EVALUATING THE SOCIAL-ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS AND MANAGEMENT OPTIONS OF INVASIVE WILDLIFE IN ALABAMA

• Sponsoring Institution: National Institute of Food and Agriculture
• Project Status: COMPLETE
• Funding Source: HATCH
• Reporting Frequency: Annual
• Accession No.: 1008577
• Project Start Date: Nov 16, 2015
• Project End Date: Sep 30, 2020
• Program Code: [(N/A)]- (N/A)

Project Director
Lepczyk, CH.

Recipient Organization
AUBURN UNIVERSITY
108 M. WHITE SMITH HALL
AUBURN,AL 36849

Performing Department
School of Forestry

Non Technical Summary
Invasive species are those that have been moved either intentionally or unintentionally to areas outside of their native range by humans and spread beyond their point of entry without human assistance. Although many species that are moved by people are simply nonnative and do not become invasive, the propensity by which humans move thousands of species around the world provides the opportunity for some to become invasive. When a species becomes invasive the ecological repercussions can be great, resulting in changes in ecosystem function, changes in trophic dynamics, alteration of species interactions, decreases in population sizes of native species, and ultimately the loss of biodiversity. As a result of these outcomes, invasive species have significant impacts on ecosystem services that human society depends upon as well as notable economic impacts. Alabama currently houses a wide variety of invasive animals, including both those that are well studied (e.g., House Sparrows) and those that are not (e.g., feral pigs, Burmese pythons). Considering that climate change may make habitats more suitable for invasive species from adjacent states, such as Florida, the potential economic impacts of invasive species, and the lack of definitive management plans on addressing most invasive species there is an urgent need to evaluate the social-ecological context of invasive species and how best to manage them in terms of the state's and stakeholders' needs. Hence, the overarching goal of the research is to develop basic ecological, social, and economic information about invasive wildlife species in the state of Alabama in order to inform management and policy.To achieve this goal a mixture of ecological, economic, and sociological approaches will be used.

Animal Health Component

75%

Research Effort Categories

Basic

25%

Applied

75%

Developmental

(N/A)

Classification

Knowledge Area (KA)	Subject of Investigation (SOI)	Field of Science (FOS)	Percent
135	0899	1070	20%
135	0899	3010	30%
135	0899	3080	30%
136	0899	1070	20%

Knowledge Area
135 - Aquatic and Terrestrial Wildlife; 136 - Conservation of Biological Diversity;

Subject Of Investigation
0899 - Wildlife and natural fisheries, general/other;

Field Of Science
1070 - Ecology; 3010 - Economics; 3080 - Sociology;

Keywords

invasive species

wildlife

social-ecological systems

economics

natural resource maangement

Goals / Objectives
The overarching goal of the research program is to develop basic ecological, social, and economic information about invasive wildlife species in the state of Alabama in order to inform management and policy. To achieve this goal, the project seeks to accomplish the following objectives. First, compile existing data and research on invasive wildlife in the state in order to quantify missing gaps in knowledge. Second, develop a database of potential invasive species that may enter the state in the future under climate change. Third, using the collected information, develop a prioritization of which species require immediate attention in terms of ecological, economic, or both research. Fourth, conduct ecological and economic analysis of most pressing invasive wildlife in the state.

