Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
ECosCIENCE 9 (1) : 44-54 (2002) The low performance of forest versus rural coyotes in northeastern North America: Inequality between presence and availability of prey1 Marie-Claude RICHER, Michel CRÊTE2& Jean-Pierre OUELLET, Département de biologie, Université du Québec à Rimouski, 300 Allée des Ursulines, Rimouski, Québec G5L 3A1, Canada. Louis-Paul RIVEST, Département de mathématiques et de statistique, Université Laval, Québec G1K 7P4, Canada. Jean HUOT, Département de biologie, Université Laval, Québec G1K 7P4, Canada. Abstract: Coyotes, which originate from central and southwestern North America, recently extended their range into forests of the Northeast. Forest coyotes occur in lower densities, have lower body reserves, and consume more fruits during summer than their counterparts occupying adjacent rural landscapes. We hypothesised that the forest landscape offered less animal prey to coyotes during summer than did the rural landscape. Coyote densities were higher in the rural landscape (2.7 animals 10 km-2) than in the forest landscape (0.5 animals 10 km-2) during the summer of 1997. During the summers of 1996 and 1997, coyotes in both landscapes fed mainly on wildberries (> 45% of dry matter intake), small mammals (> 10%), and snowshoe hare (> 10%). The biomass of the most abundant animal prey, snowshoe hares, was greater in the forest landscape (1.24 and 1.53 kg ha-1 in 1996 and 1997, respectively) than in the rural landscape (0.46 and 0.40 kg ha-1 in corresponding years). The biomass of the other major animal prey (small mammals), was comparable in both landscapes but irrupted during the second summer (0.09 and 0.50 kg ha-1 in 1996 and 1997, respectively). The biomass of fruits remained relatively constant in the rural landscape during the summers of 1996 and 1997 (ª 6 kg ha-1), but it tripled in the forest landscape during the second year (1.69 kg ha-1 in 1996 versus 5.30 kg ha-1 in 1997). Contrary to our prediction, the availability of animal prey in the forest landscape exceeded that in the rural landscape. Our results illustrate that the presence of prey does not correspond to its availability to predators. Coyotes appear poorly adapted for hunting in dense forest vegetation during summer and compensate for shortage of animal prey by consuming more berries. Keywords: Canis latrans, coyote, feeding behaviour, hare, Lepus americanus, small mammals. Résumé : Le coyote, qui provient du Centre et du Sud-Ouest de l’Amérique du Nord, a récemment étendu son aire de répartition dans les forêts du Nord-Est du continent. Les coyotes forestiers vivent à faible densité, possèdent des réserves corporelles amoindries et consomment plus de fruits, durant l’été, que les coyotes ruraux. Nous avons posé l’hypothèse que le paysage forestier offrait moins de proies animales durant l’été que le paysage rural. La densité des coyotes était plus élevée dans le paysage rural (2,7 animaux 10 km-2) que dans le paysage forestier (0,5 animal km-2) durant l’été 1997. Pendant les étés de 1996 et 1997, les coyotes des deux paysages se nourrirent principalement de fruits sauvages (> 45 % de la prise alimentaire, base sèche), de petits mammifères (> 10 %) et de lièvres (> 10 %). La biomasse de la proie la plus abondante, le lièvre d’Amérique, dépassait, dans le paysage forestier (respectivement 1,24 et 1,53 kg ha-1 en 1996 et 1997) celle mesurée dans le paysage rural (0,46 et 0.40 kg ha-1 pour les années correspondantes). La biomasse de l’autre proie animale principale, les petits mammifères, demeura très semblable dans les deux paysages mais fit irruption au cours du deuxième été (respectivement 0,09 et 0,50 kg ha-1 en 1996 et 1997). La biomasse de fruits resta relativement constante en 1996 et 1997 dans le paysage rural (ª 6 kg ha-1), mais elle tripla dans le paysage forestier durant la deuxième année (1,69 contre 5,30 kg ha-1). Contrairement à notre prédiction, la disponibilité de proies animales dans le paysage forestier dépassa celle du paysage rural. Nos résultats démontrent que la présence de proies ne correspond pas à leur disponibilité pour les prédateurs. Les coyotes semblent mal adaptés pour la chasse dans la végétation dense des forêts au cours de l’été et compensent la rareté de proie animale par une consommation accrue de fruits. Mots-clés : Canis latrans, comportement alimentaire, coyote, Lepus americanus, lièvre d’Amérique, petits mammifères. Introduction Historically, the coyote (Canis latrans Say) was mainly restricted to the open grass prairies and plains of central and western North America (Young & Jackson, 1951). The opening of the landscape caused by human settlement, combined with the eradication of wolves (Canis lupus L.) and coyotes’ adaptiveness, paved the way for range expansion northward and eastward through New England, Québec, the 1Rec. 2001-05-17; acc. 2001-11-19. 2Author for correspondence. Mailing address: Société de la faune et des parcs du Québec, Direction de la recherche sur la faune, 675 boul. René-Lévesque Est (BP 92), Québec G1R 5V7, Canada, e-mail: [email protected] Maritimes, the Yukon, and Alaska (Moore & Parker, 1992). Coyotes were first observed in southwestern Québec in 1944 (Young & Jackson, 1951) and in the Bas-SaintLaurent region of southeastern Québec in the early 1970s (Georges, 1976). The eastward range expansion of coyotes was accompanied by an apparent increase in body size (Thurber & Peterson, 1991; Larivière & Crête, 1993), which makes possible group hunting during winter and killing of large prey (Messier, Barrette & Huot, 1986; Patterson, Benjamin & Messier, 1998). The arrival of coyotes in southeastern Québec seriously affected two ungulate species: whitetailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus Zimmermann) and cari- ©Écoscience Droit de visualisation personnel seulement. Ne pas reproduire ou redistribuer de façon électronique. For personnal viewing purpose only. Do not copy or electronically redistribute this article. ÉCOSCIENCE, VOL. 9 (1), 2002 Methods STUDY AREA The study area covered 1,200 km2 of rolling hills on the south shore of the St. Lawrence River in southeastern Québec, with an altitude varying between 220 and 660 m (Figure 1). Annual precipitation averages 1,105 mm in the centre of the study area, with 33% falling as snow (Environment Canada, 1993); snow cover persists from early December to late April. As a result of the decline of agriculture in the region, the rural landscape (473 km2) was a mosaic of cultivated fields (59 km2) interspersed with old fields and regenerating forest (58 km2), wood lots (348 km2), and open water (8 km2). Contiguous forest blocks of various ages covered the rest of the study area (721 km2) and were designated as the forest landscape for the study (Tremblay, Crête & Huot, 1998). The study area occupies a transition zone between the northern hardwood forest and the boreal forest (Rowe, 1972; Marie-Victorin, 1995). Dominant tree species include sugar maple (Acer saccharum Marsh.) and yellow birch (Betula alleghaniensis Britton) on hill tops and south-facing slopes and balsam fir (Abies balsamea [L.] Mill.), white birch (Betula papyrifera Marsh.), aspen (Populus tremuloides Michx), and black spruce (Picea mariana [Mill.] BSP.) elsewhere. Logging was widespread during the last century and has affected most forest stands. Large mammals common to the area are moose (Alces alces L., ª 0.18 km-2; Lamoureux & Pelletier, 1998), white-tailed deer, (ª 1.1 km-2; Lamoureux, 1997) and black bear (Ursus americanus Pallas, ª 0.4 km-2; Lamontagne, Jolicoeur & Lafond, 1996, unpubl. data). Carnivores susceptible to interfere with coyotes include red fox, fisher (Martes pennanti Erxleben), marten (Martes americana Turton), and Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis Kerr). COYOTE DENSITY