www.nature.com/scientificreports OPEN Assessing mammal trapping standards in wild boar drop‑net capture Carles Conejero1, Jorge Ramón López‑Olvera1, Carlos González‑Crespo1, Arián Ráez‑Bravo1, Raquel Castillo‑Contreras1,3, Stefania Tampach1, Roser Velarde1,4 & Gregorio Mentaberre2,4* Applying contemporary trapping standards when managing wildlife should no longer be an option, but a duty. Increasing wild boar populations originate a growing number of conflicts and hunting is the only cost-effective management option in most cases. However, new scenarios where hunting is unfeasible emerge and trapping necessities cope with lacking regulatory frameworks and technical guidelines. In this research, we evaluated drop nets, a capture method not considered by the international trapping standards, to capture Eurasian wild boar (Sus scrofa), a wildlife species not included in the list of mammal species under the scope of the Agreement on International Humane Trapping Standards (AIHTS). Less than 20% of the captured wild boars presented moderate or severe injuries attributable to the capture method, hence fulfilling the acceptance thresholds of the outdated AIHTS. Based on the new standards thresholds of acceptance, the humaneness of drop-nets in our study ranged 66–78%, under the 85% required. The capture success and selectivity were 100%, as ensured by operator-driven triggering, which should be considered the main strengths of this method, together with the minimization of animal suffering owing the short duration of the stressful situation. Additionally, in spite of the socially adverse environment, with people contrary to wild boar removal, no disturbances against the capture system or operations occurred. This is the first assessment of a drop-net capture method according to internationally accepted mammal trapping standards, with unconclusive results. However, there is a need for adapted procedures and thresholds of acceptance aimed at not-mechanical traps in general, and specifically at drop-nets. Compared to other live- capture methods, drop-nets minimize the duration of the stressful situation —at the expense of a strong adrenergic acute response—, maximize the probabilities of capturing entire sounders of prosocial species, which may be also considered as more humane, and has the ability to coordinate higher values of capture success, absolute selectivity and adaptability to difficult environments. Globally, there is a growing consensus on the need to make progresses towards ethical wildlife control, starting by considering altering the human practices that cause human–wildlife conflict and by developing a culture of ­coexistence1,2. Eurasian wild boar (Sus scrofa L. 1758) populations are expanding and increasing worldwide, and so does human–wild boar co-existence and conflicts. The wild boar has the broadest geographic range of all ungulates and conflicts arise due to both direct and indirect interspecific interactions resulting in ecologi- cal, economic and health impacts; namely, wild boars cause crop damages, road traffic accidents, increased risk for shared livestock diseases and zoonoses, altered food webs and damage to some plant and animal ­species3–5. Furthermore, and due to its high behavioural plasticity, the wild boar has successfully adjusted itself to a wide range of landscapes in the last decades, including urban a­ reas6,7. As a consequence, wild boar population lethal control remains the only cost-effective measure to manage human–wild boar conflicts in most c­ ases8,9. However, hunting is unfeasible and/or illegal in certain scenarios due to safety and/or social c­ onstraints10 and then other management measures must be ­considered11. The urban scene faces specific challenges in managing this species because of increasing sensitivity and social demands for animal welfare c­ onsiderations12–14. Fertility c­ ontrol15 has been proclaimed as a more ethical alternative management measure in spite of lacking supportive evidence for its effectiveness at the population l­ evel4,16,17. In this respect, and according to modelling, more than 50% of the fertile 1 Wildlife Ecology and Health Group (WE&H‑https://weh.cat/) and Departament de Medicina i Cirurgia Animals, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (UAB), 08193 Barcelona, Spain. 2Wildlife Ecology and Health Group (WE&H‑https://weh.cat/) and Departament de Ciència Animal, Universitat de Lleida (UdL), 25198 Lleida, Spain. 3Present address: Fundación Artemisan, Avda. Rey Santo 8, 13001 Ciudad Real, Spain. 4These authors contributed equally: Roser Velarde and Gregorio Mentaberre. *email: gregorio.mentaberre@udl.cat Scientific Reports | (2022) 12:15090 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-17407-5 1 Vol.:(0123456789) www.nature.com/scientificreports/ females within a specific population should be sterilized to obtain meaningful reductions in wild boar ­numbers18, which is far from current technical capacities when working with abundant free-living wild boar p ­ opulations5. At this point, live trapping and removal remains the only cost-effective and feasible option in certain scenes. Many techniques, methods and/or devices/systems have been developed for killing and/or restraining wild- life for fur harvest, wildlife and/or related-conflicts management or with research p ­ urposes19. Killing traps have probably been the most used devices for both food/fur harvesting and conflict management with little, if any, consideration to animal suffering in the beginnings. Later, the increasing interest in safeguarding animal welfare led to the Agreement on International Human Trapping Standards (AIHTS), which is a binding agree- ment that has a direct impact on fur trading between the signatory ­countries20,21. Almost simultaneously, the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) published its own mammal trapping standards, with no legal value or enforcement capability, but ­voluntary22,23. Both the AIHTS and the ISO standards established the need for fulfilling welfare standards according to certification protocols of every intended trap previous to its authorization for mass production, commercialization and use. These certification protocols are mostly based (but not exclusively) on either time to irreversible unconsciousness, insensibility or death (TIU), in the case of killing traps, or in numerical scores that quantify the extent of injury incurred by a trapped animal in the case of restraining t­ raps24,25. Mammal capture usually becomes more difficult as animal size increases, hence killing traps are mostly used to catch species ranging in size from rodents to lynx or wolf, at the ­most26, probably because of increasing difficulties to meet with welfare and performance (efficiency and selectivity) standards when used with bigger species. Although this is probably one of the raison d’être of restraining —non-lethal— traps, most certified ones according to international standards are also aimed at small to middle-sized furbearing, pest or predatory species, probably to prevent killing or damage to protected and/or endangered non-target ­species27,28. On the other hand, and for further concern, both the AIHTS and the ISO standards have been repeatedly criti- cized with a growing list of concerns including ineffectiveness in ensuring animal welfare due to insufficient and outdated standards and test procedures, incomplete list of mammal species included and/or lacking or insufficient thresholds of a­ cceptance24–26,29. In line with this, wild boar or wild artiodactyls