Project Methods
Objective 1The first component of the research program will entail compiling gray and peer reviewed literature, data, and other information into a central repository in the laboratory of Dr. Lepczyk. Sources will be gathered via direct key word searches in academic databases (e.g., Web of Science, Google Scholar), searches of agency publications, and contacting stakeholders. We will review each item for additional sources noted in the text to ensure we have as complete a record as possible. All information will be entered into a database by species in order to identify where strengths and weaknesses exist in terms of our knowledge about different invasive animals.Objective 2The second component of the research program will entail identifying potential future invasive wildlife species under climate change and due to interstate commerce. As a first step we will identify all invasive wildlife species in the states abutting Alabama following a procedure similar to that identified in Objective 1. After species have been identified we will compile basic habitat requirements of the species in order to construct basic wildlife-habitat relationships that are akin to species distribution modeling (SDM)/niche modeling. SDMs can be projected onto landscapes based on both current and future habitat information. Thus, we will use three different estimates of future climate change in Alabama (scenarios that show optimistic, status quo, and pessimistic alternatives) such that SDMs can be used to indicate whether or not species may have potential habitat. In other words, SDMs will allow us to determine which species might have the potential to establish in the state based upon future habitat conditions. Though such analyses only convey the potential for a species to be present, they are useful from a management point of view in focusing attention on which species are more likely to be present.Objective 3The third component will utilize the collected information in order to develop a prioritization of which species require immediate attention in terms of ecological, economic, or both research. Many prioritization schemes exist and depend upon weighting of factors and what tradeoffs are being considered. Thus, our prioritization scheme will be based on what information is known about a species, what previous research suggests are problematic species, potential economic damage, and stakeholder conflict problems. The prioritization scheme will be evaluated by academic peers prior to any analysis to ensure its suitability.Objective 4After evaluating potential invasive wildlife species for consideration, ecological and economic analysis will be carried out, ideally at the same time. To gather ecological and economic information on invasive wildlife social survey instruments will be developed and administered using The Tailored Design Method (TDM; Dillman et al. 2008). TDM is the standard for social survey research in that it places emphasis on questionnaire design in terms of question order, wording, and formatting as well as the address sampling, presentation, and use of multiple mailings which are designed to reduce measurement and non-response bias and increase response rate. Using the TDM approach surveys will be developed and then administered over a two month time frame using an initial contact letter, followed by a survey packet, reminder postcard, second survey packet for non-respondents, and a final phone-call for a non-response bias check. Given that invasive wildlife impacts different ecosystems and stakeholders in markedly different ways, the survey will have species and stakeholder specific questions if a general survey or specific questions about a single species if only one species is identified. Furthermore, because different stakeholders may view invasive wildlife quite differently, the purpose of the survey is not simply to understand beliefs and attitudes generally, but to evaluate how similar or different stakeholder groups are from one another through measures such as potential for conflict index (Lohr and Lepczyk 2014; Lohr et al. 2014).The target populations include agricultural and livestock producers, forest landowners (recreational and timber interests), insurance companies, hunters, outdoor recreational groups, agency personnel, and a representative public group. Aside from surveying the target populations, ground validation of invasive species impacts will be carried out by visiting sites to assess ecological and economic damage, thereby allowing for greater precision and accuracy in valuation. Field data will include types of damage, location of damage (nearest town/city), acres impacted, crops impacted, estimated economic losses, control measures implemented, cost and perceived success of control methods, future plans for additional control, suitability and willingness to implement various control strategies, etc. Furthermore, the survey will be designed to assess additional metrics such as respondents' awareness of wildlife damage issues in Alabama, acceptance level for damage, trends in wildlife damage (for those experiencing damage), and from where they obtain technical information for damage management. Landowners will also be asked if they receive revenue from invasive wildlife (e.g., hunting lease revenue) or value these species as important game species. Following development of the draft survey, meetings with select members of the target audiences will be conducted to pilot the survey and address concerns regarding clarity, potential ambiguities, open-ended questions, and time commitment. The survey will subsequently be revised by incorporating feedback from these meetings.The initial target sample size is 2000 surveys, which will be administered to a mixture of the stakeholder groups in representative amounts. The expected response rates for these targeted groups will likely be approximately 30% to 40% based on similar surveys (Mengak 2012; 39.3%). Survey responses will be entered in a database for statistical analysis. Simple descriptive statistics will be produced along with basic parametric statistics and decision models from the data. State-wide economic impacts will be estimated by modeling relationships among recent prices of crops, respondent estimated damage cost, extent of damage (e.g., percentage of cultivated acres or forest ownership), and percentage of respondents by damage type and carried out in conjunction with economists in the School of Forestry and Wildlife Sciences. Economic estimates will also be validated by field sampling and correct if necessary.

Progress 11/16/15 to 09/30/20

Outputs
Target Audience:In the broader sense of the project, the target audience includes faculty, natural resource managers at local to national governmental levels, non-profit organizations involved in managing invasive species (e.g., The Nature Conservany), and the public. Within this broad context the main research carried out within the granting period focused on wild pig management within the state of Alabama. Hence, the target audiences that are involved in wild pig management included wildlife managers from the Alabama Departmentof Conservation and Natural Resources (ADCNR), wildlife scientists at universities and colleges in both the state and broader Southeast region, farmers and foresters from across Alabama, agricultural insurers (ALFA), non-profit organizations that focus on conservtion and natural resource management, and private landowners. Changes/Problems: Nothing Reported What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided?The project provided the opportunity for one graduate student (Ellary TuckerWilliams) to be trained, with professional opportunities and development focused on human dimensions of wildlife and conflict management. These professional opportunities include working on outreach with Auburn University Extension Specialists in Forestry and Wildlife, writing an MS thesis, participating in professional development training workshops (e.g.,Conservation Action Planning Workshop at The Wildlife Society annual meeting), and presenting research at local and international scientific conferences as well as to local and regional agency and stakeholder meetings. The student also served as an ambassador in Auburn University recruiting tours as part of the SFWS and gave volunteer outreach presentations to Dothan High School and Munford Middle school related to wildlife. How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest?Results have been shared with Auburn UniversityExtension Specialists as well as Extension Specialists across the Southeastern US and personnel within federal agencies. Presentations and conference calls have been given to agency and stakeholder groups, and research has been published. What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals? Nothing Reported