In a first step, we estimated the total number of coyotes inhabiting the entire study area by a mark-recapture technique, using the Lincoln-Peterson model (Seber, 1982) as modified by Chapman (1951). Coyotes were marked with radio-collars or tags during the autumns of 1994 (n = 16), 1995 (n = 26), and 1996 (n = 18) (Tremblay, Crête & Huot, Riviere-du-Loup ` N 5 20 18 Saint-Honore´ Cabano 185 Saint-Josephde-Kamouraska1 85 Study area Rural Forest Sampling grid Permanent road 28 2 bou (Rangifer tarandus L.) (Poulle et al., 1993; Crête & Desrosiers, 1995; Dumont et al., 2000). It also probably affected bobcat (Lynx rufus Schreber) and red fox (Vulpes vulpes L.) through interference competition and/or intraguild predation (Harrison, Bissonette & Sherburne, 1989; Litvaitis & Harrison, 1989). Likely due to the landscape features where the species has evolved (Nowak, 1979), coyotes are well adapted to open and semiopen habitats (Young & Jackson, 1951) although they have colonised forested areas in northeast and northwest North America (Messier & Barrette, 1982). However, eastern boreal forests seem to provide marginal habitat for coyotes. Densities in forests of the Gaspé peninsula were among the lowest ever recorded (Samson & Crête, 1997: 0.2-0.3 coyotes 10 km-2) whereas they vary between 3 and 20 coyotes 10 km-2 in southern United States and western Canada (Bowen, 1982; Pyrah, 1984; Andelt, 1985; Hein & Andelt, 1995). In the boreal forest of Alberta, coyote densities fluctuated from 1.4 to 4.4 coyotes 10 km-2 and were strongly related to snowshoe hare (Lepus americanus Erxleben) densities (Todd, Keith & Fisher, 1981); they reached 0.1 coyote 10 km-2 in Yukon during the cyclic low of hare (O’Donoghue et al., 1997). Body mass, fat, and protein reserves were lower in summer than in any other season for eastern coyotes frequenting boreal forests (Poulle, Crête & Huot, 1995). This suggests that coyotes face food shortage in such habitat during summer (Lefebvre et al., 1999; Larivière et al., 2001). Along with low body reserves in summer, these coyotes also had low fecundity rates (Poulle, Crête & Huot, 1995; Dumond & Villard, 2000). Coyote feeding behaviour was studied in two adjacent landscapes of southeastern Québec: mixed forest-agricultural (rural) and forest landscapes (Tremblay, Crête & Huot, 1998). During the period of pup initiation (15 July to 1 October), forest coyotes consumed more wildberries, were more active, travelled at a higher rate, and had lower body size and mass than did rural coyotes. Because these characteristics may affect survival and fecundity, the authors concluded that forest landscapes were marginal habitats for coyotes in summer, compared to rural landscapes (see also Crête et al., 2001). We hypothesised that the forest landscape, during summer, represents a habitat of lower quality for coyotes than the rural landscape because the former is characterised by a lower abundance of animal prey (Tremblay, Crête & Huot, 1998), thereby forcing coyotes to compensate with wildberries. Alternatively, animal prey could be harder to capture because of the vegetative cover (Harrison, 1992a) since coyotes depend greatly on their vision for prey detection (Wells & Bekoff, 1982). The rural landscape offers greater habitat diversity, prey choice, and feeding opportunities for coyotes than do boreal forests (Chambers et al., 1974; Person, 1988; Person & Hirth, 1991), in addition to being possibly more suitable for small mammal irruption (Jedrzejewski & Jedrzejewska, 1996). Assuming a top-down trophic dominance in our study area (Power, 1992), we predicted that the availability of animal prey for coyotes would be lower in the forest than in the rural landscape. To test our prediction, we estimated coyote densities, food habits, and the biomass of their principal prey in both rural and forest landscapes during the summers of 1996 and 1997. Pohenegamook ´ ´ U.S.A. 2 0 2 4 6 8 10 km FIGURE 1. Location of the study area in southeastern Québec and distribution of sampling grids for main prey in the rural and the forest landscapes. ©Écoscience Droit de visualisation personnel seulement. Ne pas reproduire ou redistribuer de façon électronique. For personnal viewing purpose only. Do not copy or electronically redistribute this article. 45 RICHER ET AL.: FOOD OF FOREST AND RURAL COYOTES 1998) and recaptured by trappers during the trapping season (18 October – 1 March). We determined the total harvest size of coyotes and the number of marked individuals through a telephone survey of all local trappers in 1995, 1996, and 1997. In a second step, we estimated the relative density of coyotes in the rural and the forest landscape using the number of scats found per 100 km-day along trails and gravel roads, an index linearly related to coyote density (Knowlton & Stoddart, 1984). Scat surveys occurred from 15 July to 1 October in 1997, but were restricted to one month (15 July to 15 August) in 1996. We patrolled two permanent road networks with all-terrain vehicles running at low speed to collect samples; the length of networks changed between years because of accessibility and vegetation height, which prevented us from detecting scats. In the rural landscape, the network measured 43 and 54 km in 1996 and 1997 respectively whereas it covered 91 and 89 km during corresponding years in the forest landscape. At their closest point, the two networks were 25 km apart. Both networks were patrolled twice a month. Prior to the beginning of scat surveys in July, we cleared up the two circuits in order to collect only fresh scats of known age; these scats also served for determining coyote food habits. COYOTE FOOD HABITS We determined food habits by identifying undigested fragments of food items remaining in scats (Tremblay, Crête & Huot, 1998). Owing to the variation in the recovery of bone and teeth and the lack of variation in the recovery of hair in small mammal remains (Kelly & Garton, 1997), teeth and bone served only to identify prey species, and hair fragments to estimate volume. We converted the percentage of volume occupied by fragments of each food item in scats (visually estimated to the nearest five percent) into food ingested by correcting for differential digestibility according to Hewitt and Robbins (1996). Results were expressed as percentages of food ingested on a dry basis. AVAILABLE BIOMASS OF PREY We measured the availability of the main food items of coyotes in the study area (small mammals, snowshoe hare, and fruits; Tremblay, Crête & Huot, 1998) and estimated that of secondary prey (moose, white-tailed deer, woodchuck [Marmota monax L.], and beaver) from the literature. We used a stratified random sampling design (Cochran, 1977) with 6 (1996) or 9 (1997) sampling grids per landscape (Figure 1) to estimate the biomass of small mammals and snowshoe hare in each landscape, but sampling techniques differed among prey species (Richer, 2000). Sampling units covered ª 20 ha for hare and ª1 ha for arvicoline rodents (deer mouse [Peromyscus maniculatus Wagner], Gapper’s red-backed vole [Clethrionomys gapperi Vigors], meadow vole [Microtus pennsylvanicus Ord.], meadow jumping mouse [Zapus hudsonius Zimmerman], and woodland jumping mouse [Napaeozapus insignis Mill.]) and shrews (masked [Sorex cinereus Kerr], smoky [S. fumeus Mill.], and short-tailed [Blarina brevicauda Say]). We estimated the biomass of arvicoline rodents and hare in each sampling unit using a mark-recapture approach (Caron, 1998). We estimated shrew biomass using mini46 mum number captured. For estimating the biomass of fruits, we used a two-stage stratified random sampling design with 7 primary units per landscape (Cochran, 1977). The animal handling protocol received the approval of the Animal Protection Committee of Université Laval (97-158). ARVICOLINE RODENTS Mice and voles were