4.5 Article

Predation on desert tortoises (Gopherus agassizii) by desert canids

Journal

JOURNAL OF ARID ENVIRONMENTS
Volume 189, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaridenv.2021.104476

Keywords

Dietary analysis; Canis latrans; Mojave desert; Prey availability; Scat; Vulpes macrotis arsipus

Funding

  1. Endangered Species Recovery Program, California State University, Stanislaus
  2. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Desert tortoises are vulnerable to predation by various predators such as desert kit foxes and coyotes, with coyotes consuming more adult tortoises while desert kit foxes prefer juveniles. The study found that these canids primarily consumed small mammals and invertebrates, with desert tortoise remains occurring at a low frequency, indicating opportunistic use of tortoises as prey or scavenged food.
Desert tortoises (Gopherus agassizii) are a long-lived reptile vulnerable to predation by many predators, including desert kit foxes (Vulpes macrotis arsipus) and coyotes (Canis latrans). From 2009 to 2014, we assessed canid food habits at a study site in the Mojave Desert in California, USA, by collecting and analyzing desert kit fox and coyote scats. These canids primarily consumed small mammals and invertebrates. Desert tortoise remains occurred at an overall low frequency (<3%), indicating the opportunistic use by these canids of desert tortoise as a prey or scavenged food item. When we analyzed the desert tortoise remains further, there was a significant difference between predator type and desert tortoise age class. Coyotes consumed more than twice as many adult than juvenile desert tortoises, while desert kit foxes only consumed juveniles. Desert kit foxes are a small canid, thus limited to smaller prey items (i.e., juvenile desert tortoises), while coyotes are larger and can optimize a wider size range.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available