White-tailed deer fawn recruitment before and after experimental coyote removals in central Georgia

William D. Gulsby, Charlie H. Killmaster, John W. Bowers, James D. Kelly, Benjamin Sacks, Mark J. Statham, Karl V. Miller

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

21 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Recent evidence from across the southeastern United States indicating high predation rates by coyotes (Canis latrans) on white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) fawns has led some managers to implement coyote control. Although some evidence suggests coyote control can improve recruitment, success appears to be site dependent. Therefore, we designed an experiment to assess feasibility of coyote control as a management action to increase recruitment on B.F. Grant and Cedar Creek Wildlife Management Areas (WMA) in central Georgia, USA. We estimated annual coyote abundance during 2010-2012 using a noninvasive mark-recapture design and fawn recruitment using infrared-triggered camera surveys. During March-June 2011 and March-April 2012, trappers removed coyotes from both sites. Estimates of coyote abundance on B.F. Grant WMA after trapping were 81% (2011) and 24% (2012) lower than during preremoval. Coyote abundance estimates were similar among years on Cedar Creek WMA. Fawn recruitment on B.F. Grant WMA averaged 0.65 fawns/adult female prior to removal and 1.01 fawns/adult female during the 2 years following the removals. Fawn recruitment on Cedar Creek WMA did not differ among years during the study, and was similar to that prior to coyote arrival. The differential coyote impacts and variable effectiveness of trapping we observed on nearby sites suggest coyote control may not achieve management objectives in some areas. Furthermore, transient behavior and the potential for coyotes to adapt to control efforts likely reduce efficacy of this management action. However, we observed an increase in recruitment on B.F. Grant WMA during one year, and others have seen similar responses. Therefore if lowered fawn recruitment is hindering achievement of management objectives, we recommend managers who opt to control coyotes continuously monitor recruitment to determine whether a response occurs.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)248-255
Number of pages8
JournalWildlife Society Bulletin
Volume39
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2015

Fingerprint

deer
wildlife management
trapping
removal
predation
creek
experiment

Keywords

  • Canis latrans
  • coyote
  • fawn
  • fecal genotyping
  • Odocoileus virginianus
  • predation
  • recruitment
  • trapping
  • white-tailed deer

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Nature and Landscape Conservation

Cite this

Gulsby, W. D., Killmaster, C. H., Bowers, J. W., Kelly, J. D., Sacks, B., Statham, M. J., & Miller, K. V. (2015). White-tailed deer fawn recruitment before and after experimental coyote removals in central Georgia. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 39(2), 248-255. https://doi.org/10.1002/wsb.534

White-tailed deer fawn recruitment before and after experimental coyote removals in central Georgia. / Gulsby, William D.; Killmaster, Charlie H.; Bowers, John W.; Kelly, James D.; Sacks, Benjamin; Statham, Mark J.; Miller, Karl V.

In: Wildlife Society Bulletin, Vol. 39, No. 2, 01.01.2015, p. 248-255.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Gulsby, WD, Killmaster, CH, Bowers, JW, Kelly, JD, Sacks, B, Statham, MJ & Miller, KV 2015, 'White-tailed deer fawn recruitment before and after experimental coyote removals in central Georgia', Wildlife Society Bulletin, vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 248-255. https://doi.org/10.1002/wsb.534
Gulsby, William D. ; Killmaster, Charlie H. ; Bowers, John W. ; Kelly, James D. ; Sacks, Benjamin ; Statham, Mark J. ; Miller, Karl V. / White-tailed deer fawn recruitment before and after experimental coyote removals in central Georgia. In: Wildlife Society Bulletin. 2015 ; Vol. 39, No. 2. pp. 248-255.
@article{ec7c0b145add446ea58503f399160947,
title = "White-tailed deer fawn recruitment before and after experimental coyote removals in central Georgia",
abstract = "Recent evidence from across the southeastern United States indicating high predation rates by coyotes (Canis latrans) on white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) fawns has led some managers to implement coyote control. Although some evidence suggests coyote control can improve recruitment, success appears to be site dependent. Therefore, we designed an experiment to assess feasibility of coyote control as a management action to increase recruitment on B.F. Grant and Cedar Creek Wildlife Management Areas (WMA) in central Georgia, USA. We estimated annual coyote abundance during 2010-2012 using a noninvasive mark-recapture design and fawn recruitment using infrared-triggered camera surveys. During March-June 2011 and March-April 2012, trappers removed coyotes from both sites. Estimates of coyote abundance on B.F. Grant WMA after trapping were 81{\%} (2011) and 24{\%} (2012) lower than during preremoval. Coyote abundance estimates were similar among years on Cedar Creek WMA. Fawn recruitment on B.F. Grant WMA averaged 0.65 fawns/adult female prior to removal and 1.01 fawns/adult female during the 2 years following the removals. Fawn recruitment on Cedar Creek WMA did not differ among years during the study, and was similar to that prior to coyote arrival. The differential coyote impacts and variable effectiveness of trapping we observed on nearby sites suggest coyote control may not achieve management objectives in some areas. Furthermore, transient behavior and the potential for coyotes to adapt to control efforts likely reduce efficacy of this management action. However, we observed an increase in recruitment on B.F. Grant WMA during one year, and others have seen similar responses. Therefore if lowered fawn recruitment is hindering achievement of management objectives, we recommend managers who opt to control coyotes continuously monitor recruitment to determine whether a response occurs.",
keywords = "Canis latrans, coyote, fawn, fecal genotyping, Odocoileus virginianus, predation, recruitment, trapping, white-tailed deer",
author = "Gulsby, {William D.} and Killmaster, {Charlie H.} and Bowers, {John W.} and Kelly, {James D.} and Benjamin Sacks and Statham, {Mark J.} and Miller, {Karl V.}",
year = "2015",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1002/wsb.534",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "39",
pages = "248--255",
journal = "Wildlife Society Bulletin",
issn = "0091-7648",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - White-tailed deer fawn recruitment before and after experimental coyote removals in central Georgia

AU - Gulsby, William D.

AU - Killmaster, Charlie H.

AU - Bowers, John W.

AU - Kelly, James D.

AU - Sacks, Benjamin

AU - Statham, Mark J.

AU - Miller, Karl V.

PY - 2015/1/1

Y1 - 2015/1/1

N2 - Recent evidence from across the southeastern United States indicating high predation rates by coyotes (Canis latrans) on white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) fawns has led some managers to implement coyote control. Although some evidence suggests coyote control can improve recruitment, success appears to be site dependent. Therefore, we designed an experiment to assess feasibility of coyote control as a management action to increase recruitment on B.F. Grant and Cedar Creek Wildlife Management Areas (WMA) in central Georgia, USA. We estimated annual coyote abundance during 2010-2012 using a noninvasive mark-recapture design and fawn recruitment using infrared-triggered camera surveys. During March-June 2011 and March-April 2012, trappers removed coyotes from both sites. Estimates of coyote abundance on B.F. Grant WMA after trapping were 81% (2011) and 24% (2012) lower than during preremoval. Coyote abundance estimates were similar among years on Cedar Creek WMA. Fawn recruitment on B.F. Grant WMA averaged 0.65 fawns/adult female prior to removal and 1.01 fawns/adult female during the 2 years following the removals. Fawn recruitment on Cedar Creek WMA did not differ among years during the study, and was similar to that prior to coyote arrival. The differential coyote impacts and variable effectiveness of trapping we observed on nearby sites suggest coyote control may not achieve management objectives in some areas. Furthermore, transient behavior and the potential for coyotes to adapt to control efforts likely reduce efficacy of this management action. However, we observed an increase in recruitment on B.F. Grant WMA during one year, and others have seen similar responses. Therefore if lowered fawn recruitment is hindering achievement of management objectives, we recommend managers who opt to control coyotes continuously monitor recruitment to determine whether a response occurs.

AB - Recent evidence from across the southeastern United States indicating high predation rates by coyotes (Canis latrans) on white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) fawns has led some managers to implement coyote control. Although some evidence suggests coyote control can improve recruitment, success appears to be site dependent. Therefore, we designed an experiment to assess feasibility of coyote control as a management action to increase recruitment on B.F. Grant and Cedar Creek Wildlife Management Areas (WMA) in central Georgia, USA. We estimated annual coyote abundance during 2010-2012 using a noninvasive mark-recapture design and fawn recruitment using infrared-triggered camera surveys. During March-June 2011 and March-April 2012, trappers removed coyotes from both sites. Estimates of coyote abundance on B.F. Grant WMA after trapping were 81% (2011) and 24% (2012) lower than during preremoval. Coyote abundance estimates were similar among years on Cedar Creek WMA. Fawn recruitment on B.F. Grant WMA averaged 0.65 fawns/adult female prior to removal and 1.01 fawns/adult female during the 2 years following the removals. Fawn recruitment on Cedar Creek WMA did not differ among years during the study, and was similar to that prior to coyote arrival. The differential coyote impacts and variable effectiveness of trapping we observed on nearby sites suggest coyote control may not achieve management objectives in some areas. Furthermore, transient behavior and the potential for coyotes to adapt to control efforts likely reduce efficacy of this management action. However, we observed an increase in recruitment on B.F. Grant WMA during one year, and others have seen similar responses. Therefore if lowered fawn recruitment is hindering achievement of management objectives, we recommend managers who opt to control coyotes continuously monitor recruitment to determine whether a response occurs.

KW - Canis latrans

KW - coyote

KW - fawn

KW - fecal genotyping

KW - Odocoileus virginianus

KW - predation

KW - recruitment

KW - trapping

KW - white-tailed deer

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84946082255&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84946082255&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1002/wsb.534

DO - 10.1002/wsb.534

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:84946082255

VL - 39

SP - 248

EP - 255

JO - Wildlife Society Bulletin

JF - Wildlife Society Bulletin

SN - 0091-7648

IS - 2

ER -