Search

Resource pulses are ecologically important phenomenon that occur in most ecosystems globally. Following optimal foraging theory, many consumers switch to pulsatile foods when available, examples of which include fruit mast and vulnerable young prey. Yet how the availability of resource pulses shapes the ecology of predators is still an emerging area of research; and how much individual variation there is in response to pulses is not well understood. We hypothesized that resource pulses would lead to dietary convergence in our population, which we tested by tracking both population‐level and individual coyote diets for 3 years in South Carolina, USA. We (1) described seasonal dietary shifts in relation to resource pulses; (2) compared male and female diets across seasons; and (3) tested this dietary convergence hypothesis by quantifying individual dietary variation both across and within periods when resource pulses were available. We found that pulses of white‐tailed deer fawns and blackberries composed over half of coyote diet in summer, and persimmon fruits were an important component in fall. Male and female coyotes generally had similar diets, but males consumed more deer in fall, perhaps driven by scavenging more. We found support for our dietary convergence hypothesis, where individuals had more similar diets during resource pulses compared to a non‐pulse period. We also found that this convergence happened before peak availability, suggesting a non‐symmetric response to pulse availability. We show that nearly all coyotes eat fawns, suggesting that targeted efforts to remove "fawn killers" would be in vain. Instead, given how quickly coyotes collectively converge on resource pulses, our findings show that resource pulses could potentially be used by managers to alter the behavior of apex predators. More broadly, we open a new line of inquiry into how variation in individual foraging decisions scales up to shape the effects of resource pulses on ecological communities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Estimating survival and cause‐specific mortality of male eastern wild turkeys (Meleagris gallopavo silvestris) is important for understanding population dynamics and implementing appropriate harvest management. To better understand age‐specific estimates of annual survival and harvest rates, we captured and marked male wild turkeys with leg bands (n = 311) or bands and transmitters (n = 549) in Georgia, Louisiana, North Carolina, and South Carolina, USA, during 2014–2022. We fitted time to event models to data from radio‐marked birds to estimate cause‐specific mortality and annual survival. We used band recovery models incorporating both band recovery and telemetry data to further investigate harvest rates and survival. Annual survival from known‐fate models in hunted populations was 0.54 (95% CI = 0.49–0.59) for adults and 0.86 (95% CI = 0.81–0.92) for juveniles. Cause‐specific mortality analysis produced an annual harvest estimate of 0.29 (95% CI = 0.24–0.33) for adults and 0.02 (95% CI = 0.01–0.03) for juveniles, whereas predation was 0.15 (95% CI = 0.10–0.20) and 0.12 (95% CI = 0.08–0.17), respectively. Annual survival for adult males in a non‐hunted population was 0.83 (95% CI = 0.72–0.97). Survival rate was negatively correlated with harvest rate, indicating harvest was an additive mortality source. Annual survival from band recovery models was 0.40 (95% CI = 0.37–0.44) for adults and 0.88 (95% CI = 0.81– 0.93) for juveniles, whereas annual harvest estimates were 0.24 (95% CI = 0.23–0.25) for adults and 0.04 (95% CI = 0.03–0.05) for juveniles. Both models suggested no differences in annual survival across years or among study areas, which included privately owned and public properties. Harvest was an additive mortality source for male wild turkeys, suggesting that managers interested in increasing annual survival of adult males could consider ways of reducing harvest rates. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Wild pigs (Sus scrofa), which are invasive in many regions globally, can alter ecosystems and compete with native species through interference competition and resource exploitation. Wild pig impacts on other species may increase with greater niche overlap, which could vary over time based on environmental conditions, resource availability, or biological traits like diet, especially as seasonal variation in wild pig diet has been widely documented. A limited number of studies have assessed spatial or temporal overlap between native species and invasive wild pigs, with only a handful simultaneously assessing overlap in these niche dimensions. We investigated the potential for interspecific interactions involving invasive wild pigs in the Piedmont region of South Carolina, USA, by examining seasonal spatiotemporal overlap with other wildlife using N‐mixture models and diel activity overlap analyses. Site use by white‐tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) and coyote (Canis latrans) was negatively associated with wild pig activity in the fall, when the species had high diel activity overlap, indicating spatial partitioning could reduce interference competition with wild pigs