Wolf Research Project

The Home Range and Habitat Use of a Coyote-Wolf (Canis latrans x lupus) Hybrid

Alexandra Klimovitz

The University of Michigan Biological Station EEB 453

July-August 2014

ABSTRACT It is important to study how human disturbance and habitat fragmentation affect the distribution of wildlife. We studied the habitat use and estimated the home range of a radio-collared coyote-wolf (Canis latrans x lupus) hybrid through radio-tracking in the northern Lower Peninsula of MI (Cheboygan Co). We added to our locations a set of observations made by a previous class at the UM Biological Station and observations made by the MI DNR. We found that the animal’s home range, 42.6 km2, was slightly larger than average for a coyote and smaller than average for a wolf. The hybrid was located most often in woody wetland habitat (n = 49, 51%) and deciduous forest (n = 22, 23%). This finding is consistent with the habitat typical of a wolf. Only one location was recorded from 1:00AM to 3:00AM, suggesting that the animal was hunting at greater distances that could not be picked up by our receiver. We were unable to definitely say that the hybrid animal was acting strictly like a coyote or a wolf. Instead we suggest the expansion of distribution data in addition to further research on the feeding habitats of the animal.

ESTIMATED HOME RANGE AND HABITAT USE OF A COYOTE-‐WOLF HYBRID 2

INTRODUCTION

Early in the history of Michigan's Lower Peninsula (LP), the gray wolf (Canis

lupus) played a pivotal role in controlling prey populations and influencing ecological

interactions between trophic levels (Beyer et al, 2009). This top predator is the largest

wild canid species known, and was distributed across Michigan until its persecution left

just a few reproducing individuals in the Upper Peninsula (UP) by the early 1900's

(Mech, 1974). The population began its recovery in 1989, however its preference for

large prey and areas with minimal human interference has slowed the progress (Beyer,

2009; Kurta, 1952). A 2008 census by the MI DNR found just over 500 individuals

occupying the UP (Michigan DNR, 2014)

These mobile creatures have home ranges that can extend anywhere from 50-800

km2 as a tactic to avoid evasive responses in prey (Wlodzimeirz et al, 2001). Their

preference for low road density and high forest cover, however, has become increasingly

difficult to maintain in recent years owing to human disturbance (Ciucci et al, 1997). The

coyote (Canis latrans) has a greater tolerance for human activities than the gray wolf, and

thus has been able to maintain populations throughout Michigan despite higher levels of

urbanization in the NLP (Kurta, 1952). This species has a smaller home range of only 10-

40 km2 and can be found in a more diverse variety of habitats including prairies, brushy

areas, and wooded edges (Encyclopaedia Britannica, 2014).

Up to 8000 km2 of land in the NLP may be suitable for the colonization of

wolves, however fragmentation may limit the area's ability to support greater than 100

individuals (Beyer et al, 2009; Gehring & Potter, 2005). Low densities of conspecific

mates in the LP may then limit the ability of the gray wolf to colonize the area and force


individuals to mate with different species. In fact, the presence of a coyote-wolf hybrid

(C. lupus x latrans) has recently been confirmed by the Michigan DNR through physical

and DNA characterization (Wheeldon et al, 2012).

Wildlife biologists from the DNR trapped and sedated three hybrid individuals in

2010 and radio-collared two of them (J. Kleitch, personal communication). DNA testing

revealed the presence of both wolf and coyote genes in the hybrid individuals, however

observations via camera trapping, weight, and dental characterization suggested a wolf-

like phenotype (Wheeldon et al, 2012).

One individual remained alive in summer 2014, and we attempted to expand the

distribution data in order to examine whether its ecological interaction were more wolf or

coyote-like (Kleitch, personal communication). Using radio telemetry we observed the

hybrid's movement patterns in an attempt to estimate the home range and habitat use. We

predicted that a more coyote-like home range would be observed due to limited woodland

habitat in the LP.

METHODS

Location

Our class of 15 undergraduate students conducted this study within the areas

surrounding The University of Michigan Biological Station (UMBS) in Cheboygan Co.,

Michigan (45.559, -84.673)., from July 25th, 2014 to July 29th, 2014.


Equipment

We used a Telonics hand-held receiver (Meza, AZ) and an RA-14 Telonics

directional antennae tuned to receive the radio-collar frequency of the coyote-wolf

hybrid.

Radio Tracking and Triangulation

Groups of 2-4 students went out anytime between 3:00PM and 9:00AM to track

the hybrid along a variety of routes outlined in Figure 1. We predetermined only the

starting point according to the last location the previous group identified.

To determine the position of the animal one operator took bearings less than 30

minutes apart from at least two points along a route where the signal was heard. Using

standard triangulation methods outlined in Mech's "Handbook of Animal Radio-tracking"

(1983) the operator estimated the position of the animal.