in general seem to be out of the scope of this regulatory framework. Very recently, new mammal trapping standards addressing the mentioned concerns have been ­proposed25. Both outdated (AIHTS and ISO) and recent standards are focused on mechani- cal traps —both killing and restraining— (“devices that have mechanical energy if they are in motion and/or if they are at some position relative to a zero-potential energy position” which are activated by the (hopefully) target species to be captured). Methods developed for trapping wild artiodactyls consist mainly in restraining/live trapping systems that have been used primarily for research, population monitoring and/or translocation purposes. These include mainly different kinds of cage and corral traps, as well as net-based systems (drop-, drive- or gun-nets), also used with less attention to animal welfare in the past and increasing standards later promoted by institutional Animal Care and Use Committees, domestic regulations and/or research s­ tudies30,31. These methods have been mostly evaluated in terms of capture efficiency and level of case morbidity and mortality associated to the capture methods. When considered, animal welfare evaluations have been made in-vivo by means of hematological, serum biochemical and/or physiological parameters used as indicators of individual acute stress response or by attending to post-release mortality whenever ­possible11,30,32–35. More recently, the global rising trends in wild ungulate populations, especially those of wild boar in E ­ urope5, are doing population control through methods other than hunting necessary. As a result, restraining methods (e.g. drop-nets) are being used as a previous step to either gunshot sacrifice or pharmacological e­ uthanasia11,36. Despite animal welfare concerns are important regardless of the reason for capture, in this new context where abundant ungulate species come into the category of pest or nuisance species, the risk for double or even multiple standards e­ xists37. This is even more feasible in the absence of international standards considering these species distinctive features, such as size, anatomy, behavior or use as game species, so that attention to welfare standards may differ according to operator background and expertise, as well as to requirements established for capture in every specific context. In this regard, their legal consideration as game or invasive species may further contribute to this problem due to less strict regulations compared to species with a higher level of protection. Barcelona city is one of the big metropolises around the world suffering conflicts derived of wild boar pres- ence in the urban structure since years ago, some of which entailing serious hazards and/or real consequences for public safety and requiring prompt measures. The Barcelona city council (BCC—Ajuntament de Barcelona) is involved in a multiple approach to this problem since 2013, including actions in the short, middle and long ­term38,39. Short-term actions mostly rely on live capture and removal of conflictive or potentially conflictive ­individuals11. ESTRATEKO S.L. (https://​www.​ESTRA​TEKO.​com/​en/) is a small enterprise founded to provide solutions in wildlife-derived conflicts management that has developed its own drop-net based system. It was the first company to be hired by the BCC to perform captures of wild boar sounders with the potential to cause conflictive situations within the urban scene. The requirements determined by the BCC include veterinarian supervision of these captures in order to minimize animal suffering and increase humaneness by applying phar- macological euthanasia instead of gunshot sacrifice (which also prevents spilled blood in capture sites where people pass-by at daytime, such as public green spaces). Properly executed, drop-net capture minimizes the duration of the stressful situation, at the expense of a strong adrenergic acute stress ­response11. According to preliminary visual inspections of both capture events and the captured wild boars, the ESTRATEKO drop-net system was considered as apparently respectful with animal welfare. Although drop-nets are not considered mechanical traps, due to the interest of ESTRATEKO S.L. in objectifying this assessment, and given the absence of specific standards and regulations, the aim of this study was to evaluate the ESTRATEKO drop-net system for wild boar capture according to available mammal trapping standards. In addition, we discuss other operational and ethical considerations. Scientific Reports | (2022) 12:15090 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-17407-5 2 Vol:.(1234567890) www.nature.com/scientificreports/ Figure 1.  The ESTRATEKO drop-net trap deployed in a peri-urban location of Barcelona city at dusk, ready to run. Corn kernels are used as bait to attract wild boars to the central area under the net. Methods ESTRATEKO remote‑controlled drop‑net system and operation. The ESTRATEKO drop-net sys- tem is a homemade standard drop-net device with technological improvements. Namely, the drop-net frame consists of 4 metal poles (2.5–3 m high, 10 cm in diameter), with the bottom of the poles buried 30–50 cm into the ground once placed on-site and supported by rope tension lines fastened to the top of each pole and staked to the ground (Fig. 1). The net used measures 10 × 10-m and is made of 0.5-cm diameter nylon rope display- ing a 10-cm mesh made ad-hoc by a local manufacturer. The operational adaptations consist of the inclusion of an electromagnet-based system as fastening device and remote-controlled trigger mechanism, and a Wi-Fi real time video-cameras device for distance monitoring of animals’ presence under the drop net by means of a tablet and suitable software. A 12 V car battery is used for electromagnet electric supply under field conditions. Arrangement of poles allowed different and adaptable shapes and measures of the drop-net trap to the specific selected capture sites, sometimes reduced in size or with physical obstacles such as big trees. Real-time distance monitoring is always performed on-site, in a previously selected waiting location out of sight from the trap location but less than 250–300 m away, in order both to reduce wariness around trap sites due to the operators’ proximity and to rapidly assist the captured animals after remotely triggering drop by means of the tablet software. Study area and capture protocol. From September to November 2017, the ESTRATEKO drop-net sys- tem was used in six operations in a periurban context and within the framework of the contract 16/0243-00- PR/01 with the BCC aimed at urban wild boar derived conflicts management. Three capture areas were deter- mined at districts’ request and based on hotspots for human–wild boar conflicts in the boundaries between the urban area of Barcelona and the natural area of Collserola (Fig. 2). Specific trap sites were selected on the basis of physical characteristics (suitable for drop-nets assembly), wild boar traces and discretion (low frequented sites or with the possibility to temporary limit people access), baited with corn to promote wild boar loyalty for 1–2 weeks and monitored through infrared-triggered cameras to confirm continued daily visits by the targeted wild boars. Drop-net trap was not set during this period but only the specific days when captures were sched- Scientific Reports | (2022) 12:15090 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-17407-5 3 Vol.:(0123456789) www.nature.com/scientificreports/ Figure 2.  