|
Post by 1080 on Aug 16, 2013 13:20:04 GMT -6
Ohhhhhh,,,, What the Hell ... rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/273/1594/1651.fullYou 1st have to understand your quarry!!!!! Tips enclosed Discussion Our analysis demonstrates how mechanistic home range models, derived from individual movement and interaction rules, can be used to determine the underlying ecological determinants of observed coyote home range patterns and predict changes in space-use in response to perturbation. Specifically, in this study, we evaluated terrain heterogeneity and prey availability as two potential hypotheses for the observed spatial distribution of coyote home ranges in Lamar Valley. By incorporating movement responses to these two sources of heterogeneity into correlated random walk models of individual movement behaviour, and then evaluating the resulting predictions for patterns of space-use against the observed spatial distribution of relocations, it was possible to show that heterogeneity in prey availability provides a better explanation for the observed patterns of coyote space-use than avoidance of steep terrain. The predicted variation in the fine-scale movement behaviour of individuals in relation to food availability in different habitats (figure 2c) is consistent with independent behavioural observations of coyote foraging behaviour in Yellowstone. Reductions in the distance between successive relocations as food availability increases implies that individuals will spend more time in high-resource areas than in lower resource areas, a prediction consistent with field measurements of coyote activity budgets, which show that relative habitat use is linked to differences in foraging success (Gese et al. 1996a,b). The mechanistic and spatially explicit nature of the home range models used in this analysis addresses three limitations of RSA-based approaches to analysing patterns of space-use. First, the mechanistic home range approach avoids the need to define, a priori, available habitat. This critical step in RSA often involves subjective judgment and frequently has a significant impact on its findings (Johnson 1980; Alldrege & Ratti 1986; Porter & Church 1987; Thomas & Taylor 1990; Aebischer et al. 1993; Arthur et al. 1996; Cooper & Millspaugh 2001; Matthiopoulos 2003). For example, in third-order RSA studies (analyses performed at the scale of an individual's home range), available habitat is often defined as the area encompassed by a minimum convex polygon, or another statistical home range model fit to the spatial pattern of relocations. This procedure is sensitive to the kind of statistical model used to define available habitat, and tends to exclude areas that have not been utilized from the definition of what is available to individuals, thereby underestimating the influence of landscape heterogeneity on patterns of space-use. In contrast, mechanistic home range analysis avoids the problematic issue of having to define a priori what areas are available to an individual, in effect, because the underlying model of individual movement behaviour determines the likelihood and feasibility of an individual moving in a particular direction and distance. Second, the spatially explicit nature of mechanistic home range models means that they predict actual spatial patterns of space-use rather than simply relative rates of habitat utilization obtained from RSAs. This enables mechanistic home range models to account for the constraints that landscape geometry imposes on patterns of space-use by individuals, and thus make more complete use of the spatially explicit nature of telemetry data. For example, in RSA, all areas within the region defined as ‘available’ are assumed to be directly accessible to an individual, while on actual landscapes, the patchy spatial distribution of habitats—such as the patches of high small mammal biomass in Lamar Valley seen in figure 1c—means that individuals frequently traverse less favourable habitat in order to move between favourable areas. In RSA, the times individuals spend traversing unfavourable areas can register as a degree of selection, rather than as constraint imposed by the spatial geometry of the landscape. In contrast, by explicitly incorporating the process of individual-level movement, mechanistic home range models naturally incorporate the effects of geometric constraints on patterns of space-use. Third, mechanistic home range models are able to incorporate the effects of behavioural factors affecting patterns of space-use by individuals. As we showed here, this is particularly important in analysing coyote home range patterns, where, as in other carnivores, den sites act as focal points for the movements of individuals, and individuals exhibit conspecific avoidance responses to the presence of neighbouring packs (figure 2b). As seen in figure 3, in addition to influencing current patterns of space-use by individuals, the spacial geometry of resources and the constraints imposed by the patterns of space-use of neighbouring packs significantly influence the way in which home range patterns shift in response to demographic perturbation. The above benefits of mechanistic home range models come at a price, however. Compared to RSA, mechanistic home range analysis is challenging mathematically; the maximum-likelihood fitting procedure involves repeated numerical simulation of partial differential equations (such as equations (2.3) and (2.4)) in two-dimensional space for different parameter combinations. This high numerical cost of model fitting limits the numbers of different biotic and abiotic factors influencing movement that can be incorporated