captured in Sherman and Tomahawk livetraps baited with a piece of apple and a mixture of peanut butter and rolled oats. Traps, arranged in 10 ¥ 10 grids, were spaced at 10-m intervals and were deployed during 4 (1996) or 3 (1997) consecutive nights. Trapping extended from 22 July to 18 August in 1996 and from 21 July to 29 August in 1997; we visited each grid once a day. Captured animals were identified to species (Piérard, 1975), sexed, aged, and weighed, and their reproductive conditions were noted. Animals were marked by toe clipping in 1996 and by ear tagging in 1997 and released at the point of capture. SHREWS In 1996, we tallied, identified, and weighed all shrews captured in traps set for arvicoline rodents. In 1997, we added 10 pitfall traps (3L plastic bucket) with 5-m long drift fences in some grids where we had captured shrews during microtine livetrapping (3 and 4 grids in rural and forest landscape respectively; McCay et al., 1998; Richer, 2000). Captured animals were euthanised, weighed, and kept frozen for identification. We computed the ratio of total shrew biomass captured in grids with livetraps and pitfalls over that in grids with only livetraps in order to correct for grids with lower trapping intensity in 1996 and 1997. SNOWSHOE HARE We used Tomahawk livetraps baited with fresh alfalfa and a piece of apple to capture hares. Trapping grids covered 300 m ¥ 400 m, and we set traps 100 m apart. Animals were marked with tags placed between the 2 longest toes of both hind feet. Trapping occurred from 24 September to 11 October in 1996 and from 13 September to 16 October in 1997, during 4 (1996) or 3 (1997) consecutive nights, each grid being visited once a day. SECONDARY ANIMAL PREY Available biomass of secondary prey species was obtained using information from various sources and approaches (Richer, 2000). Densities of moose, white-tailed deer, and beaver were obtained from aerial surveys carried out by the regional office of the Société de la faune et des parcs du Québec. For woodchuck, we used density and body mass of animals living in fields due to the absence of data and the rarity of the species in other habitat types (Lee & Funderburg, 1983). For moose and white-tailed deer, we used the biomass of living fawns and of animals dying during summer since coyotes seem to feed mainly on these categories during summer (Patterson, Benjamin & Messier, 1998; Tremblay, Crête & Huot, 1998). FRUITS Primary units covered 225 m ¥ 90 m and were sampled with 100 secondary units (3.14-m 2 circular plots). Secondary units were arranged systematically, spaced at ©Écoscience Droit de visualisation personnel seulement. Ne pas reproduire ou redistribuer de façon électronique. For personnal viewing purpose only. Do not copy or electronically redistribute this article. ÉCOSCIENCE, VOL. 9 (1), 2002 Percent of diet dry matter (%) COYOTE FOOD HABITS IN LATE SUMMER In 1996, fruits dominated the diet of both rural (55% ± 18) and forest coyotes (67% ± 7) (Figure 2a). In the forest landscape, snowshoe hare (12% ± 5), moose (8% ± 4), and other wild mammals (8% ± 4), including muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus L.), eastern chipmunk (Tamias striatus L.), and red squirrel (Tamiasciurus hudsonicus Erxleben), were of secondary importance as prey species whereas in the rural landscape, small mammals (45% ± 18) were the only other food item detected besides fruits, given the limited sample size. In 1997, fruits still dominated the diet in both landscapes (Figure 2b, 46% [± 4] and 48% [± 6] in rural and forest landscapes respectively). Other food items included small mammals (16% ± 3), snowshoe hare (12% ± 3), bovids (6% ± 2), and other wild mammals (5% ± 2) in the rural landscape and snowshoe hare (16% ± 3), other wild mammals (13% ± 4), small mammals (10% ± 4), 60 a) 1996 late summer * 40 20 0 60 b) 1997 late summer 40 20 COYOTE DENSITY Trappers captured 50, 32, and 29 coyotes in the study area during the 1994-95, 1995-96, and 1996-97 trapping seasons respectively, of which 4, 8, and 3 were marked. This yielded estimates of 171 (± 56), 98 (± 22), and sh ow Sn oo dc hu ck oe ha re W B hit ea ve e- t r ail ed de Ot er he M rw o o ild se ma mm als Bo vid s Fr uit s Pla nts In s ec ts Results W ma mm als 0 all STATISTICAL ANALYSES For each landscape, we estimated the average biomass of hares, arvicoline rodents, and fruits. In the case of animals, we first estimated the effective grid size, using half the distance (m) separating two consecutive captures of the same animal as a strip around each grid (Brooks, Smith & Healy, 1998). The biomass of each animal prey captured per grid served as the input variable to calculate an uncorrected weighted mean density per landscape, given our stratified random design. This biomass estimate was corrected to account for effective grid size and for the biomass of animals that we did not capture, using a modification to the Chao estimator (Chao, 1987; Caron, 1998). The variance of each estimate included a component related to inter-grid variability and another associated with the mark-recapture technique (Caron, 1998). In the case of wildberries, we estimated for each secondary sampling unit the total biomass of edible ripened fruits, and we estimated a weighted average (and its variance) per landscape using formulas for twostage sampling (Cochran, 1977). We used one-tailed tests to compare prey biomass between landscapes because we predicted greater animal prey density in the rural landscape. The homogeneity of annual estimates of coyote numbers in the study area was compared with the likelihood ratio test (Sokal & Rohlf, 1981). We compared the relative density of coyotes between landscapes using a paired t-test on scat density (scats 100 km-day-1) along trail networks patrolled on 5 occasions during the summer of 1997. We compared snowshoe hare and small mammal body mass with t-tests whereas z-tests served for small mammals and snowshoe hare biomass (separately or combined) and fruits comparison (Scherrer, 1984). We used two-way ANOVA to compare food habits among landscapes and years (SAS Institute Inc., 1988). Means are followed by their standard error (SE). 159 (± 64) coyotes in the study area in autumn of the first, second, and third year respectively. These three estimates did not differ significantly (c2 = 2.05, P = 0.36). We collected 6 and 123 scats in the rural landscape in 1996 and 1997 respectively, as opposed to 32 and 55 in the forest landscape for corresponding years. Given the inadequate sample size in 1996 and the consistency of scat collection in 1997 and 1995 (Tremblay, Crête & Huot, 1998), we compared coyote density using scat density in 1997 only; we encountered more scats (t = 3.26, P = 0.03, n = 5) in the rural (3.28 (± 0.72) scats 100 km-day-1) than in the forest landscape (0.88 (± 0.20) scat 100 km-day-1). These relative indices yielded a density estimate of 2.7 and 0.5 individuals 10 km-2 in the rural and the forest landscape respectively. Sm 10-m intervals along 10 parallel transects separated by 25 m. We sampled only species that coyotes eat and that provided fruits between the ground and 1.5 m: Aralia nudicaulis L., Cornus canadensis L., C. stolonifera Michx, Fragaria virginiana Duchesne, Prunus pensylvanica L. f., Ribes lacustre (Pers.) Poir. , R. sativum Syme, Rubus idaeus L., R. pubescens Rafinesque Schmaltz, Sambucus pubens Michx, Streptopus roseus Michx, Vaccinium angustifolium Ait. In 1996, we measured the percentage of cover by plant species in all secondary units. For all species, we also collected all ripened fruits in the first 10 secondary units of each primary unit. Fruits were dried at 70°C until weight stabilisation and weighed (± 0.01 g). We estimated the dry biomass of fruit in each secondary unit with the help of a linear regression relating percentage of cover and fruit biomass. In 1997, we collected and weighed ripened fruits in all secondary units. FIGURE 2. Food habits of rural (1996 n = 6 scats, 1997 n = 123 scats) and forest (1996 n = 32 scats, 1997 n = 55 scats) coyotes in southeastern Québec, expressed as percentage of diet dry matter, according to the year of scat collection. a) 1996 late summer: 15 July-15 August 1996; b) 1997 late summer: 15 July-1 October 1997. Rural landscape (grey bars); forest landscape (solid bars). An asterisk indicates a significant difference between landscapes (two-way ANOVA, F = 10.87, P = 0.001). ©Écoscience Droit de visualisation personnel seulement. Ne pas reproduire ou redistribuer de façon électronique. For personnal viewing purpose only. Do not copy or electronically redistribute this article. 