Data from: Selectivity and efficiency of predator control methods: A case study from a Mediterranean hunting ground
Data files
Jul 21, 2026 version files 129.48 KB
-
Hunting_data_13_07.xlsx
27.94 KB
-
README.md
8.51 KB
-
Trapping_data_13_07.xlsx
93.02 KB
Abstract
Predator control is a widely used management tool worldwide to reduce the impact of opportunistic predatory species, but in some contexts where predators are controlled to reduce negative impacts on game species, there are concerns about the selectivity and efficiency. In this case study, we evaluated the selectivity and efficiency of trapping and hunting methods targeting red fox (Vulpes vulpes), Eurasian magpie (Pica pica), and wild boar (Sus scrofa) during different effort periods over three years (2021–2023), in a Mediterranean hunting ground located in Spain where a wide range of protected species occurred. A control specialist used authorized restraint traps during 9,326 trap-days while a group of trained hunters with dogs conducted 101 hunts, including fox den hunting, sit-and-wait for wild boar, and drive hunting targeting both species. For the fox, the Collarum ® snare showed significantly higher selectivity (95.24%) than the Belisle Selectif ® snare (83.33%), while no differences in efficiency were observed among periods for either of the snares. The cage-trap for magpies achieved 99.44% selectivity, and it was more efficient from January to June, when the highest effort was conducted. The most effective hunting method for fox was den hunting and sit-and-wait for wild boar, with a higher hunting efficiency for the latter species from July to December. In areas holding similar predators, we advise increasing control efforts in winter-spring, coinciding with the breeding season of small game species, whereas when targeting wild boar, its control should be conducted in summer-autumn. As the capture of protected species was anecdotal, this case study suggests that predator control through hunting and trapping, provided that they are conducted by trained hunters and control specialists, could be effective in reducing the abundance of target species in certain contexts.
Authors
José A. Torres; E. Jorge Tizado; José L. Valero; Miguel Gómez; Luis F. Villanueva; Carlos Sánchez-García
Corresponding author: Carlos Sánchez-García
Dataset overview
This repository contains the data supporting the study "Selectivity and efficiency of predator control methods: a case study from a Mediterranean hunting ground."
There are two data sets:
- Trapping data: each row provides the information from each trap deployed during the study, including the plot name, trap number, type of trap, date of deployment and retrieval, month, period, coordinates, type of bait, location description and the number of animals captured (depending on the trap used). In notes we include the non-target species which were caught.
- Hunting data: each row provides the information from each hunt or hunting trip, including the period, plot, coordinates, hunting type, hour of start and end, effort considering hunter hours and dogs, number of guns, dogs and beaters and the surface of the plot in which hunted was conducted. Afterwards we include the number of animals flushed and captured.
- In this study, authorization to conduct predator control was given by the regional government of Extremadura. Trapping procedures were conducted by a trained specialist and hunting followed current regional regulations, dispatching animals humanely. Dogs used for hunting purposes were treated following current animal welfare regulations.
Field data were collected in a Mediterranean hunting estate in Spain between 2021 and 2022 to evaluate the selectivity and efficiency of predator control methods targeting:
- Red fox (Vulpes vulpes)
- Wild boar (Sus scrofa)
- Eurasian magpie (Pica pica)
The dataset consists of two tab-delimited text files:
| File | Description |
|---|---|
Trapping_data_13_07.xlsx |
Trap deployment, effort and capture records. |
Hunting_data_13_07.xlsx |
Hunting event records, effort and harvest information. |
File 1: Trapping_data_13_07.xlsx
Description
Each row represents a single trap deployment and the captures recorded during that deployment.
Variables
| Variable | Description | Units / Values |
|---|---|---|
| Plot_name | Plot where trap was deployed | text |
| N_trap | Trap identification number | integer |
| Type | Trap type | Magpie_trap, Collarum, Belisle |
| Date_deployment | Deployment date | dd/mm/yyyy |
| Date_retrieval | Retrieval date | dd/mm/yyyy |
| Month | Month of deployment | text |
| Period | Predator control intensity | High, Medium, Low |
| Coord_X | UTM X coordinate | m |
| Coord_Y | UTM Y coordinate | m |
| Bait | Bait used | text |
| Location_description | Trap location description | text |
| Magpie | Eurasian magpies captured | count |
| Fox | Red foxes captured | count |
| Cat | Domestic/feral cats captured | count |
| Days | Trap-days | days |
| Notes | Non-target species captured | text |
Trap types
- Magpie_trap — Cage trap for Eurasian magpies.
- Collarum — Non-powered cable restraint for foxes.
- Belisle — Belisle-type foothold trap.
Baits
11 types of baits were used, though only with 4 types captures were recorded: chicken, pork fat, lamb and partridge meat.
File 2: Hunting_data_13_07.txt
Description
Each row corresponds to one hunt or hunting trip.
Variables
| Variable | Description | Units / Values |
|---|---|---|
| Period | Predator control intensity | High, Medium, Low |
| Plot | Hunting location | text |
| Coord_X | UTM X coordinate | m |
| Coord_Y | UTM Y coordinate | m |
| Hunting_type | Hunting method | Driven hunting; Den hunting; Sit-and-wait |
| Hour_start | Start time | hh:mm |
| Hour_end | End time | hh:mm |
| Effort_hours | Hunting duration | hours |
| Effort_min | Hunting effort | minutes |
| Effort_min_hunter | Total hunter effort | hunter-minutes |
| Effort_min_dogs | Total dog effort | dog-minutes |
| N_guns | Hunters carrying firearms | count |
| N_beaters | Beaters | count |
| N_dogs | Dogs | count |
| Land_hunted | Area hunted | ha |
| Flushed (Fox) | Foxes observed | count |
| Hunted (Fox) | Foxes harvested | count |
| Fox_adult_male | Adult males harvested | count |
| Fox_adult_female | Adult females harvested | count |
| Fox_juvenile_male | Juvenile males harvested | count |
| Fox_juvenile_female | Juvenile females harvested | count |
| Flushed (Wild boar) | Wild boars observed | count |
| Hunted (Wild boar) | Wild boars harvested | count |
| WB_adult_male | Adult males harvested | count |
| WB_adult_female | Adult females harvested | count |
| WB_juvenile_male | Juvenile males harvested | count |
| WB_juvenile_female | Juvenile females harvested | count |
Sampling design
Predator control intensity was divided into three management periods:
| Period | Months | Description |
|---|---|---|
| High | January–June | Intensive predator control |
| Medium | July–October | Intermediate predator control |
| Low | November–December | Low-intensity predator control |
Coordinate reference system
Coordinates are reported in Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) coordinates (metres) using the coordinate reference system employed during fieldwork.
Missing values
- Blank cells indicate that a variable was not applicable or no observation was recorded.
- A value of 0 indicates confirmed absence (e.g. no captures or no animals harvested).
Data reuse notes
- Trap-days correspond to the number of days each trap remained active between deployment and retrieval.
- Hunting effort can be analysed using hours, minutes, hunter-minutes or dog-minutes, depending on the objective.
- No personally identifiable information is included.
For each snare and cage-trap used, the gamekeeper recorded the location at the time of setting, conducting a daily visit, and recording all captures from target and non-target species.
For each hunt, the gamekeeper recorded the drive or den location, number of hunters and dogs involved, together with the duration of the hunt. When a fox or a wild boar was captured, the sex and the age of the animal were recorded.