into a single mechanistic home range model. As shown here, the observed pattern of space-use in Yellowstone could be accounted for using a mechanistic home range model incorporating just two movement responses (prey availability and foreign scent-mark avoidance). In other situations, more complex models, incorporating responses to numerous different forms of landscape heterogeneity, may be required to account for observed home range patterns. In these situations, RSA is likely to be a useful tool for identifying key landscape heterogeneities influencing space-use. These factors can then be subsequently incorporated into mechanistic home range models to determine how they interact with landscape geometry and behavioural factors affecting movement to yield actual patterns of space-use, and to predict how home range patterns will shift in response to environmental or demographic perturbation. The mechanistic home model formulations used in this analysis reflected the ecological and behavioural characteristics of coyote territoriality, including small mammal foraging, avoidance of foreign scent-marks, den sites acting as focal points for the movement of individuals, and over-marking responses to encounters with foreign scent-marks. These formulations could be readily applied to analyse space-use in other carnivore species that use relatively static prey resources, occupy distinct home ranges, and use scent-marks as indicators of territorial occupation. More generally, the approach used here for coyotes could also be used to analyse home range patterns in a variety of other animal groups, including primates (Waser 1985; Barret & Lowen 1988), ungulates (Jarman 1974; Clutton-Brock et al. 1982; Boyce et al. 2003), rodents (Ostfeld 1986), birds (Brown 1964) and lizards (Stamps 1977; Schoener & Schoener 1980; Roughgarden 1995). The resulting equations for predicted patterns of space-use would be comprised of different movement terms, reflecting the different underlying ecological and behavioural cues affecting movement in these different animal groups. For example, a mechanistic home range model for ungulates may include movement responses to forage quality, tree-cover and aggregative responses to conspecifics. If predators were also suspected to be a significant factor affecting space-use, predator avoidance terms would also need to be included, requiring information on the predator spatial distribution, either obtained from observations, or predicted from a coupled mechanistic home range model of the predator space-use.
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Aug 17, 2013 7:11:06 GMT -6
Thanks 1080.
I'll be gone most of the weekend, so will have to wait until monday to read this more, and to digest the contents.
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Aug 19, 2013 10:02:27 GMT -6
had to get out my dictionary on this one-
so mechanistic means applying physical properties, to what "should or must be, instead of what experiment seems to show."
perturbation was a new word for me, meaning "a. The act of perturbing. b. The state of being perturbed; agitation. c. A small change in a physical system.
In a way 1080, this goes back to, and lends some credence to, my early theories about physical characteriscs making up "social or party spots"
thanks!
|
|
|
Post by jsevering on Aug 20, 2013 11:10:52 GMT -6
thanks for posting the study, pretty interesting.... that topo map covers a large area, wish it would of given the direction of how the intermediate contours flowed across the flat or would of scaled without more or less cutting it off at the 2100 contour base line, by the habitat chart it appears that the habitat across the flat was basically the same by the frequency visit chart... found that quite interesting as the reputed perturbation lines seemed to be across the same habitat based on the chart within reason and over what I think they said was a three year or so study, didn't catch whether it was a seasonal type study or the prey habitat chart was based on all four seasons ... kinda makes you wish they had a good aerial overlay of the area to go with it, or spot elevations on the den sites to try and understand any perceived subtle lines or features other than the prey base chart...for the reputed perturbation lines across the flat... seems the perceived population dynamics, interaction and or politics compared to the dead cow study sure appear to be a hair different... seasonal differences in part?... thanks again for posting the study... jim
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Aug 20, 2013 11:22:00 GMT -6
it was an interesting study- and you live, I think, in similar areas ie valleys/ridges/etc. but its a mind bender- not something you speed read-
Ive had a few pm me, saying aren't the studies just stating the obvious? that its basic knowledge, that coyotes piss, that they are social, that they go to dead piles. In other words, the studies aren't saying much, so why bother to read them, when the conclusions are coyotes piss to mark territory or eat carrion?
for me- its the old not seeing the forest, because of the trees adage- the dead piles, the pissing, the behaviors vis a vis territory are the the trees.... but there is a broader picture, the quantum leap as it were.
for example, whats key in the dead cow study- isn't the obvious that coyotes are attracted to dead cows- its the dynamics on this singular point- HOW DO MULTIPLE GROUPS OF COYOTES USE A DEAD PILE (OR OTHER MAJOR ATTRACTION POINT?
and that, gol darn it all to heck- is THE SPOT
I'm truly amazed, that anyone that traps coyotes, wouldn't hone in on these discussions and take that quantum leap.