Impacts
What was accomplished under these goals? Over the course of the project, we focused on Objective 1 by selecting one specific invasive species, wild pigs (Sus scrofa), that is utmost concern. Specifically, wild pigs are one of the most detrimental invasive mammals in the US, particularly Alabama and the Southeast and lack of adequate population control has allowed pigs to become established across the landscape, causing significant ecological and economic damage. Given the need for additional tools for reducing wild pig populations we utilized a social survey framework to evaluate the knowledge and acceptance amongst the 3 most impacted and influential stakeholder groups in the state of Alabama related to the species. Specifically, we evaluated a total of 1822 individuals that encompassed Alabama forestland owners, farmers, and hunters in relation to approaches and views of wild pig management. Use of Toxicants for Wild Pig Management The results presented here represent the main findings that were published in TuckerWilliams et al. 2021 PLOS One. In the past 5 years there has been a push to develop and implement the use of toxicants as a management tool for wild pigs in both the US and abroad. As such, there is the likelihood that toxicants may become a legally available management tool. However, because no research has examined stakeholders' perspectives towards the use of toxicants in wild pig management the focus of our first analysis was on two toxicants, warfarin and sodium nitrite, that are at the forefront of wild pig management in the US. Sodium nitrite was found to be more acceptable than warfarin to control wild pigs. However, stakeholder groups differed in their acceptability of using sodium nitrite. Hunters showed lower acceptability than farmers and forestland owners while forestland owners showed greater acceptability. Hunters differed from farmers and forestland owners regarding the acceptability of warfarin with a lower level of acceptability. Regarding hypothetical purchasing and use regulations, all groups showed support for 4 of the 5 options. Hunters had lower levels of support for an individual being "19 years of age or older to purchase a toxicant", and the "toxic bait and bait dispenser being required by law to be sold together to limit access by non-target species" than farmers and forestland owners. Hunters showed lower support for a toxicant only being sold by licensed vendors and requiring an individual to obtain a use permit by completing an online training course in toxicant application and safety before being allowed to purchase a wild pig toxicant than farmers. Regarding the level of concern in relation to any toxicant use as a method of wild pig population control in Alabama, "accidental water contamination", "human health impact", and "incorrect usage of a toxicant" were of highest concern for all groups. Amongst the top 3 concerns, only "incorrect usage of a toxicant" differed between stakeholder groups. When looking at the collective list of concerns, farmers were less concerned about "incorrect usage of a toxicant", "eradicating wild pigs entirely" throughout the state, and "public opinion" about a toxicant than hunters. While hunters were more concerned about the "personal financial cost" associated with a toxicant and "eradicating wild pigs entirely" than forestland owners. All groups were generally supportive of using warfarin and sodium nitrite, though their views differed slightly by group. Furthermore, all stakeholder groups were supportive of toxicant purchasing and use regulations, while accidental water contamination, human health impact, and incorrect usage of a toxicant were stakeholders' greatest concerns. All 3 groups would support the use of warfarin and sodium nitrite for wild pig management in Alabama if restrictions and safety guidelines are required and if there is little non-target impacts of the toxicants on species and ecosystem health. The findings have direct implications for shaping policy and possible use of toxicants as a future wild pig management tool and could be a model for other states or locations considering the use of toxicants. Attitudes on Wild Pig Management The results presented here represent the main findings from TuckerWilliams et al. Environmental Management, submitted manuscript. Because of the multitude of negative impacts associated with wild pigs, management must occur across both types of land to achieve widespread control and sustained success. However, managing wild pigs across property boundaries is challenging as we know little about differing management practices and landowner perspectives. To address this knowledge gap, we sought to understand wild pig management efforts on privately owned lands, the perceived economic, ecological, and human health impact of wild pigs, and beliefs related to policy across stakeholder groups. All groups indicated that they sometimes saw wild pigs on their properties and believed they had approximately medium wild pig population levels across their properties. Forestland owners indicated that they had greater wild pig populations on properties than farmers and hunters. All stakeholders believed that wild pig populations had increased across all their land, with forestland owners indicating a greater increase than hunters or farmers. The individuals who stated that they had observed an increase in wild pig population on their properties over the past 5 years perceived that this was due to lack of hunting pressure (~58%), natural causes such as increased food or water availability or natural dispersal (~56%), and ineffective action taken by state and/or federal agencies to remove wild pigs (~50%). On the other hand, individuals who stated that they believed wild pig populations had generally decreased on their properties over the past 5 years indicated that it was due to hunting (~71%), trapping (~48%), and the neighboring property's management actions (33%). Approximately ~59% of all respondents indicated that they had not engaged in any wild pig management within the last 5 years. Of the survey respondents who participated in management over the past 5 years, opportunistic shooting of wild pigs was the most selected strategy by all groups (~89%), followed by hunting for recreation or subsistence (~68%), and trapping (~59%). In terms of the effectiveness of current legal management options for reducing wild pig populations, trapping and lethal removal, hunting/shooting over bait, and night shooting received the highest scores and were generally viewed as "somewhat effective". All stakeholder groups agreed with the statement "wild pigs are an issue because they are economically costly to the state". Regarding human health, stakeholders "somewhat agree" that "wild pigs are an issue because they threaten human health". Overall, stakeholders believed wild pigs have negative ecological impacts, with decreased wildlife habitat and soil quality receiving the highest overall scores. No stakeholder group identified a species or group of species that was positively impacted by wild pigs. All stakeholder groups agreed in their belief that individual landowners should be responsible for managing wild pig populations throughout Alabama. Overall, stakeholders believed wild pigs have negative impacts on wildlife, the economy, and ecological and public health. However, less than half of landowners participate in wild pig control. Further, stakeholders believe that the responsibility of managing and paying for damages associated with wild pigs' lies with individual landowners. Our findings suggest that increased efficacy of wild pig control and collaboration between private and public landowners is not only possible but also necessary if wild pig population control is to be regionally successful.

