2008 SOUTHEASTERN NATURALIST 7(1):135–144
Seasonal Food Habits of the Coyote in the South Carolina
Coastal Plain
Joshua D. Schrecengost1,*, John C. Kilgo2, David Mallard3, H. Scott Ray4,
and Karl V. Miller5
Abstract - Spatial and temporal plasticity in Canis latrans (coyote) diets require regional
studies to understand the ecological role of this omnivorous canid. Because coyotes
have recently become established in South Carolina, we investigated their food habits
by collecting 415 coyote scats on the Savannah River Site in western South Carolina
from May 2005–July 2006. Seasonally available soft mast was the most common food
item in 12 of the 15 months we sampled. Odocoileus virginianus (white-tailed deer)
was the most common food item during December (40%) and March (37%). During
May–June, fruits of Prunus spp. and Rubus spp. were the most commonly occurring
food items. Fawns were the most common mammalian food item during May and June
of both years despite low deer density.
Introduction
Canis latrans Say (coyote) is historically associated with western North
America. However, during the last 50 years, they have expanded their range
into the southeastern US, aided by humans and anthropogenic changes in the
landscape (Hill et al. 1987). Coyote food habits have been explored in detail
throughout much of their historical range (Andelt et al. 1987, Bekoff 1977,
Murie 1945). However, because coyotes exhibit temporal and spatial variability
in food item use (Bekoff 1977, Cypher et al. 1994), the findings of these
studies have limited value in the Southeast. Coyote food habits have been
documented in several areas of the Southeast (Blanton and Hill 1989, Gipson
1974, Hall 1979, Hoerath 1990, Lee 1986, Michaelson 1975, Smith and Kennedy
1983, Thornton et al. 2004, Wagner 1993, Wilson 1967, Wooding 1984),
but no published record exists for South Carolina or adjacent states. Although
there is considerable overlap in the types of food items documented in these
studies, the importance of particular food items in the coyote diet differs geographically
among study areas and temporally among seasons, probably due to
changes in food-item availability. Coyote food habits can also be affected by
changes in land-use practices (Gipson and Sealander 1976) and successional
changes in vegetation (Andelt et al. 1987).
The effect of coyote predation on game-animal populations has been of interest
for decades. In the Southeast, only two studies have focused on specific
game animals. Wagner (1993) studied coyote diet during the Meleagris gal-
1Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Wildlife Resources Division, 1401 Dean
Street, Suite I, Rome, GA 30161. 2USDA Forest Service Southern Research Station, PO
Box 700, New Ellenton, SC 29809. 3Building 5884, First Division Road, Fort Benning,
GA 31905. 4USDA Forest Service-Savannah River, PO Box 700 New Ellenton, SC
29809. 5D.B. Warnell School of Forestry and Natural Resources, University of Georgia,
Athens, GA 30602. *Corresponding author - josh_schrecengost@dnr.state.ga.us.
136 Southeastern Naturalist Vol.7, No. 1
lopavo Linnaeus (Wild Turkey) reproductive season in Arkansas, Mississippi,
Alabama, and Florida, and reported Wild Turkey occurred in less than 2% of scats collected.
Blanton and Hill (1989) compared diets of coyotes in areas of high and
low Odocoileus virginianus Zimmerman (white-tailed deer) densities during
the fawning period in Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi, and Tennessee. Occurrence
of deer in coyote scats and stomachs ranged from 9% in low-density areas
to 74% in high-density areas during the fawning period. This wide variation
in occurrence is consistent with the findings of other southeastern studies. Michaelson
(1975) and Wilson (1967) both reported annual deer occurrences less than 5%,
whereas Wooding (1984) reported deer occurrences of 71% during August.
Variability in food habits, even among similar habitats, limits the use of
prior studies in determining site-specific ecological impact of coyotes. Detailed
data describing coyote use of intensely managed populations such as
white-tailed deer are of particular interest. Therefore, our objectives were to
determine the breadth of coyote food habits and identify seasonal trends in the
coyote diet on the Savannah River Site in South Carolina.
