Changes in Kit Fox–coyote–prey Relationships in the Great Basin Desert, Utah

Arjo, Wendy M.; Gese, Eric M.; Bennett, Tim; Kozlowski, Adam

doi:10.3398/1527-0904(2007)67[389:cikfri]2.0.co;2

Cited by 46 publications

(122 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

115

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Trapping transects were distributed to provide maximum coverage of the area and allow for increased likelihood of capturing most of the kit foxes occupying the study area [11], [15], [20]. We deployed traps in the evening and checked them early morning each day.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Finding a Fox: An Evaluation of Survey Methods to Estimate Abundance of a Small Desert Carnivore

2014

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The status of many carnivore species is a growing concern for wildlife agencies, conservation organizations, and the general public. Historically, kit foxes (Vulpes macrotis) were classified as abundant and distributed in the desert and semi-arid regions of southwestern North America, but is now considered rare throughout its range. Survey methods have been evaluated for kit foxes, but often in populations where abundance is high and there is little consensus on which technique is best to monitor abundance. We conducted a 2-year study to evaluate four survey methods (scat deposition surveys, scent station surveys, spotlight survey, and trapping) for detecting kit foxes and measuring fox abundance. We determined the probability of detection for each method, and examined the correlation between the relative abundance as estimated by each survey method and the known minimum kit fox abundance as determined by radio-collared animals. All surveys were conducted on 15 5-km transects during the 3 biological seasons of the kit fox. Scat deposition surveys had both the highest detection probabilities (p = 0.88) and were most closely related to minimum known fox abundance (r2 = 0.50, P = 0.001). The next best method for kit fox detection was the scent station survey (p = 0.73), which had the second highest correlation to fox abundance (r2 = 0.46, P<0.001). For detecting kit foxes in a low density population we suggest using scat deposition transects during the breeding season. Scat deposition surveys have low costs, resilience to weather, low labor requirements, and pose no risk to the study animals. The breeding season was ideal for monitoring kit fox population size, as detections consisted of the resident population and had the highest detection probabilities. Using appropriate monitoring techniques will be critical for future conservation actions for this rare desert carnivore.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We triangulated an animal's location using ≥2 compass bearings, each >20° but <160° apart, for each animal within 20 minutes [11], [20]. We then calculated their location using program Locate III (Pacer Computing, Tatamagouche, Nova Scotia).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Finding a Fox: An Evaluation of Survey Methods to Estimate Abundance of a Small Desert Carnivore

2014

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Where wildfires had occurred along the foothills, cheatgrass ( Bromus tectorum ) was common within communities of big sagebrush ( Artemisia tridentata ), rabbitbrush ( Chrysothamnus spp. ), and juniper ( Juniperus osteosperma ) [15]. Elevations across the study area ranged from approximately 1300 to 1800 m. Annual weather consisted of mean air temperatures of 12.69°C (range: −20.02 to 40.58°C) and mean precipitation of 150 mm (MesoWest, Bureau of Land Management & Boise Interagency Fire Center).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the Great Basin Desert, for example, it has been argued that water developments remove the limitation of arid systems to coyotes ( Canis latrans ) which compete with kit foxes ( Vulpes macrotis ) for habitat, space, and food [15]–[17]. This association is largely based on the differential physiological demand of free water by coyotes and kit foxes.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Thus, it is less energetically feasible for coyotes to inhabit areas that lack free water relative to kit foxes. Water developments may, therefore, indirectly affect the arid-adapted kit fox by enabling the water-dependent coyote to occupy an otherwise inhospitable system and exert asymmetric interspecific competition on kit foxes (i.e., indirect effect of water hypothesis) [15], [16].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Water Developments and Canids in Two North American Deserts: A Test of the Indirect Effect of Water Hypothesis

