Behavioral response of white‐tailed deer to coyote predation risk

Gulsby, William D.; Cherry, Michael J.; Johnson, James T.; Conner, L. Mike; Miller, Karl V.

doi:10.1002/ecs2.2141

Cited by 30 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 60 publications

(118 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…While adult male deer vigilance also declined through the summer, adult male deer were more vigilant than fawns and dams with fawns at all sites. Other studies have seen adult male deer have higher rates of vigilance than the other age–sex classes (Gulsby et al., 2018), as adult female deer seem to select for resource acquisition over avoiding fawn predators (Duquette et al., 2014). Although hunting season at these sites started after our surveys ended, it is possible that adult male deer still saw humans as predators to be avoided.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 95%

Threading the needle: How humans influence predator–prey spatiotemporal interactions in a multiple‐predator system

Murphy

Diefenbach

Ternent³

et al. 2021

Journal of Animal Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

1. Perceived predation risk and the resulting antipredator behaviour varies across space, time and predator identity. Communities with multiple predators that interact and differ in their use of space, time of activity and hunting mode create a complex landscape for prey to avoid predation. Anthropogenic presence and disturbance have the potential to shift interactions among predators and prey and the where and when encounters occur.2. We examined how white-tailed deer Odocoileus virginianus fawn spatiotemporal antipredator behaviour differed along an anthropogenic disturbance gradient that had black bears Ursus americanus, coyotes Canis latrans, bobcats Lynx rufus and humans present.3. We quantified (a) spatial co-occurrence in species distributions, (b) temporal overlap across the diel cycle and (c) spatiotemporal associations between humans, bears, coyotes, bobcats, adult male deer and fawns. We also examined how deer vigilance behaviour changed across the anthropogenic disturbance gradient and survey duration. Anthropogenic disturbance influenced spatiotemporal co-occurrence across multiplescales, often increasing spatiotemporal overlap among species. In general, species' spatial co-occurrence was neutral or positive in anthropogenically disturbed environments. Bears and fawns, coyotes and adult male deer, and bobcats and fawns all had higher temporal overlap in the agriculture-development matrix sites. In addition, factors that influenced deer vigilance (e.g. distance to forest edge and predator relative abundance) in the agriculture-development matrix sites did not in the forest matrix site. 5. By taking into account the different antipredator behaviours that can be detected and the different scales these behaviours might occur, we were able to gain a more comprehensive picture of how humans reduce available niche space for wildlife, creating the neutral and positive spatiotemporal associations between species that studies have been seeing in more disturbed areas.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 95%

Threading the needle: How humans influence predator–prey spatiotemporal interactions in a multiple‐predator system

Murphy

Diefenbach

Ternent³

et al. 2021

Journal of Animal Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Furthermore, coyotes do not coexist with other large carnivores throughout most of the southeastern United States and contend with lower medium-to-large prey diversity relative to western counterparts [ 1 , 16 , 121 ]. Consequently, coyotes may exert strong top-down effects on southeastern ecosystems, and recent studies in these ecosystems suggest the presence of coyotes may negatively influence white-tailed deer foraging behaviors and recruitment [ 7 , 10 , 122 , 123 ]. Despite these top-down effects on local prey populations, strong site fidelity by resident coyotes, as exhibited by the relative spatial stability of home ranges [ 36 , 124 ], indicates they are defending a finite area while foraging commensurate with the distribution and availability of prey in their territories [ 73 , 74 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Home range size, vegetation density, and season influences prey use by coyotes (Canis latrans)