Publications

• Type: Journal Articles Status: Accepted Year Published: 2021 Citation: TuckerWilliams, E., C.A. Lepczyk, W. Morse, and M. Smith. 2021. Stakeholder perspectives towards the use of toxicants for managing wild pigs. PLoS One.
• Type: Journal Articles Status: Submitted Year Published: 2021 Citation: TuckerWilliams, E., C.A. Lepczyk, W. Morse, and M. Smith. Perceptions of wild pig impact, management, and policy in Alabama. Environmental Management.
• Type: Theses/Dissertations Status: Published Year Published: 2018 Citation: TuckerWilliams, E. 2018. Stakeholder Perspectives on Wild Pig Management in Alabama. MS Thesis, Auburn University.
• Type: Conference Papers and Presentations Status: Published Year Published: 2017 Citation: TuckerWilliams, E., C. Lepczyk, and W. Morse. 2017. People vs. pig: a look into the human side of the Alabama wild pig conflict. The Wildlife Societys 24th Annual Conference, Albuquerque, NM, September 23-27, 2017.
• Type: Conference Papers and Presentations Status: Published Year Published: 2018 Citation: TuckerWilliams, E., C.A. Lepczyk, W. Morse, and M. Smith. 2018. International Wild Pig Conference, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.
• Type: Conference Papers and Presentations Status: Published Year Published: 2018 Citation: TuckerWilliams, E., C.A. Lepczyk, W. Morse, and M. Smith. 2018. Stakeholder Perspectives towards the Use of a Toxicant for Managing Wild Pigs. 2018 Alabama Chapter of the Wildlife Society Annual Meeting
• Type: Conference Papers and Presentations Status: Published Year Published: 2017 Citation: Lepczyk, C.A. Moving feral cat management forward. Symposium entitled Challenges of Balancing Stakeholder Engagement and Scientific Decision-Making to Inform Wildlife Policy. The Wildlife Societys 24th Annual Conference, Albuquerque, NM, September 23-27, 2017. [invited talk]

Progress 10/01/18 to 09/30/19

Outputs
Target Audience:Over the past year the target audiences for the project included wildlife managers from the Alabama Dept. of Conservation and Natural Resources, wildlife scientists, farmers and foresters from across Alabama, agricultural insurers (ALFA), and state natural resource agency personnel. Specifically we met to discuss research findings on wild pigs, issues that matter to stakeholders. Changes/Problems: Nothing Reported What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided?The project has provided one graduate student with professional opporunities and training towards human dimensions of wildlife and conflict management. These professional opportunities include working on outreach with Extension Specialists, writing an MS thesis, and presenting ongoing research to both academic and lay audiences. How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest?Results have been shared with Auburn and other Southeast University Extension Specialists. Presentations and conference calls have been given to agency and stakeholder groups, and research has been submitted for peer review publication. What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals?I plan to publish the remainder of the research, give further presentations of the findings, and develop next steps in the research agenda.