Study Area
Our research was conducted on the 80,000-ha Savannah River Site (SRS)
in Aiken, Barnwell, and Allendale counties, SC. The SRS is a US Department
of Energy National Environmental Research Park located in the Upper
Coastal Plain physiographic province along the Savannah River (Imm and
McLeod 2005). General public access to the SRS is heavily restricted. Coyotes
were first reported on the SRS in 1986, and since that time, the population has
expanded dramatically (Mayer et al. 2005), and coyotes are now observed frequently.
Topography of the SRS is gently rolling to fl at, and elevation ranges
from 20–130 m. Once used for agriculture, SRS is now predominately forested
(97%). Pinus palustris Miller (longleaf pine) and Pinus taeda Linnaeus (loblolly
pine) dominate the overstory canopy (68%). Other major vegetative types
include swamps and bottomland hardwood (22%) and upland hardwood (7%)
forests (Imm and McLeod 2005). Approximately 12% of the total forest stands
are <10 years of age (Blake and Bonar 2005). The SRS is intersected by over
2600 km of roads, logging trails, and railroads (Blake et al. 2005).
The white-tailed deer population on the SRS is managed to limit deer-vehicle
collisions and deer impact on the environment. Controlled dog hunting
is used to maintain a pre-hunt target population of 4000 deer (Johns and Kilgo
2005). Currently, deer population density is estimated at 1 per 26 to 29 ha (H.S.
Ray and J.C. Kilgo, unpubl. data). Hunts during the course of this study occurred
October through December 2005. In recent years, data collected from
the hunts on SRS show a dramatic decline in harvest of fawns and yearlings despite
no changes in hunt methodology (H.S. Ray, unpubl. data). This suggests
that white-tailed deer recruitment is declining at SRS, coincident with increasing
coyote abundance.
The Sus scrofa Linnaeus (wild hog) population on SRS was estimated at 900
animals in 2003 (Mayer 2005). Wild hogs are hunted and trapped year round to
minimize impact on the environment and vehicle collisions. From May 2005
2008 J.D. Schrecengost, J.C. Kilgo, D. Mallard, H.S. Ray, and K.V. Miller 137
through June 2006, 172 hogs were killed on SRS. Most wild hog carcasses are
disposed of on site, which provides an incidental source of carrion for coyotes.
Methods
We collected coyote scats opportunistically along roads and rights-of-way
throughout SRS from May 2005 through July 2006. Especially large or small
scats were not collected to avoid inclusion of scats of Canis familiaris Linnaeus
(domestic dog) and Urocyon cinereoargenteus Schreber (gray fox). Scats were
subjectively evaluated in the field for relative moisture content and decomposition
in an attempt to collect samples <5 days old. Scats were placed in plastic
bags labeled with date and location of collection and stored frozen to minimize
decomposition. For analysis, scats were oven dried at 65 °C for 72–96 hours,
and food items were separated manually. We identified food items macroscopically
from hair, tooth, claw, and hoof fragments, as well as plant residues.
Dorsal guard hairs were identified microscopically when necessary using the
pigment patterns of the medulla (Moore et al. 1974) and compared to reference
slides prepared from the University of Georgia Warnell School of Forestry and
Natural Resources mammalian collection. White-tailed deer fawn remains
were separated from adult deer remains whenever possible by the physical
characteristics of the hairs as well as the presence of small hooves. In cases of
uncertain age class, the deer remains were included as adult. Plant residues,
primarily seeds, were compared to reference manuals and collections of known
specimens housed at the Warnell School of Forestry and Natural Resources. We
recorded the occurrence as well as a visual estimate of percentage volume for
each food item in each scat.
Previous studies have used several terms interchangeably to describe the occurrence
of food items in the diet of coyotes (Wagner 1993). We chose to define
“percent of scats” as the percent of a sample of scats in which a food item occurs
(Table 1), and “percent of occurrence” as the number of times a food item occurs
as a percent of total number of occurrences for all food items (Kelly 1991,
Wagner 1993). Percent of occurrence data is presented for all food items (Fig.