in this season. Conversely, white‐tailed deer site use was positively associated with wild pig activity in the winter, suggesting higher spatial overlap may be necessary if resources are limited. Site use by bobcat (Lynx rufus) and nine‐banded armadillo (Dasypus novemcinctus) in the spring, along with raccoon (Procyon lotor) and wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo) site use in the summer, was positively associated with wild pig activity. With the exception of diurnal wild turkey, diel activity overlap between these species and wild pigs was high, although temporal partitioning could have occurred at finer spatiotemporal scales than we examined. Our results collectively emphasize the importance of accounting for seasonal spatial and temporal responses by individual species to invasive wild pigs, with special consideration given to species in seasons where high niche overlap with wild pigs is anticipated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Supplemental feeding of wild ungulates has long been and remains a common practice across Europe and North America. Yet by drawing animals together, supplemental feeding can have unintended, negative effects on individual species and broader ecological processes. These include increased risk of disease transmission, intraspecific and interspecific competition, and predation, which are of management concern for white‐tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) in the southeastern United States given the arrival of nonnative wild pigs (Sus scrofa) and coyotes (Canis latrans). We conducted a field experiment between March and July of 2021 to assess the effects of supplemental feeding on spatiotemporal activity patterns of deer and wild pigs at wildlife feeders, and space use of coyotes in the Piedmont region of South Carolina, USA. We observed support for our hypothesis that interspecific competition through increased visitation by larger groups of competitor species reduces use of foraging sites by other subordinate ungulates, where feeders highly visited by wild pigs were rarely visited by deer. While adult deer and wild pigs generally did not shift their temporal activity patterns at feeders, juvenile temporal activity shifted to more frequent visits of feeders during the night, supporting our hypothesis that supplemental feed could increase risk to predator exposure, as coyotes tend to be active during crepuscular hours. Our findings suggest that supplemental feed put out to encourage deer activity could actually deter deer if wild pigs occupy that area, and has potential negative demographic effects if juveniles are at increased risk of predation. Collectively, based on our data, we do not recommend supplemental feeding in the southeastern United States where white‐tailed deer, coyotes, and wild pigs co‐occur. More broadly, given how widespread the legal use of supplemental feed remains across the United States, we encourage landowners and policymakers to consider the full suite of potential direct and indirect, short‐term and long‐term negative impacts supplemental feeding can have on both target and nontarget wildlife populations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Predators impose top-down forces on prey populations, with the strength of those effects often varying over space and time and among demographic groups. In ungulates, predation risk is typically greatest for neonatal offspring, with some suggesting that predators can key in on adult activity to locate hidden neonates. However, few field studies to date have been able to directly assess the influence of maternal care on ungulate neonate survival. Using a population of white-tailed deer under heavy coyote predation pressure, we tested the maternal dispersion hypothesis, which suggests the dispersion of maternal activity temporally and spatially attenuates risk of predation for ungulate neonates during this vulnerable altricial phase. We compared support for this hypothesis with more commonly tested hypotheses regarding the influence of habitat conditions and intrinsic factors on neonatal survival. Fawn survival to 16 weeks was 27.7%, with coyotes accounting for 59% of fawn mortalities. In support of our maternal temporal diffusion hypothesis, we found that neonatal survival decreased as more maternal visits (proportionally) occurred at night. The only other significant ( p  < .1) predictor of fawn survival was birth timing, with fawn survival decreasing as the season progressed. Given that fawn survival declined as the proportion of nighttime visits increased, and that wild pig presence and human disturbance can push doe and fawn activity toward nocturnal hours, additional research is needed to determine whether managing pig and human disturbance can decrease fawn mortality. More broadly, given the importance of recruitment in ungulate population dynamics, our finding opens a potentially important new line of inquiry on how maternal behaviors influence predation risk in large animal predator-prey ecology., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflicts of interest., (© 2024 The Author(s). Ecology and Evolution published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)