Food Item Use by Coyote Pups at Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge, Illinois

Similar documents
Mammal Identification In Ontario. Niagara College Fauna Identification Course # ENVR9259

Select Mammals of Loudoun County

GRASSLAND MAMMALS OF NORTHERN ILLINOIS. * = Illinois endangered species list; ** = threatened in Illinois; # = federally = extirpated

Mammalogy 4764 Lab Practical page 1 Name Key

Minnesota_mammals_Info_12.doc 11/20/09 -- DRAFT Page 36 of 42

Food Habits of Wolves in Relation to Livestock Depredations in Northwestern Minnesota

Some Foods Used by Coyotes and Bobcats in Cimarron County, Oklahoma 1954 Through

Food of Bobcats and Coyotes from Cumberland Island, Camden County, Georgia

Coyote (Canis latrans)

Coyote. Canis latrans. Other common names. Introduction. Physical Description and Anatomy. Eastern Coyote

Diet of Arctic Wolves on Banks and Northwest Victoria Islands,

706 THE WILSON BULLETIN l Vol. 102, No. 4, December 1990

New York State Mammals. Order Lagomorpha Order Rodentia

Coyotes in legend and culture

Foraging and Spatial Ecology of Red Wolves (Canis rufus) in Northeastern North Carolina. Justin Aaron Dellinger

Beaver Canadian/North American Castor canadensis Chinchilla Chinchilla chinchilla/chinchilla lanigera/chinchilla lanigera forma domestica 1

SKELETONS: Museum of Osteology Tooth and Eye Dentification Teacher Resource

Virginia opossum. The only marsupial in North America Does not hibernate over winter. Didelphis virginiana

That ravens frequent garbage dumps is well-known (Bent 1946: ). Common Ravens in Virginia during two critical periods of the year--

South Carolina Department of Natural Resources. Wildlife Management Activity Book

Lesson Resources. Appendix VI

Ecology and Management of Ruffed Grouse and American Woodcock

Deciduous Amsel

Black Bear. Bobcat. Ursus americanus. Lynx rufus

Brent Patterson & Lucy Brown Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources Wildlife Research & Development Section

Red Fox Vulpes vulpes

2016 LANCASTER COUNTY JUNIOR ENVIROTHON STUDY GUIDE: MAMMALS OF PENNSYLVANIA S FIELD HABITATS

Raptor Ecology in the Thunder Basin of Northeast Wyoming

Original Draft: 11/4/97 Revised Draft: 6/21/12

WILDLIFE SESSION FOOD HABITSOF COASTAL MARSH RACCOONS WITH OBSERVATIONS OF ALLIGATOR NEST PREDATION

Lab 8 Order Carnivora: Families Canidae, Felidae, and Ursidae Need to know Terms: carnassials, digitigrade, reproductive suppression, Jacobson s organ

New York State Mammals. Order Rodentia (cont.) Order Lagomorpha

Family Soricidae Masked shrew Southeastern shrew (long-tailed shrews)

Opossum. Didelphis virginiana

Grey Fox. Urocyon cinereoargenteus

IDENTIFICATION OF MAMMAL TRACKS FROM SOOTED TRACK STATIONS IN THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST 1

Bobcat. Lynx Rufus. Other common names. Introduction. Physical Description and Anatomy. None

Mammals. of Pheasant Branch Conservancy Dreux J. Watermolen

The Effects of Meso-mammal Removal on Northern Bobwhite Populations

Animal Identification. Compiled by Lindsay Magill March 2017

Minnesota_mammals_Info_9.doc 11/04/09 -- DRAFT Page 1 of 64. Minnesota mammals

Western Rivers Pursuit Call List available from BushWear

Pre-lab homework Lab 8: Food chains in the wild.

Food Habits of Red Wolves during Pup-Rearing Season

WILDLIFE DAMAGE Publication Series

AMERICAN ALLIGATOR. Alligator mississippiensis. Map. Picture Picture Picture

What we ve covered so far:

PREDATION ON RED-WINGED BLACKBIRD EGGS AND NESTLINGS

RECORDS OF OHIO FLEAS (SIPHONAPTERA) 1-2

Coexisting with Coyotes: Celebrating the Marin Coyote Coalition

Keys to the Mammals and Mammal Skulls of the Northern Coastal Plain of Virginia

ASI - Animal Scene Investigation

FOOD HABITS AND WEIGHTS OF BOBWHITE FROM NORTHEASTERN OKLAHOMA TALL GRASS PRAIRIE

Beaver. Mammal Rodent

WHOO S WHOO? The Great Horned Owl as a Terrestrial Indicator Species in the Ecological Risk Assessment of the Tittabawassee River and Floodplain.

