Thank you for visiting Nature. The browser version you are using has limited support for CSS. For the best experience, we recommend that you use a newer version of the browser (or turn off the compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). At the same time, to ensure continued support, we will display sites without styles and JavaScript.

Scientific Reports Volume 11, Article Number: 16217 (2021) Cite this article

Here, we provide a unique photo document and observational evidence of the rescue behavior described in the wild boar for the first time. Rescue behavior represents an extreme form of prosocial behavior, which has so far only been confirmed in a few species. It refers to the situation when one person takes action to help another person who finds himself in a dangerous or stressed state, and is considered by some authors to be a complex form of empathy. We recorded a case in which an adult female wild boar manipulated the door mechanism of a wooden fixed cage trap and released two trapped young wild boars. The entire rescue process is rapid, specific behaviors are complex and highly targeted, indicating that wild boars have profound pro-social tendencies and extraordinary problem-solving capabilities. The rescue behavior may be based on empathy, because the female rescuer exhibited hair, which is a painful sign that indicates a match with the victim or an understanding of the victim’s empathy emotional state. We discuss this rescue behavior based on possible underlying motivations, including empathy, learning, and social promotion.

Animal rescue behavior is a pro-social behavior, when one person (rescuer) releases another person (victim) who finds himself in a painful or dangerous situation. Rats release their constrained cage partners, and ants rescue group members trapped in nylon traps in the sand, representing specific examples of this phenomenon2,3. Rescue behavior is different from other forms of help because of its complex organization. To qualify for a rescue act, the act must meet four requirements1. First, the victim must be in pain and find himself in a situation that poses a physical threat (such as injury or death). Secondly, rescuers try to rescue the victims and put themselves in danger; rescue attempts mean potentially huge costs to rescuers, so it is considered an extreme pro-social behavior. Third, the rescuer's actions are adequate to adapt to the victim's situation, even if the rescue attempt fails. Finally, rescuers have no direct benefits in terms of food rewards, social contact, protection, or mating opportunities. However, indirect benefits such as fitness benefits are possible1.

Rescue behavior is considered to be a targeted form of help, as well as other pro-social behaviors, such as instrumental assistance4. According to Russian doll empathy models 5 and 6, targeted help and comfort together represent the most complex forms of empathy that require empathy and emotional state matching. Yamamoto (2017)7 proposed another empathy combination model, which is composed of three independent factors that may interact: matching with others, pro-social, and understanding others. In this model, rescue behavior is placed under pro-social factors and does not involve emotional matching or understanding of others. However, rescue behavior does not need to involve empathy at all, and there may be other motivations behind it8,9. Due to experimental design or because several motives can act simultaneously, the potential motives of rescue behavior are difficult to reliably study. Most studies do not provide motivational data, so discussions on the underlying mechanisms of rescue behavior are ongoing8,9,10,11,12.

Laboratory rodent experiments emphasize the importance of experimental design to verify empathy motivation empirically. In the first condition of the experiment of Ben-Ami Bartal et al. (2011) 3, the mouse opened the front door of the restraint tube and released their trapped partners in the same room. In the second case, the rat opened the rear door of the restraint tube and released the trapped cage into the distal chamber. Therefore, even when social contacts are prevented, they continue to help their partners trapped in the cage. This led the authors to conclude that the rats understand the painful state of their caged partners and take action to relieve it, therefore, the rescue behavior is based on empathy. This conclusion is supported by a study in which the mouse opened a door and released a painful, drenched cage from the water tank13. In addition, mice will not open the door to their fellow immersed in the cage who is not in trouble. Subsequent studies replicated the rat help paradigm with a slightly different arrangement and challenged the interpretation of the original study. Silberberg et al. (2014)14 suggested seeking social connection as an alternative potential mechanism, because when the order of the experimental conditions was reversed, the rat did not open the back door to release the trapped cage into the distal chamber. Similarly, rats showed no preference between releasing constrained individuals or spending time with unconstrained individuals. In addition, a recent study of mice suggests that rescue behavior may be caused by general interest in restraint devices. Finally, Bahe et al. (2020)12 It is proved that staying in the restraint tube has no pressure on trapped rats, but is beneficial. Therefore, the design of experimental paradigms, the measurement of physical or emotional responses to constraints, and the continuity of rescuers’ actions are essential to unlock the motivation of rescue behavior1,8,16,17,18.

