SpringerLink
Log in

Predator exclusion cages as visual attractants to coyotes

  • Published:
Urban Ecosystems Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Coyote (Canis latrans) depredation of sea turtle nests is a growing concern along the US East Coast and while several designs for predator exclusion cages (PECs) have been used, no one PEC is 100% effective. We investigated if PECs are a visual stimulus that lure coyotes to sea turtle nests. We used camera traps to evaluate coyote behavior and visitation rates at two PEC designs on Bald Head Island, North Carolina, USA, between 11 and − 28 June 2021. We quantified coyote presence and absence, number of independent coyote observations (behavioral events), and aspects of observed coyote behaviors. Our results indicate that PECs do not act as a visual cue to coyotes which will provide flexibility for sea turtle management in choosing PEC designs. We discuss the prospect of using a variety of PEC designs as a deterrent to coyotes and the possible effects of human activity on coyote behavior near sea turtle nests.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (Thailand)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

The data can be made available upon request to the corresponding author.

References

  • Burke RL, Schneider CM, Dolinger MT (2005) Cues used by raccoons to find turtle nests: effects of flags, human scent, and diamond-backed terrapin sign. J Herp 39:312–315

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Butler ZP, Wenger SJ, Pfaller JB, Dodd MG, Ondich BL, Coleman S, Gaskin JL, Hickey N, Kitchens-Hayes K, Vance RK, Williams KL (2020) Predation of loggerhead sea turtle eggs across Georgia’s barrier islands. Global Ecol Cons 23:1–12

    Google Scholar 

  • Buzuleciu SA, Spencer ME, Parker SL (2015) Predator exclusion cage for turtle nests: a novel design. Chel Cons Biol 14:196–201

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Casale P, Tucker A (2017) Caretta caretta. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2017: e.T3897A119333622. https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/3897/119333622. Accessed 8 Nov 2021

  • Drake MD, Peterson MN, Griffith EH, Olfenbuttel C, Moorman CE, Deperno CS (2019) Hunting interacts with socio-demographic predictors of human perceptions of urban coyotes. Wild Soc Bull 43:447–454

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Environment Climate Observing Network (2021) Bald – Bald Head Island Conservancy. https://econet.climate.ncsu.edu/stations/bald/. Accessed 8 Nov 2021

  • Hillbrand P, Darrow ES, Urbanek RE (2020) Designing a nest cage for coexistence: living with a non-native predator; Canis latrans. Final report. North Carlina Sea Grant, Raleigh, North Carolina, USA

    Google Scholar 

  • Hody JW, Kays R (2018) Map** the expansion of coyotes (Canis latrans) across North and Central America. Zookeys 759:81–97

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lovemore TEJ, Montero N, Ceriani SA, Fuentes MMPB (2020) Assessing the effectiveness of different sea turtle nest protection strategies against coyotes. J Exp Marine Biol Ecol 533:151470

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Madden Hof CA, Shuster G, McLachlan N, McLachlan B, Giudice S, Limpus C, Eguchi T (2020) Protecting nests of the critically endangered South Pacific loggerhead turtle caretta caretta from Goanna Varanus spp. predation. Oryx 54:323–331

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mroziak M, Salmon M, Rusenko K (2000) Do wire cages protect sea turtles from foot traffic and mammalian predators? Chel Cons Biol 3:693–698

    Google Scholar 

  • National Marine Fisheries Service [NMFS] and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS] (2008) Recovery plan for the Northwest Atlantic population of loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta), second revision. National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD, USA

    Google Scholar 

  • Nordberg EJ, Macdonald S, Zimny G, Hoskins A, Zimny A, Somaweera R, Ferguson J, Perry J (2019) An evaluation of nest predator impacts and the efficacy of plastic meshing on marine turtle nests on the western Cape York Peninsula, Australia. Biol Cons 238:108201

