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 Area Counties of: Augusta Bath Highland Rockingham Land Ownership: George Washington NF Little North Mtn WMA Highland WMA Warms 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 IDDeerVegMammalBirdOther

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

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 m

Soft Mast

Sampling for % cover and % mast production 200 meter permanent, line- intercept transects Monthly visits May – October

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 Kelly Dr. Jim Parkhurst Dr. Kathy Alexander Dr. 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? + =