boar (Sus scrofa)