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Aug 20, 2013 16:46:47 GMT -6
Well this discussion got me to thinking some more and this study could be helpful in finding the spot as well. Dispersal and its effects on resident coyotes is a good read and some interesting points are made in this study. Notice the snow depth to carcass biomass chart this should lead to some thinking on how they utilize the home ranges in this area and what effects carcass bio mass has on them. www.aphis.usda.gov/wildlife_damage/nwrc/publications/96pubs/96-34.pdf
|
|
|
Post by jsevering on Aug 20, 2013 20:14:28 GMT -6
thanks for the additional information in the study...jim
|
|
|
Post by 1080 on Aug 20, 2013 23:03:57 GMT -6
thanks for posting the study, pretty interesting.... jim My pleasure,,,,easier read than initially thought?(rhetorical) Ive had a few pm me, saying aren't the studies just stating the obvious? that its basic knowledge, that coyotes piss, that they are social, that they go to dead piles. In other words, the studies aren't saying much, so why bother to read them, when the conclusions are coyotes piss to mark territory or eat carrion? The basics... I prefer to tie it in with what I see afield(but thats just me)!!! Note::::Coyotes in our study were more likely to modify space-use patterns under relatively unstable population conditions, but space-use patterns of coyotes under relatively stable conditions were not driven by short-term fluctuations in food distribution. Instead, coyotes may be responding to alternative factors, such as long-term food distribution patterns, habitat features, or denning sites. But what I see as KEY is the LAST sentence of the Following We tested the influence of a change in food resource distribution on space use and diet of coyotes (Canis latrans). We focused on 2 facets of space use: maintenance of home ranges by residents, and establishment of home ranges by immigrants after a coyote removal program. The study was conducted on 2 populations of coyotes in southern Texas. In both populations, a clumped, high-quality food source was added to randomly selected feeding stations to measure the influence of food distribution and abundance on home-range patterns, trespassing rates, and consumption of native prey. In established home ranges, coyotes visited and foraged at stations regularly and were found closer to stations during the treatment period. Although there was no overall treatment effect on home-range size (F = 1.66, d.f. = 5, P = 0.15), home ranges without supplemental food remained stable in size, whereas home ranges that had received supplemental food increased during the posttreatment period (t = 2.09, d.f. = 1, P = 0.04). Core areas showed a similar trend; there was no overall treatment effect (F = 1.51, d.f. = 2, P = 0.24); however, core areas of home ranges that received supplemental food were smaller than those of controls during the treatment period (t = 2.71, d.f. = 1, P < 0.01). There were no statistical differences in occurrence of any species, such as small mammals or white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), in scats of treatment versus control coyotes. Coyotes within the study site after removals were located closer to feeding stations during treatment than posttreatment (F = 8.83, d.f. = 1, P < 0.02, n = 897) periods, yet home-range size with supplemental food was larger than home-range size during the posttreatment period. Our findings suggest that a resource other than food influences coyote spatial patterns Personally,,,,, Deadpiles are only a fraction of the equation.Oftentimes,just a small fraction !!! Keep that in mind...
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Aug 21, 2013 17:48:13 GMT -6
Here is yet another study to mull over in the puzzle of the spot and finding that exact location. Reading between the lines one can find some good nuggets of information on long term spatial home range of coyotes. This one is done in Colorado. digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1632&context=icwdm_usdanwrc&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26rct%3Dj%26q%3Dcoyote%2520home%2520range%2520research%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D6%26ved%3D0CEIQFjAF%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fdigitalcommons.unl.edu%252Fcgi%252Fviewcontent.cgi%253Farticle%253D1632%2526context%253Dicwdm_usdanwrc%26ei%3Di08VUuP3IYfFrQGj_oGQDQ%26usg%3DAFQjCNGgzy67PGNXDSdzvWZSzsNn8O1YCw%26bvm%3Dbv.51156542%2Cd.aWM#search=%22coyote%20home%20range%20research%22THese paragraphs can tell us something about home range use and the changes inside of them during seasonal changes and food availability nd why the spot can move. Despite long-term spatial stability of coyote packs in an area, there are a number of factors that may influence short- term changes in space use within that area. The changes in home-range sizes between periods likely reflect short-term changes due to prey availability and distribution, and may have no influence on the level of spatial stability exhibited. Territorial expansion and contraction due to changes in re- source abundance or