47 RICHER ET AL.: FOOD OF FOREST AND RURAL COYOTES and moose (9% ± 4) in the forest landscape. In 1997, all food categories, expressed as dry matter intake, had comparable importance in both landscapes (two-way ANOVA, F = 1.34, P = 0.25). In 1996, there was a significant difference between landscapes for small mammals (F = 10.87, P < 0.001); consumption of small mammals was higher in the rural landscape (45%) than in the forest landscape (0.2% ± 0.2). However, the sample size was low, especially in the rural landscape. There was no interannual difference when each food item was taken separately (P > 0.05). When pooling prey as animal or vegetal food items, we detected a significant difference between years in the forest landscape (animal prey 1996 = 30% ± 7; 1997 = 52% ± 6; two-way ANOVA, F = 4.48, P = 0.04). Consumption of animal prey remained stable in the rural landscape between both summers (1996 = 45% ± 18; 1997 = 49% ± 4; F = 0.05; P = 0.83). There was no significant difference in animal prey consumption between landscapes during any year (1996: F = 0.52, P = 0.47; 1997: F = 0.14, P = 0.71). AVAILABLE BIOMASS OF PREY In 1996, we captured 9 and 21 different snowshoe hares in rural and forest landscapes, respectively, whereas we captured 15 and 40 hares in the respective landscapes in 1997. There was no difference between body mass of snowshoe hares between years or landscapes (t-test, P > 0.05, Table I), the overall mean body mass being 1.33 kg (± 0.04). During both summers, in the rural landscape, all hares were captured in woodlots; none were captured in old fields and regenerating forests (Table II). In the forest landscape, the greatest number of hares occurred in forests dominated by conifers; few or no hares were present in regenerating forests. The three main species of small mammals captured were short-tailed shrews, red-backed voles, and deer mice. We corrected biomass of shrews captured in livetraps in 1996 by a factor of 1.4 based on the pitfall trapping done in 1997. Only the body mass of short-tailed shrews differed significantly between landscapes in 1997 (t-test, t = 2.66, P = 0.01, Table II). Body mass of all three other dominant species of small mammals did not differ significantly between years and landscapes (P > 0.05) although there was a trend towards greater body mass in the rural landscape. For both years, in the rural landscape, most arvicoline rodents (mice and voles) were captured in forests, and fewer were taken in old fields, regenerating forests, and cultivated fields (Table III). In the forest landscape, density in coniferous and deciduous forests exceeded that measured in regenerating forests. In 1996, when densities were low relative to 1997, arvicoline rodents occupying the forest landscape reached the highest density in deciduous stands. The overall animal prey biomass was greater in the forest than in the rural landscape during both summers (1996: 0.69 and 1.53 kg ha-1 in rural and forest landscapes, respectively; 1997: 1.02 and 2.17 kg ha-1 in rural and forest landscapes, respectively), snowshoe hare and small mammals being the most important prey species (Figure 3). In 1997, hare biomass in the forest landscape exceeded that in the rural landscape (1.53 ± 0.22 kg ha-1 compared to 0.40 ± 0.06 kg ha-1 in corresponding landscapes; Z = -1.69, P < 0.05; Table II). We observed the same trend in 1996, but a statistical comparison was impossible because we could not obtain a non-biased estimate of density in the rural landscape due to the insufficient number of hare recaptures. Although not statistically significant (P > 0.05), there was a ª 5-fold variation in small mammal biomass between years (0.09 kg ha-1 ± 0.01 in both landscapes in 1996 versus 0.52 ± 14 and 0.47 ± 25 kg ha-1 in rural and forest landscapes respectively in 1997; Moose White-tailed deer Beaver Woodchuck Snowshoe hare Small mammals * Rural Forest * Rural Forest 1997 1996 FIGURE 3. Availability of the major prey of coyotes in southeastern Québec according to year and landscape, expressed as live biomass (kg ha-1). An asterisk indicates a significant difference between landscapes (one-tailed Z-test, Z = -1.69, P < 0.05). TABLE I. Body mass (kg) of the main prey species of coyotes captured in rural and forest landscapes in southeastern Québec in 1996 and 1997. Species Snowshoe hare Short-tailed shrew Red-backed vole Deer mouse a Landscape Rural Forest Rural Forest Rural Forest Rural Forest Mean 1.44 1.22 0.0139 0.0182 0.0200 0.0181 0.0168 0.0155 1996 SE 0.11 0.06 0.0014 0.0012 0.0009 0.0007 0.0008 n 9 21 1 5 9 19 11 11 Mean 1.37 1.35 0.0213a 0.0173a 0.0203 0.0187 0.0160 0.0157 Significant difference between landscapes (t-test, P < 0.01). 48 ©Écoscience Droit de visualisation personnel seulement. Ne pas reproduire ou redistribuer de façon électronique. For personnal viewing purpose only. Do not copy or electronically redistribute this article. 1997 SE 0.10 0.05 0.0009 0.0013 0.0008 0.0006 0.0005 0.0003 n 15 40 28 21 67 119 22 61 ÉCOSCIENCE, VOL. 9 (1), 2002 TABLE II. Mean biomass of snowshoe hares (kg ha-1) and fruits (dry kg ha-1), and mean density (hare ha-1) of snowshoe hares, according to habitat type, southeastern Québec, 1996 and 1997 summers. Landscape Habitat type Snowshoe hares Biomass Fruits Biomass Density RURAL Old fields and regenerating forests 11 to 40 years old forests > 40 years old forests Total landscape 1996 0 0.99 0.39 0.46 1997 0 0.43 0.71 0.40 1996 0 0.69 0.27 0.32 1997 0 0.31 0.52 0.29 1996 14.29 9.23 0.20 6.22 1997 14.65 7.80 0.01 5.83 FOREST Regenerating forests Forests dominated by deciduous trees Forests dominated by conifers Total landscape 0 0.18 2.49 1.24 1.27 0.63 3.17 1.53 0 0.15 2.04 1.02 0.94 0.47 2.35 1.13 5.46 0.04 0.94 1.69 22.00 0.04 0.71 5.30 7 * *** TABLE III. Mean biomass (kg ha-1) and density (individuals ha-1) of arvicoline rodents according to habitat type, southeastern Québec, 1996 and 1997 summers. *** * 6 Landscape Habitat type Dry biomass (kg ha-1) ** RURAL 5 4 FOREST 3 2 ** 1 0 1996 Cultivated fields Old fields and regenerating forests Forests Total Regenerating forests Forests dominated by deciduous trees Forests dominated by conifers Total Biomass 1996 1997 0.02 0.16 0.03 0.37 Density 1996 1997 0.93 9.09 1.55 20.49 0.11 0.09 0.60 0.52 6.19 4.94 33.12 28.48 0.03 0.19 0.11 0.61 1.79 11.11 6.30 33.50 0.05 0.55 3.04 30.03 0.09 0.47 5.16 25.73 TABLE IV. Relative importance (% dry biomass) of fruits susceptible to be consumed by coyotes in rural and forest landscapes of southeastern Québec, late summer 1997. 