Coyote Investigative Behavior Following Removal of Novel Stimuli

Abstract

Because coyotes (Canis latrans) show an aversion to novel objects, we examined the effects of the presence and removal of repellent and attractive stimuli on coyote behavior. We found a greater proportion of captive coyotes investigated 10‐cm‐tall cones (0.95) compared to 90‐cm‐tall cones (0.68) and control sites (0.81), and spent longer periods (P < 0.001 in all instances) investigating small cones (x̄ = 465 sec), compared to large cones (x̄ = 212 sec) and control sites (x̄ = 45 sec). However, investigation times at sites following removal of large cones were 1.6 and 2.3 times greater than investigation times at sites following removal of small cones and the control, respectively. Results from pen studies were supported by a field study. Wild coyotes in south Texas visited 43% of small cones but did not visit large cones. Following removal of cones, visits to small cone stations decreased to 29%, whereas coyotes visited 43% of large cone stations. Thus, we observed a direct relationship between aversion toward large novel objects and subsequent attraction to sites following their removal among both captive and wild coyotes. Based upon our results, we suggest that placing large novel objects over traps that are set and removing such objects after a few days, with the subsequent addition of an olfactory attractant, may increase exploratory behavior and capture of coyotes.

Integrating multiple genetic detection methods to estimate population density of social and territorial carnivores

“…Similar to wolves, coyotes form packs of alpha pairs, betas, and offspring that establish and defend territories (i.e., residents; Moehlman 1989). In contrast, rubbing behavior by canids has been attributed to mate attraction and early courtship, suggesting that rubbing in odorous materials would be advantageous to transients who are actively seeking mates (Ryon et al 1986, Martin and Farge 1988, Heffernan et al 2007). Scent-marking serves to communicate territories among conspecifics, and resident coyotes and wolves strategically mark via urination and defecation at higher rates than do transients, with alpha pairs often exhibiting the highest defecation rates among all cohorts (Rothman and Mech 1979, Gese and Ruff 1997, Barja and List 2014.…”

“…Scent-marking serves to communicate territories among conspecifics, and resident coyotes and wolves strategically mark via urination and defecation at higher rates than do transients, with alpha pairs often exhibiting the highest defecation rates among all cohorts (Rothman and Mech 1979, Gese and Ruff 1997, Barja and List 2014. In contrast, rubbing behavior by canids has been attributed to mate attraction and early courtship, suggesting that rubbing in odorous materials would be advantageous to transients who are actively seeking mates (Ryon et al 1986, Martin and Farge 1988, Heffernan et al 2007). Therefore, we speculate that scat sampling may be more likely to detect territorial alpha pairs and other residents, whereas hair sampling may be more likely to detect transients, which would cause the inconsistent individual heterogeneity between detection methods that we found.…”

“…Reliably estimating population density and abundance of wolves and coyotes is imperative to their conservation and management, but these species are notoriously difficult to detect. Furthermore, rubbing in odorous materials, such as carcasses of dead wildlife, is a natural behavioral response of canids (Ryon et al 1986, Martin and Farge 1988, Heffernan et al 2007, and collecting hair from lured ground-based rub pads has been used to detect both wolves and coyotes (Ausband et al 2011). In contrast, noninvasive genetic sampling that capitalizes on the ecological and behavioral characteristics of canids has become an efficient framework for detecting and individually identifying animals.…”

“…Both coyotes and wolves tend to be highly territorial and strategically defecate to mark and communicate territory extents to conspecifics (Rothman and Mech 1979, Gese and Ruff 1997, Barja and List 2014; therefore, collecting scat samples along travel routes or at rendezvous sites has proven effective , Morin et al 2016, Piaggio et al 2016, L opez-Bao et al 2018). Furthermore, rubbing in odorous materials, such as carcasses of dead wildlife, is a natural behavioral response of canids (Ryon et al 1986, Martin and Farge 1988, Heffernan et al 2007, and collecting hair from lured ground-based rub pads has been used to detect both wolves and coyotes (Ausband et al 2011).…”

Optimal attractants to increase visits by clouded leopards to remote‐camera sets

“…Attractants are used to focus the activity of target animals and may help to overcome some animals' instinctive behavior to avoid human scent and foreign objects, including remote cameras. The range of commercial scents used to attract felids and other carnivores includes traditional scents used by trappers (materials derived from animal parts, often scent glands; Naughton‐Treves et al 2002, Long et al 2007, Michalski and Peres 2007) and predator‐survey scent disks soaked in fatty acids (Heffernan et al 2005). Visual attractants are used to draw animals to remote‐camera sites but are used less frequently than scents (Moruzzi et al 2002, Long et al 2007).…”