pack dynamics have been well docu- mented in canids and other animals (Fuller and Keith 1980; Messier 1985; Peterson and Page 1988). Fuller (1989) noted that the relatively stable, long-established territorial bound- aries of wolves in north-central Minnesota fluctuated little with short-term changes in pack size. Changes in small-scale space use were also evident in our study, through analysis of the distribution of coyote-pack lo- cations. A number of authors have noted that home ranges of animals are often unevenly used, with animals concentrating their activities in certain areas and using others infrequently (e.g., Macdonald et al. 1980; Voigt and Tinline 1980; Laundre and Keller 1981). This differential use of the home range can vary over time. Significant differences in the distribution of locations for the majority of the coyote packs both be- tween periods and between seasons indicate that coyotes vary their utilization of space within the territory despite maintaining the same site and home-range boundaries over a number of years. The strong spatial stability exhibited by the coyote packs in this study may have been facilitated by the high density of coyotes in the area (Gese et al. 1989; Kitchen et al. 1999). An increase in site-use stability when the density of a popu- lation is close to habitat saturation has been documented in a number of animal species (e.g., Sterck 1998). The incidence of movement out of territorial areas by canids seems to in- crease with the ready availability of suitable resource-rich vacant areas (wolves, Fritts and Mech 1981; dingoes, Thom- son et al. 1992). If higher-quality territories are available, re- maining faithful to its present site may not be beneficial for an animal (Switzer 1993), although a number of additional variables may influence the adaptive advantage of site stabil- ity, including habitat stability (McNicholl 1975) and the variability of the quality of the habitat within the territory (Bench and Hasselquist 1991). Thus, the level of stability in long-term site use among coyote populations may vary with environmental, social, and individual factors. Knowledge of coyote behavior, such as the spatial stabil- ity of home range, is becoming increasingly important in their management, owing to heightened efforts to restrict at- tempts to control them to localized areas. There is some evi- dence that coyotes will leave a territory, at least temporarily, to pursue prey (Shivik et al. 1996), or be unable to defend territories containing a large prey base from transients (Camen- zind 1978). However, other studies have shown that when breeding coyotes hold territories containing sheep, they are the principal predators of the sheep (Althoff and Gipson 1981; Till and Knowlton 1983; Sacks et al. 1999). Thus, targeting coyotes that hold territories in the immediate vicinity of depre- dation will be more effective than targeting coyotes over a wider area (Sacks et al. 1999), especially in areas where these coyotes may otherwise hold their territories for a number of years.
|
|
|
Post by bogio on Aug 21, 2013 18:43:20 GMT -6
The Wiseman said:
"Personally,,,,,
Deadpiles are only a fraction of the equation.Oftentimes,just a small fraction !!!
Keep that in mind..."
And yet all that seems to be considered by most is the setting of deadpiles. It seems to me this is much more a study and understanding of coyote behavior than learning how to locate attraction sites.
Tman said:
"all the lurkers-"
They don't participate in the discussion here but go to another site and ask those there who poo-poo these talks to recommend a video that will explain the spot on the spot or how to recognize overlap areas.
THE SOURCE IS HERE TO GUIDE BUT NOTHING IS GOING TO TEACH LIKE TIME IN THE FIELD AND COYOTES IN TRAPS!!!
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Aug 21, 2013 18:56:56 GMT -6
When talking about massive coyote migration due to a large food source one only needs to look at Bob Wendts Kansas line. Bob has a lot of coyotes coming to the " compact" spot. It has a few features that lead to his success. One being the massive dead pile that attracts coyotes by the mere nature of their makeup and the makeup,of "MOST" typical early fall/fall make up of coyote populations.
Bob like to call these areas the OLD Gummer spots and these are his meal ticket type set locations, the old Gummer I believe is some type of code to help find these dynamite locations ...................
|
|
|
Post by braveheart on Aug 22, 2013 3:40:21 GMT -6
I had a Spot years ago that had a draw that went for miles.Then it came to a end on this farmers ground and went up on a ridge and that went for at least 2 mile.The guy raises chickens free range the coyote even with know experience on coyotes .Got a pile of pup coyotes caught there.I picked it up again this year.There are piles of crap on the cross outs to the road .It still looks like a great spot.
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Aug 22, 2013 6:22:12 GMT -6
bogio, apparently some feel if they cannot grasp a concept, it must not exist...........
for those that do, doesn't this fit in nicely?