1997 FIGURE 4. Dry biomass of fruits available to rural and forest coyotes in southeastern Québec according to year of collection. Rural landscape (open bars); forest landscape (solid bars). Single asterisks indicate significant differences between years in rural landscape (one-tailed Z-test, Z = 6.37, P < 0.001); double asterisks indicate significant differences between years in forest landscape (Z = -69.24, P < 0.001); triple asterisks indicate significant differences between landscapes in both years (1996: Z = 112.87, P < 0.001; 1997: Z = 7.54, P < 0.001). Table III). Annual variation of small mammal availability resulted in a 1.35-fold increase in overall animal prey biomass between 1996 and 1997. Red-osier dogwood, raspberry, and dwarf cornel represented the bulk of the edible fruit species available to coyotes in 1997 in both landscapes, followed by red-berried elder in the rural landscape and by swamp currant in the forest landscape (Table IV). During both years, in the rural landscape, most fruits were collected in old fields and regenerating forests, fewer in young forests, and very few in old forests (Table II). In the forest landscape, most fruits grew in regenerating forests. The biomass of edible fruits remained relatively constant in the rural landscape in 1996 and 1997, but it tripled in the forest landscape during the second year (Figure 4). It was impossible to compute an unbiased variance estimate in 1996 due to the absence of formulas for estimates derived from combining two-stage stratified random sampling and estimation by regression. Species Aralia nudicaulis Cornus canadensis Cornus stolonifera Fragaria virginiana Prunus pensylvanica Ribes lacustris Ribes sativum Rubus idaeus Rubus pubens Sambucus pudens Streptopus roseus Vaccinium angustifolium Rural < 0.1 7.8 69.0 2.1 0 0.2 0.2 14.4 0.2 5.2 0 0.8 Forest 0.3 2.7 65.2 1.7 < 0.1 9.7 0 20.0 < 0.1 0.1 < 0.1 0.2 Using only two-stage sampling in 1997, the statistical comparison indicated that the available biomass of fruits was greater in the rural (5.83 ± 0.02 kg ha-1 dry weight) than in the forest landscape (5.30 ± 0.02 kg ha -1 dry weight; Z = 7.54, P < 0.001). Discussion We estimated coyote density and availability of their main prey species in order to test our prediction of greater access in summer to animal prey for rural than for forest coyotes. Our density estimate for coyotes for the entire study area was imprecise due to the limited number of animals marked and recaptured and could be biased given the ©Écoscience Droit de visualisation personnel seulement. Ne pas reproduire ou redistribuer de façon électronique. For personnal viewing purpose only. Do not copy or electronically redistribute this article. 49 RICHER ET AL.: FOOD OF FOREST AND RURAL COYOTES greater vulnerability to trapping of immature coyotes (Sacks, Blejwas & Jaeger, 1999; Crête et al., 2001) and their propensity for dispersal (Harrison, 1992b). However, only 2 out 24 radio-tagged coyotes dispersed from the study area between 1994 and 1998, and our density estimate remained within the range of those measured with other methods in comparable landscapes (Messier, Barrette & Huot, 1986; Samson & Crête, 1997; O’Donoghue et al., 1997). We partitioned coyotes between landscapes using scat density in 1997 because the sampling period was too brief in 1996. Scat density was also much lower in the forest than in the rural landscape during the 1995 summer (Tremblay, Crête & Huot, 1998) whereas territory size covered larger areas in the forest (111 km2) than in the rural (48 km2) landscape between 1994 and 1998 (Crête et al., 2001). We conclude that coyote density in the rural landscape exceeded that in the forest landscape even if anthropogenic mortality factors tended to attenuate this difference (Crête et al., 2001). During both summers, coyotes fed mainly on wildberries, small mammals, and snowshoe hare. Forest coyotes were more frugivorous in 1996 and consumed comparable amounts of animal and vegetal food in 1997, during an irruption of deer mice (Bowman, Forbes & Dilworth, 2001; Figure 3). Our study was plagued by constraints imposed by the costs of field surveys. We had to use a case-study approach without replication for landscapes and to limit the annual sample size to 6-9 grids per landscape for the main prey. Hence, our estimates of prey availability were imprecise, yet we clearly detected the irruption of deer mice also noticed in adjacent northern New Brunswick (Bowman, Forbes & Dilworth, 2001).We correctly identified the major prey species of coyotes and estimated their biomass directly in the field. Clearly, the results do not support our prediction since the availability of animal food was greater in the forest than in the rural landscape (Figure 3). COYOTE FOOD HABITS Tremblay, Crête and Huot, (1998) also found that wildberries, small mammals, and snowshoe hares were the main food types consumed by coyotes during the second half of the summer in southeastern Québec. Fruits were the staple food of coyotes inhabiting more boreal habitats on the Gaspé peninsula in August (Samson & Crête, 1997) whereas hare was the main food of those living further south in Québec (Messier, Barrette & Huot, 1986). In 1995, coyotes of our study area consumed mainly small mammals in the rural landscape and wildberries in the forest landscape (Tremblay, Crête & Huot, 1998). During the summer of 1996, forest coyotes still concentrated their feeding on wildberries, but for the food items consumed by rural ones were imprecise due to inadequate sample size (6 scats). In 1997, both rural and forest coyotes made high use of fruits although forest coyotes consumed less fruit and more animal food as compared to 1996. In short, forest coyotes consumed high amounts of wildberries three years in a row, reducing their fruit consumption in 1997, whereas rural ones changed their food habits, the relative importance of small mammals and wildberries reversing in 1997 compared to 1995. The diminishing use of wildberries by forest coyotes between 1996 and 1997 is likely the consequence of 50 an increased density of deer mice and snowshoe hare in 1997 (Tables II and III; Bowman, Forbes & Dilworth, 2001). It is more difficult to explain the higher use of small mammals by rural coyotes in 1995 than in 1997 since we have no information about prey densities for the former year. Rural coyotes could have used more plant food in 1997 in response to a higher fruit production in 1997 than in 1995 since we know that fruits were abundant in the rural landscape in 1996 and 1997 (Table II). Our results illustrate the variability that characterises the foraging behaviour of coyotes and also the limitations of scat analysis for studying foraging ecology of carnivores, at best providing information on the relative importance of food items, but no information on absolute food intake. Unlike Tremblay, Crête and Huot (1998), we corrected the percentages of volume to take into account the variable digestibility of food items. This modification did not, however, change general trends. The high use of berries that we documented in 1997, i.e., 46% and 48% (percentage of food intake) of diet for rural and forest coyotes, respectively, is not unusual at the northeast fringe of the coyote range. In the same study area in 1995, Tremblay, Crête and Huot (1998) obtained comparable results, with fruits making up 25% and 43% (percentage of volume) of diet for rural and forest coyotes, respectively. Further to the north, berries represented 55% and 80% of the volume of coyote scats in boreal forests of the Gaspé peninsula in 1988 and 1991, respectively (Samson & Crête, 1997) whereas further south, in mixed hardwood-coniferous forests, berry volume was only 14% (Messier, Barrette & Huot, 1986). Elsewhere in North America, fruit consumption by coyotes remains generally low, at less than 1% of scat volume (reviewed by Samson & Crête, 1997) although occurrence in scats may substantially increase when blueberries become locally abundant (Harrison & Harrison, 1984). A low productivity in animal prey or a low vulnerability of prey to coyote predation could explain the high use of fruits in southeastern Québec. PREY AVAILABILITY Densities of snowshoe hares that we measured in the rural landscape were comparable to those observed during lows of cyclic populations in western