1), all vegetative food items (Fig. 2), and all mammalian food items (Fig. 3). We
grouped some food items due to difficulties in differentiating among species
and combined items occurring at low frequencies into an “other” category.
Results
We analyzed 415 scats to evaluate coyote food habits between May 2005
and July 2006 (Table 1). No single food item occurred in all 15 months
sampled. White-tailed deer, lagomorphs, and insects, primarily Orthoptera,
occurred in 14 months each, and small mammals occurred in 13 months
(Table 1). A single food item made up greater than 90% of the scat volume
in 227 (54.7%) of the samples we collected.
The coyote diet was dominated by plant matter from May 2005 through November
2005 as well as from June through July 2006 (Fig. 1). The occurrence of
individual plant food items consumed varied with expected availability based
on known fruiting times of these species (Fig. 2). Prunus spp. Linnaeus (wild
138 Southeastern Naturalist Vol.7, No. 1
Table 1. Percent of scats containing common coyote food items at the Savannah River Site, SC by month from May 2005 through July 2006.
2005A 2006A
May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July
Food item (13) (53) (22) (51) (32) (26) (26) (25) (18) (27) (30) (13) (39) (31) (9)
Plants
Arachis hypogaea 4 17 4 3 8 3
Carya spp. (nuts) 8 4 15 13 3
Crataegus spp. 25 13 15 4 8 6
Diospyros virginiana 18 78 81 31 8
Phytolacca americana 5 51 59 77 62 36 17 4 3
Poaceae (leaves) 4 6 4 3 8 3 10
Prunus serotina 4 59 10 6 4 22
Prunus spp. 85 43 9 6 54 52 33
Quercus spp. (acorns) 4 8 11 7
Rubus spp. 23 64 27 2 8 26 58 89
Vaccinium spp. 18 37 4 4 6
Vitis spp. 30 25 12
OtherB 5 6 4 8
Animals
Aves 2 2 4 4 6 4 10 18 6 11
Castor canadensis 2 6 3 11
Dasypus novemcinctus 5 4 4 4 8 5
Neotoma fl oridana 2 11 3 23 5
Odocoileus virginianus (adult) 15 8 14 6 3 15 40 11 23 37 15 5 10 11
Odocoileus virginianus (fawn) 31 15 18 2 38 23
Orthoptera 8 21 27 31 31 31 12 8 11 3 31 31 32 44
Procyon lotor 6 3 4 4 7 8 3
Sciurus spp. 15 3 6 3 4 4 8 6 4 10 8
Small mammal 8 8 5 10 9 4 8 11 15 10 23 3 10
Sus scrofa 11 14 10 4 4 6 31 10 8 8 3
Sylvilagus spp. 8 6 9 6 16 4 4 12 11 31 17 8 5 3
OtherC 3 8 8 6 4 7 8
ANumbers in parentheses are sample sizes. BIncludes Ilex decidua, Ostrya virginiana, Passifl ora incarnata, and Pyrus sp. CIncludes Canis latrans, Didelphis
virginiana, Lynx rufus, Ondatra zibethicus, Urocyon cinereoargenteus, and egg fragments.
2008 J.D. Schrecengost, J.C. Kilgo, D. Mallard, H.S. Ray, and K.V. Miller 139
plums) occurred in 85% of scats in May 2005 and 54% of scats in May 2006.
Rubus spp. Linnaeus (blackberries) occurred in 64% of scats in June 2005, 27%
of scats in July 2005, 58% of scats in June 2006, and 89% of scats in July 2006.
Prunus serotina Ehrhart (black cherry) occurred in 59% of scats during July
2005. Phytolacca americana Linnaeus (pokeberry) occurred in 51% of scats
during August 2005 and 62% of scats during November 2005. Diospyros virginiana
Linnaeus (persimmon) occurred in 78% of scats during September
2005 and 81% of scats during October 2005.
Figure 1. Monthly percent of occurrence for 4 major groups of food items in coyote
scats collected on the Savannah River Site, SC, May 2005 through July 2006.