A pack exhibiting longterm spatial stability will also gain familiarity with packs holding neighboring territories and with interspecific competitors, which may reduce aggressive intra- and inter-specific interactions.
|
|
|
Post by RdFx on Aug 22, 2013 12:36:36 GMT -6
In other words a pack knows who will kick their ass and whose ass they can kick so stay within certain boundary's ect ect...... See that's not so bad , is it?
|
|
|
Post by buckfreak on Aug 22, 2013 16:52:51 GMT -6
How do you KNOW where these boundaries are? I am not a coyote trapper but find it interesting to know how someone can say well here is where three different packs territories overlap and it the place to set. Is it kickbacks, dropping proximity, or mainly terrain based? I really don't care who or what site it comes from. I am just a dumb coon trapper trying to grasp how a person can know such stuff as this. Hard to put thoughts into words without coming across wrong. What about pressure from hunting or calling? Our region gets hammered after a snow with truck hunters and there are alot of people running hounds and calling too. How does this affect the territorial spacing of coyotes? See I can truly show my ignorance on coyotes......LOL
|
|
|
Post by bghunter119 on Aug 22, 2013 17:51:22 GMT -6
When talking about massive coyote migration due to a large food source one only needs to look at Bob Wendts Kansas line. Bob has a lot of coyotes coming to the " compact" spot. It has a few features that lead to his success. One being the massive dead pile that attracts coyotes by the mere nature of their makeup and the makeup,of "MOST" typical early fall/fall make up of coyote populations. Bob like to call these areas the OLD Gummer spots and these are his meal ticket type set locations, the old Gummer I believe is some type of code to help find these dynamite locations ................... i agree that the dead pile bob traps does help, but the feed lots bob traps also hold feed for cattle, which brings rodents and other prey species, and has water there too, coming off a long term drought here in kansas, alot of animals migrate to food and water, i also here he will be trapping a 3rd feed lot in ford county this year i would also like to say thanks to you guys for posting the studies, alot to absorb, but well worth the read
|
|
|
Post by primitiveman on Aug 22, 2013 21:10:35 GMT -6
So what would you consider the threshold catch percentage for being on the spot? Depending on my location over the past couple years, I have had some better than others. For example, at one location last season I had 4 traps for 5 nights and caught a total of 4 coyotes or a 20% ratio when considering trap nights.
|
|
|
Post by jsevering on Aug 23, 2013 6:56:20 GMT -6
going back and forth on the first two studies posted on this page of the yellow stone area studies, is kind of interesting using the prey base chart in the first study and features shown in the second study combined with the social break down of the Norris pack and the effect it had on the soda butte pack in more or less in real time, even with a presumed displaced former alpha male in the norris group (alpha females presumed father).... just thinking kind seems it opened an area of opportunity to target four of the five family groups and pervert the social structures within them even more if you could capitalize on it.. right place at the right time sort of deal... jim
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Aug 23, 2013 7:28:00 GMT -6
finding the territories is indeed the key- and the way to do that is easy in theory- find the dens. If you know the denning sites, then territory can be determined by those with more experience than I.
but I'm doing it half arsed so to speak, and that by trying to fit the physical landscape into an assumption of different territories, based in part upon observation, in part on farmers reports, and in part by damn it all, guesswork.
so basically- where in a broad location, would it be "likely" that there are adjacent territories with a somewhat centrally located attraction point. That part is fairly easy, at least in more barren envirnments, but as pointed out, finding the dead pile is only the beginning (most of us don't have a singular feedlot where 80-100 coyotes are possible in a few weeks) and the real key, isn't the dead pile- its where and yes HOW do you set, thats going to determine the most success.
opened an area of opportunity to target four of the five family groups and pervert the social structures within them even more if you could capitalize on it.. right place at the right time sort of deal...
some of the recent posted stuides have shown us a couple of things- that territory shape and use, CAN be determined in part by physical characterics, and the fact that familarity in long term adjoining territories does indeed lower aggressive and defensive behaviors, among members of adjoining packs.
so the goal- is WHERE is that spot, that 4-5 family groups, stall out in the vicinity of the attraction point.
what causes that spot? what behaviors of coyotes, give you clues to where that spot, or "connection point", will be?
Thats the point I'm at now- trying to determine what phyiscal features of the landscape, would coyotes choose?
because they DO choose that spot- and the reasons why, can be determined by how they act with stimuli, with attractions, with disturbances, etc
and then to really throw the interent peanut gallery in a tizzy- what SET. will appeal to the most coyotes, most of the time?
Because I think that the set itself, far from being just a hole in the ground, is a bigger piece of the puzzle than most realize.
Heres the % one needs to look at- what % of coyotes that are aware of your sets, WORK those sets?
and then to ask what would improve those %?
|
|
|
Post by buckfreak on Aug 23, 2013 11:22:20 GMT -6
So many ??'s One answer makes me think of three more questions. Interesting stuff to a coon trapper...
|
|