Fine‐scale movements and behaviors of coyotes (<i>Canis latrans</i>) during their reproductive period

Chamberlain, Michael J.; Cohen, Bradley S.; Wightman, Patrick H.; Rushton, Emily; Hinton, Joseph W.

doi:10.1002/ece3.7777

Cited by 8 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 78 publications

(155 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Coyotes selected areas of increased vegetation density during spring and winter revisitations, while avoiding areas of high vegetative density during the summer. Selection for areas with dense vegetation during spring was also observed in an independent study of coyote movements in north‐central Georgia, approximately 125 and 275 km from our SRA and Alabama study areas, respectively (Chamberlain et al, 2021). Using a behavioral state model, Chamberlain et al (2021) reported that resident coyotes selected areas with dense vegetation density when resting or foraging during the pup‐rearing season.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 73%

“…Selection for areas with dense vegetation during spring was also observed in an independent study of coyote movements in north‐central Georgia, approximately 125 and 275 km from our SRA and Alabama study areas, respectively (Chamberlain et al, 2021). Using a behavioral state model, Chamberlain et al (2021) reported that resident coyotes selected areas with dense vegetation density when resting or foraging during the pup‐rearing season. Therefore, it was not surprising to us that coyotes exhibited selection for dense vegetation during spring in our study for two reasons.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 73%

“…We predicted that forest edges would be important for recursive movements during foraging bouts. Additionally, Chamberlain et al (2021) found that coyotes used high-density vegetation for both foraging as well as denning in the spring and we predicted that recursive behavior would be associated with increased vegetative density throughout the year. Finally, to assess if coyote consumption of deer occurred primarily through scavenging of roadkill, we used recursive analysis to correlate revisitation of areas proximate to roads during fall and winter when deer experience greater road mortality due to increased movements associated with their breeding season.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 86%

“…In the United States, research on coyotes ( Canis latrans ) has increased significantly over the last several decades because of the species' recent range expansion (Hinton et al, 2019; Hody & Kays, 2018), role as the top canid predator in most regions (Gompper, 2002; Kilgo et al, 2010; Robinson et al, 2014), ability to live in urban areas (Breck et al, 2019; Gehrt et al, 2009; Lombardi et al, 2017), and hybridization with red wolves ( Canis rufus ; Bohling & Waits, 2015; Hinton et al, 2018; Nowak, 2002) and eastern wolves ( Canis lycaon ; Benson et al, 2012; Rutledge et al, 2012; Wilson et al, 2000). In the southeastern United States, average home range sizes reported for resident coyotes are relatively large (range = 5.2–85.0 km 2 ; Chamberlain et al, 2021; Hickman et al, 2016; Hinton et al, 2015; Mastro et al, 2019; Stevenson et al, 2019; Ward et al, 2018) and consist of a diversity of land cover ranging from open anthropogenic (i.e., urban and agriculture) to dense vegetation cover (Hickman et al, 2016; Hinton et al, 2015; Stevenson et al, 2019; Ward et al, 2018). Recent studies of coyotes in the southeastern United States reported that coyotes tend to select early successional vegetation communities and open landcover types (Hinton et al, 2015; Stevenson et al, 2019) and primarily consume mammalian prey and fruit (Cherry et al, 2016; Hinton et al, 2017, 2021; Schrecengost et al, 2008; Ward et al, 2018).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As a test of our buffer size, we ran recursive analyses at 100-m, 250-m, 500-m, 750-m, and 1000-m radius intervals. We observed that buffers 250-m and 500-m created recursion polygons that closely mirrored the 50% KUD pack home range, while buffers 750-m and 1000-m closely mirrored, or exceeded, the 95% pack home range Chamberlain et al (2021). used first-passage time analysis to quantify behavioral states of resident and transient coyotes.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Recursive use of home ranges and seasonal shifts in foraging behavior by a generalist carnivore