Figure 2. Monthly percent of occurrence for major vegetative food items in coyote
scats collected on the Savannah River Site, SC, May 2005 through July 2006.
140 Southeastern Naturalist Vol.7, No. 1
During December through April, the coyote diet was dominated by animal
food items (Fig. 1), although percent occurrence of individual mammalian food
items varied throughout the year (Fig. 3). White-tailed deer occurred in 40%
of scats during December and 37% of scats during March. Conception dates
of white-tailed deer at SRS (Rhodes et al. 1991) plus a 200-day gestation period
(Haugen 1959, Verme 1965) place parturition primarily in the months of
May and June. During 2005, white-tailed deer fawns were present in scat collected
in May (31%), June (15%), July (18%), and August (2%). During 2006,
fawns were present in scat collected in May (38%) and June (23%). Wild hogs
and Sylvilagus spp. (rabbits) each occurred in 31% of scats during February.
Orthoptera occurred in 31% of scats during April (Table 1).
Discussion
From spring through late fall, coyotes at SRS fed heavily on soft mast when
it was available. However, from December through March, when vegetative
food items were less abundant, coyotes relied heavily on mammalian food
items. Small- and medium-sized mammals may also be more vulnerable at
this time of year due to a decrease in herbaceous cover. Orthopterans, primarily
grasshoppers, were common in scats throughout the year, but they rarely
comprised a significant portion of the volume of the scats. Similarly, birds were
consumed throughout the year, but at a relatively low percent of occurrence.
Greatest bird consumption occurred during May 2006 (18%). Although this
timing was likely coincidental with avian nesting activity and egg shell fragments
were observed in scat, low occurrence during 2005 suggests large annual
fl uctuations in bird consumption.
Small mammals and lagomorphs appear to be less important in the diets
of coyotes at the SRS than elsewhere. Other studies have reported high
Figure 3. Monthly percent of occurrence for major mammalian food items in coyote
scats collected on the Savannah River Site, SC, May 2005 through July 2006.
2008 J.D. Schrecengost, J.C. Kilgo, D. Mallard, H.S. Ray, and K.V. Miller 141
occurrences of lagomorphs (Bartel and Knowlton 2005, Thornton et al. 2004)
and small mammals (Bartel and Knowlton 2005, Hall 1979, Smith and Kennedy
1983) in coyote diets. For example, Blanton and Hill (1989) reported
36.5% frequency of occurrence of Sylvilagus spp. in 523 coyote scats and 9
coyote stomachs collected during summer in Mississippi, Alabama, Kentucky,
and Tennessee. Bowyer et al. (1983) reported 28.2% annual frequency of occurrence
for Rodentia in coyote scats in California. In Louisiana, Wilson (1967)
found rodent remains occurring in 75% of coyote stomachs during spring and
fall and lagomorph remains occurring in 80% of coyote stomachs during
summer. Although both of these groups were present in the diet of coyotes at
SRS throughout most of the year, their importance was limited compared to
other food items, and occurrence was greatest during winter and early spring
(Table 1). Specifically, the highest occurrence of small mammals in coyote
scats on SRS occurred during April 2006 (23%), and the highest occurrence
of lagomorphs occurred during February 2006 (31%). Although these peak
values approach the annual or seasonal occurrences reported in other studies,
they were limited to single months. Neither group occurred in >17% of scats
collected during any other months (Table 1). Our data does suggest that lagomorphs
and small mammals were important relative to other mammalian food
items during September and October of 2005 (Fig. 3). However, during this
time, the coyote diet was dominated by vegetative food items, and mammalian
food items made up <15% of the food items consumed (Fig. 1).
Occurrence of wild hog in scats was greatest during February (31%), corresponding
with the peak of hog control (January through March), during which
69 hog carcasses were disposed of on SRS. Similarly, Wagner (1993) found hog
remains in 17–25% of scats in Bolivar County, MS and reported peak occurrence
coincident with the peak in sport hunting of hogs. Hog remains in scats
occasionally contained small hooves, suggesting predation on piglets, but most
hog occurrence in scats consisted of the large, coarse hairs of adult hogs. Coyotes
undoubtedly scavenge adult hog carrion, but we are aware of no published
reports of coyote predation on adult hogs. Nevertheless, we cannot eliminate
the possibility of predation on adult hogs, particularly given the somewhat
atypical use of other food items by SRS coyotes.