Whether out of empathy or not, some researchers believe that rescue behavior may also exist in other taxa1,19. However, since this phenomenon is rarely documented, only a few studies on a few species can support this claim (see Table 1). Rare experimental evidence includes ants releasing trapped animals of the same species2,11,20 and dogs releasing their troubled owners21. In other cases, we must rely on observational evidence and case reports. Nevertheless, observation reports can not only provide information about the various taxa in which obvious rescue behaviors have been observed, but also provide information about various forms of rescue behaviors. For example, a male white-faced capuchin monkey was observed to intervene when attacking a mother and her baby, who fled into the river after being attacked by males from a neighboring group, thus preventing her death twenty two. Other observational evidence includes chimpanzees removing poachers’ traps23 from the limbs of the same animal or elephants removing calming darts24 from the body of the same animal, otherwise it would lead to human capture. A recent observation report also recorded the first evidence of bird rescue behavior. According to reports, the Seychelles warbler removes the sticky seeds of the "bird-catching tree" from the feathers of members of its group, which can prevent flight and may cause death.

Here, we report the first observational evidence and photo record of a potential rescue behavior case of wild boar (Sus scrofa). Because of its nocturnal activities, this species rarely conducts social cognition research in the wild. Under the observed conditions, an adult female released two juvenile boars from the cage trap (Figure 1). The incident was recorded by a camera trap set to take pictures every two minutes and installed to monitor access to the trap using corn as bait. Traps are used to individually mark wild boars as part of research on sports ecology and African swine fever prevention measures. We discuss this case based on the four requirements and possible potential motives of the rescue behavior.

Box traps used to trap wild boars at the research site (a). The opened dump door is fixed by wire. One end of the wire is tied to the door, and the other end is hooked to the bottom of the cage. Usually during rooting, the door is closed by manipulating the hook of the wire from inside the trap. For detailed photos of the trigger mechanism, please refer to the Supplementary Electronic Materials SEM (Figure S1). The trigger mechanism closes the door and releases the logs (b, c) holding the door from the outside.

The incident took place on the evening of January 28-29, 2020, and a total of 93 photos were taken (provided in high resolution in the SEM). The two boars were trapped together for 2 hours and 35 minutes. The other boars arrived at the trapping site after the two were trapped for 2 hours and 6 minutes. The entire apparent rescue event from the first contact of the opening mechanism to the last available photo took 29 minutes, of which the first time was successfully cleared for 6 minutes. Log in later.

From 21:00 to 21:04, the short-lived presence of four wild boars was found near the cage trap. The boar moved on the back and sides of the trap for a total of 4 minutes, and then left the trap site.

The camera trap was triggered again at 23:02, which was considered the beginning of an obvious rescue event. The detailed timeline and photos of the event are shown in Figure 2. At 23:02, two wild boars (WB) of unknown sex appeared outside the trap: juvenile (JWB)-a smaller individual with visible piglet streaks-and sub-adult (SWB)-a slightly larger but not Fully grown individuals. The two WBs moved along the left side of the trap. At 23:06, JWB entered the trap (Figure 2a). JWB was observed to feed on the corn in the trap for 15 minutes, while SWB stayed outside. At 23:21, SWB enters the trap and triggers the gate mechanism, trapping both JWB and SWB in the trap (gate mechanism, see SEM in Figure 1 and Figure S1). Since then, the trapped SWB and JWB have been observed running, actively moving in the cage, and rushing/leaning against the wall of the cage (Figure 2b), showing signs of distress. At 23:58, two WBs were noticed passing the trap from a distance.

Record the timeline and photos of potential rescue events for wild boars. Victim: SWB = sub-adult wild boar, JWB = juvenile wild boar; rescuer: FWB = female wild boar. In the timeline, the actions of potential rescuers are represented by pink arrows, and the actions of victims are represented by blue arrows.

At 01:27, a group of WB (at least eight) arrived at the trap site, including one adult female (FWB) and seven sub-adults of unknown sex similar in size to SWB. FWB and the five sub-adults immediately showed interest in the log fixing the front door, looked at it and touched it with their noses (Figure 2c). Subsequently, the group scattered around the trap, keeping a maximum distance of 2 m from it. At 01:31, the FWB faced the trap, and the bristles were clearly erected, showing obvious signs of standing hair (Figure 2d). At 01:34, FWB apparently rushed towards the log in front with its head bent and erected bristles (Figure 2e). 01:36, the right end of the front log was released, while the left end remained in place. The FWB then moved to the fixed rear door and faced the rear log on the side of the door (Figure 2f). From this photo, it is not clear whether FWB manipulated the log, but in the next 01:38 photo, this part of the log was released (see SEM), indicating that FWB released the left end of the rear log. Although it is obvious from the entire photo sequence that WB has been manipulating the rear log according to its position, the right end of the rear log has firmly blocked the opening of the rear door until the end of the entire event. 01:40, the front log is completely removed, and the front door is slightly opened. The door can only be opened by a wild boar pushed in from inside. Although in Figure 2g, SWB and JWB are depicted facing and possibly charging towards the door, they were trapped for another 15 minutes. At 01:49, the FWB is depicted as the side facing the front door, possibly charging it in the same way as before (see SEM). 01:54, the previous log appears again in the photo, indicating that WB has been moving it.

