Evaluating the effect of predators on white‐tailed deer: Movement and diet of coyotes

Abstract

Coyotes (Canis latrans) may affect adult and neonate white‐tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) survival and have been implicated as a contributor to the decline of deer populations. Additionally, coyote diet composition is influenced by prey availability, season, and region. Because coyote movement and diet vary by region, local data are important to understand coyote population dynamics and their impact on prey species. In southeast Minnesota, we investigated the effect of coyotes on white‐tailed deer populations by documenting movement rates, distances moved, and habitats searched by coyotes during fawning and nonfawning periods. Additionally, we determined survival, cause‐specific mortality, and seasonal diet composition of coyotes. From 2001 to 2003, we captured and radiocollared 30 coyotes. Per‐hour rate of movement averaged 0.87 km and was greater (P = 0.046) during the fawning (1.07 km) than the nonfawning period (0.80 km); areas searched were similar (P = 0.175) between seasons. Coyote habitat use differed during both seasons; habitats were not used in proportion to their availability (P < 0.001). Croplands were used more (P < 0.001) than their proportional availability during both seasons. Use of grasslands was greater during the fawning period (P = 0.030), whereas use of cropland was greater in the nonfawning period (P < 0.001). We collected 66 fecal samples during the nonfawning period; coyote diets were primarily composed of Microtus spp. (65.2%), and consumption of deer was 9.1%. During the study, 19 coyotes died; annual survival rate range was 0.33–0.41, which was low compared with other studies. Consumption of deer was low and coyotes searched open areas (i.e., cropland) more than fawning areas with dense cover. These factors in addition to high coyote mortality suggested that coyote predation was not likely limiting white‐tailed deer populations in southeast Minnesota. © 2011 The Wildlife Society.

Female White-tailed Deer Survival Across Ecoregions in Minnesota and South Dakota

“…Because opportunistic scavenging is more common (Berg and Chesness, 1978;Bekoff and Wells, 1986), deer in southeast Minnesota had a 5% chance of mortality due to coyote predation (DePerno et al, 2003;Turner et al, 2011). Similarly, in southwestern Minnesota, Brinkman et al (2004) reported low coyote densities, with only a single coyote captured during 1350 trap nights; low coyote densities may have been partially explained by a mange epizootic that reduced predator density (Brinkman et al, 2004;Chronert et al, 2007).…”

White‐tailed deer carrying capacity, intercropping switchgrass, and pine plantations

“…Whether, or how, intercropping affects neonatal deer space use and survival could be significant for habitat suitability. Dense switchgrass may provide suitable hiding cover for neonate deer similar to the dense thickets and woody vegetation it displaces, but may also affect abundance or foraging behavior of predators and influence survival rates for neonate deer that may preferentially forage within more open crop‐like vegetation conditions created by linear edges and repeated harvest (Vreeland et al , Turner et al , Chitwood et al ). Habitat selection could also influence the practical effects of intercropping on NCC through decisions made by adult deer in selecting foraging habitat.…”

Winter Diet in Correlation to Sexual Dimorphism in Pennsylvania Coyotes (<i>Canis latrans</i>)

“…Using this generalist approach to prey on smaller mammals, insects, fruit, and plant matter can enhance the likelihood of survival in a variety of conditions and environments [32] [33] [49]. Coyotes may have larger home ranges to accommodate their nutritional need without overexerting themselves [20].…”

“…Few studies have been completed to understand the role of the coyotes within Pennsylvania and what impacts they have in this region. Many of what has been completed has been studied through scat samples or captive animals [32]. The predation tendencies of male and female coyotes within this study are important to understand their sexual dimorphism, diet, and responses to ecological factors such as habitat availability.…”

“…Since the northeastern coyote population has changed vastly from their western-counterpart, due to their adaptability and mostly to hybridization with grey wolves; it is important to have local data to understand their population dynamics [32]. Based on the work of Gittleman and Van Valkenburgh (1997) we assume that there is sexual dimorphism among the population of eastern coyotes in Pennsylvania and therefore, we correlate diet differences among sexes [33].…”