Fruit use by coyotes has been documented by numerous studies (Andelt et
al. 1987, Blanton and Hill 1989, Murie 1951, Thornton et al. 2004, Wooding
1984). However, the timing of fruit availability and species use is variable.
Wooding (1984) reported persimmons in 67% of scats and stomachs during fall
in Mississippi and Alabama, similar to the findings of this study during September
through November (31–81%). Blackberry and pokeberry have also been
reported at significant levels in several southeastern states (Blanton 1988).
However, high occurrence of wild plums in the diet of coyotes has not been
previously reported. During the months of May and June, wild plum occurred
in 43–85% of the coyote scats collected on the SRS during 2005 and 2006. The
differences in occurrence of soft mast within the same region further emphasize
the need for locally specific coyote food-habit studies.
White-tailed deer were consumed in every month except October. Roadkilled
deer carcasses are available to coyotes in limited quantities throughout
142 Southeastern Naturalist Vol.7, No. 1
the year. During 2005, 72 road-killed deer were recovered along the SRS roadways
(P.E. Johns, Savannah River Ecology Laboratory, Aiken, SC, unpubl.
data) and most were disposed of in wooded areas on site. This explains a portion
of the deer remains encountered in coyote scats because we often observed
scavenging by coyotes at monitored carcasses. The absence of white-tailed deer
in October is coincident with the increase in seasonal soft mast consumption as
persimmon and pokeberry fruits became available. Increased use of whitetailed
deer during November and December corresponded with the timing of
controlled hunts on SRS. Apparently coyotes consumed deer crippled or un-recovered
during hunts. We believe it is unlikely that hunting pressure made deer
more susceptible to predation. D’Angelo et al. (2003) found that female whitetailed
deer on SRS resumed normal movement patterns within 13 hours after
hunt-associated disturbances, suggesting that risk of coyote predation likely
would not be greatly increased by hunting activity.
White-tailed deer remains also occurred in a large proportion of scats during
March 2006 (Table 1). Increased coyote use of deer during late winter has
been associated with increased deer vulnerability due to winter severity and
deep snows (Patterson et al. 1998). However, winters are mild in South Carolina.
Deer-vehicle collision data from the SRS suggests there was no significant
increase in availability of deer carrion at this time. Although coyotes may have
been killing adult deer, it is more likely that coyotes were returning more often
and from greater distances to the available carrion and consuming even portions
of the deer hides, and thus hair. This explanation could account for the increased
occurrence of deer remains in scats during March.
White-tailed deer fawns were an important component of the diet, occurring
in 15–38% of scats during May through July, coincident with the timing
of parturition and fawn rearing. During this time, fawns comprised the largest
proportion of mammalian food items encountered, although blackberries
and wild plums were the most frequently encountered items in scats overall
(Table 1). Similarly, Blanton and Hill (1989) reported 31% average occurrence
of deer in the summer coyote diet across seven southeastern study areas. Data
from Mississippi and Alabama (Wooding 1984) and from Louisiana (Hall
1979) are comparable. Blanton and Hill (1989) observed a decreased use in
other food items as fawns became available in areas of high deer density, suggesting
that coyotes may select fawns over less profitable food items. Blanton
and Hill (1989) used an annual deer-harvest density of 1 per 48 ha or greater to
define high-density populations. Deer-harvest density on the SRS was 1 per
372 ha during 2005. On SRS, fawns may be more profitable than alternative
food sources despite low deer density (estimated deer density of 1 per 26 to 29
ha). Together with the high occurrence of fawn remains in coyote scats reported
herein, several lines of evidence suggest the possibility that coyotes may be
impacting deer recruitment at the SRS. These include high coyote-induced mortality
among radio-collared fawns during a 2006–2007 study, a 54% decline in
the proportion of fawns/doe in the harvest between the periods 1965–1993 and
1997–2006, and a 45% decline in an annual spotlight index from 1991–2007
(J.C. Kilgo and H.S. Ray, unpubl. data). In addition, the increased use of mammalian
food items when soft mast availability is limited, suggests that a spring
2008 J.D. Schrecengost, J.C. Kilgo, D. Mallard, H.S. Ray, and K.V. Miller 143
soft-mast failure could result in increased predation of white-tailed deer fawns
(Andelt et al. 1987). Our data presents further evidence in support of this theory
because increases in mammalian food-item use were correlated with decreases
in seasonal soft-mast availability. Additional research is warranted to better
understand the potential impacts of the recently established coyote on whitetailed
deer and other species in southeastern ecosystems.
