An individual-based model of canid populations: Modelling territoriality and social structure

Ecological Modelling

Volumn 166, Issue 1-2, 2003, Pages 109-121

  Pitt, William C ^a   Box, Paul W ^b   Knowlton, Frederick F ^b  

^a NATIONAL WILDLIFE RESEARCH CENTER   (United States)

^b UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Behaviour; Canid; Coyote; Individual based model; Object oriented; Social structure; Swarm; Territoriality

Indexed keywords

BEHAVIOR; CANID; INDIVIDUAL-BASED MODEL; POPULATION MODELING; SOCIAL ORGANIZATION; TERRITORIALITY; WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT;

ANIMALIA; CANIDAE; CANIS LATRANS;

EID: 0346816523     PISSN: 03043800     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0304-3800(03)00130-3     Document Type: Article

References (88)

1. Andelt, W.F., 1985. Behavioral ecology of coyotes in south Texas. Wildl. Monogr. 49, 1-45.
2. Anderson, D.R., Link, W.A., Johnson, D.H., Burnham, K.P., 2001. Suggestions for presenting the results of data analyses. J. Wildl. Manage. 65, 373-378.
3. Artois, M., Langlais, M., Suppo, C., 1997. Simulation of rabies control within an increasing fox population. Ecol. Model. 97, 23-34.
4. Bart, J., 1995. Acceptance criteria for using individual-based models to make management decisions. Ecol. Appl. 5, 411-420.
5. Bodenchuk, M.R., Mason, J.R., Pitt, W.C., 2002. Economics of predation management in relation to agriculture, wildlife, and human health and safety. In: Clark, L. (Ed.), Human Conflicts with Wildlife: Economic Considerations. Proceedings of the Third Species Symposium. National Wildlife Research Center, Fort Collins, CO, pp. 80-90.
6. Camenzind, F.J., 1978. Behavioural ecology of coyotes on the National Elk Refuge, Jackson, Wyoming. In: Beckhoff, M. (Ed.), Coyotes: Biology, Behavior, and Management. Academic Press, New York, pp. 267-294.
7. Carnahan, J., Li, S., Costantini, C., Toure, Y.T., Taylor, C.E., 1997. Computer simulation of dispersal by Anopheles gambiae s.l. in West Africa. In: Artificial Life V: Proceedings of the Fifth International Workshop on the Synthesis and Simulation of Living Systems. MIT Press, Boston, pp. 387-394.
8. Carroll, J.E., Lamberson, R.H., Roe, S., 1995. Sinks, sources, and spotted owls: a territorial population model with continuous mortality and discrete birth. Math. Biosci. 129, 169-188.
9. Clark, F.W., 1972. Influence of jackrabbit density on coyote population change. J. Wildl. Manage. 36, 343-356.
10. Connolly, G.E., 1978. Predator control and coyote populations: a review of simulation models. In: Beckhoff, M. (Ed.), Coyotes: Biology, Behavior, and Management. Academic Press, New York, pp. 327-345.
11. Connolly, G.E., Longhurst, W.M., 1975. The effects of control on coyote populations: a simulation model. Div. Agric. Sci. Bull. University of Calif., Berkeley 1872, 37.
12. Crabtree, R.L., 1988. Sociodemography of an unexploited coyote population. Ph.D. Thesis. University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho.
13. Davison, R.P., 1980. The effect of exploitation on some parameters of coyote populations. Ph.D. Thesis. Utah State University, Logan, Utah.
14. Deadman, P.J., 1999. Modelling individual behaviour and group performance in an intelligent agent-based simulation of the tragedy of the commons. J. Environ. Manage. 56, 159-172.
15. Fahse, L., Wissel, C., Grimm, V., 1998. Reconciling classical and individual-based approaches in theoretical population ecology: a protocol for extracting population parameters from individual-based models. Am. Nat. 152, 838-852.
16. Fretwell, S.D., 1972. Populations in a Seasonal Environment. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, p. 217.
17. Fretwell, S.D., Lucas, H.J., 1970. On territorial behaviour and other factors influencing habitat distribution in birds. Acta Biotheor. 19, 16-36.
