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 AreaCounties of:

Augusta BathHighlandRockingham

Land Ownership:George Washington NFLittle North Mtn WMAHighland WMAWarms 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/non-detection

• Occupancy format• Modeled in Programs

MARK and PRESENCE

ID Deer Veg Mammal Bird Other

16 1 0 1 0 1

17 1 1 0 1 1

18 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, mark-recapture

• 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, line-intercept 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

Lab Methods:– Fecal flotation

Data Analysis:– Modeled in MARK like

diet– Parasite species richness– Prevalence– Comparisons with diet,

sex, habitat, site, etc.

© CDC Image Library

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 KellyDr. Jim ParkhurstDr. Kathy AlexanderDr. 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?

+ =