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
Diet and Feeding Ecology of Coyotes in Western Virginia By David Montague Historic Range Historic Range – circa 1900 Eastern Range Expansion Current Range: 2011 Are they different? Western Coyote: Eastern Coyote: Potential hybridization? Photo: Joseph Hinton What We Know • Extremely adaptable! • Expanding in range and population • Increasing concerns for human-coyote conflicts • Few studies in the eastern U.S. relative to west • No large-scale studies of coyotes in Virginia Unknown in Virginia: • Population density and abundance Unknown in Virginia: • Population density and abundance • Diet Unknown in Virginia: • Population density and abundance • Diet • Interaction with other predators Unknown in Virginia: • • • • Population density and abundance Diet Interaction with other predators Effect on prey species Unknown in Virginia: • • • • • Population density and abundance Diet Interaction with other predators Effect on prey species Disease ecology Unknown in Virginia: • • • • • • Population density and abundance Diet Interaction with other predators Effect on prey species Disease ecology Habitat use and movement Unknown in Virginia: • • • • • • • Population density and abundance Diet Interaction with other predators Effect on prey species Disease ecology Habitat use and movement Home range size and territoriality Unknown in Virginia: • • • • • • • Population density and abundance Diet Interaction with other predators Effect on prey species Disease Ecology Habitat use and movement Home range size and territoriality Study Area Counties of: Augusta Bath Highland Rockingham Land Ownership: George Washington NF Little North Mtn WMA Highland WMA Warms Springs Mtn Preserve (TNC) Private Land Study Area Reasons: • Early coyote establishment • Perceived lower deer density • Possibility for additive mortality? Objective 1: Determine seasonal dietary patterns of coyotes and black bears in western Virginia and assess the potential for interspecific competition in the predation of white-tailed deer. Methods for Objective 1: • Scat collection! • Transects on dirt roads and trails • Range of habitats including forest and agricultural • Monthly visits to transects • Total: 80 km of transect • Scat ID by morphology and DNA Methods for Objective 1: • Lab procedures: – Air dry for storage – Soak and wash through a series of sieves – Dissect for hair, teeth, bones, claws, seeds, etc. Objective 1 Data Analysis: • Techniques following Lemons et al. (2010) • Scat contents treated as detection/nonID detection 16 17 • Occupancy format • Modeled in Programs 18 MARK and PRESENCE Deer Veg Mammal Bird Other 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 Objective 2: Estimate density of prey species in western Virginia and relate prey density to rate of predation by coyotes. Potential Prey: Based on the literature… Common prey: – – – – Small mammals Soft mast Deer Mid-sized mammals Less common prey: – – – – Insects Birds/eggs Livestock Crops Potential Prey: Based on the literature… Common prey: – – – – Small mammals Soft mast Deer Mid-sized mammals Less common prey: – – – – Insects Birds/eggs Livestock Crops Varies considerably!!! Small Mammals Small Mammals • Capture, markrecapture • Trapping with Sherman live traps • Mark with ear tags • Compare habitats/sites • Four trap sessions per year • 5 days per session Small Mammals 8 8 10 m Soft Mast Soft Mast • Sampling for % cover and % mast production • 200 meter permanent, lineintercept transects • Monthly visits May – October White-tailed Deer White-tailed Deer • Distance sampling • Forward Looking Infrared (FLIR) – Nighttime sampling – Increased detections – May reduce flushing © 2011 FLIR Systems. White-tailed Deer • Distance sampling • Forward Looking Infrared (FLIR) – Nighttime sampling – Increased detections – May reduce flushing © 2011 FLIR Systems. Photo: Daryl Ratajczak Mid-sized Mammals • Remote camera trapping • Determines habitat use, not population density Objective 2 Data Analysis: • Small mammals – Program MARK – Covariates: habitat, season, succession, etc. • Soft mast • Deer – Program DISTANCE – Must have minimum number of detections • Mid-sized mammals – Program MARK or PRESENCE – Detection/non-detection format Objective 3: Determine the seasonal prevalence of intestinal parasites of coyotes in western Virginia and the relationship between parasite burden and diet. Objective 3 Methods: Field Methods: – Scat collection along diet transects – One week intervals – 4 times per year © CDC Image Library Lab Methods: – Fecal flotation Data Analysis: – Modeled in MARK like diet – Parasite species richness – Prevalence – Comparisons with diet, sex, habitat, site, etc. Expected Outcomes • Mitigation of human-coyote conflicts – Additive deer mortality? – Livestock depredations • Improved management of coyotes and prey • Better understanding of habitat treatment effects on coyotes and prey • Prevention of zoonotic and epizootic events Potential Challenges • Too much scat!!! – Requires subsampling • Misidentification of scats • Problems with genetic ID • Poor correlation of scat location and habitat use • Parasite sample contamination from environment Acknowledgements Committee: Dr. Marcella Kelly Dr. Jim Parkhurst Dr. Kathy Alexander Dr. Anne Zajac Mike Fies (VDGIF) Special thanks: Dr. Carol Croy (USFS) Marek Smith (TNC) Chad Fox (APHIS) Lauren Mastro (APHIS) Dr. Lisette Waits WHAPA Lab Questions? + =