Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Location
Saratoga Springs, NY
Start Date
4-5-2009 12:00 AM
Description
When monitoring wildlife for research and management, researchers must cope with methodological limitations associated with idiosyncrasies of animal behavioral ecology and operational constraints. In addition to wildlife behavioral limitations, urban lands present hurdles to researchers because of fragmentation of land ownership, and limited access to land parcels, which may preclude appropriate sampling strategies. Across the coyote's (Canis latrans) range, it is difficult to detect animals for robust, yet inexpensive population monitoring. We tested the efficacy of howling surveys to estimate coyote presence in an urbanized landscape, Westchester County, New York. This was an inexpensive, non-invasive sampling technique that is free of the confines of property access. We evaluated two hypotheses: 1) coyotes would howl less frequently in suburban areas than reported in other studies, and 2) researchers could elicit greater howling responses from coyotes by decreasing the distance between the sound source and known locations for radio-collared coyotes. Additionally, we reviewed several alternative techniques for detecting wildlife, and outlined operational challenges that limit these methods for coyotes in urban areas. We demonstrated that capture-recapture was a difficult technique to sample coyote populations, although it was worthwhile when coupled with radio-telemetry as the goal. Overall, coyotes responded poorly to taped howls (16% ± 17% SD), which was within the range of response rates reported in other studies (9-50%). We found no trends for coyote vocal responses. Howling responses for collared coyotes were abysmally low, and would not serve as a reliable index of abundance. Additionally, howling surveys provided little information beyond simple presence-absence. Eliciting coyote vocalizations from howling surveys would best be used for public outreach and education-oriented naturalist walks.
Recommended Citation
Bogan, D. A., Curtis, P. D., & Albers, G. F. (2009). Numerically common, functionally rare: Difficulties in detecting urban coyotes for population monitoring. In Boulanger, J. (Ed.), The Thirteenth Wildlife Damage Management Conference (164-171). Saratoga Springs, NY: Thirteenth WDM Conference.
Included in
Numerically Common, Functionally Rare: Difficulties in Detecting Urban Coyotes for Population Monitoring
Saratoga Springs, NY
When monitoring wildlife for research and management, researchers must cope with methodological limitations associated with idiosyncrasies of animal behavioral ecology and operational constraints. In addition to wildlife behavioral limitations, urban lands present hurdles to researchers because of fragmentation of land ownership, and limited access to land parcels, which may preclude appropriate sampling strategies. Across the coyote's (Canis latrans) range, it is difficult to detect animals for robust, yet inexpensive population monitoring. We tested the efficacy of howling surveys to estimate coyote presence in an urbanized landscape, Westchester County, New York. This was an inexpensive, non-invasive sampling technique that is free of the confines of property access. We evaluated two hypotheses: 1) coyotes would howl less frequently in suburban areas than reported in other studies, and 2) researchers could elicit greater howling responses from coyotes by decreasing the distance between the sound source and known locations for radio-collared coyotes. Additionally, we reviewed several alternative techniques for detecting wildlife, and outlined operational challenges that limit these methods for coyotes in urban areas. We demonstrated that capture-recapture was a difficult technique to sample coyote populations, although it was worthwhile when coupled with radio-telemetry as the goal. Overall, coyotes responded poorly to taped howls (16% ± 17% SD), which was within the range of response rates reported in other studies (9-50%). We found no trends for coyote vocal responses. Howling responses for collared coyotes were abysmally low, and would not serve as a reliable index of abundance. Additionally, howling surveys provided little information beyond simple presence-absence. Eliciting coyote vocalizations from howling surveys would best be used for public outreach and education-oriented naturalist walks.