Coyote Predation and Habitat Segregation of White-Tailed Deer and Mule Deer

Lingle, Susan

doi:10.2307/3071785

Cited by 18 publications

(57 citation statements)

References 43 publications

(78 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Even though mule deer are more vulnerable than white-tails during winter, white-tails were more abundant and had greater overlap with coyotes during that period (Lingle 2000(Lingle , 2002. The differences in risk facing white-tails and mule deer were more pronounced for animals occupying gentle terrain shared with the second species of deer (Lingle 2002). Another possible explanation for the difference in whitetail and mule deer vulnerability is that it is due to differences in their antipredator behavior.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 88%

“…Coyotes showed little interest in white-tails encountered during hunts in which they also traveled in a habitat typically used by mule deer (Lingle 2002). In contrast, the presence of white-tails during these hunts did not affect their attention to mule deer.…”

Section: Definition and Observation Of Huntsmentioning

confidence: 93%

“…Most mule deer groups that were encountered (33 of 37) stood low on slopes, in habitats often shared with white-tails, because coyotes tended to travel on gentle terrain when they hunted deer (Lingle 2002). It was not only mule deer occupying rugged terrain, where white-tails did not occur, that held their ground.…”

Section: Antipredator Behavior and The Risk Of Predationmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…The differences in mortality within each season cannot be explained by their relative abundance or by differences in habitat use. Even though mule deer are more vulnerable than white-tails during winter, white-tails were more abundant and had greater overlap with coyotes during that period (Lingle 2000(Lingle , 2002. The differences in risk facing white-tails and mule deer were more pronounced for animals occupying gentle terrain shared with the second species of deer (Lingle 2002).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 93%

“…Hunts of small prey, typically voles or ground squirrels, were distinguishable from hunts of deer by smaller pack sizes, the absence of a fixed leader or formation, and by different forms of searching and attack behavior (Bekoff 1978;Wells and Bekoff 1982;Lingle 2000). Coyotes frequently encountered deer while traveling, hunting small prey, or resting, but in winter such encounters rarely led to predation attempts on deer (Lingle 1998). Data presented here are therefore restricted to encounters observed during continuous pack hunts of deer.…”

Section: Definition and Observation Of Huntsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Fight or flight? Antipredator behavior and the escalation of coyote encounters with deer

2002

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It is well known that prey of different size and morphology often use different antipredator strategies. The prevailing notion is that this occurs because size, morphology and weaponry determine the relative effectiveness of alternative strategies, and nowhere is this assumption more entrenched than in our view of the basic decision to stay, fight or flee. Here, we use observations of coyote (Canis latrans) packs hunting deer in winter to show that two ungulates of similar size and morphology, white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) and mule deer (O. hemionus), use different antipredator strategies when encountered or attacked. Mule deer typically responded by holding their ground and aggressively defending conspecifics, and were at high risk of being attacked and killed if they fled or were undefended. White-tails always fled when pursued or attacked by coyotes. Coyotes pursued fewer white-tails than mule deer they encountered regardless of prey response. Once pursued or attacked, white-tails faced a risk of attack and capture, respectively, that was intermediate between the high and low risk mule deer groups. The overall risk of capture per encounter for white-tails was similar to that facing mule deer that confronted coyotes, which was much lower than risk facing mule deer that fled and were undefended. Contextual variables such as the opportunity to improve one's position by joining another group, moving to rugged terrain, or the presence of companions that are willing to provide defense may explain why a mixed strategy is maintained in mule deer, despite the apparently detrimental effects of flight. These examples illustrate the value of including prey behavior in models of hunting success in so far as prey defenses may not be coupled with differences in size and morphology.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 88%

Section: Definition and Observation Of Huntsmentioning

confidence: 93%

Section: Antipredator Behavior and The Risk Of Predationmentioning

confidence: 98%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 93%

Section: Definition and Observation Of Huntsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Fight or flight? Antipredator behavior and the escalation of coyote encounters with deer

2002

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

The effect of terrain and female density on survival of neonatal white‐tailed deer and mule deer fawns

Bonar

Manseau

Geisheimer

et al. 2016

Ecology and Evolution

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Juvenile survival is a highly variable life‐history trait that is critical to population growth. Antipredator tactics, including an animal's use of its physical and social environment, are critical to juvenile survival. Here, we tested the hypothesis that habitat and social characteristics influence coyote (Canis latrans) predation on white‐tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) and mule deer (O. hemionus) fawns in similar ways during the neonatal period. This would contrast to winter when the habitat and social characteristics that provide the most safety for each species differ. We monitored seven cohorts of white‐tailed deer and mule deer fawns at a grassland study site in Alberta, Canada. We used logistic regression and a model selection procedure to determine how habitat characteristics, climatic conditions, and female density influenced fawn survival during the first 8 weeks of life. Fawn survival improved after springs with productive vegetation (high integrated Normalized Difference Vegetation Index values). Fawns that used steeper terrain were more likely to survive. Fawns of both species had improved survival in years with higher densities of mule deer females, but not with higher densities of white‐tailed deer females, as predicted if they benefit from protection by mule deer. Our results suggest that topographical variation is a critical resource for neonates of many ungulate species, even species like white‐tailed deer that use more gentle terrain when older. Further, our results raise the possibility that neonatal white‐tailed fawns may benefit from associating with mule deer females, which may contribute to the expansion of white‐tailed deer into areas occupied by mule deer.

show abstract

Differences in dietary niche and foraging behavior of sympatric mule and white‐tailed deer

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Mule (Odocoileus hemionus) and white‐tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) are congeneric and share similar life histories, yet their distribution is segregated across much of North America. Extensive research on both species within and outside their zone of co‐occurrence has not fully explained these distribution patterns, especially the potential role of diet and foraging behavior. Therefore, we used a common garden experiment to compare diet composition, diet quality, foraging behavior, and intake of tractable mule and white‐tailed deer foraging together within the dry Douglas‐fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii)/ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) forests of northeastern Washington. We sampled at 21 0.5‐ha sites from June to August 2016. We used standard bite count techniques coupled with forage biomass sampling, behavioral observations, and nutritional analyses to compare the foraging ecology of the two species. Mule and white‐tailed deer had similar activity patterns. However, mule deer took larger bites and harvested food faster than white‐tailed deer, and white‐tailed deer consumed more diverse but higher‐quality diets than mule deer. These differences resulted in mule deer acquiring ~25% more dry matter and digestible energy per day. About 90% of the diets consumed by both deer species consisted of deciduous shrubs and forbs, and they selected many of the same plant species. However, overall diet composition was 38% dissimilar, with mule deer consuming diets that were more likely to contain shrubs with higher levels of tannins and lower levels of dry matter digestibility than diets eaten by white‐tailed deer. Dietary overlap was greatest at both very low and very high forage biomass, indicating potential for modest resource competition or partitioning. Our research provides evidence that differences in diet composition of mule and white‐tailed deer do not merely reflect differences in habitat selection, but also suggest the species differ in their fundamental nutritional niches.

show abstract

Coyote Predation and Habitat Segregation of White-Tailed Deer and Mule Deer

Cited by 18 publications

References 43 publications

Fight or flight? Antipredator behavior and the escalation of coyote encounters with deer

Fight or flight? Antipredator behavior and the escalation of coyote encounters with deer

The effect of terrain and female density on survival of neonatal white‐tailed deer and mule deer fawns

Differences in dietary niche and foraging behavior of sympatric mule and white‐tailed deer

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About