Scent marking in coyotes

Bowen, W. Don; Cowan, I. McT.

doi:10.1139/z80-065

Cited by 88 publications

(75 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Previous studies have suggested that coyotes may be more attentive along the periphery or outside their home areas (Hibler 1977;Bowen and Cowan 1980). Scent station survey lines on roads that coyotes treat as territorial boundaries may elicit more visits than those passing through the middle of territories.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…The higher proportion of roads acting as home-range boundaries and the behaviors associated with such boundaries, i.e., scent-marking and increased attentiveness (Camenzind 1978;Bowen and Cowan 1980;Wells and Bekoff 1981;Gese and Ruff 1997), may have resulted in greater scent station visitation rates along these roads. We are not implying that coyotes do not thoroughly explore the core areas of their home ranges, but as familiarity with a particular environment increases, habituation may replace attentiveness and exploration.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Differential responses of coyotes to novel stimuli in familiar and unfamiliar settings

Harris¹,

Knowlton²

2001

Can. J. Zool.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:We studied behavioral responses of captive and wild coyotes (Canis latrans) toward novel objects and artificial scent stations to determine how they might respond to novel stimuli used in coyote management and research. When captive coyotes encountered novel stimuli in unfamiliar surroundings they showed little avoidance, while the same stimuli caused avoidance and neophobic reactions among coyotes when encountered in familiar surroundings. In the field phase of the study, radio-collared coyotes in southern Texas were intensively monitored in order to relate space-use patterns to the locations where these coyotes were exposed to artificial scent stations. Coyotes were more likely to respond to and score (record visits by leaving tracks) at artificial scent stations when these were encountered outside or on the periphery of their home areas than when they were encountered within their home area. This suggests that indices of coyote abundance that employ responses to novel situations may more readily record coyotes that are outside the central portions of their home areas and that transient or dispersing coyotes are more likely to be "counted" than residents.Résumé : Nous avons étudié le comportement du Coyote (Canis latrans) en présence d'objets nouveaux ou de sites d'odeurs artificielles, en nature et en captivité, dans le but de déterminer comment cet animal réagira face à des stimulus nouveaux présentés dans le cadre de recherches ou de programmes d'aménagement. En présence de stimulus nouveaux dans un environnement non familier, les coyotes en captivité ne réagissent pas, alors que les mêmes stimulus déclenchent des comportements d'évitement et des réactions néophobes en milieu familier. En nature, nous avons suivi de près des coyotes du sud du Texas porteurs de colliers émetteurs-radio dans le but de comparer les patterns d'utilisation de l'espace en fonction des endroits où ces coyotes ont été mis en présence de sources d'odeurs artificielles. Les coyotes étaient plus enclins à réagir aux sources d'odeurs et à les marquer (laissant des traces de leur passage) en périphérie et en dehors de leur domaine qu'à l'intérieur. Les coefficients d'abondance basés sur les réactions à de nouvelles situations risquent donc d'accorder plus d'importance aux coyotes qui se trouvent à l'extérieur de la partie centrale de leur domaine, ce qui laisse entrevoir la possibilité que les coyotes de passage ou en phase de dispersion aient plus de chances d'être comptés que les résidants. [Traduit par la Rédaction] 2013Harris and Knowlton

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Differential responses of coyotes to novel stimuli in familiar and unfamiliar settings

Harris¹,

Knowlton²

2001

Can. J. Zool.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In contrast to wolves, all adult coyotes urine-mark, females as well as males (Barrette and Messier, 1980;Bowen and Cowan, 1980;Wells and Bekoff, 1981). Furthermore, although there are seasonal peaks, females as well as males urine-mark year-round (Wells and Bekoff, 1981).…”

Section: Role Of Social Rankmentioning

confidence: 95%

The influence of social and endocrine factors on urine-marking by captive wolves (Canis lupus)

et al. 1990

Hormones and Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although serum hormones varied seasonally in all adult animals, only dominant male and female wolves urine-marked. Serum testosterone and mine-marking rates, which increased during the fall/winter breeding season, were positively correlated in both male and female dominant wolves. Estradiol, which increased in conjunction with proestrus and estrus, was not correlated with female urinemarking. These findings suggest that hormonal influence on urine-marking in the wolf is modulated by social factors and contrast with those for both domestic dogs and coyotes, two other members of the genus Cards. 8 1990 Academic press, Inc.Of the numerous investigations of canid scent-marking, none have examined possible physiological influences (

