Coursing the mottled mosaic: Generalist predators track pulses in availability of neonatal ungulates

Abstract The density and distribution of resources shape animal movement and behavior and have direct implications for population dynamics. Resource availability often is “pulsed” in space and time, and individuals should cue in on resource pulses when the energetic gain of doing so exceeds that of stable resources. Birth pulses of prey represent a profitable but ephemeral resource and should thereby result in shifting functional responses by predators. We evaluated movements and resource selection of coyotes (Canis latrans) across a gradient of reproductive stages ranging from late gestation to peak lactation of female mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) in southwest Wyoming, USA, to test whether coyotes exhibited shifts in selection and movement behavior relative to the availability and vulnerability of neonatal mule deer. We expected coyotes to track pulses in availability of neonatal mule deer, and such behavior would be represented by shifts in resource selection and search behavior of coyotes that would be strongest during peak parturition of mule deer. Coyotes selected areas of high relative probability of use by female mule deer and did so most strongly during peak parturition. Furthermore, searching behavior of coyotes intensified during pulses of availability of deer neonates. Our findings support the notion that coyotes exploit pulses of neonatal deer, presumably as an attempt to capitalize on a vulnerable, energy‐rich resource. Our work quantifies the behavioral mechanisms by which coyotes consume ungulate neonates and provides one of the first examples of a mammalian predator–prey system centered on a pulsed resource.

[1]  Joseph D. Holbrook,et al.  Spatiotemporal predictions of the alternative prey hypothesis: Predator habitat use during decreasing prey abundance , 2023, Ecosphere.

[2]  R. Pringle,et al.  Mechanisms of individual variation in large herbivore diets: Roles of spatial heterogeneity and state‐dependent foraging , 2022, Ecology.

[3]  Gino J. D'Angelo,et al.  Recursive use of home ranges and seasonal shifts in foraging behavior by a generalist carnivore , 2022, Ecology and evolution.

[4]  Justin G. Clapp,et al.  Risky business: How an herbivore navigates spatiotemporal aspects of risk from competitors and predators , 2022, Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America.

[5]  J. Beasley,et al.  Resident and transient coyotes exhibit differential patterns of movement behavior across heterogeneous landscapes in the southeastern United States , 2022, Ecology and evolution.

[6]  Justin G. Clapp,et al.  Cats and dogs: A mesopredator navigating risk and reward provisioned by an apex predator , 2022, Ecology and evolution.

[7]  Joseph W. Hinton,et al.  Fine‐scale movements and behaviors of coyotes (Canis latrans) during their reproductive period , 2021, Ecology and evolution.

[8]  J. Krebs,et al.  Foraging Theory , 2019 .

[9]  J. Belant,et al.  Carnivore space use shifts in response to seasonal resource availability , 2019, Ecosphere.

[10]  Orr Spiegel,et al.  A comprehensive analysis of autocorrelation and bias in home range estimation , 2019, Ecological Monographs.

[11]  Jeremy D. Maestas,et al.  Innovation in rangeland monitoring: annual, 30 m, plant functional type percent cover maps for U.S. rangelands, 1984–2017 , 2018, Ecosphere.

[12]  Kevin T Shoemaker,et al.  A machine‐learning approach for extending classical wildlife resource selection analyses , 2018, Ecology and evolution.

[13]  K. Miller,et al.  Survival of white-tailed deer neonates in Louisiana , 2017 .

[14]  Ellen O. Aikens,et al.  The greenscape shapes surfing of resource waves in a large migratory herbivore. , 2017, Ecology letters.

[15]  Christen H. Fleming,et al.  A new kernel density estimator for accurate home‐range and species‐range area estimation , 2017 .

[16]  Justin M. Calabrese,et al.  ctmm: an r package for analyzing animal relocation data as a continuous‐time stochastic process , 2016 .

[17]  R. Sikes,et al.  2016 Guidelines of the American Society of Mammalogists for the use of wild mammals in research and education , 2016, Journal of Mammalogy.

[18]  Jonathan B. Armstrong,et al.  Resource waves: phenological diversity enhances foraging opportunities for mobile consumers. , 2016, Ecology.

[19]  Jonathan B. Armstrong,et al.  Kodiak brown bears surf the salmon red wave: direct evidence from GPS collared individuals. , 2016, Ecology.

[20]  J. Belant,et al.  Scale Dependence of Female Ungulate Reproductive Success in Relation to Nutritional Condition, Resource Selection and Multi-Predator Avoidance , 2015, PloS one.