Impacts
What was accomplished under these goals? A survey of three stakeholder groups (forest landowners, farmers, and hunters) was completed that focused on management options for wild pigs in Alabama. The data from the survey was written up into a theses and two publications have been developed, one which was in review during this reporting period. The main findings indicate that the three main stakeholder groups all are experiencing damage from wild pigs, are supportive of most management options, and believe they are having negative impacts on the ecology and economy.

Publications

• Type: Journal Articles Status: Under Review Year Published: 2019 Citation: TuckerWilliams, E., C.A. Lepczyk, W. Morse, and M. Smith. Perceptions of wild pig impact, management, and policy in Alabama. Biological Invasions
• Type: Theses/Dissertations Status: Published Year Published: 2018 Citation: TuckerWilliams, E. 2018. Stakeholder Perspectives on Wild Pig Management in Alabama. MS Thesis, Auburn University.

Progress 10/01/17 to 09/30/18

Outputs
Target Audience:Over the past year the target audiences for the project included wildlife managers from the Alabama Dept. of Conservation and Natural Resources, wildlife scientists, farmers and foresters from across Alabama, agricultural insurers (ALFA), and state natural resource agency personnel. Specifically we met to discuss research focuses on wild pigs, issues that matter to stakeholders, and initial findings of our research. Changes/Problems: Nothing Reported What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided?The project has provided one graduate student with professional opporunities and training towards human dimensions of wildlife and conflict management. These professional opportunities include working on outreach with Extension Specialists, writing an MS thesis, and presenting ongoing research to both academic and lay audiences. How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest?Initial summary findings of the social survey work has been shared at two different organized meetings in the School of Forestry and Wildlife Sciences (Weaver Lecture and Annual Meeting of the Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources). Initial findings were also shared with other Extension Specialists in the Southeast US. What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals?We plan to submit for publication a minimum of two peer reviewed journal articles based on the research and present the findings at one meeting. We also plan to develop a new survey focused on urban green spaces.

Impacts
What was accomplished under these goals? A social survey wasadministered to three stakeholder groups across Alabama (farmers, hunters, and foresters) in February 2018 to evaluate invasive pigs across the state. The survey focused on preferred management options, use of toxicants, and damage done to property. Subsequently the survey was analyzed and initial results were shared with stakeholders.

Publications

Progress 10/01/16 to 09/30/17

Outputs
Target Audience:Over the past year the target audiences for the project included wildlife managers, wildlife scientists, farmers, foresters, agricultural insurers, and state natural resource agency personnel. Specifically we met to discuss research focuses on wild pigs, issues that matter to stakeholders, and future directions of our research. Changes/Problems:The initial two year project was going to focus more on economics, but due to a recent USDA publication and project that evaluated the impact of wild pigs on the agriculture of Alabama we have moved the research more towards addressing the management of the species and stakeholder views on management. What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided?Have provided one graduate student with professional opporunities and training towards human dimensions of wildlife and conflict management. How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest? Nothing Reported What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals?Complete the social survey and write up the results for publication

Impacts
What was accomplished under these goals? Currently a social survey intsrument has been developed and approved for administration during winter of 2018 that seeks to evaluate management options of wild pigs across stakeholder groups in AL.

Publications

Progress 11/16/15 to 09/30/16

Outputs
Target Audience: Nothing Reported Changes/Problems:The two year project focused on wild pigs within Alabama, that was a componenet of the large five year project, is shifting from a straight economic analysis to a human dimensions of wildlife focus. The project will still include an economic component. However, a USDA economic analysis was just carried out and published for AL and other southern states that overlapped greatly in focus of our proposed research. Rather than duplicate the work, we are filling in the items that USDA did not evaluate and expanding the direction to evaluate different stakeholders affected by wild pigs. What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided?The graduate student working on the project for their MS thesis has taken courses in statistics, GIS, economics, and wildlife management in preparation for the research. In addition, the student has attended extension meetings and professional meetings on wild pigs with faculty in the School of Forestry and Wildlife Sciences to gain knowledge on the topic and experience in working with outreach professionals. How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest? Nothing Reported What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals?In the coming year the graduate student will form MS committee, defend MS proposal, develop a social survey on wild pigs, and layout the experimental design for surveying stakeholders.

Impacts
What was accomplished under these goals? The project has hired a graduate student to carry out research related to one invasive species (wild pigs) to address the fourth objective as this was deemed one of the greatest concerns to the ecological and economic health of the state in terms of invasive wildlife species.

Publications