Acknowledgments
We thank M. Schrecengost for dedicated assistance in data collection. We
acknowledge the support of D. Osborn and P.E. Johns and the cooperation of US Forest
Service-Savannah River employees. I.L. Brisbin, J.J. Mayer, and an anonymous
reviewer provided helpful comments on the manuscript. Funding was provided by the
US Department of Energy—Savannah River Operations Office through the US Forest
Service—Savannah River under Interagency Agreement DE-AI09-00SR22188.
Literature Cited
Andelt, W.F., J.G. Kie, F.F. Knowlton, and K. Cardwell. 1987. Variation in coyote
diets associated with season and successional changes in vegetation. Journal of
Wildlife Management 51:273–277.
Bartel, R.A., and F.F. Knowlton. 2005. Functional feeding responses of coyotes, Canis
latrans, to fl uctuating prey abundance in the Curlew Valley, Utah, 1977–1993.
Canadian Journal of Zoology 83:569–578.
Bekoff, M. 1977. Canis latrans. Mammalian Species 79:1–9.
Blake, J.I., and R.T. Bonar. 2005. Commercial forest products. Pp. 328–338, In J.C.
Kilgo and J.I. Blake (Eds.). Ecology and Management of a Forested Landscape:
Fifty Years on the Savannah River Site. Island Press, Washington, DC. 479 pp.
Blake, J.I., J.J. Mayer, and J.C. Kilgo. 2005. Industrial operations and current land
use. Pp. 12–18, In J.C. Kilgo and J.I. Blake (Eds.). Ecology and Management
of a Forested Landscape: Fifty Years on the Savannah River Site. Island Press,
Washington, DC. 479 pp.
Blanton, K.M. 1988. Summer diet of coyotes in the Southeast, and the response of
coyotes to siren surveys. M.Sc. Thesis. Mississippi State University, Mississippi
State, MS. 82 pp.
Blanton, K.M., and E.P. Hill. 1989. Coyote use of white-tailed deer fawns in relation
to deer density. Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Southeastern Association
of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 43:470–478.
Bowyer, R.T., S.A. McKenna, and M.E. Shea. 1983. Seasonal-changes in coyote foodhabits
as determined by fecal analysis. American Midland Naturalist 109:266–273.
Cypher, B.L., K.A. Spencer, and J.H. Scrivner. 1994. Food-item use by coyotes at the
naval petroleum reserves in California. Southwestern Naturalist 39:91–95.
D’Angelo, G.J., J.C. Kilgo, C.E. Comer, C.D. Drennan, D.A. Osborn, and K.V. Miller.
2003. Effects of controlled dog hunting on movements of female white-tailed
deer. Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Southeastern Association of
Fish and Wildlife Agencies 57:317–325.
Gipson, P.S. 1974. Food habits of coyotes in Arkansas. Journal of Wildlife Management
38:848–853.
Gipson, P.S., and J.A. Sealander. 1976. Changing food habits of wild Canis in
Arkansas with emphasis on coyote hybrids and feral dogs. American Midland
Naturalist 95:249–253.
Hall, D.I. 1979. An ecological study of the coyote-like canid in Louisiana. M.Sc.
Thesis. Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA. 233 pp.