Heat map of the wild boar-related incidences recorded by the Barcelona city police department from 2010 to 2019, and approximate location of specific trap sites in the boundaries between the urban area of Barcelona and the natural area of Collserola. Generated with QGIS version 3.22.7 Bialowieza (https://​qgis.​org/​ en/​site/). uled. The capture days, drop-net assembly was done before sunset, real-time distance monitoring performed as abovementioned and complete dismantling was done just after capture, the same night and before dawn. During the capture operation, two remote cameras recorded the space beneath the suspended net and sent the live video through Internet to portable digital tablets, which allowed operators triggering the drop-net when the targeted wild boars were under the mesh, including entire sounders or family groups. Once activated, the net dropped over the targeted group or individuals, which ended up entangled and physically restrained in few seconds. Immediately, the group of operators including at least one veterinary moved to the trap site and injected the trapped wild boars in the thigh area with a mixture of tiletamine (3 mg/kg) and zolazepam (3 mg/ kg) (ZOLETIL100, Virbac Animal Health, Spain) with xylazine (3 mg/kg) (XILAGESIC 20%, Calier Laboratories, Spain) prefilled in syringes according to the estimated weight of each individual. Next, wild boars were allowed to stay undisturbed and reach anesthetic unconsciousness, re-dosed when necessary, disentangled, blood sampled and finally sacrificed through intra-cardiac injection of T-61 (Merck Sharp and Dohme Animal Health, Spain). Once finished the capture operations, at late night, the animals were transported and stored in a cold room at 4 °C within the following two hours and necropsied the following day, less than 24 h after capture. Assessment of mammal trapping standards. Drop-nets are operator-triggered restraining traps that have not the consideration of mechanical ­traps25, hence apparently out of the scope of either currently in force mammal trapping standards (AIHTS) or the new proposed ones. However, in the absence of specific and/or alternative procedures, to assess humaneness of the ESTRATEKO drop-net system for capturing wild boars, we adopted a hybrid procedure including the pathological evaluation and trauma scoring of field —instead of compound/captive— captured wild boars, as proposed by ISO 10990-5, as well as the injury indicators and the performance threshold proposed by the AIHTS, according to national and regional regulations—also focused mainly on fur predatory species—40,41. Namely, we necropsied 20 (the minimum number considered by the AIHTS to obtain meaningful results) out of 32 captured wild boars. An experienced wildlife pathologist exam- ined carcasses for the presence of injuries and/or indicators for negative effects resulting from the drop-net cap- ture method and to evaluate animal welfare (Table 1). Next, for a more proper assessment, we discuss the results according to the recently released standards and guidelines for ­improvement25. Scientific Reports | (2022) 12:15090 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-17407-5 4 Vol:.(1234567890) www.nature.com/scientificreports/ ISO 10990-5 Annex C New mammal trapping standards ­proposal25 Behavioral indicators Self-inflicted bite causing severe injuries (e.g. mutilation) na 50 Excessive immobility and apathy na na Injuries Fracture 30–100 50–100 Carpus, tarsus or closely related joints luxation 30 30 Tendon or ligament ruptures 25(each)–100 25(each)–100 Severe periosteum graze 30 15 Severe external or internal hemorrhage 10–100 30–100 Significant skeletal muscle degeneration 55 50 Limb (upper or lower) ischemia 55 50 Definitive tooth fracture with pulp cavity exposition 30 30 Ocular damage including corneal laceration 100 100 Spinal cord affectation 100 100 Myocardium degeneration 100 100 Amputation 25–100 30–100 Death 100 100 Table 1.  Indicators of poor welfare to be assessed during humane trapping standards validation of capture methods, according to the Agreement of International Humane Trapping Standards (first column) and scores assigned to these lesions either by the International Organization for Standardization (second column) or by the new proposal for international mammal trapping standards (third column)25. Necropsy protocol and histopathological study. For this aim, the postmortem study included the systematic nec- ropsy of every individual, as well as a specific histopathological study. Complete external and internal evaluation was performed on all individuals in order to characterize and determine the severity of the traumatic injuries that could be related to the drop-net capture. Following external examination and before opening internal body cavities, the wild boars were completely skinned to better assess the presence of contusion injuries. The histopathological study was mainly addressed to assess if restraining time in the net before anesthesia was long enough as to provoke capture (exertion) myopathy, which may be due to excessive stress and suffer- ing by the captured individual. The targeted tissues for microscopical examination after fixation and staining with hematoxylin and eosin included: myocardium, skeletal muscles (longissimus dorsi, semitendinosus and/or semimembranosus) and kidney. Operational factors. A record was made of every capture event including the following data: location, date, assembly and starting time, times at which the drop-net was triggered, number and individual characteristics of the wild boars captured in every net fall, finishing time and concerning additional observations (e.g.: incidences due to unexpected opposing witnesses or another kind of disturbances detrimental to the capture event success, or operators’ safety accidents). Ethical statement. No ethical permit for animal experiments applies or must be permitted as no animals were harmed or killed specifically for the purposes of this study. Wild boar capture operations were done for population management purposes, not for research, and according to national and local legislation. All described methods were conducted during or after legal trapping activities, according to national, regional and local laws. All international and/or institutional guidelines for animal handling were followed. Thus, all experiments were carried out in compliance with ARRIVE guidelines. Results Thirty-two wild boars were captured during the six capture operations, 12 males and 20 females ranging 2 months to 6 years old and 10–90 kg. To perform the postmortem study, a partially random selection of individuals was done after every capture event to obtain representation of the six capture operations (hence, different circum- stances including separate dates, locations and environmental conditions) as well as of both sexes and different age classes, until completing 20 wild boars (6 males and 14 females; same age and weight range). None of the twelve excluded wild boars displayed external signs of trauma. A male piglet suffered severe gingival laceration due to the placement and friction of the mesh nylon rope between the upper lip and the gingival space while entangling together with an adult female (its mother), which probably increased the forces between the piglet and the mesh. According to the pathological criteria established in Annex C of ISO 10990-5, this injury displayed ligament rupture, periosteum abrasion and mild to moderate external hemorrhage. In addition, two adult females caught in the same capture event displayed acute myodegenerative lesions consistent with capture myopathy. Individually, the lesions observed could be classified as mild but, under a rigorous interpretation, the simultane- ous affectation of, at least, two major muscles (longissimus dorsi and semitendinosus) could be compatible with Scientific Reports | (2022) 12:15090 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-17407-5 5 Vol.:(0123456789) www.nature.com/scientificreports/ ♂Piglets ♀Piglets ♂Juveniles ♀Juveniles ♂Yearlings ♀Yearlings ♂Adults ♀Adults Date Area Captured WB WB selected for PM study Captured/selected for PM study (with significant injuries due to the capture system) 12/09/2017 A 8 4 4/1 2/1 – – 1/1 – – 1/1 18/09/2017 A 5 5 2/2 (1) 2/2 – – – – – 1/1 27/09/2017 A 2 2 – – – – – 2/2 – – 02/10/2017 B 9 5 3/1 3/1 – – – – – 3/3 (2) 16/10/2017 C 4 2 – – 1/0 1/0 – – 1/1 1/1 28/11/2017 C 4 2 – – 1/0 2/1 – – – 1/1 Table 2.  