Cameras, coyotes, and the assumption of equal detectability

Journal of Wildlife Management

Volumn 71, Issue 5, 2007, Pages 1682-1689

  Larrucea, Eveline Séquin ^a   Brussard, Peter F ^a   Jaeger, Michael M ^b,c   Barrett, Reginald H ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA   (United States)

^b NATIONAL WILDLIFE RESEARCH CENTER   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Activity pattern; Camera; Canis latrans; Census; Coyote; Infrared triggered; Photograph; Sampling

Indexed keywords

ACTIVITY PATTERN; ADULT; CANID; DETECTION METHOD; DISPERSAL; ENVIRONMENTAL FACTOR; PHOTOGRAPHY; SOCIAL STATUS; WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT;

ANIMALIA; CANIS LATRANS;

EID: 38549143625     PISSN: 0022541X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2193/2006-407     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Allen, S. H., J. O. Hastings, and S. C. Kohn. 1987. Composition and stability of coyote families and territories in ND. Prairie Naturalist 19:107-114.
2. Bekoff, M., and M. C. Wells. 1986. Social ecology and behavior of coyotes. Advanced Study of Behavior 16:251-338.
3. Bull, E. L., R. S. Holthausen, and L. R. Bright. 1992. Comparison of three techniques to monitor marten. Wildlife Society Bulletin 20:406-410.
4. Cutler, T. L., and D. E. Swann. 1999. Using remote photography in wildlife ecology: a review. Wildlife Society Bulletin 27:571-581.
5. Franzreb, K. E., and J. L. Hanula. 1995. Evaluation of photographic devices to determine nestling diet of the endangered red-cockaded woodpecker. Journal of Field Ornithology 66:253-259.
6. Gese, E. M., and R. L. Ruff. 1997. Scentmarking by coyotes, Canis latrans: the influence of social and ecological factors. Animal Behavior 54:1155-1166.
7. Gese, E. M., and R. L. Ruff. 1998. Howling by coyotes (Canis latrans): variation among social classes, seasons, and pack sizes. Canadian Journal of Zoology 76:1037-1043.
8. Gese, E. M., R. L. Ruff, and R. L. Crabtree. 1996a. Social and nutritional factors influencing the dispersal of resident coyotes. Animal Behavior 52:1025-1043.
9. Gese, E. M., R. L. Ruff, and R. L. Crabtree. 1996b. Foraging ecology of coyotes (Canis latrans): the influence of extrinsic factors and a dominance hierarchy. Canadian Journal of Zoology 74:769-783.
10. Harris, C. E. 1983. Differential behavior of coyotes with regard to home range limits. Dissertation, Utah State University, Logan, USA.
11. Harris, C. E., and F. F. Knowlton. 2001. Differential responses of coyotes to novel stimuli in familiar and unfamiliar settings. Canadian Journal of Zoology 79:2005-2013.
12. Harrison, D. J. 1992. Dispersal characteristics of juvenile coyotes in Maine. Journal of Wildlife Management 56:128-138.
13. Hunt, R. H., and J. J. Ogden. 1991. Selected aspects of the nesting ecology of American alligators in the Okefenokee Swamp. Journal of Herpetology 25:448-453.
14. Jacobson, H. A., J. C. Kroll, R. W. Browning, B. H. Koerth, and M. H. Conway. 1997. Infrared-triggered cameras for censusing white-tailed deer. Wildlife Society Bulletin 25:547-556.
15. Kamler, J. F., and P. S. Gipson. 2000. Space and habitat use by resident and transient coyotes. Canadian Journal of Zoology 78:2106-2111.
16. Karanth, K. U., and J. D. Nichols. 1998. Estimation of tiger densities in India using photographic captures and recaptures. Ecology 79:2852-2862.
17. Knowlton, F. F., E. M. Gese, and M. M. Jaeger. 1999. Coyote depredation control: an interface between biology and management. Journal of Range Management 52:398-412.