Night Life Pre-Visit Packet

THE FOOD OF THE RED FOX (VULPES VULPES L) AND THE MARTEN (MARTES FOINA, ERXL) IN THE SPRING-SUMMER PERIOD IN OSOGOVO MOUNTAIN

Loss of wildlands could increase wolf-human conflicts, PA G E 4 A conversation about red wolf recovery, PA G E 8

Wild Fur Identification. an identification aid for Lynx species fur

Owl Pellet Dissection A Study of Food Chains & Food Webs

Equipment and Room Requirements. Three large tables (or desks moved to create three stations) with adequate space for students to move around.

White-tailed Deer (Odocoileus virginianus)

Introduction to Our Class Case Study Isle Royale

Examples of herbivorous animals: rabbits, deer and beaver

Winter Adaptations. Why do animals need shelters, especially during the winter? WORD BANK: Woodchuck Grey Squirrel

ASSESSMENT. Assessment

Pre-lab Homework Lab 9: Food Webs in the Wild

Bird-X Goose Chase / Bird Shield Testing Information For Use On: 1. Apples 2. Cherries 3. Grapes 4. Blueberries 5. Corn 6. Sunflowers 7.

Landscape Influence on Canis Morphological and Ecological Variation in a Coyote-Wolf C. lupus latrans Hybrid Zone, Southeastern Ontario

ASSESSING THE EFFECTS OF A HARVESTING BAN ON THE DYNAMICS OF WOLVES IN ALGONQUIN PARK, ONTARIO AN UPDATE

Survey of Nuisance Urban Geese in the United States

This book is identified as APA no in the Susitna Hydroelectric Project Document Index (1988), compiled by the Alaska Power Authority.

Recent Efforts to Monitor and Manage the Argentine Tegu in Central Florida

NESTING POPULATIONS OF RED-TAILED HAWKS AND HORNED OWLS IN CENTRAL NEW YORK STATE1 BY DONALD C. HAGAR, JR.

Weekly Summer Diet of Gray Wolves (Canis lupus) in Northeastern Minnesota

A Helping Hand. We all need a helping hand once in a while

Your web browser (Safari 7) is out of date. For more security, comfort and the best experience on this site: Update your browser Ignore

FAUNAL ANALYSIS OF THE COREY SITE, NEW YORK. Prepared by: April M. Beisaw, RPA. Zooarchaeology and Taphonomy Consulting

Canada Goose Production and Population Stability, Ogden Bay Waterfowl Management Area, Utah

COYOTE DIET AND CONFLICT IN URBAN PARKS IN CALGARY, ALBERTA

Bobcat Predation on Quail, Birds, and Mesomammals

FOOD HABITS OF NESTING COOPER S HAWKS AND GOSHAWKS IN NEW YORK AND PENNSYLVANIA

Behavioral interactions between coyotes, Canis latrans, and wolves, Canis lupus, at ungulate carcasses in southwestern Montana

Predator-prey interactions in the spinifex grasslands of central Australia

Population Study of Canada Geese of Jackson Hole

American Marten. American Marten. American Marten

2019 Lancaster County Junior Envirothon Forest Mammals

Stark County Rabies Prevention Information Manual

Week 5. Carnivora BIOL 140

ILLINO PRODUCTION NOTE. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Library Large-scale Digitization Project, 2007.

THE WILDLIFE SOCIETY

2012 Quail Season Outlook By Doug Schoeling, Upland Game Biologist Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation

Slide 1. Slide 2. Slide 3 Population Size 450. Slide 4

ESRM 350 The Decline (and Fall?) of the White-tailed Jackrabbit

FAUNAL DATA, SAN PEDRO PRESERVATION PROJECT

White tailed Deer (Odocoileus virginianus)

AN APPLIED CASE STUDY of the complexity of ecological systems and process: Why has Lyme disease become an epidemic in the northeastern U.S.