18. Gardner, R.H., Huff, D.D., O'Neil, R.V., Mankin, J.B., Carney, J., Jones, J., 1980. Application of error analysis to a marsh hydrology model. Water Resour. Res. 16, 659-664.
19. Gardner, R.H., O'Neil, R.V., Mankin, J.B., Carney, J.H., 1981. A comparison of sensitivity analysis and error analysis based on a stream ecosystem model. Ecol. Model. 12, 173-190.
20. Gese, E.M., 2001. Territorial defense by coyotes (Canis latrans) in Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming: who, how, where, when, and why. Can. J. Zool. 79, 980-987.
21. Gese, E.M., Rongstad, O.J., Mytton, W.R., 1988. Relationship between coyote group size and diet in southeastern Colorado. J. Wildl. Manage. 52, 647-653.
22. Gese, E.M., Rongstad, O.J., Mytton, W.R., 1989. Population dynamics of coyotes in southeastern Colorado. J. Wildl. Manage. 53, 174-181.
23. Gese, E.M., Ruff, R.L., Crabtree, R.L., 1996a. Social and nutritional factors influencing the dispersal of resident coyotes. Anim. Behav. 52, 1025-1043.
24. Gese, E.M., Ruff, R.L., Crabtree, R.L., 1996b. Foraging ecology of coyotes (Canis latrans): the influence of extrinsic factors and a dominance hierarchy. Can. J. Zool. 74, 769-783.
25. Gier, J.T., 1968. Coyotes of Kansas. Kansas Agric. Exp. Station Bull. 393, 118.
26. Goss-Custard, J.D., 1980. Competition for food and interference amongst waders. Ardea 68, 31-52.
27. Green, J.S., Knowlton, F.F., Pitt, W.C., 2002. Reproductive patterns among captive wild-caught coyotes (Canis latrans). J. Mammal. 83, 501-506.
28. Grimm, V., 1994. Mathematical models and understanding in ecology. Ecol. Model. 75/76, 641-651.
29. Grimm, V., 1999. Ten years of individual-based modelling in ecology: what have we learned and what could we learn in the future? Ecol. Model. 115, 129-148.
30. Grimm, V., Frank, K., Jeltsch, F., Brandl, R., Uchmanski, J., Wissel, C., 1996. Pattern-oriented modelling in population ecology. Sci. Total Environ. 183, 151-166.
31. Gurney, W.S.C., Nisbet, R.M., 1979. Ecological stability and social hierarchy. Theor. Popul. Biol. 14, 48-80.
32. Haight, R.G., Mech, L.D., 1997. Computer simulation of vasectomy for wolf control. J. Wildl. Manage. 61, 1023-1031.
33. Haight, R.G., Mladenoff, D.J., Wydeven, A.P., 1998. Modeling disjunct gray wolf populations in semi-wild landscapes. Conserv. Biol. 12, 879-888.
34. Haight, R.G., Travis, L.E., Nimerfro, K., Mech, L.D., 2002. Computer simulation of wolf-removal strategies for animal damage control. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 30, 844-852.
35. Hallett, D.L., 1977. Post-natal mortality, movements, and den sites of Missouri Coyotes. M.S. Thesis. University of Missouri, Columbia.
36. Hassell, M.P., May, R.M., 1985. From individual behaviour to population dynamics. In: Sibly, R.M., Smith, R.H. (Eds.), Behavioural Ecology: Ecological Consequences of Adaptive Behaviour. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford, pp. 3-32.
37. Hendry, R., Bacon, P.J., Moss, R., Palmer, S.C.F., McGlade, J., 1997. A two-dimensional individual-based model of territorial behavior: possible population consequences of kinship in red grouse. Ecol. Model. 105, 23-97.
38. Humphries, S., Ruxton, G.D., van der Meer, J., 2001. Unequal competitor ideal free distributions: predictions for differential effects of interference between habitats. J. Anim. Ecol. 70, 1062-1069.
39. Jean, Y., Bergeron, J.M., 1984. Productivity of coyotes (Canis latrans) from southern Quebec. Can. J. Zool. 62, 2240-2243.
40. Jensen, A.L., Miller, D.H., 2001. Age structured predation model for the dynamics of wolf and deer populations. Ecol. Model. 141, 299-305.
41. Kitchen, A.M., Gese, E.M., Schauster, E.R., 2000. Long-term spatial stability of coyote (Canis latrans) home ranges in southeastern Colorado. Can. J. Zool. 78, 458-464.