18. Koerth, B. H., C. D. McKown, and J. C. Kroll. 1997. Infrared-triggered camera versus helicopter counts of white-tailed deer. Wildlife Society Bulletin 25:557-562.
19. Kucera, T. E., and R. H. Barrett. 1993. The Trailmaster camera system for detecting wildlife. Wildlife Society Bulletin 21:505-508.
20. Laurance, W. F., and J. D. Grant. 1994. Photographic identification of ground nest predators in Australian tropical rainforest. Wildlife Research 21:241-248.
21. Messier, F., and C. Barrette. 1982. The social system of the coyote (Canis latrans) in a forested habitat. Canadian Journal of Zoology 60:1743-1753.
22. Mitchell, B. R. 2004. Coyote vocal communication and its application to the selective management of problem individuals. Dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, USA.
23. Musiani, M., and E. Visalberghi. 2001. Effectiveness of fladry on wolves in captivity. Wildlife Society Bulletin 29:91-98.
24. Otis, D. L., K. P. Burnham, G. C. White, and D. R. Andreson. 1978. Statistical inference from capture data on closed animal populations. Wildlife Monographs 62.
25. Picman, J., and L. M. Schriml. 1994. A camera study of temporal patterns of nest predation in different habitats. Wilson Bulletin 106:456-465.
26. Sacks, B. N., K. M. Blejwas, and M. M. Jaeger. 1999a. Relative vulnerability of coyotes to removal methods on a northern California ranch. Journal of Wildlife Management 63:939-949.
27. Sacks, B. N., M. M. Jeager, J. C. Neale, and D. R. McCullough. 1999b. Territoriality and breeding status of coyotes relative to sheep predation. Journal of Wildlife Management 63:593-605.
28. Séquin, E. S. 2001. The influence of social status on coyote vulnerability to photo-capture. Thesis, University of Nevada, Reno, USA.
29. Séquin, E. S., M. M. Jaeger, P. F. Brussard, and R. H. Barrett. 2003. Wariness of coyotes to camera traps relative to social status and territory boundaries. Canadian Journal of Zoology 81:2015-2025.
30. Seydack, A. H. W. 1984. Application of a photo recording device in the census of larger rain forest mammals. South African Journal of Wildlife Research 14:10-14.
31. Van Schaik, C. O., and M. Griffiths. 1996. Activity periods of Indonesian rain forest mammals. Biotropica 28:105-112.
32. Wells, M. C., and P. N. Lehner. 1978. The relative importance of the distance senses in coyote behavior. Animal Behavior 26:251-258.
33. Whelan, C. J., M. L. Dilger, D. Robson, N. Hallyn, and S. Dilger. 1994. Effects of olfactory cues on artificial-nest experiments. Auk 111:945-952.
34. White, G. C., D. R. Anderson, K. P. Burnham, and D. L. Otis. 1982. Capture-recapture and removal methods for sampling closed populations. Los Alamos National Laboratory Publication LA-8787-NERP, Los Alamos, New Mexico, USA.
35. Wilson, K. R., and D. R. Anderson. 1985. Evaluation of density estimators of small mammal population size. Journal of Mammalogy 66:13-21.
36. Windberg, L. A. 1996. Coyote responses to visual and olfactory stimuli related to familiarity with an area. Canadian Journal of Zoology 74:2248-2253.
37. Windberg, L. A., and F. F. Knowlton. 1988. Management implications of coyote spacing patterns in southern Texas. Journal of Wildlife Management 52:632-640.
38. Windberg, L. A., and F. F. Knowlton. 1990. Relative vulnerability of coyotes to some capture procedures. Wildlife Society Bulletin 18:282-290.
39. Woodruff, R. A., and B. L. Keller. 1982. Dispersal, daily activity and home range of coyotes in southeastern Idaho. Northwest Science 56:199-207.
40. Worton, B. J. 1989. Kernel methods for estimating the utilization distribution in home range studies. Ecology 70:164-168.