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission [NCWRC] Sea Turtle Project (2020) Sea Turtle Nest Monitoring System. Bald Head Island. Accessed 1 November 2020. http://www.seaturtle.org/nestdb/index.shtml?view_beach=18&year=2020

  • O’Connor JM, Limpus CJ, Hofmeister KM, Allen BL, Burnett SE (2017) Anti-predator meshing may provide greater protection for sea turtle nests than predator removal.PLOS ONE12

  • Oddie MAY, Coombes SM, Davy CM (2015) Investigation of cues used by predators to detect snap** turtle (Chelydra serpentina) nests. Can J Zool 93:299–305

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phillott AD (2020) Protection of in situ sea turtle nests from depredation. Indian Ocean Turtle News 32:31–40

    Google Scholar 

  • Riley JL, Litzgus JD (2013) Evaluation of predator-exclusion cages used in turtle conservation: cost analysis and effects on nest environment and proxies of hatchling fitness. Wild Res 40:499–509

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rollinson N, Brooks RJ (2007) Marking nests increases the frequency of nest depredation in a northern population of painted turtles (Chrysemys picta). J Herp 41:174–176

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spencer RJ, Van Dyke JU, Thompson MB (2017) Critically evaluating best management practices for preventing freshwater turtle extinctions. Cons Biol 31:1340–1349

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • US Census Bureau (2019) Total population in Bald Head Island village, North Carolina. https://www.census.gov/search-results.html?q=bald Bhead Bisland&page=1&stateGeo=none&searchtype=web&cssp=SERP&_charset_=UTF-8

  • US Fish and Wildlife Services (USFWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (2011) Endangered and threatened species; determination of nine distinct population segments of loggerhead sea turtles as endangered or threatened. Fed Reg 76(184):58868–58952

    Google Scholar 

  • Walker MJ (2020) Evaluation of the use of GonaCon™ on wild white-tailed deer and a comparison of two darting techniques. Dissertation, North Carolina State University, NC, USA

  • Welicky RL, Wyneken J, Noonburg EG (2012) A retrospective analysis of sea turtle nest depredation patterns. J Wild Manage 76:278–284

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zaiontz C (2021) Real statistics resource pack. Real statistics using Excel. https://www.real-statistics.com/free-download/real-statistics-resource-pack/. Accessed 25 Oct 2021

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank the University of North Carolina Wilmington Department of Environmental Sciences, Bald Head Island Conservancy, and Fort Fisher State Recreation Area for logistical support. We also thank Alisha Herndon and Emma Phillips for their aid in fieldwork and data management.

Funding

Primary funding was provided by the North Carolina Trapper’s Association and a SURCA grant from the University of North Carolina Wilmington College of Arts and Sciences. Additional funding was provided by North Carolina SeaGrant.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Environmental Sciences, University of North CarolinaWilmington, 601 S. College Avenue, Wilmington, NC, USA

    Seanna Jobe

  2. Department of Environmental Sciences, University of North Carolina Wilmington, 601 S. College Avenue, Wilmington, NC, USA

    Rachael E. Urbanek

  3. Bald Head Island Conservancy, 700 Federal Road, Bald Head Island, NC, 28461, USA

    Paul Hillbrand & Elizabeth S. Darrow

  4. Fort Fisher State Recreation Area, 1000 Loggerhead Road, Kure Beach, NC, 28449, USA

    Emily Abernethy

Authors
  1. Seanna Jobe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rachael E. Urbanek
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Paul Hillbrand
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Elizabeth S. Darrow
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Emily Abernethy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to the study conception, design, and material preparation. Data collection and analysis were performed by Seanna Jobe and Rachael Urbanek. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Seanna Jobe and Rachael Urbanek; all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rachael E. Urbanek.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Jobe, S., Urbanek, R.E., Hillbrand, P. et al. Predator exclusion cages as visual attractants to coyotes. Urban Ecosyst 26, 981–989 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-023-01359-3

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-023-01359-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation