Determining the density of coyotes in different
habitat types at the Sevilleta NWR/LTER
Damon R. Lowery
Sevilleta 2008 REU Program
Coyote (Canis latrans)

Medium-sized canids

Various habitats throughout
North and Central America

Occupy dens or burrows

Omnivorous diet

Various hunting strategies
NatureWorks. 2008
Project Objectives

Estimate coyote densities at the Sevilleta NWR
– Assess habitat use by coyotes

Grassland, Shrubland, Woodland
– Assess effect of percent woody vegetation cover
on coyote densities
Grassland
Shrubland
Woodland
Context and Significance of Study

Adds to past coyote research that has been performed
at the Sevilleta NWR
– Absolute density, Parmenter 2004
– Diet, Hernandez et al. 2002

Expands on the Parmenter (2004) data set

Assist in management of land and top predators
Research Question and
Hypothesis
Does the relative density of coyotes differ
among habitat types or change with variation in
percent woody vegetation cover?
Coyote Relative
Density
– Hypothesis: Coyote densities will be higher in open,
grassland habitats with less shrub and tree cover
Coyote Relative
Density

G
S
W
Habitat Type
% Woody Cover
Support for Hypothesis

Open habitats = Higher coyote densities

Potential reasons why
– Coyotes evolved in open habitats
– Open habitats contain a large abundance of
preferred coyote prey species
– Open habitats may be better suited to coyote
hunting strategies
Hidalgo-Mihart et al. 2006, Kamler and Gipson 2000
Study Site: Sevilleta NWR
Scat Collection Methods

Marked 13, one mile long road-based transects
– 5 grassland
– 5 shrubland
– 3 woodland

Collected scat weekly

Identified scat (e.g. Halfpenny 2001)
Scat Samples from Different Species
2.5 X 12cm scat. Large taper. Coyote
2.5 X 11cm scat. Coyote.
1 X 7cm scat. Ringtail.
Berry filled scat.
Species Unknown.
2.75 X 13cm scat. Black Bear.
2 X 7.5cm scat.
Possibly Bobcat.
Habitat Assessment Methods

Determined habitat types
– ArcGIS tools and Sevilleta vegetation map

Determined percent woody vegetation cover
– 100m line intercept transects
Scat Data



Scat from 8 known species and potentially ≥ 5 other species
289 total scats collected
Species
78 coyote scats
collected = 27% of all scats # of Scats
Coyote
78
Kit, Gray, Red Fox
51
Habitat Type
Ringtail
Mountain Lion
GrasslandBobcat
# of Coyote
Scats
27
Striped Skunk
Spotted Skunk
Shrubland
Possibly ≥2 species
11
8
34.6%
5
35
Black Bear
Unknown
Woodland
Percentage of All
13
Coyote Scats
3
44.9%
1
16
52
20.5%
67
Percent Woody Vegetation
Cover for Each Scat Transect



Initial assessment of habitat type for each scat transect
confirmed by line intercept transects and ArcGIS analysis
24 total woody species
Gutierrezia sarothrae (broom snakeweed) most common
and abundant
Habitat Type
Avg. % Woody Cover
Total # of Woody Species
Grassland
3.41 %
9
Shrubland
19.22 %
15
Woodland
37.96 %
13
Relative Density Calculation

Relative Density:
– R = S/(LnD) (Webbon et al. 2004)
 R = relative density
 S = # of feces found when collecting
 Ln = length of linear features driven
 D = # of days between collections

Densities for all transects within a given habitat type were averaged
Coyote Densities for Each
Habitat Type
Habitat Type
Average Density
Grassland
0.129
Shrubland
0.167
Woodland
0.127
Statistical Analysis
Differences in coyote density among
different habitat types were assessed using
an ANOVA
Coyote Relative Density

G
S
Habitat Type
W
Coyote Relative Density
Results of ANOVA
p = 0.88
0.18
0.16
0.14
0.12
0.1
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
Grassland
Shrubland
Habitat Type
Woodland
Statistical Analysis
Performed a regression analysis on coyote
densities vs. percent woody vegetation cover
Coyote Relative Density

% Woody Vegetation Cover
Results of Regression Analysis
Y= 0.0002x + 0.1398
R2 = 0.0004
p = 0.95
Coyote Relative Density
0.4
0.35
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
0
10
20
30
% Woody Vegetation Cover
40
50
Overview of Findings



Shrubland habitat had the highest density of coyotes
However, NO statistically significant differences in
densities among habitats
NO correlation between percent woody cover and
density of coyotes
Significance of Findings

Open habitats ≠ higher coyote densities

Amount of woody vegetation cover has
NO effect on coyote densities
Discussion of Findings

Why were there no differences among habitats?
–
–
–
–
Densities do NOT differ among habitats
Prey in equal abundance in all habitat types
Road location and usage
Sample size: # of scat collections and transects
Future Work



DNA and dietary analysis of scats
Further study of coyote habitat use
Apply study results to management of coyotes
and their prey species
Acknowledgements
I’d like to thank the following for their help and support:








NSF and Sevilleta REU Program
UNM and US Fish and Wildlife Service
Virginia Seamster
Jennifer Johnson
John Dewitt
Terri Koontz
Kelly Bowman
All of the Sevilleta REU’s and Interns, especially CJ Jewell,
Dan Colman, and Emerson Tuttle
Questions?
Sevilleta 2008 REU Program
References







Halfpenny JC. 2001. Scats and Tracks of the Rocky Mountains. Guilford: The
Globe Pequot Press. 144 p.
Hernández L, Parmenter RR, Dewitt JW, Lightfoot DC, Laundré JW. 2002.
Coyote diets in the Chihuahuan Desert, more evidence for optimal
foraging. Journal of Arid Environments, 51: 613-624.
Hidalgo-Mihart MG, Cantú-Salazar L, López-González CA, Martínez-Gutíerrez
PG, Fernandez EC, and González-Romero A. 2006. Coyote habitat use in
a tropical deciduous forest of Western Mexico. Journal of Wildlife
Management, 70: 216-221.
Kamler JF and Gipson PS. 2000. Space and habitat use by resident and transient
coyotes. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 78: 2106-2111.
NatureWorks. 2008. Coyote- Canis latrans. Available at
http://www.nhptv.org/natureworks/coyote.htm
Parmenter B. 2004. Coyote Scat Survey. Albuquerque, NM: Sevilleta Long
Term Ecological Research Site Database: SEV049.
http://sev.lternet.edu/project_details.php?id=SEV049. Accessed: May 8,
2008.
Webbon CC, Baker PJ, and Harris S. 2004. Faecal counting for monitoring
changes in red fox numbers in rural Britain. Journal of Applied Ecology,
41: 768-779.