Canada (Keith & Windberg, 1978; Krebs et al., 1986) and to the lowest population estimates in Maine and Nova Scotia (Litvaitis, 1984; Patterson, Benjamin & Messier, 1998). In the forest landscape, our hare densities exceeded those obtained in Maine and Nova Scotia but were in the range of hare densities in western Canada (Todd, Keith & Fisher, 1981) and Wisconsin (Keith, Bloomer & Willebrand, 1993). Cyclic populations in western Canada reach, however, much greater densities when at cycle peak (Keith & Windberg, 1978; Todd, Keith & Fisher, 1981; Litvaitis, 1984; Krebs et al., 1986; Keith, Bloomer & Willebrand, 1993; Boutin et al., 1995; Patterson, Benjamin & Messier, 1998; O’Donoghue et al., 1998). Hare density seems to exhibit more fluctuations in northwestern North America than in the northeast; this pattern might be related to climatic oscillations (Stenseth et al., 1999). Within our study area, the greater hare densities in forests compared to the rural landscape likely came from snowshoe hares’ requirement for dense cover (Ferron & Ouellet, 1992; Keith, Bloomer & ©Écoscience Droit de visualisation personnel seulement. Ne pas reproduire ou redistribuer de façon électronique. For personnal viewing purpose only. Do not copy or electronically redistribute this article. ÉCOSCIENCE, VOL. 9 (1), 2002 Willebrand, 1993; Cox, Garrott & Cary, 1997; Beaudoin, 2001.). Small mammal densities increased 5-fold in 1997 compared to 1996, with the increase occurring in all habitat types (Table III) and in both landscapes; this suggests a response to a factor operating at a regional scale, e.g., climate. Bowman, Forbes and Dilworth (2001) also observed an increase of the same magnitude in deer mice in 1997 in New Brunswick and speculated that exceptional mast production allowed reproduction during the previous winter. In general, our higher population estimates are comparable to small mammal densities observed in forests of Canada but lower than estimates made in forests of northern Europe or in old fields of the United States (Martell & Radvanyi, 1977; Anthony, Niles & Spring, 1981; Wegner & Merriam, 1990; Boutin et al., 1995; Jedrzejewski, Jedrzejewska & Szymura, 1995; Jedrzejewski & Jedrzejewka, 1996; Nupp & Swihart, 1996; Brooks, Smith & Healy, 1998; O’Donoghue et al., 1997, 1998; Sullivan et al., 1998a,b). Overall, densities of coyotes’ animal prey in southeastern Québec seem comparable to those of other areas in northern North America but are likely lower than those estimated for open habitats in areas further south (Harrison, 1992a; Parker, 1995).We expected to observe a greater availability of animal prey for coyotes in a rural landscape because the high productivity of ground vegetation in cultivated and abandoned fields should produce high densities of small mammals (Jedrzejewski & Jedrzejewska, 1996). The reverse occurred in both landscapes: open habitats in the forest (recent cuts: 652 kg per coyote) and in the rural landscape (cultivated and abandoned fields: 25 kg per coyote) provided less prey than did closed habitats in the forest (3,523 kg per coyote) and in the rural (314 kg per coyote) landscape (Richer, 2001). This suggests that animal prey receive better protection against predators in forested habitats than in relatively open habitats. C ARRYING CAPACITY FOR MEDIUM - SIZED AND SMALL CARNIVORES We failed to explain the lower body reserves of forest coyotes than rural coyotes during late summer (Poulle, Crête & Huot, 1995; Tremblay, Crête & Huot, 1998) by a lower availability of animal food. We anticipated a direct relationship between the presence of prey and their availability for coyotes, with similar vulnerability across habitat type and landscape. This assumption may not hold because, obviously, prey can occupy places where predators cannot reach them or can remain undetectable due to the vegetation (Abrams & Walters, 1996). Since openings cover proportionally a greater area in the rural than in the forest landscape, dense vegetation could reduce hunting efficiency of coyotes in the forest landscape. Access to farm carrion (Todd, 1985) could also explain the better nutritional condition of rural coyotes during summer. However, we detected only small amounts of bovid residues (6% of diet) in scats collected in the rural landscape; this prey item was not important for rural coyotes in 1995, either (Tremblay, Crête & Huot, 1998). Vegetation, as a spatial refuge, could play an important role in stabilising medium-sized and small carnivores/prey systems. For large herbivores, size and strength of prime adults make them practically invulnerable to predators (e.g., moose versus wolf), which concentrate their predator, foraging on young and old individuals (Peterson, 1977). This contributes to stabilising these systems since prime animals occupy temporal refuges due to their age (Hassell & May, 1973; Durant, 1998). Prey are generally smaller than predators for medium-sized carnivores (Carbone et al., 1999) and remain vulnerable to predation throughout their life. It is likely, however, that habitats exist where small mammalian prey are practically invulnerable. These habitats would act as spatial refuges (Abrams & Walters, 1996), stabilising the system and preventing local prey extinction. We propose that this situation prevails for coyotes in our study area in summer for prey occupying habitats with dense vegetation; we currently have evidence of such refuges for snowshoe hare (Beaudoin, 2001). Based on scat density, coyotes in our study area were more abundant in the rural than in the forest landscape, which suggests a larger carrying capacity for coyotes in the former landscape (but see Van Horne, 1983). In addition, rural coyotes had faster growth and larger body mass than did their forest counterparts during summer (Poulle, Crête & Huot, 1995; Tremblay, Crête & Huot, 1998). The presence of more open habitats in the rural landscape would explain the better performance, during summer, of coyotes occupying it. Competition with other carnivores might also be less in the rural landscape if coyotes can tolerate more proximity to humans than other carnivores can. It is difficult to test our research hypothesis through a static approach such as ours. We took an instant snapshot at the end of two summers, but the main prey we studied have several litters per summer and energy transfer from one trophic level to the other is continuous. Energy and protein transfer from herbivores to coyotes probably was greater in the rural than in the forest landscape, as evidenced by the tendency for greater coyote density (shown in this study), faster pup growth (Tremblay, Crête & Huot, 1998), and larger human harvest (Crête et al., 2001), even in the presence of a lower prey biomass. Our results on herbivore and carnivore biomass concur with the prediction of the exploitation ecosystems hypothesis (EEH), which supposes an instant energy transfer from inferior to superior trophic level (Oksanen et al., 1981). However, adequate testing of this prediction would require biomass estimates for all flying and terrestrial carnivores, in addition to those of small herbivores, because EEH deals with guilds, not species. Investigating intraguild competition among carnivores might cast some light on how energy and protein flow in terrestrial ecosystems of northeastern North America. Acknowledgements We thank N. Bergeron, D. Grenier, F. Boileau, N. Soucy, and C. Langlois for their help in the field, M. Salaté for scat analysis, N. Caron, H. Crépeau, and G. Daigle for statistical advice, and the Ministère des Ressources naturelles du Québec for supplying maps. This research project was supported by the Société de la faune et des parcs du Québec, Fonds pour la Formation des Chercheurs et l’Aide à la Recherche, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, Fondation de la Faune du Québec, and Fédération québécoise de la faune. S. Larivière, D. ©Écoscience Droit de visualisation personnel seulement. Ne pas reproduire ou redistribuer de façon électronique. For personnal viewing purpose only. Do not copy or electronically redistribute this article. 