Coyote capture vulnerability relative to space use and trap density

Journal of Wildlife Management

Volumn 75, Issue 3, 2011, Pages 721-725

  Wilson, Ryan R ^a,c   Young, Julie K ^a,b   Shivik, John A ^a  

^a UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b INSTITUTE FOR WILDLIFE STUDIES   (United States)

^c The Wilderness Society   (United States)

Author keywords

Canis latrans; capture location; coyote; familiarity; neophobia; novel object; trappability; wariness

Indexed keywords

CANID; FAMILIARITY; PROBABILITY; SPACE USE; TERRITORIALITY; TRAP (EQUIPMENT); VULNERABILITY; WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT;

CANIS LATRANS;

EID: 79955884615     PISSN: 0022541X     EISSN: 19372817     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/jwmg.95     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Andelt, W. F., 1985. Behavioral ecology of coyotes in south Texas. Wildlife Monographs 94.
2. Baker, P. J., S. Harris, C. P. J. Robertson, G. Saunders, and, P. C. L. White., 2001. Differences in the capture rate of cage-trapped red foxes Vulpes vulpes and an evaluation of rabies control measures in Britain. Journal of Applied Ecology 38: 823-835. (Pubitemid 32752358)
3. Berger, K., and, E. M. Gese., 2007. Does interference competition with wolves limit the distribution and abundance of coyotes? Journal of Animal Ecology 76: 1075-1085. (Pubitemid 47547433)
4. Blejwas, K. M., B. N. Sacks, M. M. Jaeger, and, D. R. McCullough., 2002. The effectiveness of selective removal of breeding coyotes in reducing sheep predation. Journal of Wildlife Management 66: 451-462.
5. Bubela, T., R. Bartell, and, W. Müller., 1998. Factors affecting the trappability of red foxes in Kosciusko National Park. Wildlife Research 25: 199-208. (Pubitemid 28320327)
6. Burnham, K. P., and, D. R. Anderson., 1998. Model selection and multi-model inference: a practical information-theoretic approach. Springer, New York, New York, USA.
7. Burt, W. H., 1943. Territoriality and home range concepts as it applies to mammals. Journal of Mammalogy 24: 346-352.
8. Dolbeer, R. A., N. R. Holler, and, D. W. Hawthorne., 1996. Identification and control of wildlife damage. Pages 474-506 in, T. A., Bookhout, editor. Research and management techniques for wildlife and habitats. The Wildlife Society, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
9. Fieberg, J., 2007. Kernel density estimators of home range: smoothing and the autocorrelation red herring. Ecology 88: 1059-1066. (Pubitemid 46641581)
10. Garshelis, D. L., 2000. Delusions in habitat evaluation: measuring use, selection, and importance. Pages 111-164 in, L., Boitani, and, T. K., Fuller, editors. Research techniques in animal ecology: controversies and consequences. Columbia University Press, Irvington, New York, USA.
11. Gese, E. M., 2001. Territorial defense by coyotes (Canis latrans) in Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming: who, how, where, when, and why. Canadian Journal of Zoology 79: 980-987.
12. Gese, E. M., and, R. L. Ruff., 1997. Scent-marking by coyotes (Canis latrans): the influence of social and ecological factors. Animal Behaviour 54: 1155-1166. (Pubitemid 27518870)
13. Gipson, P. S., and, J. F. Kamler., 2003. Capture locations of coyotes, Canis latrans, bobcats, Lynx rufus, and raccoons, Procyon lotor, relative to home range boundaries. Canadian Field Naturalist 117: 472-474. (Pubitemid 39027178)
14. 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. (Pubitemid 34190612)
15. Hibler, S. J., 1977. Coyote movement patterns with emphasis on home range characteristics. Thesis. Utah State University, Logan, USA.