The last photo was taken at 01:56, because there was no further movement before the camera trap, so there were no other photos that night. We consider 01:56 as the end time of the incident. The last photo records the SWB inside the trap, the front door is slightly opened, the front log is completely removed, and the left end of the back log is removed (Figure 2h). JWB has escaped from the gap in the door and left the camera trap with the others. After 01:56, SWB must have escaped through the open door, because no other actions would trigger the camera trap. It was found that the cage was empty in the morning (Figure 2i).

We observed a potential rescue event in which an adult female wild boar was recorded in a series of photos to release two wild boars trapped in a box trap. The entire event lasted 29 minutes and included several purposeful attempts to clear the logs blocking the trap door. The log was successfully deleted only after 6 minutes. Judging from the photo sequence, the sow and her team immediately began to rescue when they arrived at the trap site. After the trapped boar was released, the team immediately left.

The observed behavior meets the requirements of Nowbahari and Hollis (2010)1 and is regarded as a rescue behavior. The first requirement stipulates that the victim feels pain and danger due to bodily injury or death. The trapped wild boar showed obvious signs of distress behavior, running in the cage and rushing into the wall, possibly trying to escape, which is similar to the signs of distress observed during trapping in other studies43,44. For management or research purposes, wild boars are usually captured. In the former case, they were shot by a rifle in a trap. In the latter case, they are processed to collect data or tag and publish 43,45. In both cases, more and more studies have confirmed that trapping causes great stress on the animals involved, and they may suffer behavioral or physical pain, direct physical injury or pathology (for example, trapping myopathy). Or hyperthermia), sometimes leading to death43,44,45. Without video recording, we cannot be sure whether any painful sounds (such as grunts, screams, or grunts) are involved 46. However, in general, we can say that trapped boars find themselves in a stressful and potentially dangerous situation, which can cause physical harm to them44,45.

According to the second requirement of rescue behavior, rescuers put themselves in danger through rescue operations. Although it is impossible for the rescuer female to be trapped, by removing the logs and rushing into the wire mesh, she risked physical injury, and after staying in a potentially dangerous place for a period of time, she also risked injury. This is similar to ant research, where rescue ants risk being buried in sand or caught by predators, but can no longer be trapped2. The third requirement is that the rescuer's behavior should be adapted to the victim's situation. In the case of wild boar, rescuers took immediate action to remove the logs. When she failed to process the first log, she tried to delete the second log. After taking out the logs, she rushed past the door. As a result, her actions helped those trapped congeners who were able to open the door from the inside. According to the fourth requirement, the rescue behavior will not bring any direct benefit to the rescuer, which has been met in our case. Although the trap used tempting food as bait, the team left the trap site immediately after opening the cage and left the remaining corn in the trap, indicating that the rescue operation was not motivated by food. There were no further photos that night to prove that the group did not return to the trap site. In terms of kin selection or reciprocal altruism, indirect benefits are possible1,47.

There are several factors that contribute to rescue behavior. The gender of the rescuer is one of them. Based on the photo series and her sequence of actions (for example, Figure 2d-f, Figure 3), we assume that the rescuer is an adult female in this case. Similarly, in the rat restraint paradigm, the proportion of women releasing restrained cage partners is higher than that of men. However, gender did not affect the rescue behavior of dogs 21. Although the gender of rescuers as a factor of rescue behavior has not been systematically studied, the influence of gender may be species-specific and related to the social system. It can also be seen from Figure 2c that other people have shown interest in the logs of the fixed door. Therefore, it is possible that they are also involved in the rescue of the trapped wild boar, and the rescue is actually cooperative. Due to the frequent cooperative interactions and close social contacts of boars, cooperative rescue behavior is not surprising48,49. However, without detailed evidence, we cannot prove this. Therefore, we will treat women as the only rescuers in further discussions. Another factor that affects rescue behavior is the relationship between rescuers and victims. Due to the relatively small size of the trapped individuals, it is speculated that the females may be their mothers and the boars are part of it49. However, the genetic relationship of the boars involved in this incident is unclear. Nevertheless, according to Nowbahari and Hollis (2010)1, rescue of relatives is also an act of rescue. In fact, in most cases of rescue behavior, the victims are people familiar with rescuers, such as cage friends 3, pet owners 21, 25 or group members 26, 28, 31. In a few cases, rescue actions are directed at unfamiliar animals of the same species, or even individuals of different species. Therefore, due to the benefits associated with kin selection or reciprocal altruism, familiarity may promote rescue behavior1,47.

