Determining the density of coyotes in different habitat types at the Sevilleta NWR/LTER

1. Determining the density of coyotes in different habitat types at the Sevilleta NWR/LTER Damon R. Lowery Sevilleta 2008 REU Program

2. Coyote (Canis latrans) • Medium-sized canids • Various habitats throughout North and Central America • Occupy dens or burrows • Omnivorous diet • Various hunting strategies NatureWorks. 2008

3. Project Objectives • Estimate coyote densities at the Sevilleta NWR • Assess habitat use by coyotes • Grassland, Shrubland, Woodland • Assess effect of percent woody vegetation cover on coyote densities Grassland Shrubland Woodland

4. Context and Significance of Study • Adds to past coyote research that has been performed at the Sevilleta NWR • Absolute density, Parmenter 2004 • Diet, Hernandez et al. 2002 • Expands on the Parmenter (2004) data set • Assist in management of land and top predators

5. Coyote Relative Density Coyote Relative Density G S W Habitat Type % Woody Cover Research Question and Hypothesis • Does the relative density of coyotes differ among habitat types or change with variation in percent woody vegetation cover? • Hypothesis: Coyote densities will be higher in open, grassland habitats with less shrub and tree cover

6. Support for Hypothesis • Open habitats = Higher coyote densities • Potential reasons why • Coyotes evolved in open habitats • Open habitats contain a large abundance of preferred coyote prey species • Open habitats may be better suited to coyote hunting strategies Hidalgo-Mihart et al. 2006, Kamler and Gipson 2000

7. Study Site: Sevilleta NWR

8. Scat Collection Methods • Marked 13, one mile long road-based transects • 5 grassland • 5 shrubland • 3 woodland • Collected scat weekly • Identified scat (e.g. Halfpenny 2001)

9. 2.5 X 12cm scat. Large taper. Coyote 2.75 X 13cm scat. Black Bear. Berry filled scat. Species Unknown. 1 X 7cm scat. Ringtail. 2 X 7.5cm scat. Possibly Bobcat. 2.5 X 11cm scat. Coyote. Scat Samples from Different Species

10. Habitat Assessment Methods • Determined habitat types • ArcGIS tools and Sevilleta vegetation map • Determined percent woody vegetation cover • 100m line intercept transects

11. Scat Data • Scat from 8 known species and potentially ≥ 5 other species • 289 total scats collected • 78 coyote scats collected = 27% of all scats

12. Percent Woody Vegetation Cover for Each Scat Transect • Initial assessment of habitat type for each scat transect confirmed by line intercept transects and ArcGIS analysis • 24 total woody species • Gutierrezia sarothrae (broom snakeweed) most common and abundant

13. Relative Density Calculation • Relative Density: • R = S/(LnD) (Webbon et al. 2004) • R= relative density • S= # of feces found when collecting • Ln= length of linear features driven • D = # of days between collections • Densities for all transects within a given habitat type were averaged

14. Coyote Densities for Each Habitat Type

15. Statistical Analysis • Differences in coyote density among different habitat types were assessed using an ANOVA Coyote Relative Density G S W Habitat Type

16. Results of ANOVA p = 0.88

17. Statistical Analysis • Performed a regression analysis on coyote densities vs. percent woody vegetation cover Coyote Relative Density % Woody Vegetation Cover

18. Results of Regression Analysis Y= 0.0002x + 0.1398 R2 = 0.0004 p = 0.95

19. Overview of Findings • Shrubland habitat had the highest density of coyotes • However, NO statistically significant differences in densities among habitats • NO correlation between percent woody cover and density of coyotes

20. Significance of Findings • Open habitats ≠ higher coyote densities • Amount of woody vegetation cover has NO effect on coyote densities

21. Discussion of Findings • Why were there no differences among habitats? • Densities do NOT differ among habitats • Prey in equal abundance in all habitat types • Road location and usage • Sample size: # of scat collections and transects

22. Future Work • DNA and dietary analysis of scats • Further study of coyote habitat use • Apply study results to management of coyotes and their prey species

23. Acknowledgements I’d like to thank the following for their help and support: • NSF and Sevilleta REU Program • UNM and US Fish and Wildlife Service • Virginia Seamster • Jennifer Johnson • John Dewitt • Terri Koontz • Kelly Bowman • All of the Sevilleta REU’s and Interns, especially CJ Jewell, Dan Colman, and Emerson Tuttle

24. Questions? Sevilleta 2008 REU Program

25. References • Halfpenny JC. 2001. Scats and Tracks of the Rocky Mountains. Guilford: The Globe Pequot Press. 144 p. • Hernández L, Parmenter RR, Dewitt JW, Lightfoot DC, Laundré JW. 2002. Coyote diets in the Chihuahuan Desert, more evidence for optimal foraging. Journal of Arid Environments, 51: 613-624. • Hidalgo-Mihart MG, Cantú-Salazar L, López-González CA, Martínez-Gutíerrez PG, Fernandez EC, and González-Romero A. 2006. Coyote habitat use in a tropical deciduous forest of Western Mexico. Journal of Wildlife Management, 70: 216-221. • Kamler JF and Gipson PS. 2000. Space and habitat use by resident and transient coyotes. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 78: 2106-2111. • NatureWorks. 2008. Coyote- Canis latrans. Available at http://www.nhptv.org/natureworks/coyote.htm • Parmenter B. 2004. Coyote Scat Survey. Albuquerque, NM: Sevilleta Long Term Ecological Research Site Database: SEV049. http://sev.lternet.edu/project_details.php?id=SEV049. Accessed: May 8, 2008. • Webbon CC, Baker PJ, and Harris S. 2004. Faecal counting for monitoring changes in red fox numbers in rural Britain. Journal of Applied Ecology, 41: 768-779.