Date, place and results from the six capture operations with the ESTRATEKO remote-controlled drop-net system. Bold characters refer to the dates, age classes, sex and number of individuals with significant trap-related injuries. WB Wild boar, PM post-mortem, A = Velòdrom d’Horta; Coordinates (UTM31N— ETRS89): 429088 E 4587916 N; B = Escola Baloo; Coordinates (UTM31N—ETRS89): 428127 E 4587226 N; C = Av. Pearson; Coordinates (UTM31N—ETRS89): 425048 E 4582627 N. Figure 3.  (a) Severe, deep gingival laceration with external haemorrhage exposing the maxillary bone. (b) Sampling of longissimus dorsi. (c) Sampling of semitendinosus and semimembranous muscles. (d) Acute skeletal muscle degeneration. A central myofiber is swollen and hypereosinophilic (arrow) and a fragmented segment of another myofiber is also present (arrowhead). the indicator “major skeletal muscle degeneration” established by the ISO-10990-5 and classified as moderate. Hence, altogether, and depending on the interpretation, moderate to severe injuries associated with the drop-net capture were observed in one to three (5–15%) wild boars (Table 2; Fig. 3). A fourth individual (adult female) displaying chronic gingivitis suffered moderate gingival laceration pre- sumably due to the mesh rope friction; in this case, the previous condition was considered as a predisposing Scientific Reports | (2022) 12:15090 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-17407-5 6 Vol:.(1234567890) www.nature.com/scientificreports/ factor and was overall classified out of the ISO pathological criteria. Finally, ten individuals (including the adult female with gingivitis) displayed minor abrasions (n = 7) or contusions (n = 3) with either superficial and/or intramuscular bruise, and including an individual showing a minor bruise in the snout and another one with minor injuries in the inner side of the oral mucosa due to self-biting presumably while entangled. Minor and focal acute myodegeneration on muscular fibers associated to subcutaneous and intramuscular contusive traumatisms were observed in the histopathological study of the same individuals. Despite most of these lesions may be related to the drop-net capture system, they were all classified as mild and not to fulfil the AIHTS established severity pathological criteria. Three individuals showed previous and already healed moderate to severe traumatisms, including a partial jaw amputation, a tail amputation and a bone callus on two ribs, that were not associated to the capture method. Finally, intramyofibrillary cystic structures compatible with Sarcocystis spp. were observed on myocardium and/or skeletal muscle of seven individuals. See Table 3 for the detailed information of all the examined wild boars, including sex, age, condition, weight and pathological findings. The capture success of the ESTRATEKO drop-net system was 100%; i.e. wild boars appeared and placed beneath the net in every planned capture event, so that the system was triggered and the outcome resulted in multiple captures (all the wild boars observed through the cameras were captured). The selectivity was also 100%, as ensured by operator-driven triggering. And average performance was 5.3 wild boars per capture operation (Minimum: 2; Maximum: 9; Table 2). Operator safety was warranted as no one resulted injured during the capture operations. Finally, it deserves mention that the capture system was not vandalized nor disturbances aroused during the capture operations. In no case, the trap was assembled more than seven hours (Minimum: 3 h and 30 min; Maximum: 6 h and 45 min) between 19 h and 3:15 h of the following day. Discussion Worldwide, the harsh reality is that many wildlife traps continue to be widely used without any or poor evalu- ations of trapping ­standards42, probably due to lacking political will, regulations and supervision or control mechanisms. Even so, the need for updating the current AIHTS in order to improve animal welfare standards and test procedures has been long ­stated26,29 and recently ­boosted24,25. Some of the alleged concerns for this claim are incomplete lists of mammal species and trap types included on it. In this research, we evaluated a capture method not considered in the AIHTS to capture a wildlife species not included in the list of mammal species under the scope of the AIHTS, with apparently satisfactory results. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first assessment of welfare performance of a drop-net capture method according to international mammal trapping standards. However, as far as drop-nets are not mechanical traps, they would fall out of the scope of any standards, either the outdated AIHTS or the newly released o ­ nes25. Nevertheless, given the absence of specific and/or alternative standards, procedures and thresholds of acceptance, we decided to adopt the existing ones. Altogether, amongst the 20 wild boars captured and analyzed, at most three displayed significant trapping-associated alterations. This value is under the 20% maximum allowed by the AIHTS, hence the ESTRATEKO drop-net system fulfilled the requirements of this norm for restraining traps. However, the new mammal trapping standards expand on the indicators of distress by including behavioral and physiological parameters, assign scores to the injuries observed in the pathological evaluation—similarly to ISO 10990-5—and establishes stricter thresholds of acceptance. Behavior evaluation is feasible and deserves interest when live-traps do not completely restrict mobility and the captured individuals may remain for hours inside the trap or held by it. This is not the case for drop-nets, which immobilize individuals almost completely and immediate assistance is required in order to alleviate their strong acute stress response, either by gunshot or by chemical methods, depending on the intended purpose. Regard- ing physiological evaluation, a previous study already made clear a predominantly adrenergic stress response of wild boars captured with the ESTRATEKO drop-net system that contrasted with cortisol-induced changes observed in cage and corral trap captured wild ­boars11. Since stressful stimuli and both intensity and duration of the stress response provoked differ amongst capture methods, direct comparison and interpretation of physi- ological parameters may be difficult to assess unless extreme and pathological values are observed or thresholds of acceptance are determined/provided. Evaluating the results of our pathological evaluation based on the new standards thresholds of acceptance (“acceptable restraining trap systems are expected, at