Using diets of Canis breeding pairs to assess resource partitioning between sympatric red wolves and coyotes

17Citations
Citations of this article
42Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Foraging behaviors of red wolves (Canis rufus) and coyotes (Canis latrans) are complex and their ability to form congeneric breeding pairs and hybridize further complicates our understanding of factors influencing their diets. Through scat analysis, we assessed prey selection of red Wolf, coyote, and congeneric breeding pairs formed by red wolves and coyotes, and found that all 3 had similar diets. However, red Wolf and congeneric pairs consumed more white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) than coyote pairs. Coyotes forming breeding pairs with red wolves had 12% more white-tailed deer in their diet than conspecifics paired with coyotes. Contrary to many studies on coyotes in the southeastern United States, we found coyotes in eastern North Carolina to be primarily carnivorous with increased consumption of deer during winter. Although prey selection was generally similar among the 3 groups, differences in diet among different breeding pairs were strongly associated with body mass. Larger breeding pairs consumed more white-tailed deer, and fewer rabbits (Sylvilagus spp.) and other small mammals. Partitioning of food resources by sympatric red wolves and coyotes is likely via differences in the proportions of similar prey consumed, rather than differences in types of prey exploited. Consequently, our results suggest coexistence of red wolves and coyotes in the southeastern United States may not be possible because there are limited opportunities for niche partitioning to reduce competitive interactions.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Hinton, J. W., Ashley, A. K., Dellinger, J. A., Gittleman, J. L., Van Manen, F. T., & Chamberlain, M. J. (2017). Using diets of Canis breeding pairs to assess resource partitioning between sympatric red wolves and coyotes. Journal of Mammalogy, 98(2), 475–488. https://doi.org/10.1093/jmammal/gyw233

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free