4.1 Article

Territory fidelity, space use, and survival rates of wild coyotes following surgical sterilization

期刊

JOURNAL OF ETHOLOGY
卷 30, 期 3, 页码 345-354

出版社

SPRINGER JAPAN KK
DOI: 10.1007/s10164-012-0330-4

关键词

Carnivore; Coyotes; Home range; Sterilization; Survival; Territory fidelity

资金

  1. US Department of Agriculture, Wildlife Services, National Wildlife Research Center, Logan Field Station at Utah State University

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Sterilization of wild canids is being used experimentally in many management applications. Few studies have clearly demonstrated vasectomized and tubal-ligated canids will retain pair-bonding and territorial behaviors. We tested whether territory fidelity, space use, and survival rates of surgically sterilized coyote (Canis latrans) packs were different from sham-operated coyote packs. We captured and radio-collared 30 coyotes in December 2006. Sixteen of these animals were sterilized via vasectomy or tubal ligation, and 14 were given sham-surgeries (i.e., remained intact). We monitored these animals using telemetry and visual observations through 2 breeding seasons and 1 pup-rearing season from December 2006 to March 2008. Mean pack size was not significantly different between sterile and intact coyote packs. We found no difference in home range size between sterile and intact coyotes. We found differences in home range and core area overlap between sterile and intact coyote packs in some seasons; however, this difference may have existed prior to sterilization. Home range fidelity was not significantly different between sterile and intact coyotes. All coyotes had higher residency rates during the breeding season, with no differences between sterile and intact coyotes. Survival rates were correlated with biological season, but there were no differences in survival rates between sterile and intact coyotes. We concluded that surgical sterilization of coyotes did not affect territory fidelity, survival rates, or home range maintenance.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据