a 95% confidence level, to hold ≥ 85% of target animals for a specific time period without serious injuries [≤ 50 points], signs of distress or exertion [≤ 50% of the capture time], and significant physiological stress changes”25), only the male piglet suffering severe gingival laceration clearly scored over 50 points. The points/score to be assigned to the two individuals displaying skeletal muscle degeneration deserves further discussion. While the ISO 10990-5 differentiate minor from major skeletal muscle degeneration, scoring 30 (Moderate) and 55 (Moderately severe), respectively, the new standards proposal considers a single category of skeletal degeneration scoring 50 points. Since both individuals presented other mild affectations, their cumulative injury score with the new standards would be over 50, resulting altogether also in three unsatisfactory captures and 17 successful ones out of 20, which corresponds to a 66% humaneness efficacy (95% CI; estimated through the normal approximation to the binomial distribution, according to Proulx et al. 2­ 02024 and ­202225), under the 85% threshold. Even doing a lax interpretation and considering only the piglet with severe gingival laceration, we would not exceed the estab- lished threshold (78%). On the other hand, the short duration of restraint during drop-net capture, as well as for other nets-based capture systems, should be considered a p ­ lus43 and adapted trapping standards, thresholds and evaluation procedures could be desirable. It is worth notice that when evaluating welfare standards and performance of a capture system, it is not only ­ sed26,44, which altogether could be referred as the cap- the device that is under examination, but also the way it is u ture method or set. This is specially so in the case of drop-nets given that the trapped animals must be attended immediately and cannot remain unattended for hours, as it may happen with other methods to live-capture wild animals that are normally allowed to work overnight and revised next ­morning42. In this regard, we suggest that Scientific Reports | (2022) 12:15090 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-17407-5 7 Vol.:(0123456789) www.nature.com/scientificreports/ Trap-related pathological and histopathological Pathological and histopathological findings not trap- Id Mean age (months) Condition, weight (kg) findings (Injury score points*; Trauma scale**) related SS17153 4.5 Very good, 11 WSL WSL SS17154 30 Good, 44 WSL Anomaly in lower jaw (previous traumatism) SS17155 4 Good, 15.5 WSL WSL Low grade, superficial abrasion in forelimb with subcuta- SS17156 4 Good, 16 Tail amputation (previous traumatism) neous and intramuscular bruise (10; Mild) Intramyofibrillary cystic structures on myocardium and skeletal muscle consistent with Sarcocystis sp. SS17162 60–72 Good, 47.5 WSL Minor perivascular lymphoplasmacytic infiltrates in the renal pelvis Minor interstitial and lymphoplasmocytic infiltrate on SS17163 4 Good, 13.5 WSL kidney SS17164 4 Good, 16.5 WSL WSL SS17165 4 Good, 15.5 WSL WSL Severe, deep gingival laceration (100; Severe) with external hemorrhage exposing the maxillary bone (30; SS17166 5.5 Good, 15 WSL Moderate) Low grade, superficial abrasion of oral mucosa (5; Mild) Intramyofibrillary cystic structures on myocardium and skeletal muscle consistent with Sarcocystis sp. SS17170 17.5 Good, 42 Self-inflicted bites on oral mucosa (5–10; Mild) Minor interstitial lymphoplasmacytic infiltrates on renal medulla Low grade, superficial longitudinal abrasion on forelimb with focal acute hemorrhagic degeneration on brachialis SS17171 17.5 Good, 33 WSL muscle. Erythrocytes between swollen and fragmented hypereosinophilic muscular myofibers (10; Mild) Low grade, superficial longitudinal abrasion on forelimb with associated subcutaneous and intramuscular hemor- rhage (10; Mild) SS17172 54 Very good, 75.5 WSL Mild myodegeneration on longissimus dorsi and semitendinosus muscles with swollen and fragmented eosinophilic fibers—8%— (30; Moderate) Low grade, superficial and intramuscular bruise on fore- SS17173 4.5 Good, 11 limb with minor focal degeneration on contused muscle WSL (10; Mild) Low grade, superficial abrasion with erythema on fore- Bone callus on thoracic cavity (ribs 6 and 7) due to a limb (10-Mild) previous traumatism SS17174 54 Good, 59.5 Swollen eosinophilic and fragmented fibers—3%— on Intramyofibrillary cystic structures on myocardium and longissimus dorsi and semitendinosus (30; Moderate) skeletal muscle consistent with Sarcocystis sp. Low grade contusion, superficial and intramuscular Intramyofibrillary cystic structures on skeletal muscle SS17175 54 Very good, 57 bruise in right thorax and dorsal flank with moderate consistent with Sarcocystis sp. focal bruise (10; Mild) SS17176 3 Good, 12.5 WSL WSL Intramyofibrillary cystic structures on myocardium and SS17192 54 Very good, 90 WSL skeletal muscle consistent with Sarcocystis sp. High number of intramyofibrillary cystic structures Low grade, superficial and longitudinal bruise on nasal SS17193 66 Very good, 83 on myocardium and skeletal muscle consistent with bone (10-Mild) Sarcocystis sp. Multifocal coalescent pyogranulomatous glossitis, ton- silitis, lymphadenitis (submandibular and retropharingic Moderate grade, laceration on mandibular gingiva due to lymphnodes), abscess (1.5 cm) caudal to mammary gland SS17242 54 Very good, 59.5 previous chronic swollen gingivitis with incisive spacing (right M3), cranioventral suppurative chronic pneumonia (10–30; Mild) (10%) Intramyofibrillary cystic structures on myocardium consistent with Sarcocystis sp. SS17245 7.5 Good, 18.5 Low grade, superficial abrasion on forelimb (10; Mild) WSL Table 3.  Identification, mean age, weight and pathological findings on evaluated individuals. WSL “Without significant lesions”. *According to new mammal trapping standards ­proposal25; **According to ISO-10990-5 Annex C. a combined test procedure of both killing and restraining traps could be advisable when using restraining traps for population control and as a previous step to sacrifice or euthanasia. Namely, the parameter “TIU” should be taken into consideration, probably with adapted thresholds to the specific live trapping method. This reasoning has been elaborated later than the experimental phase of the present study, hence we did not precisely record times from drop-net triggering to anesthesia-induced unconsciousness of the captured wild boars. However, we can assure that in no case more than 15–20 min passed between these two moments. If these data were available and we could fine-tune this assessment, we may could find a relation between the TIU values and the two wild boars displaying myodegenerative lesions compatible with capture myopathy. Going beyond, we previously stated that the wild boars captured in the present study were sacrificed by means of pharmacological euthanasia after previously induced anesthesia in order to increase humaneness of process and avoid blood spill in the periurban Scientific Reports | (2022) 12:15090 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-17407-5 8 Vol:.