Relationship between Coyote Group Size and Diet in Southeastern Colorado

Gese, Eric M.; Rongstad, Orrin J.; Mytton, William R.

doi:10.2307/3800924

Cited by 58 publications

(42 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…By measuring social cohesion using simultaneous locations of established individuals within packs, we eliminated the confusion caused by variation in timing of juvenile dispersals (Gese et al 1988b) and temporary aggregations of coyotes at carcasses (Murie 1940;Camenzind 1978;Bowen 1981;Gese et al 1988b). Our analysis was not affected by individuals joining or dispersing from packs and instead focused on the movements within packs.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In terms of social ecology, coyote populations can be divided into resident and transient individuals (e.g., Camenzind 1978;Bowen 1982;Bekoff and Wells 1986), but social organization differs among populations, and the way in which an individual transitions into or out of resident packs also varies (Andelt 1985;Gese 2001). Previous studies evaluating coyote social ecology have examined seasonal group size with most of these studies having found the largest coyote group sizes in winter, coinciding with a shift in diet from rodents to ungulates (Camenzind 1978;Bekoff and Wells 1980;Bowen 1981;Andelt 1985;Gese et al 1988b). Gese et al (1988b) concluded that larger winter group sizes were primarily due to increased sociality during the breeding season, and these larger groups were then able to forage for larger prey, as well as defend ungulate carcasses from conspecifics Wells 1980, 1986;Gese 2004).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Previous studies evaluating coyote social ecology have examined seasonal group size with most of these studies having found the largest coyote group sizes in winter, coinciding with a shift in diet from rodents to ungulates (Camenzind 1978;Bekoff and Wells 1980;Bowen 1981;Andelt 1985;Gese et al 1988b). Gese et al (1988b) concluded that larger winter group sizes were primarily due to increased sociality during the breeding season, and these larger groups were then able to forage for larger prey, as well as defend ungulate carcasses from conspecifics Wells 1980, 1986;Gese 2004). In contrast, Bowyer (1987) found a higher percentage of coyotes in groups during June up to and including November, but the amount of mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) in scats did not vary seasonally.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Space use and social ecology of coyotes (Canis latrans) in a high-elevation ecosystem: relative stability in a changing environment

Gifford

Gese

Parmenter³

2016

J Ethol

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Coyote (Canis latrans) spatial and social ecology are variable, but have been little studied in high-elevation environments. In these temperate ecosystems, large ungulates are prevalent and coyote pack size may be large in order for them to scavenge and defend ungulate carcasses from conspecifics in neighboring packs. We initiated a study to understand the spatial and social ecology of coyotes on the Valles Caldera National Preserve, a high-elevation (2450-3400 m) protected area in northern New Mexico. Our objectives were to (1) describe the home range size and habitat use of coyotes in the preserve, (2) describe coyote movements within and outside of packs, and (3) to evaluate the relationship between coyote social cohesion and the amount of elk (Cervus elaphus) in the coyote diet. We acquired global positioning system and telemetry locations from 33 coyotes from August 2005 to July 2009. We classified 23 coyotes (70 % of individuals) as residents (i.e., territorial) during at least part of the study and ten coyotes (30 %) as transients. Overall mean home range size of resident packs was 10.6 ± 2.2 (SD) km 2 . Home range size varied between packs, but did not vary by season or year. Coyotes used dry and wet meadow habitats as expected based on availability; coyotes used riparian habitat more than expected, and forests less than expected. Social cohesion did not vary among biological seasons. Alpha coyotes were more socially cohesive with each other than with other pack members, and a transient exhibited temporal-spatial avoidance of pack members while inside the pack's territory followed by integration into the pack. Contrary to expectations, we found no relationship between coyote social cohesion and the proportion of elk in coyote diets. We concluded that coyote space use and sociality on the preserve were relatively stable year-round despite changes in biological needs, snow depth, and utilization of variously sized prey.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Space use and social ecology of coyotes (Canis latrans) in a high-elevation ecosystem: relative stability in a changing environment

Gifford

Gese

Parmenter³

2016

J Ethol

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Arjo and Pletscher (47) hypothesized that this pack structure change was for defense against wolves, and the dietary change was an increase in scavenging of carcasses left by wolves. Increased pack size in coyotes also has important offensive consequences for prey-killing, and many studies have documented that coyotes in large packs kill ungulate prey (10,(48)(49)(50).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evolution in coyotes (Canis latrans) in response to the megafaunal extinctions

Meachen

Samuels

2012

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Living coyotes modify their behavior in the presence of larger carnivores, such as wolves. However, little is known about the effects of competitor presence or absence on morphological change in coyotes or wolves over long periods of time. We examined the evolution of coyotes and wolves through time from the late Pleistocene, during which many large carnivorous species coexisted as predators and competitors, to the Recent; this allowed us to investigate evolutionary changes in these species in response to climate change and megafaunal extinctions at the end of the Pleistocene. We measured postcranial skeletal morphologies of wolves (Canis lupus) and coyotes (C. latrans) from Pleistocene-aged tar deposits, as well as early, mid, and recent Holocene populations of both. We found few morphological differences between Pleistocene and Holocene wolf populations. Conversely, we found many differences in coyotes: Pleistocene coyotes were larger and more robust than Holocene populations. However, within 1,000 y of the megafaunal extinctions, coyotes are morphologically indistinguishable from modern populations. We cannot attribute these differences directly to climate change because modern coyotes do not follow Bergmann's rule, which states body size increases with decreasing temperature. Instead, we suggest that Pleistocene coyotes may have been larger and more robust in response to larger competitors and a larger-bodied prey base. Although we cannot separate competition from predator-prey interactions, this study indicates that the effects of biotic interactions can be detected in the fossil record.Pleistocene extinctions | Canidae | Rancho La Brea

show abstract

“…It can also happen that diminishing populations change their feeding habits (e.g. group size affects prey selection, Gese et al, 1988). Consequences of m a n u s c r i p t 13 species extinction represented as deletion of nodes from the network has been more widely studied (Dunne et al, 2002b).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%