Standing hair of adult female wild boar in rescue behavior. For a comparison of non-ruffled and ruffled fur, see (a) and (bf).

Therefore, we are convinced that we provide the first evidence of rescue behavior observed in wild boar and Suidae. Although artiodactyla is phylogenetically related to cetaceans, cetaceans have been shown to have complex social cognitive skills, including rescue behavior27, but rescue behavior has not been observed in any other artiodactyl family. However, recording the rescue behavior of wild boars is not surprising because of their complex cognitive skills and social relationships49,50. Our observations of rescue behavior are very similar to experimental studies on ants, mice, and dogs, in which one person releases others who are confined or trapped in an experiment box or trap2, 3, 21.

However, the question remains whether this rescue is based on empathy9,51. Although we do not have physical or detailed behavioral data to confirm whether the rescuer understood or shared the victim's emotions (that is, evidence of cognitive perspective selection or emotional state matching), we do not rule out this possibility. As mentioned above, trapping is a highly stressful situation for trapping wild boars that show signs of distress. The rescuer’s female had erected mane or arched back53, both of which exhibited intimidating or threatening behavior54 and acute stress response (ie, “flight or fight”)55. In fact, she showed signs of hair growth in more than half of the photos (see Figure 3 for details), which may mean that women may experience physical arousal when they see other people in trouble, and may even match their emotional state. She also often gets close to the cage and often looks at the victim. Therefore, it is possible that the rescuer female sees the situation as danger (cognitive perspective) or perceives the emotional state of the trapped boar (emotional state matching) and takes action to alleviate it. Therefore, the rescue behavior of wild boar may be out of empathy.

In fact, previous studies have confirmed that there is empathy in 58,59 domestic pigs that exhibit emotional contagion, 56,57 in various situations. Emotional contagion was also recorded under restraint, when a naive pig showed signs of stress after watching the same pig under stress 59. According to Russian doll models 5 and 6, emotional contagion is regarded as the basic block of empathy, and is regarded as one of the empathy factors in the empathy combination model. Another study proved the cognitive view of domestic pigs60. Expect empathy in wild boars. Wild boars live in a dynamic matrilineal society composed of females and their offspring, with a fission-fusion model and complex social relationships49,61. The group units of wild boars have strong social bonds62 and frequent social behaviors, including cooperation48 and other forms of pro-social behavior (for example, half-mother care63), which are conditions conducive to empathy64. Therefore, it seems that there are various forms of empathy in Suidae, and our report on rescue behavior may represent additional evidence. In the case where emotional state matching is indeed involved (e.g. in the form of standing hair) as mentioned above, according to the Russian doll model 5 and 6, rescue behavior represents the most complex form of empathy, rather than the prosocial factors in the empathy combination model7 .

However, pro-social behavior is not necessarily motivated only by empathy8. Other potential alternative mechanisms, such as seeking social connections14, ending stress signals8, 65, curiosity37 and accidentally opening traps, have been proposed. However, we can rule out most of these assumptions. First of all, rescue women are part of a larger group, and social connections can be easily provided if needed. Second, even if the observation of the same animal in pain may cause personal pain to the observer, the female may simply ignore the pressure of the trapped animal and leave the trap site. Third, the female did not explore the box trap. In addition, wild boars in this area are familiar with box and corral traps because they are commonly used methods for game management and wildlife biology research. However, we cannot completely exclude curiosity based on photo evidence alone. Fourth, the rescue behavior represents a fairly complex sequence of actions (trying to release the log and rushing into the door, both of which require sufficient force) rather than opening the mechanism by coincidence due to the approach of the rescuer.

However, the rescuer female may have experience in opening the cage door. In two separate instances before this case report, we received an alert that the animal was trapped, but when we reached the cage, the cage was empty. Unfortunately, we do not have any photographic materials to record what happened and which species or individuals were involved. Learning and previous experience are considered to be the potential motivation for the release of behavior in rats 37 and dogs 21. In rats, the open latency decreased throughout the experiment, indicating the existence of a learning curve37. Social promotion of learning is another alternative explanation, in which the existence of the same species may affect the behavior of other people37. For example, the rescue behavior of a sow may be triggered or promoted by the presence of other boars and be affected to be more effective or faster. Both learning and social promotion may promote the rescue behavior of wild boars. However, we have no empirical evidence for this claim. These motivating factors are not mutually exclusive, and several of them may act together. Finally, without further detailed exploration of the underlying mechanism, the motivation of wild boar rescue behavior remains unclear. Future empirical research should pay special attention to empathy, learning, and social promotion of learning as a potential driving force for wild boar or pig rescue behavior to solve this problem.