51 RICHER ET AL.: FOOD OF FOREST AND RURAL COYOTES Murray, and M. O’Donoghue kindly commented on an earlier draft of this manuscript. Literature cited Abrams, P. A. & C. J. Walters, 1996. Invulnerable prey and the paradox of enrichment. Ecology, 77: 1125-1133. Andelt, W. F., 1985. Behavioral ecology of coyotes in south Texas. Wildlife Monographs, 94: 1-45. Anthony, R. G., L. J. Niles & J. D. Spring, 1981. Small-mammal associations in forested and old-field habitats: A quantitative comparison. Ecology, 62: 955-963. Beaudoin, C., 2001. Modification de l’utilisation de l’espace et de la sélection de l’habitat chez le lièvre d’Amérique (Lepus americanus) en fonction du risque de prédation. M.Sc. thesis, Université Laval, Québec. Boutin, S., C. J. Krebs, R. Boonstra, M. R. T. Dale, S. J. Hannon, K. Martin, A. R. E. Sinclair, J. N. M. Smith, R. Turkington, M. Blower, A. Byrom, F. I. Doyle, C. Doyle, D. Hik, L. Hofer, A. Hubbs, T. Karels, D. M. Murray, V. Nams, M. O’Donoghue, C. Rohner & S. Schweiger, 1995. Population changes of the vertebrate community during a snowshoe hare cycle in Canada’s boreal forest. Oikos, 74: 69-80. Bowen, W. D., 1982. Home range and spatial organization of coyotes in Jasper National Park, Alberta. Journal of Wildlife Management, 46: 201-216. Bowman, J., G. J. Forbes & T. G. Dilworth, 2001. Spatial and temporal patterns of an irrupting population of deer mice. Journal of Mammalogy, 82: 567-572. Brooks, R. T., H. R. Smith & W. M. Healy, 1998. Small-mammal abundance at three elevations on a mountain in central Vermont, U.S.A.: A sixteen-year record. Forest Ecology and Management, 110: 181-193. Carbone, C., G. M. Mace, S. C. Roberts & D. W. Macdonald, 1999. Energetic constraints on the diet of terrestrial carnivores. Nature, 402: 286-288. Caron, N. 1998. Estimation de la biomasse de petits mammifères disponible aux coyotes dans les milieux forestier et agroforestier de l’est du Québec. M.Sc. thesis, Université Laval, Québec. Chambers, R. E., P. N. Gaskin, R. A. Post & S. A. Cameron, 1974. The Coyote. Conservationist, 29: 5-7. Chao, A., 1987. Estimating the population size for capture-recapture data with unequal catchability. Biometrics, 43: 783-791. Chapman, D. G., 1951. Some properties of the hypergeometric distribution with applications to zoological sample censuses. University of California Publications in Statistics, 1: 131-160. Cochran, W. G.,1977. Sampling Techniques, 3rd edition. John Wiley & Sons, New York. Cox, E. W., R. A. Garrott & J. R. Cary, 1997. Effect of supplemental cover on survival of snowshoe hares and cottontail rabbits in patchy habitat. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 75: 1357-1363. Crête, M. & A. Desrosiers, 1995. Range expansion of Coyotes, Canis latrans, threatens a remnant herd of Caribou, Rangifer tarandus, in southeastern Québec. Canadian Field-Naturalist, 109: 227-235. Crête, M., J.-P. Ouellet, J.-P. Tremblay & R. Arsenault, 2001. Suitability of forested landscapes for coyotes in north-east North America and its implications for coexistence with other carnivores. Écoscience, 8: 311-319. Dumond, M. & M.-A. Villard, 2000. Demography and body condition of coyotes (Canis latrans) in eastern New Brunswick. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 78: 399-406. 52 Dumont, A., M. Crête, J.-P. Ouellet, J. Huot & J. Lamoureux, 2000. Population dynamics of northern white-tailed deer during mild winters: Evidence of regulation by food competition. Canadian Journal Zoology, 78: 764-776. Durant, S. M, 1998. Competition refuges and coexistence: An example from Serengeti carnivores. Journal of Animal Ecology, 67: 370-386. Environment Canada, 1993. Canadian Climate Normals, 19611990. Québec. Canadian Climate Program, Ottawa, Ontario. Ferron, J. & J.-P. Ouellet, 1992. Daily partitioning of summer habitat and use of space by the snowshoe hare in southern boreal forest. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 70: 2178-2183. Georges, S., 1976. A range extension of the coyote in Québec. Canadian Field-Naturalist, 90: 78-79. Harrison, D. J, 1992a. Social ecology of coyotes in northeastern North America: relationships to dispersal, food resources, and human exploitation. Pages 52-55 in A. H. Boer (ed.). Ecology and Management of the Eastern Coyote. Wildlife Research Unit, University of New Brunswick, Fredericton, New Brunswick. Harrison, D. J, 1992b. Dispersal characteristics of juvenile coyotes in Maine. Journal of Wildlife Management, 56: 128-138. Harrison, D. J. & J. A. Harrison, 1984. Food of adult Maine coyotes and their known-aged pups. Journal of Wildlife Management, 48: 922-926. Harrison, D. J., J. A. Bissonette & J. A. Sherburne, 1989. Spatial relationships between coyotes and red foxes in eastern Maine. Journal of Wildlife Management, 53: 181-185. Hassell, M. P. & R. M. May, 1973. Stability in insect host-parasite models. Journal of Animal Ecology, 42: 693-725. Hein, E. W. & W. F. Andelt, 1995. Estimating coyote density from mark-resight surveys. Journal of Wildlife Management, 59: 164-169. Hewitt, D. G. & C. T. Robbins, 1996. Estimating grizzly bear food habits from fecal analysis. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 24: 547-550. Jedrzejewski, W. & B. Jedrzejewska, 1996. Rodent cycles in relation to biomass and productivity of ground vegetation and predation in the Palearctic. Acta Theriologica, 41: 1-34. Jedrzejewski, W., B. Jedrzejewska & L. Szymura, 1995. Weasel population response, home range, and predation on rodents in a deciduous forest in Poland. Ecology, 76: 179-195. Keith, L. B. & L. A. Windberg, 1978. A demographic analysis of the snowshoe hare cycle. Wildlife Monographs, 58: 1-70. Keith, L. B., S. E. M. Bloomer & T. Willebrand, 1993. Dynamics of a snowshoe hare population in fragmented habitat. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 71: 1385-1392. Kelly, B. T. & E. O. Garton, 1997. Effects of prey size, meal size, meal composition, and daily frequency of feeding on the recovery of rodent remains from carnivore scats. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 75: 1811-1817. Krebs, C. J., B. S. Gilbert, S. Boutin, A. R. E. Sinclair & J. N. M. Smith, 1986. Population biology of snowshoe hares. I. Demography of food-supplemented populations in the southern Yukon, 1976-84. Journal of Animal Ecology, 55: 963-982. Lamoureux, J. 1997. Bilan de la reprise de la chasse au cerf de Virginie dans la zone de chasse 2. Direction régionale du BasSaint-Laurent et de la Gaspésie, Ministère de l’Environnement et de la Faune du Québec, Rimouski, Québec. Lamoureux. J. & A. Pelletier, 1998. Inventaire aérien de l’orignal dans la zone de chasse 2 à l’hiver 1997. Pages 13-23 in S. StOnge, R. Courtois & D. Banville, D. (ed). Rapport annuel des inventaires aériens de l’orignal – 1997: Service de la faune terrestre, Direction de la faune et des habitats, Ministère de l’Environnement et de la Faune du Québec, Québec, Report 3951-98-08. ©Écoscience Droit de visualisation personnel seulement. Ne pas reproduire ou redistribuer de façon électronique. For personnal viewing purpose only. Do not copy or electronically redistribute this article. ÉCOSCIENCE, VOL. 9 (1), 2002 Larivière, S. & M. Crête, 1993. The size of eastern coyotes (Canis latrans): A comment. Journal of Mammalogy, 74: 1072-1074. Larivière, S., M. Crête, J. Huot, R. Patenaude, C. Price & D. W. Thomas, 2001. Influence of food shortage during the summer on body composition and reproductive hormones in the red fox, Vulpes vulpes. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 79: 471-477. Lee, D. S. & J. B. Funderburg, 1983. Marmots (Marmota monax and Allies). Pages 176-191 in J. A. Chapman & G. A. Feldhamer (ed).Wild Mammals of North America: Biology, Management, and Economics. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland. Lefebvre, C., M. Crête, J. Huot, R. Patenaude & C. Price, 1999. Annual variation of body composition, reproductive hormones and blood constituents of red foxes. Journal of Mammalogy, 80: 1163-1172. Litvaitis, J. A., 1984. Bobcat movements in relation to prey density. Ph.D. thesis, University of Maine, Orono, Maine. Litvaitis, J. A. & D. J. Harrison, 1989. Bobcat-coyote niche relationships during a period of coyote population increase. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 67: 1180-1188. Marie-Victorin, 1995. Flore laurentienne. 3rd edition. Les Presses de l’Université de Montréal, Montréal, Québec. Martell, A. M. & A. Radvanyi, 1977. Changes in small mammal populations after clearcutting of northern Ontario black spruce forest. Canadian Field-Naturalist, 91: 41-46. McCay, T. S., J. Laerm, M. A. Menzel & W. M. Ford, 1998. Methods used to survey shrews (Insectivora: Soricidae) and the importance of forest-floor structure. Brimleyana, 25: 110-119. Messier, F. & C. Barrette, 1982. The social system of the coyote (Canis latrans) in a forested habitat. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 60: 1743-1753. Messier, F., C. Barrette & J. Huot, 1986. Coyote predation on a white-tailed deer population in southern Quebec. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 64: 1134-1136. Moore, G. C. & G. R. Parker, 1992. Colonization by the eastern coyote. Pages 23-37 in A. H. Boer (ed.). Ecology and Management of the Eastern Coyote.Wildlife Research Unit, University of New Brunswick, Fredericton, New Brunswick. Nowak, R. M., 1979. North American Quaternary Canis. Monograph of the Museum of Natural History, The University of Kansas, 6: 1-154. Nupp, T. E. & R. K. Swihart, 1996. Effect of forest patch area on population attributes of white-footed mice (Peromyscus leucopus) in fragmented landscapes. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 74: 467-472. O’Donoghue, M., S. Boutin, C. J. Krebs & E. J. Hofer, 1997. Numerical responses of coyotes and lynx to the snowshoe hare cycle. Oikos, 80: 150-162. O’Donoghue, M., S. Boutin, C. J. Krebs, D. L. Murray & E. J. Hofer, 1998. Behavioural responses of coyotes and lynx to the snowshoe hare cycle. Oikos, 82: 169-183. Oksanen, L., S. D. Fretwell, J. Arruda & P. Niemalä, 1981. Exploitation ecosystems in gradients of primary productivity. American Naturalist, 118: 240-261. Parker, G. R. 1995. Eastern Coyote: The Story of its Success. Nimbus Publishing Ltd, Halifax, Nova Scotia. Patterson, B. R., L. K. Benjamin & F. Messier, 1998. Prey switching and feeding habits of eastern coyotes in relation to snowshoe hare and white-tailed deer densities. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 76: 1885-1897. Person, D. K., 1988. Home range, activity, habitat use, and food habits of eastern coyotes in the Champlain Valley region of Vermont. M.Sc. thesis, University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont. Person, D. K. & D. H. Hirth, 1991. Home range and habitat use of coyotes in a farm region of Vermont. Journal of Wildlife Management, 55: 433-441. Peterson, R. O., 1977. Wolf ecology and prey relationships on Isle Royale. National Park Service, Scientific Monograph Series Number 11: 1-210. Piérard, J., 1975. Découvrir les mammifères. Presses de l’Université de Montréal, Montréal, Québec. Poulle, M.-L., M. Crête & J. Huot, 1995. Seasonal variation in body mass and composition of eastern coyotes. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 73: 1625-1633. Poulle, M.-L., M. Crête, J. Huot & R. Lemieux, 1993. Prédation exercée par le coyote, Canis latrans, sur le Cerf de Virginie, Odocoileus virginianus, dans un ravage en déclin de l’Est du Québec. Canadian Field-Naturalist, 107: 177-185. Power, M. E., 1992. Top-down and bottom-up forces in food webs: Do plants have primacy? Ecology, 73: 733-746. Pyrah, D., 1984. Social distribution and population estimates of coyotes in north-central Montana. Journal of Wildlife Management, 48: 679-690. Richer, M.-C., 2000. Évaluation des ressources alimentaires estivales des coyotes (Canis latrans) du Sud-Est du Québec. M.Sc. thesis, Université du Québec à Rimouski, Rimouski, Québec. Rowe, J. S., 1972. Forest regions of Canada. Department of the Environment, Canadian Forestry Service. Publication no. 1300, Ottawa, Ontario. Sacks, B. N., K. M. Blejwas & M. M. Jaeger, 1999. Relative vulnerability of coyotes to removal methods on a northern California ranch. Journal of Wildlife Management, 63: 939-949. Samson, C. & M. Crête, 1997. Summer food habits and population density of coyotes, Canis latrans, in boreal forests of southeastern Québec. Canadian Field-Naturalist, 111: 227-233. SAS Institute Inc., 1988. SAS/STAT User’s guide. Release 6.03. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, North Carolina. Seber, G. A. F., 1982. The Estimation of Animal Abundance and Related Parameters. 2nd ed. Griffin, London. Scherrer, B., 1984. Biostatistique. Gaétan Morin Éditeur, Boucherville, Québec. Sokal, R. R. & F. J. Rohlf, 1981. Biometry, 2nd ed. Freeman, New York. Stenseth, N. C., K. S. Chan, H. Tong, R. Boonstra, S. Boutin, C. J. Krebs, E. Post, M. O’Donoghue, N. G. Yoccoz, M. C. Forchhammer & J. W. Hurrell, 1999. Common dynamic structure of Canada lynx populations within three climatic regions. Science, 285: 1071-1073. Sullivan, T. P., D. S. Sullivan, E. J. Hogue, R. A. Lautenschlager & R. G. Wagner, 1998a. Population dynamics of small mammals in relation to vegetation management in orchard agroecosystems: compensatory responses in abundance and biomass. Crop Protection, 17: 1-11. Sullivan, T. P., C. Nowotny, R. A. Lautenschlager & R. G. Wagner, 1998b. Silvicultural use of herbicide in sub-boreal spruce forest: Implications for small mammal population dynamics. Journal of Wildlife Management, 62: 1196-1206. Thurber, J. M. & R. O. Peterson, 1991. Changes in body size associated with range expansion in the coyote (Canis latrans). Journal of Mammalogy, 72: 750-755. Todd, A. W., 1985. Demographic and dietary comparisons of forest and farmland coyote, Canis latrans, populations in Alberta. Canadian Field-Naturalist, 99: 163-171. Todd, A. W., L. B. Keith & C. A. Fischer, 1981. Population ecology of coyotes during a fluctuation of snowshoe hares. Journal of Wildlife Management, 45: 629-640. ©Écoscience Droit de visualisation personnel seulement. Ne pas reproduire ou redistribuer de façon électronique. For personnal viewing purpose only. Do not copy or electronically redistribute this article. 53 RICHER ET AL.: FOOD OF FOREST AND RURAL COYOTES Tremblay, J.-P., M. Crête & J. Huot, 1998. Summer foraging behaviour of eastern coyotes in rural versus forest landscape: A possible mechanism of source-sink dynamics. Écoscience, 5: 172-182. Van Horne, B., 1983. Density as a misleading indicator of habitat quality. Journal of Wildlife Management, 47: 893-901. Wegner, J. & G. Merriam, 1990. Use of spatial elements in a farmland mosaic by a woodland rodent. Biological Conservation, 54: 263-276. 54 Wells, M. C. & M. Bekoff, 1982. Predation by wild coyotes: Behavioral and ecological analyses. Journal of Mammalogy, 63: 118-127. Wilson, D. J., C. J. Krebs & A. R. E. Sinclair, 1999. Limitation of collared lemming populations during population cycle. Oikos, 87: 382-398. Young, S. P. & H. H. T. Jackson, 1951. The Clever Coyote. The Stackpole Co., Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. ©Écoscience Droit de visualisation personnel seulement. Ne pas reproduire ou redistribuer de façon électronique. For personnal viewing purpose only. Do not copy or electronically redistribute this article.