Can managers compensate for coyote predation of white‐tailed deer?

Abstract

Many studies have documented that coyotes (Canis latrans) are the greatest source of natural mortality for white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) neonates (<3 months old). With the range expansion of coyotes eastward in North America, many stakeholders are concerned that coyote predation may be affecting deer populations adversely. We hypothesized that declines in neonate survival, perhaps caused by increasing coyote predation, could be offset by adjusting or eliminating antlerless harvest allocations. We used a stochastic, age-based population simulation model to evaluate combinations of low neonate survival rates, severe winters, and low adult deer survival rates to determine the effectiveness of reduced antlerless harvest at stabilizing deer populations. We found that even in regions with high winter mortality, reduced antlerless harvest rates could stabilize deer populations with recruitment and survival rates reported in the literature. When neonate survival rates were low (25%) and yearling and adult female survival rates were reduced by 10%, elimination of antlerless harvests failed to stabilize populations. Our results suggest increased deer mortality from coyotes can be addressed through reduced hunting harvest of adult female deer in most circumstances throughout eastern North America. However, specific knowledge of adult female survival rates is important for making management decisions in areas where both neonate and adult survival may be affected by predation and other mortality factors. Ó 2014 The Wildlife Society.

High genomic diversity and candidate genes under selection associated with range expansion in eastern coyote (Canis latrans) populations

“…While the northern and southern expansion fronts are distinct ecoregions (Omernik & Griffith, 2014), environmental similarities between the regions do exist, most notably in the high abundance of deer. However, diet studies reveal that deer consumption varies widely among eastern coyote populations (Kilgo, Ray, Ruth, & Miller, 2010;Mastro, 2011;Robinson, Diefenbach, Fuller, Hurst, & Rosenberry, 2014) and that deer consumption is also reasonably common throughout the historical range (Ballard, Lutz, Keegan, Carpenter, & deVos Jr, 2001;Carrera et al, 2008;Gese & Grothe, 1995). As such, selection associated with the range expansion process is perhaps more likely than adaptation to deer rich environments, though the possibility remains that outlier SNP frequencies are driven by selection associated with unmeasured environmental variables rather than by range expansion.…”

Landscape heterogeneity reduces coyote predation on white‐tailed deer fawns

“…Instead, several Southeastern states (e.g., Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina) have reduced or are considering reduction of bag limits on antlerless deer. This decision is supported by population models that indicate increasing adult female survival through reduction or elimination of antlerless harvest is sufficient to stabilize deer populations, except in extreme instances of low adult female survival and recruitment (Robinson et al ). However, even complete protection of adult females from harvest may not offset population declines when predation rates on fawns are high and deer density is low because adult female survival may already be high (Kilgo et al ), leading to additional management actions such as coyote removal (Chitwood et al ).…”

Structured decision making as a framework for large‐scale wildlife harvest management decisions

“…We used a stochastic age‐based simulation model of white‐tailed deer (Collier and Krementz , Robinson et al. ) to measure the relative ability of the harvest alternatives to achieve the Big Buck, Any Buck, and Any Deer objectives (Table ). The model predicted relative age‐ and sex‐specific harvest, age‐ and sex‐specific availability of deer on the landscape, and population growth under each harvest alternative.…”

“…Deer population growth is managed by regulating the amount of adult female harvest that occurs each year (Robinson et al. ). We evaluated whether population growth in a buck management zone could be counteracted by issuing more permits to harvest antlerless deer (Low, Medium, or High ability to counteract growth; Appendix ).…”

“…The model predicted relative age-and sex-specific harvest, age-and sex-specific availability of deer on the landscape, and population growth under each harvest alternative. We parameterized the population model with data from NYSDEC, data from other published studies of white-tailed deer in the northeastern United States, and the expert opinion of NYSDEC biologists (see Robinson et al 2014 for a full description of the model; Appendix S1: Tables S1 and S2). The model simulated the population dynamics of juveniles (<0.5 yr), three age classes of females (fawns [0.5 yr], yearlings [1.5 yr], and ≥2.5 yr), and four age classes of bucks (fawns, yearlings, 2.5 yr, and ≥3.5 yr) on an annual time step.…”