Our Neighbors the Coyotes. Presented by: First Landing State Park

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * For Judges Use Only

Transcription:

Transactions of the Illinois State Academy of Science (1993), Volume 86, 3 and 4, pp. 133-137 Food Item Use by Coyote Pups at Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge, Illinois Brian L. Cypher 1 Cooperative Wildlife Research Laboratory Southern Illinois University Carbondale, Illinois 62901 1 Present Address EG&G Energy Measurements, Inc. P. O. Box 127 Tupman, California 93276 ABSTRACT Use of food items by coyote (Canis latrans) pups at a den site in Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge, Illinois, was examined in June 1986. Fawn white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) was the most frequently occurring item (85.9%) in pup scats. In contrast, small mammal was the most frequently occurring item (58.1%) in adult coyote scats, but was found in only one pup scat. Additionally, adults used a greater diversity of food items. Adult coyotes appear to selectively bring food items to pups. Fawns probably constituted an energetically efficient item for feeding pups due to relatively large size, digestibility, and availability. INTRODUCTION Coyote food habits have been extensively documented (e.g., Bekoff 1982). However, use of items by different age classes has received relatively little attention (Harrison and Harrison 1984). Young pups that are being weaned are supplied with food by adults. Therefore, a reasonable assumption is that pups and adults feed on similar items. This hypothesis was tested by comparing food item use by pups at a den site to that of adult coyotes using the same area. STUDY AREA AND METHODS An investigation of coyote foraging ecology was conducted from 1986-1989 on an approximately 300 km 2 study area that encompassed Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge (CONWR) in Williamson and Jackson Counties, Illinois. CONWR was established in 1947, primarily as an wintering area for Canada geese (Branta canadensis). Habitat diversity is high due to past and current land-use patterns. Numerous food items are available to coyotes and include white-tailed deer, eastern cottontails (Sylvilagus floridanus), small rodents, deer and goose carrion resulting from fall harvests and natural

134 mortality, and wild fruits such as persimmon (Diospyros virginiana), American plum (Prunus americana), and black cherry (P. serotina) (Cypher 1991). Use of food items by coyotes was determined from analysis of scats. A coyote den site was located in the northwest section of CONWR in May 1986. Pup scats, distinguished from adult scats by small size, were collected from this site in mid and late June. Adult coyote scats were collected along refuge roads in this same section of CONWR, also in mid and late June. All scats were oven-dried at 60 C for 24 hr to facilitate handling. Mammalian remains in scats were identified from teeth and bone fragments (Glass 1981, Roest 1986) and guard hair characteristics (Stains 1958, Adorjan and Kolenosky 1969, Moore et al. 1974). Avian remains were identified based on feather, bill, and foot characteristics. Seeds of fleshy fruits were identified by comparison to known specimens (U.S. Department of Agriculture 1974). Frequency of occurrence of items in scats was compared between adult coyotes and pups. Contingency table analysis employing a chi-square statistic was used to test the hypothesis that proportional use of items with 5% frequency of occurrence did not differ between pup and adult coyotes. Dietary diversity was compared by calculating a Shannon diversity index (Brower and Zar 1974): H' = - p i logp i where p i is the proportional occurrence of item i in the sample. A t-test was used to test the hypothesis that the diversity of food items in scats did not differ between adult coyotes and pups (Hutcheson 1970). RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Small rodent (primarily prairie voles [Microtus ochrogaster] and southern bog lemmings [Synaptomys cooperi]), eastern cottontail, fawn, and bird were the most frequently occurring items in adult coyote scats in June 1986 at CONWR (Table 1). Small rodent and cottontail were the two primary items used annually by coyotes at CONWR, and apparently were dietary staples (Cypher 1991). Conversely, fawn and American plum were the most frequently occurring items in pup scats. Small rodent, cottontail, and bird all occurred relatively infrequently in pup scats. Other items occurring in pup scats included adult deer, woodchuck (Marmota monax), raccoon (Procyon lotor), Canada goose, and unidentified bird. Other items occurring in adult scats included adult deer, woodchuck, squirrel (Sciurus spp.), muskrat (Ondatra zibethica), raccoon, unknown bird, bird egg, reptile egg, American plum, black cherry, cow, beaver (Castor canadensis), opossum (Didelphis virginiana), grasshopper (Orthoptera), crayfish (Decapoda), blackberry (Rubus spp.), and unknown fruit. Proportional item use differed significantly between adult coyotes and pups ( X 2 = 179.5, 9 df, P < 0.01). Twenty items were found in adult coyote scats versus nine items in pup scats. This difference in dietary diversity also was reflected in the significantly higher Shannon index for the adults ( t 2,391 = 8.41; P < 0.01). The greater diversity of items in adult coyote scats and the difference in proportional item use between adults and pups both indicate that adult coyotes selectively bring items back to pups at den sites.