42. Knowlton, F.F., 1972. Preliminary interpretations of coyote population mechanics with some management implications. J. Wildl. Manage. 36, 369-382.
43. Knowlton, F.F., Stoddart, L.C., 1983. Coyote population mechanics: another look. In: Bunnell, F.L., Eastman, D.S., Peek, J.M. (Eds.), Symposium on Natural Regulation of Wildlife Populations, vol. 14. University of ID, Moscow. Idaho, Forest, Wildlife and Range Experiment Station, pp. 93-111.
44. Knowlton, F.F., Gese, E.M., Jaeger, M.M., 1999. Coyote depredation control: an interface between biology and management. J. Range Manage. 52, 398-412.
45. Knudsen, J.J., 1976. Demographic analysis of a Utah-Idaho coyote population. M.S. Thesis. Logan, Utah.
46. Korzukhin, M.D., Porter, S.D., 1994. Spatial model of territorial competition and population dynamics in the fire ant Solenopsis invicta (hymenoptera: formicidae). Popul. Ecol. 23, 912-922.
47. Łomnicki, A., 1978. Individual differences between animals and the natural regulation of their numbers. J. Anim. Ecol. 47, 461-475.
48. Łomnicki, A., 1980. Regulation of population density due to individual differences and patchy environment. Oikos 35, 185-193.
49. Łomnicki, A., 1992. Population ecology from the individual perspective. In: DeAngelis, D.L., Gross, L.J. (Eds.), Individual-based Models and Approaches in Ecology: Populations, Communities, and Ecosystems. Chapman & Hall, New York, pp. 3-17.
50. Łomnicki, A., 1999. Individual-based models and the individual-based approach to population ecology. Ecol. Model. 115, 191-198.
51. Matthiopoulus, J., Moss, R., Lambin, X., 1998. Models of red grouse cycles. A family affair? Oikos 82, 574-590.
52. McCauley, E., Wilson, W.G., de Roos, A.M., 1993. Dynamics of age-structured and spatially structured predator-prey interactions: individual-based models and population-level formulations. Am. Nat. 142, 412-442.
53. Miller, D.H., Jensen, A.L., Hammill, J.H., 2002. Density dependent matrix model for gray wolf population projection. Ecol. Model. 151, 271-278.
54. Mills, L.S., Knowlton, F.F., 1991. Coyote space use in relation to prey abundance. Can. J. Zool. 69, 1516-1521.
55. Moore, G.C., 1981. A comparative study of colonizing and longer established eastern coyote (Canis latrans) populations. M.S. Thesis. University of Western Ontario, London, Ont.
56. Murray, D.L., Kapke, C.A., Everman, J.J., Fuller, T.K., 1999. Infectious diseases and the conservation of free-ranging large carnivores. Anim. Conserv. 2, 241-254.
57. Nellis, C.H., Keith, L.B., 1976. Population dynamics of coyotes in central Alberta. J. Wildl. Manage. 40, 389-399.
58. Patterson, B.R., Messier, F., 2001. Social organization and space use of coyotes in eastern Canada relative to prey distribution and abundance. J. Mammal. 82, 463-477.
59. Pitt, W.C., Knowlton, F.F., Ogawa, A., Box, P.W., 2000. Evaluation of depredation management techniques for territorial animals using a computer model: coyotes as a case study. In: Salmon, T.P., Crabb, A.C. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 19th Vertebrate Pest Control Conference. University of California, Davis, CA, pp. 315-318.
60. Pitt, W.C., Knowlton, F.F., Box, P.W., 2001a. A new approach to understanding canid populations using an individual-based computer model. Endangered Species Update 18, 103-106.
61. Pitt, W.C., Ogawa, A., Knowlton, F.F., Box, P.W., 2001b. Evaluating the effects of management on territorial animals using Swarm. In: Pitt, W.C. (Ed.), Swarm User Group Conference Proceedings. S.J. and Jessie E. Quinney Natural Resources Research Library, Logan, UT, pp. 36-40.
62. Pulliam, H.R., 1988. Sources, sinks, and population regulation. Am. Nat. 132, 652-661.
63. Pyrah, D., 1984. Social distribution and population estimates of coyotes in north-central Montana. J. Wildl. Manage. 48, 679-690.