(1234567890) www.nature.com/scientificreports/ scene. If we omit aesthetic concerns, gunshot or captive bolt followed by exsanguination would probably have resulted in shorter TIU values in the drop-net captured wild boars, which are subjected to a highly stressful situation previous to anesthesia. Furthermore, physical immobilization provoked by drop-nets makes possible this operation in suitable conditions and safely for the operators. The two adult females observed with capture myopathy were captured in the event with a higher number of captured wild boars, which probably resulted in extended time to anesthesia. Capture myopathy is a time-dependent syndrome that normally correlates with the duration of an overwhelming (that overcome the physiological mechanisms to cope with) stressful e­ vent34,45. The significance of capture myopathy probably differs depending on the fate of the animals, being specially concern- ing if the captured animals are to be released (e.g. after marking and/or sampling); not so much if sacrificed. Hence, the operating protocol should consider increasing the number of skilled operators and/or limiting the number of wild boars to be captured before triggering the system to minimize the time of handling and prevent capture myopathy in the case of live-trapping and r­ elease11, whereas capture of entire sounders must be prioritized when capturing for population control. On the other hand, exceptional injuries such as that of the male piglet suffering severe gingival laceration while entangling together with a much bigger and heavier individual, despite infrequent may be avoided using a thicker and softer mesh or reducing mesh hole size. Considering the relative position of individuals beneath the net before triggering the system could serve also to prevent crowding under the net and during the entangling phase and to reduce post-triggering handling time. Drop-nets were first conceived to capture game birds and later adapted and widely used to capture ungulates, mainly ruminant herbivores. According to the literature, drop-nets are considered suitable for mass capture of ungulates smaller than an antelope (Antilocapra americana) and recommended to capture deer (roe—Capreo- lus capreolus-, red—Cervus elaphus- and white-tailed—Odocoileus virginianus-deer), European mouflon (Ovis aries) and mountain goats (Oreamnos americanus) in non human-dominated ­scenarios21,46,47. However, to our knowledge, its use in free ranging swine has been quite limited, restricted to feral/wild pigs in North A ­ merica48 and only once reported in European wild ­boar11. Other capture methods targeting wild boar such as corral or cage-traps have been proposed as one of the safest, most efficient and humane means of capturing wild pigs, also allowing for the safe release of non-target c­ aptures14. However, these methods have also been reported to provoke severe injuries, and even related mortality, in a significant number of ­individuals30,42. This discrepancy is probably due to differences in the design of the specific devices evaluated and in the way they are used. In fact, measures to reduce injuries and fight-or-flight responses when using these methods have been described, resulting also in quicker delivery of chemical immobilization drugs via darting and, hence, shorter time values until ­unconsciousness49. Furthermore, trap-related physical injuries may not fully reflect other capture-induced stressors such as fear, pain and poor environmental ­conditions42. Even more, the stressful situation provoked by capture has also been described to cause distress in individuals other than the ones captured in prosocial species such as wild ­boar50. Probabilities for this situation to occur are higher when using methods with less ability to capture entire sounders of prosocial species than drop-nets. In addition to welfare considerations, a capture method must warrant capture success or trap performance (i.e.: the rate at which a device or system catches the intended species)33. Capture success may be estimated according to efficacy, or percentage of successful capture events, and efficiency, or number of captured individuals per unit of capture effort, which were maximum in our study, with 100% of successful capture events and 100% of multiple captures (i.e., more than a single wild boar captured). However, to be fair, a previous assessment of the ESTRATEKO drop-net system including a bigger number of capture events resulted in 85% of successful capture events (i.e., wild boars did not appear in 15% of the planned capture events, hence the drop-net system could not be triggered) and when the wild boars made an appearance, multiple captures occurred in 94.1% of triggering events. These differences can be due to urban wild boar spatial ecology and ­seasonality7,51, as well as to suitable trap sites selection and monitoring during pre-baiting/capture ­periods33. Efficiency can be determined as the number of wild boars captured per successful capture event, or mean performance, which was higher in the aforementioned study (8.12 vs 5.3)11 and even higher during wild pig captures in the USA (10.7)36. Compared to cage or corral traps, and amongst live-capture methods aimed at wild boar, drop-nets have consistently been observed to display the highest ­performance11,36. Selectivity towards the targeted animals and operator safeness are also amongst the most common parameters used for capture method evaluation. Selectivity can be ensured through operator-mediated triggering or activation, which is the case of drop-nets, with the ability to prevent any stressful situation to any non-target species or individual. Other live-trapping methods may allow for the safe release of non-target captures, provided trapper professionalism, but in no case prevent the stressful episode supposed by restraint, which can result even in mortality of species or individuals particularly susceptible to capture ­myopathy24,26. Finally, it deserves interest the adaptability of every capture method to different scenarios, which is a poorly evaluated but key aspect. This is probably due to the fact that, until recently, wildlife capture has been mostly performed in remote areas or landscapes with low levels of urbanization, which reduces public awareness and/ or social concerns due to more utilitarian human values towards animals. In contrast, in more urbanized land- scapes, human values tend to be more protectionist, where people are less supportive of killing animals and more supportive of protecting ­wildlife14,52,53. These circumstances can give room to social disturbances by animal sym- pathizers contrary to management measures based on wildlife capture and removal (population control). These disturbances may include opposing actions during captures performance, if found out, but more probably and difficult to prevent, deliberate vandalism of non-guarded traps, stealing of trap-related devices, such as camera- traps, or even freeing of the captured animals, which suppose a risk for the involved people. Cage and corral traps require longer deployment time of capture gear on field, which raises public awareness and increases the risk of vandalism when used in urban and peri-urban environments. This is the case for wild boar in the Metropolitan Area of Barcelona-MAB39, where most of these incidents have occurred when using cage and corral traps and ahead determined trap sites selection when using these methods (to avoid sites accessible to the general public) Scientific Reports | (2022) 12:15090 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-17407-5 9 Vol.:(0123456789) www.nature.com/scientificreports/ and limited capture s­ uccess11. The operating protocol applied by ESTRATEKO S.L., including set up at dusk and dismantling at the end of the capture event, always during the night and before dawn, avoided any incident and resulted in increased and higher adaptability of the drop-net trap. This allowed the most suitable