144 Southeastern Naturalist Vol.7, No. 1
Haugen, A.O. 1959. Breeding records of captive white-tailed deer in Alabama. Journal
of Mammalogy 40:108–113.
Hill, E.P., P.W. Sumner, and J.B. Wooding. 1987. Human infl uences on range expansion
of coyotes in the Southeast. Wildlife Society Bulletin 15:521–524.
Hoerath, J.D. 1990. Infl uences of coyotes on game animals as monitored by fecal
analysis. M.Sc. Thesis. Auburn University, Auburn, AL.
Imm, D.W., and K.W. McLeod. 2005. Plant communities. Pp. 106–161, In J.C. Kilgo
and J.I. Blake (Eds.). Ecology and Management of a Forested Landscape: Fifty
Years on the Savannah River Site. Island Press, Washington, DC. 479 pp.
Johns, P.E., and J.C. Kilgo. 2005. White-tailed deer. Pp. 380–389, In J.C. Kilgo and
J.I. Blake (Eds.). Ecology and Management of a Forested Landscape: Fifty Years
on the Savannah River Site. Island Press, Washington, DC. 479 pp.
Kelly, B.T. 1991. Carnivore scat analysis: An evaluation of existing techniques and
the development of predictive models of prey consumed. M.Sc. Thesis. University
of Idaho, Moscow, ID. 200 pp.
Lee, R.M. III. 1986. Food habits of the coyote, Canis latrans, in Tennessee. M.Sc.
Thesis. Memphis State University, Memphis, TN. 55 pp.
Mayer, J.J. 2005. Wild hog. Pp. 374–379, In J.C. Kilgo and J.I. Blake, (Eds.). Ecology
and Management of a Forested Landscape: Fifty Years on the Savannah
River Site. Island Press, Washington, DC. 479 pp.
Mayer, J.J., L.D. Wike, and M.B. Caudell. 2005. Furbearers. Pp. 366–373, In J.C.
Kilgo and J.I. Blake, (Eds.). Ecology and Management of a Forested Landscape:
Fifty Years on the Savannah River Site. Island Press, Washington, DC. 479 pp.
Michaelson, K.A. 1975. Food habits of coyotes in northwest Louisiana. M.Sc. Thesis.
Louisiana Tech University, Ruston, LA. 28 pp.
Moore, T.D., L.E. Spence, and C.E. Dugnolle. 1974. Identification of the dorsal
guard hairs of some mammals of Wyoming. Wyoming Game and Fish Department
Bulletin 14. 177 pp.
Murie, A. 1951. Coyote food habits on a southwestern cattle range. Journal of Mammalogy
32:291–295.
Murie, O.J. 1945. Notes on coyote food habits in Montana and British-Columbia.
Journal of Mammalogy 26:33–40.
Patterson, B.R., L.K. Benjamin, and F. Messier. 1998. Prey switching and feeding
habits of eastern coyotes in relation to snowshoe hare and white-tailed deer densities.
Canadian Journal of Zoology 76:1885–1897.
Rhodes, O.E., J.M. Novak, M.H. Smith, and P.E. Johns. 1991. Frequency distribution
of conception dates in a white-tailed deer herd. Acta Theriologica 36:131–140.
Smith, R.A., and M.L. Kennedy. 1983. Food habits of the coyote (Canis latrans) in
western Tennessee. Journal of the Tennessee Academy of Science 58:27–28.
Thornton, D.H., M.E. Sunquist, and M.B. Main. 2004. Ecological separation within
newly sympatric populations of coyotes and bobcats in south-central Florida.
Journal of Mammalogy 85:973–982.
Verme, L.J. 1965. Reproductive studies on penned white-tailed deer. Journal of Wildlife
Management 29:74–79.
Wagner, G.D. 1993. Coyote diet in areas of Wild Turkey abundance during the Wild
Turkey reproductive season. M.Sc. Thesis. Mississippi State University, Mississippi
State, MS. 143 pp.
Wilson, W.C. 1967. Food habits of the coyote, Canis latrans, in Louisiana. M.Sc.
Thesis. