Observations of predator activity at wildlife water developments in southern Arizona

Abstract

Wildlife water developments have been constructed and maintained throughout the arid western United States to benefit big game and upland gamebird populations. There is debate, however, over possible detriments to wildlife from artificial water sources in deserts and other arid environments. One concern is that water developments attract predators, which then impact the prey populations that these developments are intended to benefit. To examine the extent of predator activity around water developments, we examined 15 paired water and non-water (random) sites for sign (scats, tracks, visual observations, animal parts such as feathers and bones, and carcasses) of predators and prey. Predator sign was 7x greater around water sites than nonwater sites (P = 0.002). Coyote (Canis latrans Say) sign accounted for 79% of all predator sign and was 7x greater near water than away from water (P = 0.006). Amount of sign for all prey species combined was not different between paired sites (P = 0.6), but results for individual species and groups of species was variable; passerine and gallinaceous bird sign was greater around water sites (P = 0.008), ungulate sign was not different between water and non-water sites (P 0.20), and lagomorph sign was almost 2x greater away from water than near water (P = 0.05). Predators were probably attracted to wildlife water developments to drink rather than hunt; without water developments, predators may be even more concentrated around the fewer natural water sites.

The influence of predators, competitors, and habitat on the use of water sources by a small desert carnivore

“…Free water is generally most scarce during hot and dry times, when it is also in greatest physiological demand by many desert species. This high demand during physiologically challenging times often leads to water sources being focal points of activity on desert landscapes for multiple species (Weir and Davidson 1965, DeStefano et al 2000, O'Brien et al 2006). While the use of free water is influenced by physiological factors (e.g., species‐specific water requirements, moisture in forage, temperature), other factors, such as interspecific interactions and habitat characteristics, are also important.…”

“…However, while there is information about the partitioning of foraging locations between kit foxes and their intraguild competitors and predators, we have a poor understanding about partitioning of water sources. Because water sources are scarce, geographically fixed, and communal in nature (known locations to predators/competitors; DeStefano et al 2000, Valeix et al 2010, Atwood et al 2011), it may be difficult for kit foxes to successfully partition water sources with intraguild competitors and predators (Edwards et al 2015). Furthermore, it is likely that any partitioning would be related to the habitat characteristics (Lonsinger et al 2017) at individual water sources.…”

Anthropogenic water sources and the effects on Sonoran Desert small mammal communities

“…Despite the frequency of AWS construction in arid ecosystems, little is known about how AWS influence wildlife ( Broyles, 1995 ; Kluever, Gese & Dempsey, 2017 ). Studies have investigated the population dynamics of game species in ranges with and without AWS ( Broyles & Cutler, 1999 showing no effect of AWS) and species interactions among predators visiting AWS ( DeStefano, Schmidt & DeVos, 2000 ; Atwood, Fry & Lelane, 2011 ; Brawata & Neeman, 2011 ; Hall et al, 2013 ). Researchers have questioned whether free water from AWS is beneficial or harmful to species adapted to arid systems ( Burkett & Thompson, 1994 ; Cain III et al, 2008 ; Griffis-Kyle, Kovatch & Bradatan, 2014 ).…”

Aspectos más relevantes de la suplementación de agua y alimento para la caza menor: la perdiz roja (Alectoris rufa L.1758) y el conejo de monte (Oryctolagus cuniculus L.1758) = Most relevant aspects of watering and feeding supplementation on game species: red-legged partridge (Alectoris rufa L.1758) and wild rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus L.1758)

“…Reflexiones que están en consonancia con las afirmaciones de algunos autores que relacionaron un incremento de la tasa de depredación en las proximidades de los comederos por parte del ratonero de cola roja o del lince rojo . Por el contrario, la atracción de los depredadores por los bebederos puede estar motivada más por motivos de sed que por la acción de cazar (DeStefano et al 2000). Un dato observado en el estudio de que corrobora estos planteamientos son los daños sufridos en las instalaciones de los bebederos, en varias ocasiones.…”