Chapter 12: Bushpig Potamochoerus larvatus (F. Cuvier, 1822)131
ownership and an established pair bond (Seydack 1990). The
use of latrines by bushpigs was reported by Breytenbach (1979),
Kingdon (1979), Breytenbach and Skinner (1982) and Jones
(1984). Latrines consist of scattered accumulations of faeces
resulting from defecations over longer periods of time. Such
accumulations are often sited where the ground surface is clear
of vegetation, such as bare stretches of paths and in canopy open-
ings. In addition to scent marking, latrines apparently serve to
advertise territorial occupation.
Mammals occupying habitat rich in cover and exhibiting noc-
turnal activity, as in bushpigs, tend to have well-developed acoustic
communication systems involving an extensive vocal repertoire.
Sounds made by bushpigs resemble the grunts, squeals, snarls
and snorts recorded also for other Suidae (Frädrich 1974). The
most common vocalization by bushpigs is contact grunting, con-
sisting of relatively soft, monosyllabic grunts. These are occasion-
ally interspersed with more penetrating squeaks (high-pitched
contact grunts). Contact grunting is typical when the group for-
ages along in extended, loose formation. It is made by all group
members, functioning to inform each other of their positions in
order to maintain contact, especially in dense vegetation and in
the dark. Group contact is easily lost because group members are
spread out and move at varying rates depending on individual
food search success. Grunting frequency increases with rate of
movement and ceases when the group is stationary while feeding.
When foraging at normal rates, contact grunts may be emitted
every 5 to 10 seconds (Breytenbach 1977).
Agonistic Behaviour
Defence of resources for maintenance, reproduction (exclusive
mates), and growth selects in both sexes for weapons maximiz-
ing surface damage (Geist 1978). Bushpig sows have functional
canines and play a central role in territorial defence. Non-
ritualized, damaging fights invariably occur when a territory-
holding sow encounters a mature intruder of the same sex.
Unfamiliar males of comparatively lower status were also chased.
Fighting between mature bushpig females resulted in significant
mortality (Seydack 1990). Encounters with territory holders are
costly to intruders due to their usually damaging nature. Negative
conditioning to the territorial area through patrolling and mark-
ing is further reinforced through intimidation behaviours such as
group displays and charges observed during encounters between
bushpigs. The advantage of group size for displacement between
bushpig groups was implied by Attwell and Bearder (1976).
Forms of agonistic behaviour include threat gestures, snout
thrusting, pushing aside, squabbling, snap biting, chasing off
opponents, and dominance display contests between males
(Seydack 1990). A fully developed threat gesture consisted of the
head being held high, with the mouth partly open. More deter-
mined gestures of threat include jaw champing, rushing forward
and pawing the ground with the front feet. Skinner et al. (1976)
provide a detailed account of display contests between two bush-
pig males. Display contests are apparently confined to males and
are taken to function in the evaluation of relative dominance sta-
tus. Actual fighting is accordingly relatively rare in male bushpigs
because one of the contestants tends to lose confidence during the
ritualized display preceding potential clash situations (Kingdon
1979). The display stance of male bushpigs is characterized by an
erected dorsal mane, the latero-frontal posture, i.e. the body is
parallel and the head directed towards the opponent and the ears
held in sideways extension. The dorsal mane may guide vision to
the forehead in latero-frontal display. These features of the display
posture facilitate the demonstration of body surface and the con-
spicuously marked head. The head is clearly marked and set off
against the body, the white forehead contrasting with the darker
body. The forehead in males is distinctly whiter than in females.
The white forehead and darker ears with tassels are conspicu-
ous, and together with other facial structures confined to males,
including snout knobs, dark tusk gland pouches, gonial and
malar protuberances, all add to the total effect during frontal and
latero-frontal dominance displays. The white forehead in males
forms a striking contrast with the dark tusk gland pouches and
the latero-frontal display posture seemingly serves to enhance the
assessment of snout knob dimensions by creating an appropriate
silhouette. The dorsal mane may furthermore guide vision to the
forehead in latero-frontal display and accentuate body size. The
size of male snout knobs scale allometrically and independently
to body size and age, thus conveying information relating to both
vitality and experience of male opponents, thereby functioning as
rank indicators which parallel fighting potential (Seydack 1990).
The lack of display behaviour in the female bushpig cor-
responds to the absence of display structures and pronounced
facial colour patterns. Fighting between adult sows consists of
rapid thrusts and pushing movements with the snouts and side
blows or slashes whenever opportunities arise. Forehead contact
formed a central part of the contest and the snouts were held in
the form of crossed swords against each other. The contestants
push-butted each other with vigorous forward movements of the
head, continuously striving to regain close head contact. Fighting
usually ends with a sudden turn-about of one contestant, which
is then pursued by the other. If the losing individual is too weak
to flee in a timely manner, heavy gashes may be sustained from
the rear. Wound sepsis of these result in considerable mortality in
female bushpig (Seydack 1990). The fighting style in bushpig was
aptly termed nose fencing, compared to tusk wrestling in wart-
hog and snout ramming in the giant forest hog (Kingdon 1979).Parasites and Diseases
Infestation with eight ixodid tick species (mainly Rhipicephalus
maculatus) and one louse species Haematopinus latus was
reported by Horak et al. (1991). Boomker (2007) comprehen-
sively reported on helminth infestations in wildlife species,
including the bushpig. Although bushpigs are natural reservoir
hosts of African swine fever virus in the wild, available evidence
suggests that African swine fever viruses circulate only occa-
sionally or at relatively low levels in the bushpig. They show no
clinical signs when infected with the virus pathogenic to domes-
tic pigs (Jori & Bastos 2009).Status in the Wild
The conservation status of bushpig (P. larvatus) populations
can generally be described as ‘known or believed to be relatively
secure’ (Oliver 1995), implying them to be widespread at low.01412:38:17