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Anthropogenic modifications to landscapes intended to benefit wildlife may negatively influence wildlife communities. Anthropogenic provisioning of free water (water developments) to enhance abundance and distribution of wildlife is a common management practice in arid regions where water is limiting. Despite the long-term and widespread use of water developments, little is known about how they influence native species. Water developments may negatively influence arid-adapted species (e.g., kit fox, Vulpes macrotis) by enabling water-dependent competitors (e.g., coyote, Canis latrans) to expand distribution in arid landscapes (i.e., indirect effect of water hypothesis). We tested the two predictions of the indirect effect of water hypothesis (i.e., coyotes will visit areas with free water more frequently and kit foxes will spatially and temporally avoid coyotes) and evaluated relative use of free water by canids in the Great Basin and Mojave Deserts from 2010 to 2012. We established scent stations in areas with (wet) and without (dry) free water and monitored visitation by canids to these sites and visitation to water sources using infrared-triggered cameras. There was no difference in the proportions of visits to scent stations in wet or dry areas by coyotes or kit foxes at either study area. We did not detect spatial (no negative correlation between visits to scent stations) or temporal (no difference between times when stations were visited) segregation between coyotes and kit foxes. Visitation to water sources was not different for coyotes between study areas, but kit foxes visited water sources more in Mojave than Great Basin. Our results did not support the indirect effect of water hypothesis in the Great Basin or Mojave Deserts for these two canids.

show abstract

Detection criteria and post‐field sample processing influence results and cost efficiency of occupancy‐based monitoring

Lonsinger

Knight

Waits

2021

Ecological Applications

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Optimization of occupancy‐based monitoring has focused on balancing the number of sites and surveys to minimize field efforts and costs. When survey techniques require post‐field processing of samples to confirm species detections, there may be opportunities to further improve efficiency. We used scat‐based noninvasive genetic sampling for kit foxes (Vulpes macrotis) in Utah, USA, as a model system to assess post‐field data processing strategies, evaluate the impacts of these strategies on estimates of occupancy and associations between parameters and predictors, and identify the most cost‐effective approach. We identified scats with three criteria that varied in costs and reliability: (1) field‐based identification (expert opinion), (2) statistical‐based morphological identification, and (3) genetic‐based identification (mitochondrial DNA). We also considered four novel post‐field sample processing strategies that integrated statistical and genetic identifications to reduce costly genetic procedures, including (4) a combined statistical‐genetic identification, (5) a genetic removal design, (6) a within‐survey conditional‐replicate design, and (7) a single‐genetic‐replicate with false‐positive modeling design. We considered results based on genetic identification as the best approximation of truth and used this to evaluate the performance of alternatives. Field‐based and statistical‐based criteria prone to misidentification produced estimates of occupancy that were biased high (˜1.8 and 2.1 times higher than estimates without misidentifications, respectively). These criteria failed to recover associations between parameters and predictors consistent with genetic identification. The genetic removal design performed poorly, with limited detections leading to estimates that were biased high with poor precision and patterns inconsistent with genetic identification. Both statistical‐genetic identification and the conditional‐replicate design produced occupancy estimates comparable to genetic identification, while recovering the same model structure and associations at cost reductions of 67% and 74%, respectively. The false‐positive design had the lowest cost (88% reduction) and recovered patterns consistent with genetic identification but had occupancy estimates that were ˜32% lower than estimated occupancy based on genetic identification. Our results demonstrate that careful consideration of detection criteria and post‐field data processing can reduce costs without significantly altering resulting inferences. Combined with earlier guidance on sampling designs for occupancy modeling, these findings can aid managers in optimizing occupancy‐based monitoring.

show abstract

Changes in Kit Fox–coyote–prey Relationships in the Great Basin Desert, Utah

Cited by 46 publications

References 27 publications

Finding a Fox: An Evaluation of Survey Methods to Estimate Abundance of a Small Desert Carnivore

Finding a Fox: An Evaluation of Survey Methods to Estimate Abundance of a Small Desert Carnivore

Water Developments and Canids in Two North American Deserts: A Test of the Indirect Effect of Water Hypothesis

Detection criteria and post‐field sample processing influence results and cost efficiency of occupancy‐based monitoring

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About