Large-scale overlap and fine-scale avoidance: assessing interactions between coyotes, bobcats, and cougars at multiple scales

Résumé fourni par la source

Abstract In multi-carnivore systems individuals must forage and reproduce while also competing with other carnivores and avoiding intraguild predation. These interactions may vary by strength and scales across different ecosystems. We used occupancy analyses and attraction–avoidance indices to assess large- and fine-scale interactions, respectively, between Cougars (Puma concolor), Bobcats (Lynx rufus), and Coyotes (Canis latrans) in northeast Oregon based on data from camera traps set during the summer and fall of 2016 and 2017. To determine the importance of habitat preferences and spatial overlap, we compared occupancy (probability of use) models that included habitat covariates with and without species co-occurrence terms. Detection was different for all species and was influenced by roads, game trails, and canopy cover. Terrain ruggedness was important for all species; Bobcats showed the strongest preference for ruggedness, Cougars showed a weak preference, and Coyotes significantly but weakly avoided rugged areas. The top probability of use model showed that Bobcats and Coyotes were 1.88 times more likely to spatially overlap on roads. We also found evidence that interactions among carnivores were scale-dependent. At larger scales, habitat preference was more important than interactions with other carnivores, whereas at finer scales, most carnivores avoided each other. At fine spatiotemporal scales, our attraction–avoidance analyses showed that Bobcats avoided Coyotes and Coyotes avoided both Bobcats and Cougars. These findings suggest that carnivores in our study system were adept at minimizing conflict through fine-scale avoidance in space and time, that the human footprint can influence carnivore interactions, and that studying carnivore interactions at multiple scales is important for understanding the effects of spatial overlap and potential competition.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.