However, our photographic record of this incident is not without flaws. Setting camera traps to video mode or photo mode, with shorter intervals between photos, may help to unlock the precise actions of rescuers, situations in which other team members may be involved, or signs of distress for victims and rescuers. Nevertheless, our observations represent rare and reliable evidence of the spontaneous and complex rescue behavior of wild boars. Observational evidence and case reports of interesting biological phenomena have made valuable contributions to understanding animal behavior or cognition. In some cases, observing evidence is the only way to study certain rare behaviors or elusive species (such as wild boar). In addition, case reports can facilitate further research and can help design experimental studies66. Relying on our observational evidence of wild boar rescue behavior, we hope to promote research on the empathy and cognitive abilities of wild boar, especially the motivation of rescue behavior and the possible role of familiarity, gender and stress cues.

This incident was observed in the Voděradské Bučiny National Nature Reserve, east of Prague, Czech Republic. The reserve covers an area of ​​684 hectares and consists of mixed deciduous forests with beech as the dominant species. Wild boar is a common species in the reserve, with 5 to 15 hunting bags per square kilometer per year. Wild boars in this area are the subject of long-term and in-depth research on African swine fever prevention measures and sports ecology (funding code: QK1910462, funded by the Czech Ministry of Agriculture). Adult wild boars are often captured using cages or corral traps, which are remotely monitored by camera traps and subsequently fixed by experienced wildlife researchers. During the processing, it takes about 20 minutes to perform physical measurements and tissue samples. Trapped persons are marked with plastic ear tags and are equipped with a collar containing a GPS device and accelerometer (see 67 for details).

The wild boar involved in the rescue was trapped in a box trap (3×2×2 m) made of steel mesh (mesh: 8×8 cm) (Figure 1). The trap regularly uses corn as bait. The box trap has an open door through which the boar can enter the trap. Box traps are triggered by the door trigger mechanism on the other side of the individual release of the trap (see SEM Figure S1). The entire incident was recorded by a camera trap (UOVision UM 595-2G, effective detection distance of 12-15 m) on a 1.1 m tall tree, 3 m away from the cage trap, aiming at the open cage door. The camera covers the inside of the cage and the circumference of the cage trap> 1 m. The camera trap is set to be activated by sports, taking a picture every 2 minutes.

The trapping of wild boar is carried out in accordance with the guidelines of the Ministry of Environment of the Czech Republic. The trapping and disposal protocol was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Ministry of Environment of the Czech Republic. The study was conducted in accordance with the recommendations of ARRIVE Guide 68.

The trapping of wild boar was implemented according to the decision of the Ethics Committee of the Ministry of Environment of the Czech Republic, numbered MZP/2019/630/361.

Nowbahari, E. & Hollis, KL distinguish between rescue, cooperation and other forms of altruism. Community. Integration. biology. 3, 77–79 (2010).

PubMed PubMed Central article Google Scholar 

Nowbahari, E., Scohier, A., Durand, JL & Hollis, KL Ants, Cataglyphis cursor, use precise targeted rescue actions to release trapped relatives. PLoS ONE 4, e6573 (2009).

ADS PubMed PubMed Central Article CAS Google Scholar 

Ben-Ami Bartal, I., Decety, J. & Mason, P. Empathy and prosocial behavior in rats. Science 334, 1427–1430 (2011).

ADS PubMed article CAS PubMed Central Google Scholar 

Yamamoto, S., Humle, T. and Tanaka, M. Chimpanzees provide flexible and targeted assistance based on their understanding of similar goals. The process of the national team Akkad. science. United States 109, 3588–3592 (2012).

ADS CAS PubMed PubMed Central Article Google Scholar 

Its final and closest base. Preston, SD & Waal, FBM De. pity. behavior. Brain science. 25, 1-72 (2002).

de Waal, FBM & Preston, SD Mammalian Empathy: Behavioral Performance and Neural Basis. Nat. Pastor Neurosci. 18, 498–509 (2017).

PubMed article CAS PubMed Central Google Scholar 

Yamamoto, S. Primate empathy: the three factors and their combinations of empathy-related phenomena. Wiley is interdisciplinary. Pastor Cogn. science. 8, 1 (2017).

Vasconcelos, M., Hollis, K., Nowbahari, E. & Kacelnik, A. Prosocial without empathy. biology. Wright. 8, 910–912 (2012).

PubMed PubMed Central article Google Scholar 

Adriaense, JEC, Koski, SE, Huber, L. & Lamm, C. Challenges in comparative studies of animal empathy and related phenomena. Neuroscience. Biological behavior. Rev. 112, 62-82 (2020).

CAS PubMed article PubMed Central Google Scholar 

Schwartz, LP, Silberberg, A., Casey, AH, Kearns, DN & Slotnick, B. Will mice release their drenched animals because of empathy? Animation. Cognition. 20, 299–308 (2017).

PubMed article PubMed Central Google Scholar 

Hollis, KL & Nowbahari, E. Comparative analysis of precise rescue behavior of sand-dwelling ants. Animation. behavior. 85, 537–544 (2013).

Hachiga, Y., Silberberg, A., Slotnick, B. and Gomez, M. Rats (Rattus norvegicus) found that the use of restraint tubes is beneficial. J. Experience. anus. behavior. 113, 644–656 (2020).

PubMed article PubMed Central Google Scholar 

Sato, N., Tan, L., Tate, K. & Okada, M. Rats demonstrated their help to soak the same animals. Animation. Cognition. 18, 1039–1047 (2015).

PubMed article PubMed Central Google Scholar 

Silberberg, A. etc. The desire for social contact, rather than empathy, can explain the "rescue" behavior of rats. Animation. Cognition. 17, 609–618 (2014).

PubMed article PubMed Central Google Scholar 

Hachiga, Y. etc. Will rats release trapped rats due to empathy or social interaction? J Exp Anal Behav 110, 267–274 (2018).

PubMed article PubMed Central Google Scholar 

Ueno, H. et al. Similar rescue behaviors in mice are mediated by their interest in restraint tools. science. Representative 9, 10648 (2019).

ADS PubMed PubMed Central Article CAS Google Scholar 

Ben-Ami Bartal, I. et al. Anti-anxiety treatment can impair the helping behavior of rats. front. psychology. 7, 850 (2016).

PubMed PubMed Central article Google Scholar 

Cox, SS & Reichel, CM rats showed empathy behaviors that were not related to social interaction opportunities. Neuropsychopharmacology 45, 1097–1104 (2020).

PubMed article PubMed Central Google Scholar 

Hammers, M. & Brouwer, L. Rescue behavior of social birds: team members remove sticky "bird tree" seeds. Act 154, 403–411 (2017).

Duhoo, T., Durand, JL, Hollis, KL & Nowbahari, E. The organization of ant rescue behavior sequence, Cataglyphis cursor, reflects goal orientation, plasticity and memory. behavior. Process 139, 12–18 (2017).

PubMed article PubMed Central Google Scholar 

Van Bourg, J., Patterson, JE & Wynne, CDL Pet dogs (familiar with Canis lupus) Release their trapped and distressed owners: evidence of individual differences and emotional contagion. PLoS ONE 15, 1742 (2020).

Vogel, ER and Fuentes-Jiménez, A. Rescue behavior of white-faced capuchin monkeys during intergroup attack: support the hypothesis of avoidance of infanticide. Yes. J. Primates. 68, 1012–1016 (2006).

CAS PubMed article PubMed Central Google Scholar 

Amati, S., Babweteera, F. & Wittig, RM A chimpanzee in the Sonso community of Budongo Forest (Uganda) clears the trap. Pan-African News 15, 6–8 (2008).

Bates, Los Angeles, etc. Will elephants show compassion? J. Conscious. Studs. 15, 204–225 (2008).

Carballo, F. etc. Will dogs rescue their owners under stressful situations? Behavioral and physiological assessment. Animation. Cognition. 23, 389–403 (2020).

PubMed article PubMed Central Google Scholar 

Rood, JP The banded mongoose rescues the members of the pack from the eagle. Animation. behavior. 31, 1261–1262 (1983).

Pittman, RL etc. Humpback whales interfere when mammal-eating killer whales attack other species: siege behavior and interspecies altruism? . March Mammal Science. 33, 7-58 (2017).

Teixeira, DS etc. Anaconda's fatal attack on Black-eared Marmoset (Callithrix penicillata): Attacking two young monkeys at the same time. Primates 57, 123–127 (2016).

MathSciNet PubMed article PubMed Central Google Scholar 

Perry, S., Manson, JH, Dower, G. and Wikberg, E. The white-faced capuchin monkey teamed up to rescue a teammate from the python. Folia Primatol. 74, 109–111 (2003).

Jack, KM, etc. Collaborate to rescue a young capuchin monkey (Cebus imitator) from the python. science. Representative 10, 16814 (2020).

ADS CAS PubMed PubMed Central Article Google Scholar 

Eberle, M. & Rappeler, PM Reciprocity, reciprocity or relative choice? Collaborate to rescue the same species of pythons among the squirrel lemurs that live alone for food at night. Yes. J. Primates. 70, 410–414 (2008).

PubMed article PubMed Central Google Scholar 

Tokuyama, N., Emikey, B. & Bafike, B. Bonobos was apparently looking for a missing member who was injured by the trap. Primates 53, 215–219 (2012).

PubMed article PubMed Central Google Scholar 

Boesch, C. The effect of leopard predation on the grouping pattern of forest chimpanzees. Acts 117, 220–242 (1991).