[21]  Frank T. van Manen,et al.  Space Use and Habitat Selection by Resident and Transient Coyotes (Canis latrans) , 2015, PloS one.

[22]  C H Fleming,et al.  Rigorous home range estimation with movement data: a new autocorrelated kernel density estimator. , 2015, Ecology.

[23]  K. Pollock,et al.  Do Biological and Bedsite Characteristics Influence Survival of Neonatal White-Tailed Deer? , 2015, PloS one.

[24]  H. S. Ray,et al.  Coyote Removal, Understory Cover, and Survival of White-Tailed Deer Neonates , 2014 .

[25]  Stewart G. Liley,et al.  Post-parturition habitat selection by elk calves and adult female elk in New Mexico , 2014 .

[26]  W. Porter,et al.  Behavior and nutritional condition buffer a large‐bodied endotherm against direct and indirect effects of climate , 2014 .

[27]  Angela K. Fuller,et al.  Can managers compensate for coyote predation of white‐tailed deer? , 2014 .

[28]  John G. Kie,et al.  Life-History Characteristics of Mule Deer: Effects of Nutrition in a Variable Environment , 2014 .

[29]  Guiming Wang,et al.  Population-level response of coyotes to a pulsed resource event , 2014, Population Ecology.

[30]  Ulrike E. Schlägel,et al.  Inferring parturition and neonate survival from movement patterns of female ungulates: a case study using woodland caribou , 2013, Ecology and evolution.

[31]  Jonathan B. Armstrong,et al.  Riding the crimson tide: mobile terrestrial consumers track phenological variation in spawning of an anadromous fish , 2013, Biology Letters.

[32]  J. Shivik,et al.  The Effect of Social Hierarchy on Captive Coyote (Canis latrans) Foraging Behavior , 2013 .

[33]  P. Kjellander,et al.  Habitat use, bed-site selection and mortality rate in neonate fallow deer Dama dama , 2012 .

[34]  H. S. Ray,et al.  Predation by coyotes on white‐tailed deer neonates in South Carolina , 2012 .

[35]  Jonathan B. Armstrong,et al.  Temperature-associated population diversity in salmon confers benefits to mobile consumers. , 2011, Ecology.

[36]  Daniel Fortin,et al.  Foraging strategies by omnivores: are black bears actively searching for ungulate neonates or are they simply opportunistic predators? , 2011 .

[37]  B. Scurlock,et al.  Elk Parturition Site Selection at Local and Landscape Scales , 2011 .

[38]  Marcus Vinícius Vieira,et al.  Indices of movement behaviour: conceptual background, effects of scale and location errors , 2010 .

[39]  Troy W. Grovenburg,et al.  Bed Site Selection by Neonate Deer in Grassland Habitats on the Northern Great Plains , 2010 .

[40]  T. R. Weston,et al.  Small Mammal and Plant Community Responses to Mechanical Disturbance and Rest in Wyoming Big Sagebrush Grassland , 2010 .

[41]  Todd J. Brinkman,et al.  Evaluating Ungulate Mortality Associated With Helicopter Net-Gun Captures in the Northern Great Plains , 2009 .

[42]  Troy W. Grovenburg,et al.  Aggressive Defensive Behavior by Free-Ranging White-Tailed Deer , 2009 .

[43]  S. Côté,et al.  Maternal Defensive Behavior of Mountain Goats Against Predation by Golden Eagles , 2009 .

[44]  Mollie E. Brooks,et al.  Generalized linear mixed models: a practical guide for ecology and evolution. , 2009, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[45]  Louie H. Yang,et al.  What can we learn from resource pulses? , 2008, Ecology.

[46]  D. R. Cutler,et al.  Utah State University From the SelectedWorks of , 2017 .

[47]  R. G. Davies,et al.  Methods to account for spatial autocorrelation in the analysis of species distributional data : a review , 2007 .

[48]  R. Sikes,et al.  Guidelines of the American Society of Mammalogists for the Use of Wild Mammals in Research , 2007 .

[49]  Cameron L. Aldridge,et al.  Application of random effects to the study of resource selection by animals. , 2006, The Journal of animal ecology.

[50]  S. Pellis,et al.  Interspecific variation in antipredator behaviour leads to differential vulnerability of mule deer and white‐tailed deer fawns early in life , 2005 .

