Home-range interactions of three sympatric mesopredators in east Texas

Melville, Haemish; Conway, Warren C.; Morrison, Michael L.; Comer, Christopher E.; Hardin, Jason B.

doi:10.1139/cjz-2014-0322

Cited by 10 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 63 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…3) to capture 10 bobcats (four males in 2009, one female and one male in 2010 and two females and two males in 2011) (Melville et al 2015b) and 10 coyotes (one female and two males in 2009, two females and two males in 2010 and one female and two males in 2011) (Grinder andKrausman 2001, Melville et al 2015b). We immobilized captured animals with appropriate doses (6 mg kg −1 for bobcats and 5 mg kg −1 for coyotes) of TELAZOL (<www.fortdodge.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We used two definitions of season: the Natural (Astronomical) Seasons (winter: 21 December to 20 March, spring: 21 March to 20 June, summer: 21 June to 20 September, fall: 21 September to 20 December) (Chamberlain et al 1998, Kirby et al 2010, Melville et al 2015b, and the Biological seasons: spring (1 February to 31 May, bobcat and coyote breeding season), summer (1 June to 30 September, bobcat kitten rearing season, coyote post nursing period) and winter (1 October to 31 January, coyote pre-breeding) (Andelt and Gipson 1979, Andelt 1985, Chamberlain et al 2000.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Coyote range is expanding south and east in synchrony with land use change and the extirpation of gray wolves Canis lupus, especially since 1900 (MacDonald and Sillero-Zubiri 2007). Locally, bobcat and coyote home ranges overlap (Witmer and de Calesta 1986, Major and Sherburne 1987, Litvaitis and Harrison 1989, Chamberlain 1999, hornton et al 2004, Melville et al 2015b. Spatial overlap between bobcats and coyotes may be mitigated by diferential habitat selection (hornton et al 2004(hornton et al , Witczuk et al 2015, however, this only manifests at iner scales (Chamberlain et al 2000, Chamberlain and Leopold 2005, and may be more temporally linked than previously thought.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Abiotic variables influencing the nocturnal movements of bobcats and coyotes

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Abiotic variables influencing the nocturnal movements of bobcats and coyotes

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The mean distance between camera stations was 2.7 km (range = 0.8–12.7 km). Typical home range sizes of bobcats, coyotes, and fishers (5–100 km 2 ; Laundré and Keller , Donovan et al , Melville et al , Sauder and Rachlow ) are large enough to encompass multiple camera stations. Timber management in our study area, however, occurs at a smaller scale than these species home ranges (Average Land Resources Management Plan [LRMP] unit = 9 km 2 , U.S. Forest Service ).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Habitat selection and spatiotemporal interactions of a reintroduced mesocarnivore

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Habitat quality and quantity are key factors in evaluating the potential for success of a wildlife translocation. However, because of the difficulty or cost of evaluating these factors, habitat assessments may not include valuable information on important habitat attributes including the abundance and distribution of prey, predators, and competitors. Fishers (Pekania pennanti) are one of the most commonly reintroduced carnivores in North America, and they are a species of conservation concern in their western range. We examined the relative importance of landscape features and species interactions in determining habitat use of a reintroduced population of fishers in the southern Cascade Mountains, Washington, USA. We used detections of prey and predators at 134 remote camera stations, remotely sensed forest structure data, and telemetry locations of fishers in a resource selection function to assess the relative importance of prey, predators, and forest structure in fisher habitat selection. Fishers selected habitats based on forest conditions and activity levels of snowshoe hares (Lepus americanus), whereas bobcat (Lynx rufus) and coyote (Canis latrans) activity levels did not directly affect habitat selection. The probability of fisher use increased in older stands, close to recently disturbed stands, and in areas with intermediate levels of hare activity. Bobcat and hare activity levels were positively correlated, and fishers avoided areas with the greatest hare activity, suggesting that fishers may experience a food‐safety tradeoff in the study area. Temporal activity patterns in photo detections indicate that fishers may mediate this danger by avoiding bobcats temporally. Our findings suggest that fishers in Washington prefer habitat mosaics of old and recently disturbed stands where they have greater access to resting structures and hares. Management that maintains mosaics of young and old forest across large landscapes is likely to support fisher recovery. Future reintroduction efforts would benefit from an assessment of prey and predator abundance in proposed reintroduction areas before project initiation. © 2019 The Wildlife Society.

show abstract

“…Consequently, interactions within mesocarnivore communities may play an increasingly important role in shaping multiple ecosystem characteristics (Roemer, Gompper & Van Valkenburgh, ). However, mesocarnivore community interactions have only rarely been studied in natural conditions, though niche partitioning by spatial avoidance (Tannerfeldt, Elmhagen & Angerbjörn, ; Kauhala & Auttila, ; Melville et al ., ), temporal segregation (Monterroso, Alves & Ferreras, ), reduced diet overlap (Kauhala & Ihalainen, ) and influence on density (Trewby et al ., ) has been demonstrated.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of competition and landscape characteristics on mesocarnivore cohabitation in badger setts

Tammeleht

Kuuspu

2017

Journal of Zoology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Mesocarnivores are becoming increasingly influential in ecosystems due to the ongoing loss of large carnivores. However, interactions within mesocarnivore communities remain poorly understood. We studied how competitive coexistence influences cohabitation of badgers (Meles meles) with other European mesocarnivores, and badger habitat selection at sett site and sett environ scales (within a 700 m radius buffer). We used data on the location and use of 234 badger setts in a 39 000 km2 area of mainland Estonia (Northern Europe) to assess the importance of sett occupancy by badgers, the regional abundance of other mesocarnivores (fox/raccoon dog), bedrock complex and landscape in explaining the presence of other mesocarnivores at badger setts. We also compared data from observed setts and random locations to study sett site selection. Setts where foxes or raccoon dogs were present had a lower proportion of active badger entrances and were more likely to be found in forests of agricultural areas, compared with setts where these species were absent. Sett locations tended to occur more frequently in older meso‐ and eutrophic forests on sandy soils. Badgers tended to avoid human infrastructure at sett locations and in the sett environ when selecting sett locations. Our results reveal the influence of habitat fragmentation and competitive relationships on cohabitation between terrestrial carnivores.

show abstract

Home-range interactions of three sympatric mesopredators in east Texas

Cited by 10 publications

References 63 publications

Abiotic variables influencing the nocturnal movements of bobcats and coyotes

Abiotic variables influencing the nocturnal movements of bobcats and coyotes

Habitat selection and spatiotemporal interactions of a reintroduced mesocarnivore

Effect of competition and landscape characteristics on mesocarnivore cohabitation in badger setts

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About