Marzec, AM etc. The dark side of the red ape: male-mediated deadly female competition in Bornean orangutans. behavior. Ecology. Social biology. 70, 459–466 (2016).

Gardner, CJ, Radolalaina, P., Rajerison, M. & Greene, HW Cooperative rescue and predator deaths involved Streptococcus gregarious, Coquerel's sifaka (Propithecus coquereli) and Madagascar ground python (Acrantophis madagascariensis). Primates 56, 127–129 (2015).

PubMed article PubMed Central Google Scholar 

Tello, NS, Huck, M. & Heymann, EW Anaconda attack and successful group defense in Moustached Tamarins, Saguinus mystax. . Folia Primatol. 73, 146–148 (2002).

Silva, PRR, etc. Are there multiple motivations to promote rat behavior? front. psychology. 11, 1795 (2020).

PubMed PubMed Central article Google Scholar 

Ben-Ami Bartal, I., Rodgers, DA, Bernardez Sarria, MSO, Decety, J. & Mason, P. The prosocial behavior of rats is regulated by social experience. Elife 3, e01385 (2014).

PubMed PubMed Central article Google Scholar 

Havlik, JL, etc. Bystander effect in rats. science. Advanced 6, 4205 (2020).

Ueno, H. et al. Similar help behaviors of mice to animals of the same species restrained in the tube. science. Representative 9, 5817 (2019).

ADS PubMed PubMed Central Article CAS Google Scholar 

Workers of Czechowski, W., Godzińska, EJ & Kozłowski, MW Red Maple, F. fusca L., and F. cinerea mayr (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) when dealing with nesting partners caught by ant lion larvae Rescue behavior. install. zoo. 52, 423–431 (2002).

Kwapich, CL and Hölldobler, B. Destruction of spider webs and rescue of trapped nests by grain-eating desert ants (Veromessor pergandei). Yes. Nat. 194, 395–404 (2019).

PubMed article PubMed Central Google Scholar 

Farman, Å. Wait. Wild boar behavior during the capture of live traps in corral traps: impact on animal welfare. Scan the Journal of Veterinary Medicine. 62, 59 (2020).

PubMed PubMed Central article Google Scholar 

Lavelle, MJ et al. When the pig is flying: Reduce the damage and escape response when the wild boar is captured. Application animation. behavior. science. 215, 21-25 (2019).

Torres-Blas, I. etc. Evaluate methods for catching wild boar (Sus scrofa) alive in urban and suburban environments. veterinary. Recommendation 187, 85 (2020).

Garcia, M. etc. The structural classification of the vocalization of wild boar (Sus scrofa). Behavior 122, 329–342 (2016).

PubMed PubMed Central article Google Scholar 

Hamilton, AWD The evolution of altruistic behavior. Yes. Nat. 97, 354–356 (1963).

Focardi, S., Morimando, F., Capriotti, S., Ahmed, A. & Genov, P. have collaborated to improve wild boar (Sus scrofa) access to food sources. behavior. Process 121, 80–86 (2015).

CAS PubMed article PubMed Central Google Scholar 

Podgórski, T., Lusseau, D., Scandura, M., Sönnichsen, L. & Jȩdrzejewska, B. Persistent, family-oriented female interaction in the spatially structured wild boar social network. PLoS ONE 9, e99875 (2014).

ADS PubMed PubMed Central Article Google Scholar 

Kornum, BR & Knudsen, GM Cognitive test on pigs (Sus scrofa) in a transformational biological behavior study. Neuroscience. Biological behavior. Revision 35, 437–451 (2011).

PubMed article PubMed Central Google Scholar 

Pérez-Manrique, A. & Gomila, A. A comparative study of empathy: empathy concerns and empathy perspectives in non-human animals. biology. Rev. 93, 248–269 (2018).

PubMed article PubMed Central Google Scholar 

de Waal, FBM put altruism back to altruism: the evolution of empathy. Anu. Pastor psychology. 59, 279–300 (2008).

PubMed article PubMed Central Google Scholar 

Erdtmann, D. & Keuling, O. The behavioral pattern of free-roaming wild boars in the background of time and space. PeerJ 8, e10409 (2020).

PubMed PubMed Central article Google Scholar 

Dardaillon, M. and Teillaud, P. Éthogramme du sanglier Adulte et du marcassin (Sus scrofa L.). monitor. zoo. Italian. -Italian. J. Zoll. 21, 41-68 (1987).

Moberg, GP The biological response to stress: the key to assessing animal health? Animation. Stress 27-49 (1985).

Reimert, I., Bolhuis, JE, Kemp, B. & Rodenburg, TB An indicator of positive and negative emotions and emotional contagion in pigs. physiological. behavior. 109, 42-50 (2013).

