4.2 Article

Resource selection by coyotes (Canis latrans) in a longleaf pine (Pinus palustris) ecosystem: effects of anthropogenic fires and landscape features

期刊

CANADIAN JOURNAL OF ZOOLOGY
卷 97, 期 2, 页码 165-171

出版社

CANADIAN SCIENCE PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1139/cjz-2018-0150

关键词

Canis latrans; coyote; longleaf pine; Pinus palustris; prescribed fire; resource selection

类别

资金

  1. United States Department of Defense
  2. Fisheries, Wildlife, and Conservation Biology Program at North Carolina State University
  3. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) Wildlife Services
  4. Fort Bragg Wildlife Branch

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Prescribed fire is used to restore and maintain fire-dependent forest communities. Because fire affects food and cover resources, fire-mediated resource selection has been documented for many wildlife species. The first step in understanding these interactions is to understand resource selection of the predators in a fire-maintained system. We attached GPS radio collars to 27 coyotes (Canis latrans Say, 1823) and examined resource selection relative to fire-maintained vegetation types, years since fire, anthropogenic features that facilitate prescribed burning, and other landscape features likely to affect coyote resource selection. Coyote home ranges were characterized by more open vegetation types and more recently burned forest (i.e., burned 0-1 year prior) than available on the study area. Within their home ranges, coyotes avoided areas close to densely vegetated drainages and paved roads. Coyote selection of more recently burned forest likely was in response to greater prey density or increased ability to detect prey soon after vegetation cover was reduced by fires; similarly, coyotes likely avoided drainages due to decreased hunting efficiency. Coyote resource selection was linked to prescribed fire, suggesting the interaction between fire and coyotes may influence ecosystem function in fire-dependent forests.

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

4.2
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