et al. 2018

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To ensure reproductive success, Canis species establish contiguous mosaics of territories in suitable habitats to partition space and defend limiting resources. Consequently, Canis species can exert strong effects on prey populations locally because of their year-round maintenance of territories. We assessed prey use by coyotes (Canis latrans) by sampling scats from within known territories in southeastern Alabama and the Savannah River area of Georgia and South Carolina. We accounted for the size and habitat composition of coyote home ranges to investigate the influence of space use, vegetation density, and habitat type on coyote diets. Coyote use of prey was influenced by a combination of mean monthly temperature, home range size, vegetation density, and hardwood forests. For example, coyote use of adult white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) was associated with cooler months and smaller home ranges, whereas use of rabbits (Sylvilagus spp.) was associated with cooler months, larger home ranges, and less vegetation density. Coyotes in our study relied primarily on nutritionally superior mammalian prey and supplemented their diet with fruit when available, as their use of mammalian prey did not appreciably decrease with increasing use of fruit. We suggest that differential use of prey by coyotes is influenced by habitat heterogeneity within their home ranges, and prey-switching behaviors may stabilize local interactions between coyotes and their food resources to permit stable year-round territories. Given that habitat composition affects coyote prey use, future studies should also incorporate effects of habitat composition on coyote distribution and abundance to further identify coyote influences on prey communities.

show abstract

“…Reintroduction or removal of predators, for instance (Alston et al ., 2019), will reshape risk cues and can change patterns of risk perception and prey behavior (Berger, 2007a; Dellinger et al ., 2018). For example, removal of coyotes ( Canis latrans ) in central Georgia, USA, led to changes in the foraging behavior of white‐tailed deer ( Odocoileus virginianus ), an important game species (Gulsby et al ., 2018). Predator management can thus have potentially cascading consequences throughout food webs, mediated by risk cues and fear, and can be a strategy not only to conserve or manage predators but also to achieve desired outcomes for other species (Gordon et al ., 2015; but see R. O. Peterson et al ., 2014; Kohl et al ., 2018).…”

Section: Applying the Framework In Conservation Scenariosmentioning

confidence: 99%

An applied ecology of fear framework: linking theory to conservation practice

Gaynor

Cherry

Gilbert

et al. 2020

Animal Conservation

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research on the ecology of fear has highlighted the importance of perceived risk from predators and humans in shaping animal behavior and physiology, with potential demographic and ecosystem-wide consequences. Despite recent conceptual advances and potential management implications of the ecology of fear, theory and conservation practices have rarely been linked. Many challenges in animal conservation may be alleviated by actively harnessing or compensating for risk perception and risk avoidance behavior in wild animal populations. Integration of the ecology of fear into conservation and management practice can contribute to the recovery of threatened populations, human-wildlife conflict mitigation, invasive species management, maintenance of sustainable harvest and species reintroduction plans. Here, we present an applied framework that links conservation interventions to desired outcomes by manipulating ecology of fear dynamics. We discuss how to reduce or amplify fear in wild animals by manipulating habitat structure, sensory stimuli, animal experience (previous exposure to risk) and food safety trade-offs to achieve management objectives. Changing the optimal decision-making of individuals in managed populations can then further conservation goals by shaping the spatiotemporal distribution of animals, changing predation rates and altering risk effects that scale up to demographic consequences. We also outline future directions for applied research on fear ecology that will better inform conservation practices. Our framework can help scientists and practitioners anticipate and mitigate unintended consequences of management decisions, and highlight new levers for multi-species conservation strategies that promote human-wildlife coexistence. An applied ecology of fear framework Scientists and practitioners recognize the importance of considering animal behavior when designing conservation strategies for wild animal populations (Burt, 1943; Martin, 1998). Knowledge of habitat selection, mating systems and sociality, for example, have informed habitat and population management strategies (Festa-Bianchet & Apollonio, 2003; Blumstein & Fern andez-Juricic, 2010). Behaviors related to risk avoidance have also received some attention in the management arena, generally in the context of deterrents that aim to instill fear and flight responses in pest species to reduce undesired behaviors (Miller et al., 2016). However, proactive risk Animal Conservation (2020)ª 2020 The Zoological Society of London 1 Animal Conservation.

show abstract

Behavioral response of white‐tailed deer to coyote predation risk

Cited by 30 publications

References 60 publications

Threading the needle: How humans influence predator–prey spatiotemporal interactions in a multiple‐predator system

Threading the needle: How humans influence predator–prey spatiotemporal interactions in a multiple‐predator system

Home range size, vegetation density, and season influences prey use by coyotes (Canis latrans)

An applied ecology of fear framework: linking theory to conservation practice

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About