Evaluating coyote management strategies using a spatially explicit, individual-based, socially structured population model

Managing canid predation on livestock is the leading challenge facing canid conservation worldwide. However, removing canids, and coyotes in particular, to reduce livestock predation is environmentally and socially controversial. In addition, it can be expensive and logistically difficult to field evaluate the myriad of potential selective, spatial, and temporal canid management strategies. Here, we develop a spatially explicit, individual-based simulation model to evaluate commonly used or promoted coyote control strategies. We began with an already constructed non-spatial, individual-based stochastic coyote population model that incorporated behavioral features, such as dominance and territoriality. We added a spatial component and enhanced the social rule set to more realistically model coyote movement and territory replacement. This model merges coyote spatial, social, and population ecology into a management framework. The development, structure, and parameterization of this model are described in detail. For lethal methods, model results suggest that spatially intensive removals are more efficient and long lasting compared to random removal methods. However, sterilization appears to be the management strategy offering the largest and most lasting impact on coyote population dynamics. We recommend adding spatial prey/livestock density and environmental components to this model to further enhance its ecological reality and management usefulness. Although this model is applied to coyotes in particular, it is applicable to many canid species of conservation concern. This model provides a tool to assist in the development of more effective and socially acceptable livestock predation management strategies.

[1]  R. Griffiths,et al.  Coyote responses to changing jackrabbit abundance affect sheep predation , 2001 .

[2]  B. R. Mitchell,et al.  Coyote depredation management: current methods and research needs , 2004 .

[3]  Craig A. Aumann,et al.  A methodology for developing simulation models of complex systems , 2007 .

[4]  Michael R. Conover,et al.  Resolving Human-Wildlife Conflicts: The Science of Wildlife Damage Management , 2001 .

[5]  R. Ruff,et al.  Howling by coyotes (Canis latrans) : variation among social classes, seasons, and pack sizes , 1998 .

[6]  C. Brand,et al.  Coyote Demography during a Snowshoe Hare Decline in Alberta , 1979 .

[7]  F. Knowlton,et al.  Efficacy of Denning in Alleviating Coyote Depredations upon Domestic Sheep , 1983 .

[8]  O. J. Rongstad,et al.  Population dynamics of coyotes in southeastern Colorado , 1989 .

[9]  R. Ruff,et al.  Social and nutritional factors influencing the dispersal of resident coyotes , 1996, Animal Behaviour.

[10]  F. Knowlton,et al.  Coyote space use in relation to prey abundance , 1991 .

[11]  Colin P.D. Birch,et al.  Rectangular and hexagonal grids used for observation, experiment and simulation in ecology , 2007 .

[12]  M. C. Wells,et al.  Social Ecology and Behavior of Coyotes , 1986 .

[13]  Birgit Müller,et al.  A standard protocol for describing individual-based and agent-based models , 2006 .

[14]  Hazel R. Parry,et al.  Aphid population response to agricultural landscape change: A spatially explicit, individual-based model , 2006 .

[15]  E. Gese,et al.  Coyote depredation control: an interface between biology and management , 1999 .

[16]  Bryan T. Grenfell,et al.  A spatial stochastic model simulating a scabies epidemic and coyote population dynamics , 2003 .

[17]  George D. Gopen,et al.  The Science of Scientific Writing If the reader is to grasp what the writer means, the writer must understand what the reader needs , 1990 .

[18]  Paul W. Box,et al.  An individual-based model of canid populations: modelling territoriality and social structure , 2003 .

[19]  E. Gese,et al.  Effects of sterilization on territory fidelity and maintenance, pair bonds, and survival rates of free-ranging coyotes , 2001 .

[20]  N. Barlow.  The ecological challenge of immunocontraception: editor's introduction , 2000 .

[21]  R. Haight,et al.  Computer simulation of vasectomy for wolf control , 1997 .

[22]  Eric M. Gese,et al.  Foraging ecology of coyotes (Canis latrans): the influence of extrinsic factors and a dominance hierarchy , 1996 .

[23]  D. McCullough,et al.  Territoriality and Breeding Status of Coyotes Relative to Sheep Predation , 1999 .

[24]  Steven F. Railsback,et al.  Individual-based modeling and ecology , 2005 .

[25]  R. Ruff,et al.  Scent-marking by coyotes, Canis latrans : the influence of social and ecological factors , 1997, Animal Behaviour.

[26]  Eric M. Gese,et al.  Home Range and Habitat Use of Coyotes in Southeastern Colorado , 1988 .

[27]  M. Bekoff,et al.  Coyotes : biology, behavior, and management , 1979 .

[28]  L. Keith,et al.  Population Ecology of Coyotes during a Fluctuation of Snowshoe Hares , 1981 .

[29]  D. McCullough,et al.  The effectiveness of selective removal of breeding coyotes in reducing sheep predation , 2002 .

[30]  F. Knowlton,et al.  Management Implications of Coyote Spacing Patterns in Southern Texas , 1988 .