show abstract

“…Howling and scent-marking are indirect means of territory defense and maintenance and have been documented for wolves (Peters and Mech 1975;Rothman and Mech 1979;Harrington and Mech 1978a, 1978b, 1983Harrington 1987) and coyotes (Camenzind 1978;Barrette and Messier 1980;Bowen and Cowan 1980;Gese andRuff 1997, 1998). Observations of direct territory defense are more difficult to acquire, owing to the secretive nature of wild canids.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Brown and Orians (1970) proposed that territoriality is implied if there is little overlap between home ranges, scent-marking behavior is performed, and agonistic interactions occur. Several studies have demonstrated direct and indirect mechanisms that many carnivore species use to maintain their territory boundaries, including scent-marking (Peters and Mech 1975;Camenzind 1978;Rothman and Mech 1979;Barrette and Messier 1980;Bowen and Cowan 1980;Wells and Bekoff 1981;Bailey 1993;Caro 1994;, howling (Harrington and Mech 1978a, 1978bGese and Ruff 1998), and confronting intruders (Camenzind 1978;Bekoff and Wells 1986;Mech 1993Mech , 1994.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Territorial defense by coyotes (<i>Canis latrans</i>) in Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming: who, how, where, when, and why

Gese¹

2001

Can. J. Zool.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Territorial defense and maintenance are an important facet of the social ecology of most carnivore species. From January 1991 to June 1993, we observed 54 coyotes (Canis latrans) for 2507 h in Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming, during which we observed 112 instances of territory defense. The identity of the coyotes involved in challenging and evicting intruding animals was known. Alpha coyotes were most likely to be involved in territorial evictions of intruding animals, followed by beta individuals; pups participated little in territory defense. Coyotes evicting intruders generally had a numerical advantage when challenging the intruders. Territory-defense rates were highest during and immediately after the breeding season and during the time of pup emergence from the den. All chases of intruders ended at the boundary of the resident coyote pack's territory. Physical contact between the intruding animal and resident pack members occurred with no intruders being killed or seriously injured. Physical contact consisted of fighting and ritualized behaviors, with only a few instances in which fighting led to blood being drawn or minor injuries to the intruder. Most encounters resulted in a hasty retreat from the area by the intruder(s). While indirect means of territory maintenance (i.e., howling and scent-marking) were utilized by resident packs, trespassing still occurred and direct confrontation was needed to enforce boundaries and assert occupancy against other resident packs, as well as against lone intruders seeking territory vacancies. Territoriality was advantageous in that territory holders generally had higher survival rates (except pups), contributed all the reproductive effort to the population, and had greater access to food resources. In contrast, nonterritorial animals had lower survival rates, did not breed, and had reduced access to food (ungulate carcasses) during winter.Résumé : La défense et la conservation du territoire constituent une facette importante de l'écologie sociale de la plupart des espèces de carnivores. De janvier 1991 à juin 1993, nous avons observé 54 coyotes (Canis latrans) pendant 2507 h dans le parc national de Yellowstone, au Wyoming, au cours desquelles nous avons étudié 112 cas de défense de territoire. Les coyotes qui ont défié et chassé des intrus de leur territoire ont été identifiés. Les coyotes alpha sont plus enclins à évincer les intrus de leur territoire, suivis des coyotes bêta; les petits participent peu à la défense territoriale. Les coyotes qui évincent des intrus ont généralement l'avantage numérique lorsqu'ils les poursuivent. La fré-quence des cas de défense territoriale est maximale pendant et immédiatement après la saison de reproduction et au moment de la sortie des petits des terriers. Toutes les poursuites observées ont pris fin à la frontière du territoire de la meute résidante. Les contacts physiques entre intrus et résidants de la meute n'ont jamais abouti à la mort d'un intrus, ni même à des blessures graves. Les contacts physiques se limit...

show abstract

Scent marking in coyotes

Cited by 88 publications

References 0 publications

Differential responses of coyotes to novel stimuli in familiar and unfamiliar settings

Differential responses of coyotes to novel stimuli in familiar and unfamiliar settings

The influence of social and endocrine factors on urine-marking by captive wolves (Canis lupus)

Territorial defense by coyotes (<i>Canis latrans</i>) in Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming: who, how, where, when, and why

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About