Use of Snow Tracking Surveys to Compare Gray Wolf (Canis lupus) and Coyote (Canis latrans) Populations in

Northern Wisconsin Authors: Aaron King, Nick Rudolph, Kenny Witt

Faculty Mentor: Dr. Joshua Kapfer, Dr. George ClokeyUniversity of Wisconsin-Whitewater, Department of Biological Sciences

Introduction• Past research has shown that Coyotes (Canis latrans) are

competitively excluded by Gray Wolves (Canis lupus) in areas where both are sympatric• Wolf populations in Wisconsin have risen since the 1980s• Little research has been conducted on interactions between

Wolves and Coyotes in Wisconsin• Our goal is to use standardized Wisconsin Department of

Natural Resource (WDNR) surveys to quantify & compare Wolf / Coyote populations at two locations (Fig. 1)• We hypothesize that Coyote populations will vary between

areas where they are and are not sympatric with Wolves• We predict Coyote populations will be larger (i.e., detected

more frequently) where they are not sympatric with Wolves

AcknowledgementsRon Vander Velden for providing lodging during surveys in Block 110. Adrian Wydeven & Jane Wiedenhoeft (WDNR) for logistical support and data sharing. Kyle Freeman & Eric Compas (UW-Whitewater) for creation of GIS maps. Jim Halfpenny (A Naturalist’s World) for instruction on track identification. Samantha Decker for providing the Wolf picture above. The Undergraduate Research Program of UW-Whitewater for funding this research.

• We conducted surveys from January-March in 2013 and 2014 at locations previously established by the WDNR.

• Survey Block 110 is located between Pembine & Niagara, WI on the Michigan border (Fig. 2, top) • This represents an area where Wolves and Coyotes are

sympatric• Survey Block 131 is located between Pulaski & Oconto Falls,

WI (Fig. 2, bottom) • This represents an area where Coyotes exist, but Wolf

packs are not known to be established

Fig. 3: The front and hind print of an adult Wolf

Fig. 4: The prints of two adult Coyotes from northern WI

Results• For two consecutive years, ten total surveys have been

conducted (Block 110 = 5; Block 131 = 5), representing a total of 25.5 hours of tracking

• A total of 550.4 km of surveys have been completed (Block 110 = 268.7 km; Block 131 = 281.7 km)

Conclusions• These results are preliminary and this project is ongoing

• Our results will be compared to past survey data for both Blocks, which will be provided by the WDNR

• Currently, our hypothesis appears to be supported, although our prediction does not

• Coyote densities appear to be lower in areas where not sympatric with wolves.

• We believe the fewer observations of Coyote tracks in areas where not sympatric with Wolves may be due to the fact that late surveys within Block 131 were conducted in early March (outside of the primary breeding season reported for Coyotes in WI)

• We used standardized carnivore tracking surveys designed by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

• This requires identification of tracks in snow located along transects that conform with existing roadways (Figs. 3 & 4)

Methods

• We compiled data of track locations & estimated the number of individuals in each species detected

• From this we estimated the average number of individuals detected per Kilometer surveyedStudy Sites

Fig. 1: Wolf territories and territory density in Wisconsin. Red circles represent general area of survey blocks

Fig. 2: Marinette and Florence County, DNR Block 110 (top), Oconto and Shawano County, DNR Block

131 (bottom)

• Including both sites and all survey periods, we have observed evidence of Wolves on 66 occasions & evidence of Coyotes on 64 occasions

• The number of individuals detected per survey period ranged from 2 to 20 (Wolves) & from 6 to 21 (Coyotes)

• The average number of Coyotes detected per km of survey does not substantially differ based on sympatry with Wolves

• We recorded observations of other species detected during surveys

• Four carnivore species aside from Coyotes and Wolves (Figs. 6 & 7) were detected in Survey Block 110

• Only Coyotes and Domestic Dogs were detected in Survey Block 131 (Table 1)

Common Name Numbers Detected

River Otter(Lontra canadensis)

N=4

Fox(Species unknown)

N=2

Domestic Dog (Canis familiaris)

N=7

Bobcat(Lynx rufus)

N=4

Fig. 6 (left): An example of a Coyote from southern Wisconsin

Table 1: Summary of other carnivore species detected during snow tracking surveys at both survey Blocks.

Fig. 7 (right): An example of a Gray Wolf west of Steven’s Point, courtesy of Sarah Wyrick and

Phillip Pieper

Fig. 5: The average number of individuals detected per km in both survey blocks. Black bars represent results from areas where Wolves and Coyotes are sympatric, gray bars represent

results from areas with only Coyotes.