Coyote habitat selection and management implications for the Gaspésie caribou

Journal of Wildlife Management

Volumn 74, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 3-11

  Boisjoly, Dominic ^a   Ouellet, Jean Pierre ^a   Courtois, Rhaume ^b  

^a UNIVERSITÉ DU QUÉBEC À RIMOUSKI   (Canada)

^b MINISTÈRE DES RESSOURCES NATURELLES ET DE LA FAUNE   (Canada)

Author keywords

Canis latrans; Caribou; Coyote; Habitat use; Qubec; Rangifer tarandus caribou; Space use; Threatened population

Indexed keywords

ANTHROPOGENIC EFFECT; BOREAL FOREST; CANID; CLEARCUTTING; DISTURBANCE; ENDANGERED SPECIES; FOOD AVAILABILITY; GPS; HABITAT MANAGEMENT; HABITAT SELECTION; HYPOTHESIS TESTING; LAGOMORPH; LOGGING (TIMBER); SPACE USE;

CANADA; GASPE PENINSULA; QUEBEC [CANADA];

ALCES ALCES; CANIS LATRANS; LEPUS AMERICANUS; RANGIFER TARANDUS; RANGIFER TARANDUS CARIBOU;

EID: 73449146259     PISSN: 0022541X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2193/2008-149     Document Type: Article

References (57)