CAS PubMed article PubMed Central Google Scholar 

Reimert, I., Bolhuis, JE, Kemp, B. & Rodenburg, TB Loose emotions: emotional contagion and the role of oxytocin in pigs. Animation. Cognition. 18, 517–532 (2014).

PubMed PubMed Central article Google Scholar 

Norscia, I., Coco, E., Robino, C., Chierto, E. & Cordoni, G. Yawn infection in domestic pigs (Sus scrofa). science. Congressman 11, 1851 (2021).

ADS CAS PubMed PubMed Central Article Google Scholar 

Goumon, S. & Špinka, M. The painful emotional contagion of young pigs is enhanced by previous exposure to the same source of stress. Animation. Cognition. 19, 501–511 (2016).

PubMed article PubMed Central Google Scholar 

Held, S., Mendl, M., Devereux, C. & Byrne, RW The behavior of domestic pigs in visual perspective tasks. Acts 138, 1337–1354 (2001).

Poteaux, C. etc. The social genetic structure and mating system of a wild boar population. J. Zoll. 278, 116–125 (2009).

Kaminski, G., Brandt, S., Baubet, E., and Baudoin, C. The life history pattern of female wild boars (Sus scrofa): mother-daughter association after weaning. can. J. Zoll. 83, 474–480 (2005).

Arnold, LC, Habe, M., Troxler, J., Nowack, J. & Vetter, SG quickly establish nipple order and allofertility in wild boar (Sus scrofa). Behaviour 125, 940–948 (2019).

Decety, J., Ben-Ami Bartal, I., Uzefovsky, F., and Knafo-Noam, A. Empathy as a driver of prosocial behavior: a highly conservative neurobehavioral mechanism across species. Philos. Translated by R. Soc. B biological. science. 371, 20150077 (2016).

Decety, J. & Lamm, C. Empathy and personal pain: the latest evidence from social neuroscience. In the Social Neuroscience of Empathy (Decety, J. & Ickes, W. eds.) (Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press, 2009).

Byrne, RW & Bates, LA Field Cognition: Use observational evidence to explore animal thinking. biology. Wright. 7, 619–622 (2011).

CAS PubMed PubMed Central Article Google Scholar 

Barasona, JA, López-Olvera, JR, Beltrán-Beck, B., Gortázar, C. & Vicente, J. Effectiveness of traps for Eurasian wild boars caught in cages and corral traps and their effects on tetamine-zolaxi Response to pan and medetomidine anesthesia. BMC veterinarian. Reservoir 9, 107 (2013).

PubMed PubMed Central article CAS Google Scholar 

Dusselt, NP, etc. Reporting animal studies: Explanation and detailed description of arrival guide 2.0. Public Science Library Biology. 18. e3000411 (2020).

This research was supported by the "EVA4.0" number CZ.02.1.01/0.0/0.0/16_019/0000803 funded by OP RDE, the number QK1910462 funded by the Ministry of Agriculture of the Czech Republic, and the project A_20_27 and project B_19_02 supported by FFWS CZU. We thank the anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments and suggestions, which improved the manuscript.

Department of Game Management and Wildlife Biology, Faculty of Forestry and Wood Science, Czech University of Life Sciences, Prague, Czech Republic

Michaela Masilkova, Miloš Ježek, Václav Silovský, Monika Faltusová, Jan Rohla, Tomáš Kušta and Hynek Burda

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

MM and HB came up with this idea. MJ, VS, JR and TK achieved trapping. MM, MJ and HB wrote manuscripts with contributions from MF, VS, JR and TK

The author declares no competing interests.

Springer Nature remains neutral on the jurisdiction claims in the published maps and agency affiliates.

Open Access This article has been licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License Agreement, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any media or format, as long as you appropriately indicate the original author and source, and provide a link to the Creative Commons license And indicate whether any changes have been made. The images or other third-party materials in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless otherwise stated in the material’s credit line. If the article’s Creative Commons license does not include the material, and your intended use is not permitted by laws and regulations or exceeds the permitted use, you need to obtain permission directly from the copyright owner. To view a copy of this license, please visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Masilkova, M., Ježek, M., Silovský, V. etc. Observation of rescue behavior of wild boar (Sus scrofa). Scientific Representative 11, 16217 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-95682-4

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-95682-4

Anyone you share the following link with can read this content:

Sorry, there is currently no shareable link in this article.

Provided by Springer Nature SharedIt content sharing program

By submitting a comment, you agree to abide by our terms and community guidelines. If you find content that is abusive or does not comply with our terms or guidelines, please mark it as inappropriate.

Scientific Report (Sci Rep) ISSN 2045-2322 (online)