trap sites selection according to urban wild boar activity hotspots and maximized capture success. This adaptability may also apply to other non-urban scenarios that impose short times of trap system deployment. Conclusions To summarize, (1) the application of the test procedures aimed at evaluating trapping standards suppose an opportunity to improve wildlife traps, capture protocols and welfare, being necessary their adaptation and that of acceptance thresholds to capture methods and species not considered previously; (2) to the best of our knowl- edge, this is the first assessment of welfare performance of a drop-net capture method according to international mammal trapping standards, resulting in the certification of the ESTRATEKO drop-net system for wild boar capture according to the AIHTS requirements. Although certification is not so clear when revisited according to newly proposed state-of-the-art standards, the need for adjusted test procedures and acceptance thresholds for restraining non-mechanical traps, namely for drop-nets, is clear. (3) Nonetheless, we suggest that a com- bined test procedure of both killing and restraining traps could be more suitable when using restraining traps by considering the parameter “time to unconsciousness” (either irreversible or not, if sacrifice is not the final objective of live-trapping) and establishing adapted thresholds. In any case, (4) to fully warrant animal welfare performance of drop-nets, the conditions to minimize time of handling or time to unconsciousness must be provided, preferably by ensuring a suitable number of skilled handlers. (5) Compared to other live-capture methods aimed at wild boar, drop-nets provoke a strong adrenergic acute stress response. However, the immedi- ate assistance by handlers shortens the duration of the stressful situation. In addition, drop-nets maximize the probabilities of capturing entire sounders of prosocial species, which may be considered as more humane, as well as more efficient for population control purposes. (6) When properly used, drop-nets have the potential to easily coordinate minimum animal physical and mental distress with the highest values of capture success and maximum selectivity and adaptability to difficult environments and/or conditions. (7) Finally, other advantages of using drop-nets include easy technical management, operator safeness, low costs on maintenance over years and reduced trap visibility and distrust by targeted animals. Data availability Correspondence and requests for additional materials or information should be addressed to G.M. For additional information about ESTRATEKO, S.L.: https://​www.​ESTRA​TEKO.​com. Received: 26 March 2022; Accepted: 25 July 2022 References 1. Dubois, S. et al. International consensus principles for ethical wildlife control. Conserv. Biol. 31(4), 753–760 (2017). 2. Frank, B. & Glikman, J. A. Human–wildlife conflicts and the need to include coexistence. In Human–Wildlife Interactions (eds Frank, B. et al.) 1–19 (Cambridge University Press, 2019). 3. Meng, X. J., Lindsay, D. S. & Sriranganathan, N. Wild boars as sources for infectious diseases in livestock and humans. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 364, 2697–2707 (2009). 4. Massei, G., Roy, S. & Bunting, R. Too many hogs? A review of methods to mitigate impact by wild boar and feral hogs. Hum. Wildl. Interact. 5, 79–99 (2011). 5. Carpio, A. J., Apollonio, M. & Acevedo, P. Wild ungulate overabundance in Europe: Contexts, causes, monitoring and management recommendations. Mamm. Rev. 51, 95–108 (2021). 6. Stillfried, M. et al. Secrets of success in a landscape of fear: Urban wild boar adjust risk perception and tolerate disturbance. Front. Ecol. Evol. 5, 157 (2017). 7. Castillo-Contreras, R. et al. Urban wild boars prefer fragmented areas with food resources near natural corridors. Sci. Total Environ. 615, 282–288 (2018). 8. Keuling, O., Strauß, E. & Siebert, U. Regulating wild boar populations is ‘somebody else’s problem’!—Human dimension in wild boar management. Sci. Total Environ. 554–555, 311–319 (2016). 9. Vajas, P. et al. Many, large and early: Hunting pressure on wild boar relates to simple metrics of hunting effort. Sci. Total Environ. 698, 134251. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​scito​tenv.​2019.​134251 (2020). 10. Licoppe, A. et al. Wild boar/feral pig in (peri-)urban areas. Managing wild boar in human-dominated landscapes. in International Union of Game Biologists (IUGB)—Congress IUGB 2013, 1–31 (2013). 11. Torres-Blas, I. et al. Assessing methods to live-capture wild boars (Sus scrofa) in urban and peri-urban environments. Vet. Rec. 187, e85. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1136/​vr.​105766 (2020). 12. Adams, C. E. Urban Wildlife Management (CRC Press, 2016). 13. Conejero, C. et al. Past experiences drive citizen perception of wild boar in urban areas. Mamm. Biol. 96, 68–72 (2019). 14. Lewis, J. S., VerCauteren, K. C., Denkhaus, R. M. & Mayer, J. J. Wild pig populations along the urban gradient. In Invasive Wild Pigs in North America (eds VerCauteren, K. C. et al.) 439–463 (CRC Press, 2019). 15. Massei, G. et al. Effect of the GnRH vaccine GonaCon on the fertility, physiology and behaviour of wild boar. Wildl. Res. 35, 540–547 (2008). 16. Náhlik, A. et al. Wild boar management in Europe: Knowledge and practice. In Ecology, Conservation and Management of Wild Pigs and Peccaries (eds Melletti, M. & Meijaard, E.) 339–353 (Cambridge University Press, 2017). 17. Croft, S., Franzetti, B., Gill, R. & Massei, G. Too many wild boar? Modelling fertility control and culling to reduce wild boar numbers in isolated populations. PLoS One 15, e0238429. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1371/​journ​al.​pone.​02384​29 (2020). 18. González-Crespo, C. et al. Stochastic assessment of management strategies for a Mediterranean peri-urban wild boar population. PLoS One 13, e0202289. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1371/​journ​al.​pone.​02022​89 (2018). 19. Schemnitz, S. D., Batcheller, G. R., Lovallo, M. J., White, H. B. & Fall, M. W. Capturing and handling wild animals. In Research and Management Techniques for Wildlife and Habitats (ed. Silvy, N. J.) 232–269 (John Hopkins University Press, 2009). 20. ECGCGRF (European Community, Government of Canada, and Government of the Russian Federation). Agreement on inter- national humane trapping standards. Off. J. Eur. Communities 42, 43–57 (1997). Scientific Reports | (2022) 12:15090 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-17407-5 10 Vol:.(1234567890) www.nature.com/scientificreports/ 21. Anonymous. International agreement in the form of an agreed minute between the European Community and the United States of America on humane trapping standards. Off. J. Eur. Communities L219, 26–37 (1998). 22. ISO 10990-4. Methods for testing killing trap systems used on land and underwater. in Animal (Mammal) Traps—Part 4 (Inter- national Organization for Standardization, 1999). 23. ISO 10990-5. Methods for testing restraining traps. in Animal (Mammal) Traps—Part 5 (International Organization for Stand- ardization, 1999). 24. Proulx, G., Cattet, M., Serfass, T. L. & Baker, S. E. Updating the AIHTS trapping standards to improve animal welfare and capture efficiency and selectivity. Animals 10, 1–26 (2020). 25. Proulx, G. Mammal Trapping—Wildlife Management, Animal Welfare and International Standards (Alpha Wildlife Publications, 2022). 26. Iossa, G., Soulsbury, C. & Harris, S. Mammal trapping: A review of animal welfare standards of killing and restraining traps. Anim. Welf. 16, 335–352 (2007). 