Compilation of Data and Analysis Techniques

We compiled data ranging from 2010 to 2014 on the recorded locations of the

hybrid. Michigan DNR data included triangulation via terrestrial radio-tracking

(following the same technique) in addition to aerial-tracking through methods outlined in

Mech's "Handbook of Animal Radio-tracking" (1983). Terrestrial radio-tracking data

from the 2012 EEB 453 class was also included in our estimation of home range.

We plotted the latitude and longitude of the animal's location on satellite maps for

analysis of den location and time. We used the Minimum Convex Polygon method

outlined in Calenge's "Home Range Estimation in R:the adehabitatHR Package" to

estimate the animal's home range based on compiled location points (2011). Data was


plotted on a cover type map using ArcGIS. We used qualitative analysis to interpret

habitat usage because we were unable to take into account how much of the landscape

was occupied by each type.

RESULTS

A summary of locations from 2010-2014 by the Michigan DNR, the EEB 453

Class of 2012, and our EEB 453 Class of 2014 is shown in Figure 1. The EEB 453 2012

class estimated den location was (-84.65, 45.56) (Ian Wolf, Unpublished Data; Fig. 1).

We combined the DNR and 2012/2014 class data to estimate a 42.61 km2 home range for

the coyote-wolf hybrid (Table 2).When we overlaid recorded locations on a cover type

map we saw that the animal was located most often in woody wetland habitat (n = 49,

51%) and deciduous forest (n = 22, 23%) (Fig. 2; Fig. 3).

In an analysis of data by time we see bearings recorded between 3:00PM -

12:00AM nearest to the estimated den location (Fig. 4). Only one bearing was recorded

between the time of 1:00AM - 3:00AM (-84.683, 45.540; 4.647 miles from estimated

den), and one bearing was recorded at approximately 12:30AM on the west side of I-75 (-

84.603, 45.574; 4.207 miles from estimated den) (Fig. 4).

DISCUSSION

The estimated 42.61 km2 home range was larger than the 10-40 km2 home range

usually observed for coyotes, and smaller than the 50-800 km2 range of a wolf (Kurta,

1952). This estimation included a portion of both Douglas and Burt Lakes as well as large

blocks of territory where we never located the animal. Thus, while this range was on the

large side for a coyote we can not definitively conclude that it indicates non-coyote like


behavior. Additionally, the hybrid preferred densely wooded wetland and forest. In this

way it resembles a wolf, rather than a coyote which is usually found in open and border

habitats (Kurta, 1952).

Lack of temporal data between 1:00AM and 3:00AM suggests that the animal

may forage at an even greater distance. Similar to the findings of previous studies, we

predicted that a coyote-like home range would be more suitable for hunting small

mammals in a fragmented habitat (Berger & Gese, 2007). However, if a larger range for

this animal is found in future studies it may indicate that the hybrid is pursuing larger

prey similar to the gray wolf (Mech, 1952).

These findings on habitat usage do not allow us to conclude that the coyote-wolf

hybrid is using the habitat exclusively like a coyote or a wolf. This study was limited by a

small data set in addition to our inability to determine proportion of habitat type in the

area. Additionally, the lack of a second operator to simultaneously triangulate the

animal's location may have lead to error resulting from the animal's movement.

In addition to confirming the coyote-wolf hybrid's true range, we suggest further

exploration of the diet of the animal. By determining the animal's feeding habits we can

predict the effect it will have on local prey populations and possibly livestock (Kurta,

1952; Mech, 1974). This could help the Michigan DNR in the conservation of both

wolves and wolf-coyote hybrids, including offering compensation to farmers for

livestock loss.


FIGURES

Figure 1. This map includes all triangulation locations of the coyote-wolf hybrid from 2010-2014 by the Michigan DNR, EEB 453 Class of 2012, and the EEB 453 Class of 2014. The blue triangle indicates the 2012 estimated den location (-84.641, 45.558). Table 1. Calculations of the estimated home range of the coyote-wolf hybrid with all data collected from 2010-2014 by the Michigan DNR, EEB 453 Class of 2012, and the EEB 453 Class of 2014.

Polygon X1 (Long) Y1 (Lat) X2 (Long) Y2 (Lat) XDIST YDIST Shape AREA (km2):

1 -84.682606 45.540035 -84.63099 45.522 4.38736 2.001885 Triangle 4.391495087

2 -84.63099 45.522 -84.5709 45.55505 5.10765 3.66855 Triangle 9.368834704

3 -84.682606 45.540035 -84.7020 45.5508 1.64424 1.194915 Triangle 0.98236352

4 -84.682606 45.540035 -84.64448 45.5508 3.24071 1.194915 Rectangle 3.87237299

5 -84.63099 45.540035 -84.64448 45.55505 1.14665 1.666665 Rectangle 1.911081422

6 -84.70195 45.5508 -84.69843 45.56155 0.2992 1.19325 Triangle 0.1785102

7 -84.69843 45.56155 -84.64448 45.5508 4.58575 1.19325 Rectangle 5.471946187

8 -84.64448 45.55505 -84.603044 45.574283 3.52206 2.134863 Rectangle 7.519115578

10 -84.69843 45.56155 -84.64448 45.571661 4.58575 1.122321 Triangle 2.573341763

11 -84.5709 45.55505 -84.603044 45.574283 2.73224 2.134863 Rectangle 5.832958083

12 -84.64448 45.571661 -84.603044 45.574283 3.52206 0.291042 Triangle 0.512533693