135 Fawns apparently were the most frequent food items brought to pups. Fawns may have constituted an energetically efficient item to bring to pups for three reasons. First, by selecting large items such as fawns, fewer trips back to the den are required to meet food requirements of pups. Harrison and Harrison (1984) drew this same conclusion after observing that fawns also were the primary item brought to dens by coyotes in Maine. Second, larger items have a greater proportion of digestible biomass than do smaller items which have a higher proportion of indigestible materials (e.g., hair, bone) (Floyd et al. 1975). Thus, larger items may provide more calories per unit weight than smaller items. This hypothesis that smaller items may be suboptimal for supplying food to pups is supported by the fact that small mammals occurred in over 50% of adult scats but in only one pup scat. Third, fawns are relatively abundant in June and are vulnerable due to small size and inexperience. Thus, they are easily obtained prey for adult coyotes. The plums consumed by pups probably were not brought by adults. Plum trees were abundant near the den site. Therefore, the presence of plums in pup scats probably was a result of foraging efforts by pups. A potential limitation in this analysis was that pup scats were obtained from only one den. Also, the area around the den from which adult scats were collected was small enough that most of the samples probably were from the parents of the pups, but some samples likely were from other coyotes. Comparisons of pup and adult food habits warrant further investigation using data from multiple family groups. CONCLUSIONS Reproducing coyotes may optimize foraging efforts to provision pups by selecting large, easily obtained items. This is consistent with numerous reports of increased predation on livestock by coyotes during pup rearing (e.g., Young and Jackson 1951, Wade 1980). ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Support for this research was provided by the Cooperative Wildlife Research Laboratory, Department of Zoology, and Graduate School at Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. I thank E. Cypher, J. Scrivner, and A. Woolf for reviewing the manuscript.

136 LITERATURE CITED Adorjan, A. S., and G. B. Kolenosky. 1969. A manual for the identification of hairs of selected Ontario mammals. Ontario Dep. Lands and For., Res. Rep. (Wildlife) No. 90. 63pp. Bekoff, M. 1982. Coyote. Pages 447-459 in J. A. Chapman and G. A. Feldhamer, eds. Wild mammals of North America. John Hopkins Univ. Press, Baltimore, Md. Brower, J. E., and J. H. Zar. 1977. Field and laboratory methods for general ecology. Second ed. William C. Brown Publ., Dubuque, Iowa. 226pp. Cypher, B. L. 1991. Coyote foraging dynamics, space use, and activity relative to resource variation at Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge, Illinois. Ph.D. Thesis. Southern Illinois Univ., Carbondale. 167pp. Floyd, T. J., L. D. Mech, and P. A. Jordan. 1978. Relating wolf scat content to prey consumed. J. Wildl. Manage. 42:528-532. Glass, B. P. 1981. Key to the skulls of North American mammals. Oklahoma St. Univ., Stillwater. 59pp. Harrison, D. J., and J. A. Harrison. 1984. Foods of adult Maine coyotes and their known aged pups. J. Wildl. Manage. 48:922-926. Hutcheson, K. 1970. A test for comparing diversities based on the Shannon formula. J. Theoret. Biol. 29:151-154. Moore, T. D., L. E. Spencer, and C. E. Dugnolle. 1974. Identification of the dorsal guard hairs of some mammals of Wyoming. Wyoming Game and Fish Dep. Bull. 14. 177pp. Roest, A. I. 1986. A key-guide to mammal skulls and lower jaws. Mad River Press, Eureka, Calif. 39pp. Stains, H. J. 1958. Field key to guard hairs of middle western furbearers. J. Wildl. Manage. 38:913-920. U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1974. Seeds of woody plants in the U.S. For. Serv., Agric. Handb. 450. 883pp. Wade, D. A. 1978. Coyote damage: a survey of its nature and scope, control measures and their applications. Pages 346-368 in M. Bekoff, ed. Coyotes: biology, behavior, and management. Academic Press, New York, New York. Young, S. P., and H. H. T. Jackson. 1951. The clever coyote. Wildl. Manage. Inst., Washington, D. C. 411pp.

137 Table 1. Occurrence and diversity of food items in adult and pup coyote scats, June 1986, Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge, Illinois. Occurrence Pup (n=185) Adult (n=93) Item No. % No. % Adult deer 3 1.6 9 9.7 Fawn deer 159 85.9 28 30.1 Eastern cottontail 8 4.3 29 31.2 Small rodent 1 0.5 54 58.1 Woodchuck 7 3.8 6 6.5 Squirrel - - 2 2.2 Muskrat - - 6 6.5 Raccoon 10 5.4 2 2.2 Canada goose 6 3.2 - - Unknown bird 9 4.9 11 11.8 Bird egg - - 5 5.4 Reptile egg - - 2 2.2 American plum 20 10.8 4 4.3 Black cherry - - 3 3.2 Other - - 7 a 7.5 Number of Items 9 20 Shannon Diversity Index 0.419 0.907 a One occurrence each of cow, beaver, opossum, grasshopper, crayfish, blackberry, and unknown seed.