27. Muñoz-Igualada, J., Shivik, J. A., Domínguez, F. G., Lara, J. & González, L. M. Evaluation of cage-traps and cable restraint devices to capture red foxes in Spain. J. Wildl. Manag. 72, 830–836 (2008). 28. Trap Research and Development Committee. Best Trapping Practices (Fur Institute of Canada, 2018). 29. Virgós, E. et al. A poor international standard for trap selectivity threatens global carnivore and biodiversity conservation. Biodiv- ers. Conserv. 25, 1409–1419 (2016). 30. Barasona, J. A., López-Olvera, J. R., Beltrán-Beck, B., Gortázar, C. & Vicente, J. Trap-effectiveness and response to tiletamine- zolazepam and medetomidine anaesthesia in Eurasian wild boar captured with cage and corral traps. BMC Vet. Res. 9, 107 (2013). 31. Shury, T. Physical capture and restraint. In Zoo Animal and Wildlife Immobilization and Anesthesia (eds West, G. et al.) 109–124 (Wiley Blackwell, 2015). 32. Webb, S. L., Lewis, J. S., Hewitt, D. G., Hellickson, M. W. & Bryant, F. C. Assessing the helicopter and net gun as a capture technique for white-tailed deer. J. Wildl. Manag. 72, 310–314 (2008). 33. López-Olvera, J. R. et al. Comparative evaluation of effort, capture and handling effects of drive nets to capture roe deer (Capreolus capreolus), Southern chamois (Rupicapra pyrenaica) and Spanish ibex (Capra pyrenaica). Eur. J. Wildl. Res. 55, 193–202 (2009). 34. Breed, D. et al. Conserving wildlife in a changing world: Understanding capture myopathy—A malignant outcome of stress during capture and translocation. Conserv. Physiol. 7, 1–21 (2019). 35. Mentaberre, G. et al. Azaperone and sudden death of drive net-captured southern chamois. Eur. J. Wildl. Res. 58, 489–493 (2012). 36. Gaskamp, J. A., Gee, K. L., Campbell, T. A., Silvy, N. J. & Webb, S. L. Effectiveness and efficiency of corral traps, drop nets and suspended traps for capturing wild pigs (Sus scrofa). Animals 11, 1565 (2021). 37. Baker, S. E., Macdonald, D. W. & Ellwood, S. A. Double standards in spring trap welfare. In Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Urban Pests (eds Daivies, C. & Pfeiffer, W. H.) 139–145 (Pureprint Group, 2017). 38. López-Olvera, J. R., Castillo-Contreras, R., González-Crespo, C., Conejero, C. & Mentaberre, G. Wild boar is not welcome in the city. Barcelona Metròpolis 103, 22–23 (2017). 39. Conejero, C. et al. Conflicto o habituación: las dos caras de la percepción social del jabalí urbano. in Proceedings of XIV Congreso de la Sociedad Española para la Conservación y Estudio de los Mamíferos (SECEM, 2019). 40. Conferencia Sectorial de Medio Ambiente. Directrices Técnicas para la Captura de Especies Cinegéticas Predadoras: Homologación de Métodos y Acreditación de Usuarios (Ministerio para la Transición Ecológica y el Reto Demográfico de España, 2011). 41. Generalitat de Catalunya—Government of Catalonia. Decret 56/2014 relatiu a l’homologació de mètodes de captura en viu d’espècies cinegètiques depredadores i d’espècies exòtiques invasores depredadores i l’acreditació de les persones que en són usuàries. Diari Oficial de la Generalitat de Catalunya 6609 (2014). 42. Fahlman, Å. et al. Wild boar behaviour during live-trap capture in a corral-style trap: Implications for animal welfare. Acta Vet. Scand. 62, 1–11 (2020). 43. Sharp, T. & Saunders, G. A Model for Assessing the Relative Humaneness of Pest Animal Control Methods (Australian Govern- ment—Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry [New Millennium Print], 2011). 44. Ziegler, L., Fischer, D., Nesseler, A. & Lierz, M. Validation of the live trap ‘Krefelder Fuchsfalle’ in combination with electronic trap sensors based on AIHTS standards. Eur. J. Wildl. Res. 64, 17 (2018). 45. Marco, I. et al. Capture myopathy in little bustards after trapping and marking. J. Wildl. Dis. 42, 889–891 (2006). 46. Rideout, C. B. Comparison of techniques for capturing mountain goats. J. Wildl. Manag. 38, 573 (1974). 47. Jedrzejewski, W. & Kamler, J. F. Modified drop-net for capturing ungulates. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 32, 1305–1308 (2004). 48. Gaskamp, J. A. Use of drop-nets for wild pig damage and disease abatement. Master’s thesis, available electronically from https://​ hdl.​handle.​net/​1969.1/​148198 (Texas A&M University, 2012). 49. Lavelle, M. J. et al. When pigs fly: Reducing injury and flight response when capturing wild pigs. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 215, 21–25 (2019). 50. Masilkova, M. et al. Observation of rescue behaviour in wild boar (Sus scrofa). Sci. Rep. 11, 16217 (2021). 51. Podgórski, T. et al. Spatiotemporal behavioral plasticity of wild boar (Sus scrofa) under contrasting conditions of human pressure: Primeval forest and metropolitan area. J. Mammal. 94, 109–119 (2013). 52. Manfredo, M., Teel, T. & Bright, A. Why are public values toward wildlife changing?. Hum. Dimens. Wildl. 8, 287–306 (2003). 53. Cahill, S., Llimona, F., Cabañeros, L. & Calomardo, F. Characteristics of wild boar (Sus scrofa) habituation to urban areas in the Collserola Natural Park (Barcelona) and comparison with other locations. Anim. Biodivers. Conserv. 35, 221–233 (2012). Acknowledgements ESTRATEKO S.L. (Balenyà, Spain) promoted this study to assess the welfare standards of the ESTRATEKO drop-net system for wild boar capture. The authors are particularly grateful to the team: Enric Vila, Santi Oms, Jordi Vigué and Enric Ullar. We are also grateful to Carme Maté, from the Barcelona city council, for her will to fulfil the highest animal welfare standards in the management of the urban wild boar phenomenon. This work was supported by the Ajuntament de Barcelona [contract numbers 15/0174, 16/0243 and 16/0243-00-PR/01] and benefited from the research grant PID2020-115046GB-I00-Ecología, salud pública y gestión del jabalí urbano, from the Spanish Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación. Legal permissions for the development of the fieldwork were obtained from the Generalitat de Catalunya (authorization AC/190). RC was supported by a PhD fellowship from the Secretaria d’Universitats i Recerca del Departament d’Economia i Coneixement (Generalitat de Catalu- nya) and the European Social Fund [file numbers 2016FI_B 00425, 2017FI_B1 00040 and 2018FI_B2_00030]. GM is a Serra Húnter fellow. The CERCA Programme from the Generalitat de Catalunya is also acknowledged. Author contributions G.M., R.V. and J.R. conceived and designed the study. C.C., J.R., G.M., S.T. and A.R. (all veterinarians) super- vised and participated in the capture operations, anaesthetizing and euthanatizing the wild boars. R.C. and Scientific Reports | (2022) 12:15090 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-17407-5 11 Vol.:(0123456789) www.nature.com/scientificreports/ C.G. collaborated in the trapping and collected and curated the data. R.V., C.C., C.G., A.R., R.C., S.T. and G.M. performed the postmortem examination. R.V. conducted the histopathological analyses. C.C. and G.M. drafted the first version of the manuscript. All authors reviewed the manuscript. Competing interests The authors declare no competing interests. Additional information Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to G.M. Reprints and permissions information is available at www.nature.com/reprints. Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://​creat​iveco​mmons.​org/​licen​ses/​by/4.​0/. © The Author(s) 2022 Scientific Reports | (2022) 12:15090 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-17407-5 12 Vol:.(1234567890)