1. Adorjan, A. S., and G. B. Kolenosky. 1969. A manual for the identification of hairs of selected Ontario mammals. Ontario Department of Lands and Forest, Research Branch, Toronto, Canada.
2. Aebischer, N. J., P. A. Robertson, and R. E. Kenward. 1993. Compositional analysis of habitat use from animal radio-tracking data. Ecology 74:1313-1325.
3. Andrén, H. 1995. Effects of landscape composition on predation rates at habitat edges. Pages 225-255 in L. Hansson, L. Fahrig, and G. Merriem, editors. Mosaic landscapes and ecological processes. Chapman and Hall, London, United Kingdom.
4. Anonymous. 2004. Rapport de la Commission d'étude sur la gestion de la forêt publique québécoise. Commission d'étude sur la végétation de la forêt publique québé coise, Québec, Canada. [In French.]
5. Bekoff, M., and M. C. Wells. 1982. Behavioral ecology of coyotes: social organization, rearing patterns, space use, and resource defense. Zeitschrift fur Tierpsychologie 60:281-305.
6. Bergerud, A. T., and W. E. Mercer. 1989. Caribou introductions in eastern North America. Wildlife Society Bulletin 17:111-120.
7. Boudreau, F. 1981. E ́ cologie des étages alpins et subalpins du Mont Jacques-Cartier, Parc de la Gaspésie. Université Laval, Québec, Québec, Canada. [In French.]
8. Champagne, S., H. Falardeau, J. M. Hardy, N. Fournier, J. Lamoureux, and G. Landry. 1999. Plan d'aménagement de l'aire du caribou de la Gaspésie. Ministère des Ressources Naturelles et Société de la Faune et des Parcs du Québec, Québec, Canada. [In French.]
9. Chamrad, A. D., and T. W. Box. 1964. A point frame for sampling rumen contents. Journal of Wildlife Management 28:473-477.
10. Crawley, M. J. 1992. Overview. Pages 476-489 in M. J. Crawley, editor. Natural enemies: the population biology of predators, parasites and diseases. Blackwell Scientific, Oxford, United Kingdom.
11. Crête, M., and 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.
12. Crête, M., J. P. Ouellet, J. P. Tremblay, and R. Arsenault. 2001. Suitability of the forest landscape for coyotes in northeastern North America and its implications for coexistence with other carnivores. Écoscience 8:311-319.
13. Dussault, C., R. Courtois, J. Huot, and J. P. Ouellet. 1999. Evaluation of GPS telemetry collar performance for habitat studies in the boreal forest. Wildlife Society Bulletin 27:965-972.
14. Dussault, C., R. Courtois, J. Huot, and J. P. Ouellet. 2001a. The use of forest maps for the description of wildlife habitats: limits and recommendations. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 31:1227-1234.
15. Dussault, C., R. Courtois, J. P. Ouellet, and J. Huot. 2001b. Influence of satellite geometry and differential correction on GPS location accuracy. Wildlife Society Bulletin 29:171-179.
16. Dussault, C., J. P. Ouellet, R. Courtois, J. Huot, L. Breton, and H. Jolicoeur. 2005. Linking moose habitat selection to limiting factors. Ecography 28:619-628.
17. Edenius, L. 1997. Field test of a GPS location system for moose, Alces alces, under Scandinavian boreal conditions. Wildlife Biology 3:39-43.
18. Fisher, J. T., and L. Wilkinson. 2005. The response of mammals to forest fire and timber harvest in the North American boreal forest. Mammal Review 35:51-81.
19. Fournier, N., and R. Faubert. 2001. E ́ valuation du troupeau de caribous de la Gaspésie. Direction de la Recherche sur la Faune et Direction de l'Aménagement de la Faune de la Gaspésie-Îles- de-la-Madeleine, Société de la Faune et des Parcs du Québec, Sainte-Anne-des-Monts, Canada. [In French.]
20. Gagnon, R. M. 1970. Climat des Chics-Chocs. Québec Ministère des Ressources Naturelles, Québec, Canada. [In French.]
21. Georges, S. S. 1976. A range extension of the coyote in Québec. Canadian Field-Naturalist 90:78-79.
22. Gese, E. M., O. J. Rongstad, and W. R. Mytton. 1988. Relationship between coyote group size and diet in southeastern Colorado. Journal of Wildlife Management 52:647-653.
23. Girard, I., J. P. Ouellet, R. Courtois, C. Dussault, and L. Breton. 2002. Effect of sampling effort based on GPS telemetry on home-range size estimations. Journal of Wildlife Management 66:1290-1300.
24. Gompper, M. E. 2002. The ecology of northeast coyotes. Current knowledge and priorities for future research. WCS-Working Paper 17. ,www.wcs.org/media/ file/Ecology of NE Coyotes.pdf.. Accessed 13 Apr 2006.
25. Gompper, M. E., and J. L. Gittleman. 1991. Home-range scaling- intraspecific and comparative trends. Oecologia 87:343-348.
26. Griffith, B., and B. A. Youtie. 1988. Two devices for estimating foliage density and deer hiding cover. Wildlife Society Bulletin 16:206-210.
27. Grosenbaugh, L. R. 1952. Plotless timber estimates-new, fast, easy. Journal of Forestry 50:32-37.
28. Holt, R. R. D. 1984. Spatial heterogeneity, indirect interactions, and the coexistence of prey species. American Naturalist 124:377-406.
29. Imbeau, L., M. Mönkkönen, and A. Desrochers. 2002. Long-term effects of forestry on birds of the eastern Canadian boreal forests: a comparison with Fennoscandia. Biological Conservation 15:1151-1162.
