Seasonal variation in coyote feeding behaviour and mortality of white-tailed deer and mule deer

Lingle, Susan

doi:10.1139/cjz-78-1-85

Cited by 25 publications

(81 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Coyotes capture more white-tail than mule deer fawns in summer, during the first few months of life (Whittaker and Lindzey 1999;Lingle 2000), but more mule deer when fawns are older in winter (Lingle 2000). The differences in mortality within each season cannot be explained by their relative abundance or by differences in habitat use.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 93%

“…Mule deer tended to occupy the higher and steeper slopes (rising >60 m from the base, >10°in slope), whereas white-tails tended to occupy gently rolling (<5°) or flat terrain. Both species used the lower, gentler slopes (<60 m high, <10°; see map of distributions in Lingle 2000). The study area was open prairie, with native grassland covering 83% of the area.…”

Section: Study Site and Subjectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The differences in mortality within each season cannot be explained by their relative abundance or by differences in habitat use. Even though mule deer are more vulnerable than white-tails during winter, white-tails were more abundant and had greater overlap with coyotes during that period (Lingle 2000(Lingle , 2002. The differences in risk facing white-tails and mule deer were more pronounced for animals occupying gentle terrain shared with the second species of deer (Lingle 2002).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 95%

“…Coyotes form packs that embark on excursions during which they hunt deer. These hunts are readily distinguishable from their other activities, including simple travel and hunts of smaller prey, and they have a relatively clear-cut start and end (Lingle 2000). The two species of deer are closely related and nearly identical in body size and overall morphology (Mackie 1964;Eslinger 1976;Wishart 1986).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…Coyotes are important predators of both species of deer (Cook et al 1971;White et al 1987;Unsworth 1999;Lingle 2000) but, curiously, there are seasonal differences in the vulnerability of white-tails and mule deer to coyote predation. Coyotes capture more white-tail than mule deer fawns in summer, during the first few months of life (Whittaker and Lindzey 1999;Lingle 2000), but more mule deer when fawns are older in winter (Lingle 2000).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Fight or flight? Antipredator behavior and the escalation of coyote encounters with deer

2002

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It is well known that prey of different size and morphology often use different antipredator strategies. The prevailing notion is that this occurs because size, morphology and weaponry determine the relative effectiveness of alternative strategies, and nowhere is this assumption more entrenched than in our view of the basic decision to stay, fight or flee. Here, we use observations of coyote (Canis latrans) packs hunting deer in winter to show that two ungulates of similar size and morphology, white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) and mule deer (O. hemionus), use different antipredator strategies when encountered or attacked. Mule deer typically responded by holding their ground and aggressively defending conspecifics, and were at high risk of being attacked and killed if they fled or were undefended. White-tails always fled when pursued or attacked by coyotes. Coyotes pursued fewer white-tails than mule deer they encountered regardless of prey response. Once pursued or attacked, white-tails faced a risk of attack and capture, respectively, that was intermediate between the high and low risk mule deer groups. The overall risk of capture per encounter for white-tails was similar to that facing mule deer that confronted coyotes, which was much lower than risk facing mule deer that fled and were undefended. Contextual variables such as the opportunity to improve one's position by joining another group, moving to rugged terrain, or the presence of companions that are willing to provide defense may explain why a mixed strategy is maintained in mule deer, despite the apparently detrimental effects of flight. These examples illustrate the value of including prey behavior in models of hunting success in so far as prey defenses may not be coupled with differences in size and morphology.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 93%

Section: Study Site and Subjectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 95%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Fight or flight? Antipredator behavior and the escalation of coyote encounters with deer

2002

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

The effect of terrain and female density on survival of neonatal white‐tailed deer and mule deer fawns

Bonar

Manseau

Geisheimer

et al. 2016

Ecology and Evolution

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Juvenile survival is a highly variable life‐history trait that is critical to population growth. Antipredator tactics, including an animal's use of its physical and social environment, are critical to juvenile survival. Here, we tested the hypothesis that habitat and social characteristics influence coyote (Canis latrans) predation on white‐tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) and mule deer (O. hemionus) fawns in similar ways during the neonatal period. This would contrast to winter when the habitat and social characteristics that provide the most safety for each species differ. We monitored seven cohorts of white‐tailed deer and mule deer fawns at a grassland study site in Alberta, Canada. We used logistic regression and a model selection procedure to determine how habitat characteristics, climatic conditions, and female density influenced fawn survival during the first 8 weeks of life. Fawn survival improved after springs with productive vegetation (high integrated Normalized Difference Vegetation Index values). Fawns that used steeper terrain were more likely to survive. Fawns of both species had improved survival in years with higher densities of mule deer females, but not with higher densities of white‐tailed deer females, as predicted if they benefit from protection by mule deer. Our results suggest that topographical variation is a critical resource for neonates of many ungulate species, even species like white‐tailed deer that use more gentle terrain when older. Further, our results raise the possibility that neonatal white‐tailed fawns may benefit from associating with mule deer females, which may contribute to the expansion of white‐tailed deer into areas occupied by mule deer.

show abstract

Carnivore space use shifts in response to seasonal resource availability

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Estimating spatial and temporal resource use and partitioning among carnivore species varies based on life history and is critical to understanding ecological relationships of sympatric carnivores and their prey. Temporal variation in food availability can have a substantial influence on distribution, foraging behavior, prey selection, and population dynamics of carnivores. We investigated shifts in space use of black bears (Ursus americanus), bobcats (Lynx rufus), coyotes (Canis latrans), and gray wolves (C. lupus) in response to seasonal availability of white‐tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) fawns in Michigan, USA, May–August 2009–2011. We used generalized linear mixed models to identify whether probabilistic fawn space use resulted in shifts in carnivore space use from deer pre‐parturition (PPP, 1 May–24 May) to fawn limited mobility (LMP, 25 May–30 June) and social mobility (SMP, 1 July–31 August) periods. We developed a rule‐based algorithm to identify “clusters” of carnivore GPS locations and investigated carnivore clusters to identify fawn predation sites. Carnivores shifted space use among periods, but responses varied among species regarding fawn space use. Black bears selected against areas with greater fawn use during LMP and selected areas with greater fawn use during SMP. We suggest black bear space use was unrelated to fawn space use and reflected availability of vegetative forage. Bobcats selected areas with greater fawn use during LMP and SMP. Coyotes were indifferent to areas where fawns occurred during LMP but selected against areas with greater fawn use during SMP, likely foraging on alternative prey. Coyotes were spatially constrained by wolves, selecting against areas with greater wolf use during LMP and SMP. Wolves selected against areas with greater fawn use during LMP and SMP and selected areas near habitat edges and areas containing livestock carcasses. Carnivore responses to fawn white‐tailed deer distribution and vulnerability were congruent with life history strategies, resulting in space use shifts in response to temporarily abundant resources. Carnivores did not overall rely predominantly on fawns, likely shifting their space use to maximize intake of other seasonal resources. These events provide additional insight into life history strategies among co‐occurring species and dynamics of multi‐species predator–prey systems.

show abstract

Seasonal variation in coyote feeding behaviour and mortality of white-tailed deer and mule deer

Cited by 25 publications

References 0 publications

Fight or flight? Antipredator behavior and the escalation of coyote encounters with deer

Fight or flight? Antipredator behavior and the escalation of coyote encounters with deer

The effect of terrain and female density on survival of neonatal white‐tailed deer and mule deer fawns

Carnivore space use shifts in response to seasonal resource availability

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About