64. Railsback, S.F., 2001. Concepts from complex adaptive systems as a framework for individual-based modeling. Ecol. Model. 139, 47-62.
65. Railsback, S.F., Lamberson, R.H., Harvey, B.C., Duffy, W.E., 1999. Movement rules for individual-based models of stream fish. Ecol. Model. 123, 73-89.
66. Rohner, C., 1996. The numerical response of great homed owls to the snowshoe hare cycle: consequences of non-territorial 'floaters' on demography. J. Anim. Ecol. 65, 359-370.
67. Sayles, N.D., 1984. The effect of nutrition on maternal behavior among captive coyotes. M.S. Thesis. Utah State University, Logan, Utah.
68. Schoener, T.W., 1973. Population growth regulated by intraspecific competition for energy or time: some simple representations. Theor. Popul. Biol. 4, 56-84.
69. Sillero-Zubiri, C., Gotelli, D., 1995. Spatial organization in the Ethiopian wolves Canis simensis: large packs and small stable home ranges. J. Zool. (Lond.) 237, 65-81.
70. Swarm Development Group (SDG), 2001. The Swarm simulation system. In: Pitt, W.C. (Ed.), Swarm 2000 Conference Proceedings. S.J. and Jessie E. Quinney Natural Resources Research Library, Logan, Utah, pp. 1-10.
71. Stephens, P.A., Frey-Roos, F., Arnold, W., Sutherland, W.J., 2002. Model complexity and population predictions. The alpine marmot as a case study. J. Anim. Ecol. 71, 343-361.
72. Sterling, B., Conley, W., Conley, M.R., 1983. Simulations of demographic compensation in coyote populations. J. Wildl. Manage. 47, 1177-1181.
73. Stoddart, L.C., Griffiths, R.E., Knowlton, F.F., 2001. Coyote responses to changing jackrabbit abundance affect sheep predation. J. Range Manage. 54, 15-20.
74. Sutherland, W.J., Parker, G.A., 1985. Distribution of unequal competitors. In: Sibly, R.M., Smith, R.H. (Eds.), Behavioural Ecology: Ecological Consequences of Adaptive Behaviour. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford, pp. 255-274.
75. Swartzman, G.L., Kaluzny, S.P., 1987. Ecological Simulation Primer. MacMillan, New York.
76. Till, J.A., 1982. Efficacy of Denning in alleviating coyote depredations upon domestic sheep. M.S. Thesis. Logan, UT.
77. Todd, A.W., Keith, L.B., Fisher, C.A., 1981. Population ecology of coyotes during a fluctuation of snowshoe hares. J. Wildl. Manage. 45, 629-640.
78. Tregenza, T., 1995. Building on the ideal free distribution. Adv. Ecol. Res. 26, 253-307.
79. Uchmanski, J., Grimm, V., 1996. Individual-based modelling in ecology: what makes the difference? Trends Ecol. Evol. 11, 437-441.
80. Van Winkle, W., Jager, H.I., Railsback, S.F., Holcomb, B.D., Studley, T.K., Baldrige, J.E., 1998. Individual-based model of sympatric populations of brown and rainbow trout for instream flow assessment: model description and calibration. Ecol. Model. 110, 175-207.
81. Venables, W.N., Ripley, B., 1997. Modern Applied Statistics with S-PLUS. Statistics and Computing, 2nd ed. Springer, NY.
82. Vucetich, J.A., Creel, S., 1999. Ecological interactions, social organization, and extinction risk in African wild dogs. Conserv. Biol. 13, 1172-1182.
83. Vucetich, J.A., Peterson, R.O., Waite, T.A., 1997. Effects of social structure and prey dynamics on extinction risk in gray wolves. Conserv. Biol. 11, 957-965.
84. Windberg, L.A., 1995. Demography of a high-density coyote population. Can. J. Zool. 73, 942-954.
85. Windberg, L.A., Knowlton, F.F., 1988. Management implications of coyote spacing patterns in southern Texas. J. Wildl. Manage. 52, 632-640.
86. Windberg, L.A., Anderson, H.L., Engeman, R.M., 1985. Survival of coyotes in southern Texas. J. Wildl. Manage. 49, 301-307.
87. Zar, J.H., 1999. Biostatistical Analysis, 4th ed. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, p. 663.
88. Zarnoch, S.J., Turner, B.J., 1974. A computer simulation model for the study of wolf-moose population dynamics. J. Environ. Syst. 4, 39-51.