30. Johnson, D. D. H. 1980. The comparison of usage and availability measurements for evaluating resource preference. Ecology 61:65-71.
31. Kamler, J. F., and P. S. Gipson. 2000. Space and habitat use by resident and transient coyotes. Canadian Journal of Zoology 78:2106-2111.
32. Korschgen, L. J. 1980. Procedures for food-habits analyses (wildlife). Pages 113-127 in S. D. Schemnitz, editor. Wildlife management techniques manual. Fourth edition. The Wildlife Society, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
33. Laliberté, A. S., and W. J. Ripple. 2004. Range contractions of North American carnivores and ungulates. BioScience 54:123-138.
34. Lamoureux, J., A. Pelletier, M. Bélanger, and C. Larocque. 2007. Inventaire aérien de l'orignal dans les réserves fauniques de Matane et Dunière à l'hiver 2007. Ministère des Ressources Naturelles et de la Faune, Direction de l'Aménagement de la Faune du Bas-St-Laurent, Rimouski, Québec, Canada. [In French.]
35. Laundré, J. W., and B. L. Keller. 1984. Home-range size of coyotes: a critical review. Journal of Wildlife Management 48:127-139.
36. Litvaitis, J. A., J. A. Sherburne, and J. A. Bissonette. 1985. Influence of understory characteristics on snowshoe hare habitat use and density. Journal of Wildlife Management 49:866-873.
37. Major, J. T., and J. A. Sherburne. 1987. Interspecific relationships of coyotes, bobcats, and red foxes in western Maine. Journal of Wildlife Management 51:606-616.
38. Messier, F., C. Barrette, and J. Huot. 1982. The social system of the coyote (Canis latrans) in a forested habitat. Canadian Journal of Zoology 60:1743-1753.
39. Moisan, G. 1957. Le caribou de Gaspésie. Histoire et distribution. Analyse de la population et plan d'aménagement. Le Naturaliste Canadien 83:225-234. [In French.]
40. Mosnier, A., D. Boisjoly, R. Courtois, and J. P. Ouellet. 2008. Extensive predator space use can limit the efficacy of a control program. Journal of Wildlife Management 72:483-491.
41. Mosnier, A., J. P. Ouellet, L. Sirois, and N. Fournier. 2003. Habitat selection and home-range dynamics of the Gaspésie caribou: a hierarchical analysis. Canadian Journal of Zoology 81:1174-1184.
42. Oksanen, T., L. Oksanen, and M. Gyllenberg. 1992. Exploitation ecosystems in heterogeneous habitat complexes. 2. Impact of small-scale heterogeneity on predator prey dynamics. Evolutionary Ecology 6:383-398.
43. Ouellet, J. P., J. Ferron, and L. Sirois. 1996. Space and habitat use by the threatened Gaspésie caribou in southeastern Québec. Canadian Journal of Zoology 74:1922-1933.
44. Potvin, F., L. Bélanger, and K. Lowell. 1999. Validité de la carte forestière pour décrire les habitats fauniques à l'échelle locale: une étude de cas en Abitibi- Témiscamingue. Forestry Chronicle 75:851-859. [In French.]
45. Rand, T. A., J. M. Tylianakis, and T. Tscharntke. 2006. Spillover edge effects: the dispersal of agriculturally subsidized insect natural enemies into adjacent natural habitats. Ecology Letters 9:603-614.
46. Richer, M. C., M. Crête, J. P. Ouellet, L. P. Rivest, and J. Huot. 2002. The low performance of forest versus rural coyotes in northeastern North America: inequality between presence and availability of prey. Écoscience 9:44-54.
47. Roy, L. D., and M. J. Dorrance. 1985. Coyote movements, habitat use, and vulnerability in central Alberta. Journal of Wildlife Management 49:307-313.
48. Samson, C., and 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.
49. Sargeant, A. B., S. H. Allen, and R. T. Eberhardt. 1984. Red fox predation on breeding ducks in midcontinent north America. Wildlife Monographs 89.
50. Schneider, M. F. 2001. Habitat loss, fragmentation and predator impact: spatial implications for prey conservation. Journal of Applied Ecology 38:720-735.
51. Shivik, J. A., and E. G. Gese. 2000. Territorial significance of home range estimators for coyotes. Wildlife Society Bulletin 28:940-946.
52. Sinclair, A. R. E., R. P. Pech, C. R. Dickman, D. Hik, P. Mahon, and A. E. Newsome. 1998. Predicting effects of predation on conservation of endangered prey. Conservation Biology 12:564-575.
53. Soulé, M. E., E. T. Bolger, A. C. Alberts, J. Wright, M. Sorice, and S. Hills. 1988. Reconstructed dynamics of rapid extinctions of chaparralrequiring birds in urban habited islands. Conservation Biology 2:75-92.
54. Thibault, I., and J. P. Ouellet. 2005. Hunting behaviour of eastern coyotes in relation to vegetation cover, snow conditions, and hare distribution. Écoscience 12:466-475.
55. Tremblay, J. P., M. Crête, and 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.
56. Wolfe, M. L. 1974. An overview of moose coactions with other animals. Pages 437-456 in J. Bédard, editor. Alces: moose ecology. Les Presses de l'Université Laval, Québec, Canada.
57. Young, S., and P. Jackson. 1951. The clever coyote. Stackpole, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, USA.