Dispersal Characteristics of Juvenile Coyotes in Maine

Abstract

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org. . Wiley and Wildlife Society are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Journal of Wildlife Management. Abstract: Despite the coyote's (Canis latrans) ecological and economic importance, knowledge of dispersal and its effects on coyote population dynamics and social organization are fragmentary. Hence, I investigated the dispersal of 47 radio-collared juvenile coyotes from 2 Maine study sites during 1981-84. Dispersal of juvenile coyotes began during late September of their first year. Peaks in onset of dispersal occurred during October-November and during February-March. No dispersals were initiated during late December-January. Eighty-six percent of pups (n = 36) dispersed during their first year of life; 100% departed prior to 1.5 years of age. Annual survival rate from 0.5 to 1.5 years was lower for dispersers (0.47) than for residents (0.74). Coyotes traveled along their initial bearing of dispersal, thus maximizing distances from natal areas. Water barriers deflected movements of dispersing coyotes and resulted in concentrations of dispersers adjacent to water features. Minimum distances dispersed averaged 94 km for 11 juvenile female coyotes and 113 km for 9 juvenile males. There were no differences (P > 0.18) between sexes in the first-year dispersal rate or in the proportion, age, or distance of d-ispersal. Low food densities may preclude delayed dispersal and pack formation in this population. Juvenile dispersal probably confounds attempts to manage coyote populations intensively in localized areas. J. WILDL. MANAGE. 56(1):128-138 Dispersal affects the long term survival and population dynamics of plants and animals (Caughley 1978). Because dispersal is particularly common near the onset of sexual maturity in Canidae, some researchers (Bekoff 1977, Kleiman and Brady 1978) have postulated that differences in social behavior (e.g., monogamy vs. polygamy, solitary living vs. pack forming, nonterritorial vs. territorial) within this family are related to differences in dispersal patterns. The variety of group sizes and social systems exhibited by coyotes may be related to differences in the age and timing of juvenile dispersal (Kleiman and Brady 1978, Bowen 1981, Messier and Barrette 1982). Despite the coyote's ecological and economic importance, knowledge of dispersal and its effects on coyote population dynamics and social organization are fragmentary. Further, several aspects of the life history and social behavior of recently established coyote populations in northeastern North America (Hilton 1978) have not been documented. Caughley (1978) described dispersal as the most difficult of all population processes to investigate, which explain...

Social and nutritional factors influencing the dispersal of resident coyotes

“…Food resources influenced how long and how many coyotes could remain in the pack. In Maine, low densities of deer and alternative prey were believed to prevent delayed dispersal and pack formation in coyotes (Harrison 1992). In Canada, Messier (1985) found a higher incidence of extraterritorial movements by wolves in an area with low prey abundance compared with an area with high prey density.…”

“…The social rank and level of dominance in the pack hierarchy influenced whether a coyote 1990-1991, (b) 1991-1992and (c) 1992-1993. (From Gese et al 1996aCan.…”

“…In contrast, Bekoff (1977a) proposed the social cohesion hypothesis, that individuals that do not develop strong ties to their group early in life will be most likely to disperse. Other proximate causes for dispersing may include lack of breeding opportunities, physiological changes (Holekamp 1984(Holekamp , 1986, reduced food intake or availability (Messier 1985;Harrison 1992), increased social pressures associated with increased density (Snyder 1961;Van Vleck 1968) and ectoparasite load.…”

Nomadic Behavior of an Old and Formerly Territorial Eastern Coyote, <em>Canis latrans</em>

“…However, D. Mech followed a female Wolf (#2473) in Minnesota from her early nomadic phase as a lone Wolf, through several years as a territorial breeder, and then through her loss of that status (subsequently becoming nomadic again) following the death of her mate when a new male integrated into the pack and paired with her daughter (F. Harrington, persersonal communication). These anecdotes provide a personal and intimate account of canid behavior that is rarely reported in more comprehensive studies (e.g., Harrison 1992;Gese et al 1996;Way et al 2002a.…”

“…In addition, lone individuals (termed "dispersers", "nomads", "transients", or "floaters") travel among resident packs and live in larger areas, in some instances traveling hundreds of miles from their birthplace (Mech and Boitani 2003b;Parker 1995;. These nomadic individuals (both Eastern Coyotes and Wolves) are typically young (i.e., one-to twoyear-old) animals that, in many cases, eventually establish territories as adults and cease their nomadic movements (Gese and Mech 1991;Harrison 1992;Mech et al 1998;Mech and Boitani 2003a,b).…”