16. Kitchen, A. M., E. M. Gese, and, E. R. Schauster., 2000. Long-term spatial stability of coyote (Canis latrans) home ranges in southeastern Colorado. Canadian Journal of Zoology 78: 458-464. (Pubitemid 30368802)
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. (Pubitemid 29447257)
18. Laundré, J. W., and, B. L. Keller., 1981. Home range use by coyotes in Idaho. Animal Behaviour 19: 449-461.
19. Laundré, J. W., and, B. L. Keller., 1983. Trappability of coyotes relative to home range boundaries. Canadian Journal of Zoology 61: 1932-1934. (Pubitemid 14275968)
20. Nams, V. O., 2006. Locate III User's Guide. Pacer Computer Software, Tatamagouche, Nova Scotia, Canada.
21. Powell, R. A., 2000. Animal home ranges and territories and home range estimators. Pages 65-110 in, L., Boitani, and, T. K., Fuller, editors. Research techniques in animal ecology: controversies and consequences. Columbia University Press, Irvington, New York, USA.
22. Roy, L. D., and, M. J. Dorrance., 1985. Coyote movements, habitat use, and vulnerability in central Alberta. Journal of Wildlife Management 49: 307-313. (Pubitemid 16278831)
23. Rucker, R. L., 1975. The home range of the coyote (Canis latrans) and its method of calculation. Thesis. Idaho State University, Pocatello, USA.
24. 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. (Pubitemid 29332387)
25. Sacks, B. N., M. M. Jaeger, J. C. C. Neale, and, D. R. McCullough., 1999b. Territoriality and breeding status of coyotes relative to sheep predation. Journal of Wildlife Management 63: 593-605. (Pubitemid 29194924)
26. Seaman, D. E., J. J. Millspaugh, B. J. Kernohan, G. C. Brundige, K. J. Raedeke, and, R. A. Gitzen., 1999. Effects of sample size on kernel home range estimates. Journal of Wildlife Management 63: 739-747. (Pubitemid 29194940)
27. Séquin, E. S. M., M. Jaeger, P. F. Brussard, and, R. M. Barrett., 2003. Wariness of coyotes to camera traps relative to social status and territory boundaries. Canadian Journal of Zoology 81: 2015-2025. (Pubitemid 38390888)
28. Travaini, A., J. Aldama, and, M. Delibes., 1993a. Red fox capture locations in relation to home range boundaries. Mammalia 57: 448-451. (Pubitemid 2008989)
29. Travaini, A., F. Palomares, and, M. Delibes., 1993b. The effects of capture and recapture on space use in large grey mongooses. South African Journal of Wildlife Research 23: 95-97.
30. Van Horne, B., 1983. Density as a misleading indicator of habitat quality. Journal of Wildlife Management 47: 893-901. (Pubitemid 15272487)
31. Wilson, R. R., M. B. Hooten, B. N. Strobel, and, J. A. Shivik., 2010. Accounting for individuals, uncertainty, and multi-scale clustering in core area estimation. Journal of Wildlife Management 74: 1343-1352.
32. Windberg, L. A., 1996. Coyote responses to visual and olfactory stimuli related to familiarity with an area. Canadian Journal of Zoology 74: 2248-2253.
33. Windberg, L. A., and, F. F. Knowlton., 1990. Relative vulnerability of coyotes to some capture procedures. Wildlife Society Bulletin 18: 282-290.
34. Woodruff, R. A., and, B. L. Keller., 1982. Dispersal, daily activity, and home range of coyotes in southeastern Idaho. Northwest Science 56: 199-207. (Pubitemid 14271206)
35. Worton, B. J., 1989. Kernel methods for estimating the utilization distribution in home-range studies. Ecology 70: 164-168. (Pubitemid 20418153)
36. Young, J. K., W. F. Andelt, P. A. Terletzky, and, J. A. Shivik., 2006. A comparison of coyote ecology after 25 years: 1978 versus 2003. Canadian Journal of Zoology 84: 573-582. (Pubitemid 44049532)
37. Young, J. K., S. N. Glasscock, and, J. A. Shivik., 2008. Does spatial structure persist despite resource and population changes? Effects of experimental manipulations on coyotes. Journal of Mammalogy 89: 1094-1104.