Youngmann

Hinton²,

Bakner

et al. 2022

Ecology and Evolution

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Coyotes (Canis latrans) colonized the southeastern United States over the last century as large predators, including the red wolf (Canis rufus) and eastern cougar (Puma concolor), were extirpated from the region. As a generalist carnivore, the coyote preys on white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) and various smaller mammals, birds, and vegetation. While resource selection by coyotes has been well documented at the home-range scale, little is known about their foraging behavior, which is an important factor in thoroughly understanding influences of coyotes on prey and sympatric carnivores. We assessed third-order resource selection of coyotes at sites across Alabama, Georgia, and South Carolina during 2015-2016. Using GPS collars, we tracked 41 resident coyotes across four calendar seasons and identified suspected foraging areas using recursive analysis where individuals repeatedly returned to known locations.We found that resident coyotes selected for open landcover types throughout the year, while avoiding primary and secondary roads. Additionally, resident coyotes avoided forested landcover types while selecting for forest edges except from April to June when they foraged within interior forest away from edges. Previous studies have documented substantive predation rates on white-tailed deer neonates by coyotes, and that fawn mortality may increase in forested landscapes away from forest edge. Our findings indicate that foraging coyotes may select forest cover types during spring where fawns are more vulnerable to predation. Additionally, there has been debate in the literature as to how coyotes obtain consistent levels of deer in their diets outside of fawning and fall hunting seasons. Our study indicates that use of road-kill carcasses by coyotes was an unlikely explanation for the presence of deer in coyote diets throughout the year, as coyotes in our study were not observed using roads during foraging excursions.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 73%

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 73%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 86%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Recursive use of home ranges and seasonal shifts in foraging behavior by a generalist carnivore

Youngmann

Hinton²,

Bakner

et al. 2022

Ecology and Evolution

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Coursing the mottled mosaic: Generalist predators track pulses in availability of neonatal ungulates

Huggler

Hayes

Burke

et al. 2023

Ecology and Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The density and distribution of resources shape animal movement and behavior and have direct implications for population dynamics. Resource availability often is "pulsed" in space and time, and individuals should cue in on resource pulses when the energetic gain of doing so exceeds that of stable resources. Birth pulses of prey represent a profitable but ephemeral resource and should thereby result in shifting functional responses by predators. We evaluated movements and resource selection of coyotes (Canis latrans) across a gradient of reproductive stages ranging from late gestation to peak lactation of female mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) in southwest Wyoming, USA, to test whether coyotes exhibited shifts in selection and movement behavior relative to the availability and vulnerability of neonatal mule deer. We expected coyotes to track pulses in availability of neonatal mule deer, and such behavior would be represented by shifts in resource selection and search behavior of coyotes that would be strongest during peak parturition of mule deer. Coyotes selected areas of high relative probability of use by female mule deer and did so most strongly during peak parturition. Furthermore, searching behavior of coyotes intensified during pulses of availability of deer neonates. Our findings support the notion that coyotes exploit pulses of neonatal deer, presumably as an attempt to capitalize on a vulnerable, energy-rich resource. Our work quantifies the behavioral mechanisms by which coyotes consume ungulate neonates and provides one of the first examples of a mammalian predator-prey system centered on a pulsed resource.

show abstract

Landscape characteristics and predation risk influence spatial variation in auditory courtship of an upland game bird

et al. 2023

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Context Numerous wildlife species use a polygynous mating system, where males use auditory courtship behaviors to secure breeding opportunities. The acoustic adaptation hypothesis, risk reward, and landscape of fear theories suggest spatial variation in male auditory courtship will be influenced by areas in landscapes where sound transmission is increased, and predation risk is reduced. However, it is often unclear what landscape features drive spatial variation in courtship behaviors. Objectives We quantified the influence of predation risk, land cover type, and resource selection on spatial trends in the auditory courtship behavior (gobbling activity) of Eastern wild turkeys (Meleagris gallopavo silvestris). Methods We used 53,025 gobbles coupled with GPS locations from 111 turkeys and 36 coyotes (Canis latrans), and distance metrics associated with hunter activity and land cover type, to investigate influences of predation risk, resource selection, and land cover type on spatial variation in gobbling activity in Georgia, USA. Results Distance to public access during hunting was the most influential predictor of gobbling activity, wherein the expected number of daily gobbles increased by 40% for every 500 m farther from public access. Daily gobbles decreased by 22% for every 500 m farther away from private property during hunting. We failed to find significant effects of land cover type and coyote use but found limited evidence that areas with increased predicted probability of turkey use was associated with increased gobbling. Conclusions Predation risk associated with increased anthropogenic disturbance had the greatest influence on gobbling activity. Our findings suggest that altering hunter access by closing roads to vehicle use, reducing hunter activity, or creating refuge areas on the landscape could positively influence gobbling activity.

show abstract

Fine‐scale movements and behaviors of coyotes (Canis latrans) during their reproductive period

Abstract: This is an open access article under the terms of the Creat ive Commo ns Attri bution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Cited by 8 publications

References 78 publications

Recursive use of home ranges and seasonal shifts in foraging behavior by a generalist carnivore

Recursive use of home ranges and seasonal shifts in foraging behavior by a generalist carnivore

Coursing the mottled mosaic: Generalist predators track pulses in availability of neonatal ungulates

Landscape characteristics and predation risk influence spatial variation in auditory courtship of an upland game bird

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About