[51]  David R. Anderson,et al.  Multimodel Inference , 2004 .

[52]  Torkild Tveraa,et al.  USING FIRST‐PASSAGE TIME IN THE ANALYSIS OF AREA‐RESTRICTED SEARCH AND HABITAT SELECTION , 2003 .

[53]  S. Pellis,et al.  Fight or flight? Antipredator behavior and the escalation of coyote encounters with deer , 2002, Oecologia.

[54]  L. Breiman Random Forests , 2001, Encyclopedia of Machine Learning and Data Mining.

[55]  V. Bleich,et al.  SELECTION OF MULE DEER BY MOUNTAIN LIONS AND COYOTES: EFFECTS OF HUNTING STYLE, BODY SIZE, AND REPRODUCTIVE STATUS , 2000 .

[56]  Susan C. Roberts,et al.  Energetic constraints on the diet of terrestrial carnivores , 1999, Nature.

[57]  F. Messier,et al.  Prey switching and feeding habits of eastern coyotes in relation to snowshoe hare and white-tailed deer densities , 1998 .

[58]  J. Kie,et al.  Habitat Selection by Neonatal Black-Tailed Deer: Climate, Forage, or Risk of Predation? , 1998 .

[59]  John D. C. Linnell,et al.  Who killed Bambi? The role of predation in the neonatal mortality of temperate ungulates , 1995, Wildlife Biology.

[60]  B. Manly,et al.  Resource selection by animals: statistical design and analysis for field studies. , 1994 .

[61]  O. J. Rongstad,et al.  Relationship between Coyote Group Size and Diet in Southeastern Colorado , 1988 .

[62]  J. Hanley,et al.  The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. , 1982, Radiology.

[63]  M. C. Wells,et al.  Predation by Wild Coyotes: Behavioral and Ecological Analyses , 1982 .

[64]  W. F. Andelt,et al.  Habitat Use by Coyotes in Southeastern Nebraska , 1981 .

[65]  Douglas H. Johnson THE COMPARISON OF USAGE AND AVAILABILITY MEASUREMENTS FOR EVALUATING RESOURCE PREFERENCE , 1980 .

[66]  M. C. Wells,et al.  The relative importance of the distance senses in coyote predatory behaviour , 1978, Animal Behaviour.

[67]  Graham H. Pyke,et al.  Optimal Foraging: A Selective Review of Theory and Tests , 1977, The Quarterly Review of Biology.

[68]  D. Fraser,et al.  The behaviour of Ungulates and its relation to management , 1975 .

[69]  J. Emlen The Role of Time and Energy in Food Preference , 1966, The American Naturalist.

[70]  R. Parmenter,et al.  Space use and social ecology of coyotes (Canis latrans) in a high-elevation ecosystem: relative stability in a changing environment , 2016, Journal of Ethology.

[71]  R Core Team,et al.  R: A language and environment for statistical computing. , 2014 .

[72]  Angela K. Fuller,et al.  Managing white-tailed deer: eastern North America , 2014 .

[73]  M. Kelly,et al.  Habitat selection of a large carnivore, the red wolf, in a human-altered landscape , 2013 .

[74]  V. Radeloff,et al.  Difference in spatiotemporal patterns of wildlife road-crossings and wildlife-vehicle collisions , 2012 .

[75]  J. Evans,et al.  Quantifying Bufo boreas connectivity in Yellowstone National Park with landscape genetics. , 2010, Ecology.

[76]  John S. Lewis,et al.  Assessing the Helicopter and Net Gun as a Capture Technique for White-Tailed Deer , 2008 .

[77]  David R. Anderson,et al.  Understanding AIC and BIC in Model Selection , 2004 .

[78]  L. Carpenter,et al.  Deer-predator relationships: a review of recent North American studies with emphasis on mule and black-tailed deer , 2001 .

[79]  T. Fuller,et al.  Carnivore demography and the consequences of changes in prey availability , 2001 .

[80]  Joel s. Brown,et al.  Vigilance, patch use and habitat selection: Foraging under predation risk , 1999 .

[81]  G. Adams,et al.  DIAGNOSIS OF PREGNANCY AND TWINNING IN MOOSE BY ULTRASONOGRAPHY AND SERUM ASSAY , 1995 .

[82]  C. Robbins,et al.  The energetic cost of predator avoidance in neonatal ungulates: hiding versus following , 1988 .

[83]  H. T. Gier,et al.  Coyotes in Kansas , 1957 .