Estimated Home Range 42.61455 km2


Figure 2. This map includes all triangulation locations based on cover type of the coyote-wolf hybrid from 2010-2014 by the Michigan DNR, EEB 453 Class of 2012, and the EEB 453 Class of 2014. Home range = 42.61455 km2.


Figure 3. The proportion all triangulation locations based on cover type of the coyote-wolf hybrid from 2010-2014 by the Michigan DNR, EEB 453 Class of 2012, and the EEB 453 Class of 2014.

Figure 4. This map includes all triangulation locations based on time of the coyote-wolf hybrid from only 2014 by the 2014 EEB 453 class. The blue triangle indicates the 2012 estimated den location (-84.641, 45.558). Yellow boxes highlight the two most outlying points from the data collected, (-84.683, 45.540; 4.647 miles from estimated den location) and ( -84.603, 45.574; 4.207 miles from estimated den location).

Deciduous Forest 23% Mixed Forest

3%

Woody Wetlands 51%

Developed, Open Space

3%

Evergreen Forest 9%

Grassland/Herbaceous

3%

Cultivated Crops 4%

Emergent Herbaceous

2% Pasture/Hay 1%

Developed, Medium Intensity 1%

Habitat Use All Data


LITERATURE CITED AEBISCHER, N.J., P.A. ROBERTSON, R.E. KENWARD. 1993. Compositional analysis of habitat

use from animal radio-tracking data. The Ecological Society of America 74: 1313-1325.

BERGER, K.M., E.M. GESE. 2007. Does interference competition with wolves limit the

distribution and abundance of coyotes? Journal of Animal Ecology 76:1075-1085. BEYER, D.E., R.O. PETERSON, J.A. VUCETICH, J.H. HAMMILL. 2009. Wolf population changes

in Michigan. Recovery of Gray Wolves in the Great Lakes Region of the United States, 65-85.

CALENGE, C. 2011. Home range estimation in R:the adehabitatHR package. Office

national de la classe et de la faune sauvage. Saint Benoist, France. CIUCCI, P., L. BIOTANI, F. FRANCISCI, G. ANDREOLI. 1997. Home range, activity and

movements of a wolf pack in central Italy. Journal of Zoology, London 243: 803-819.

ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA. 2014. Coyote. Encyclopaedia Britannica Online

Academic Edition. Encyclopædia Britannica Inc., 2014. Web. <http://www.britannica.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/EBchecked/topic/141384/coyote>.

FAIN, S.R., D.J.STRAUGHAN, B.F. TAYLOR. 2010. Genetic outcomes of wolf recovery in

the western Great Lakes states. Conservation Genetics 11:1747-1765. GEHRING, T.M., B.A. POTTER. 2005. Wolf habitat analysis in Michigan: an example of

the need for proactive land management for carnivore species. Wildlife Society Bulletin 33:1237-1244.

KURTA, A. 1952. Mammals of the Great Lakes region. Ann Arbor: The University of

Michigan press. LEHMAN, N., A. EISENHAWER K. HANSEN, L.D. MECH, R.O. PETERSON, P.J. GOGAN.

1991. Introgression of coyote mitochondrial DNA into sympatric North American gray wolf populations.

MECH, D. 1974. Canis lupus. Mammalian Species, The American Society of

Mammalogists 37:1-6. MECH, D.L. 1983. Handbook of Animal Radio-tracking. The University of Minnesota

Press, Minneapolis, MN. SEARS, H.J., J.B. THEBERGE, M.T. THEBERGE, I. THORNTON, G.D. CAMPBELL. 2003.

Landscape influence on Canis morphological and ecological variation in a


Coyote-wolf C. lupus x latrans hybrid zone, southeastern Ontario. The Canadian Field-Naturalist 117:1-7.

WHEELDON, T., B. PATTERSON, D. BEYER. 2012. Coyotes in Wolves' Clothing. The

American Midland Naturalist 167:416-420. WLODZIMEIRZ, J., K. SCHMIDT, J. THEUERKAUF, B. JEDRZEJEWSKA, H. OKARMA. 2001.

Daily movements and territory use by radio-collared wolves (Canis lupus) in Bialowieza primeval forest in Poland. Canada Journal of Zoology 79:1993-2004.

Documents

Wolf Research Project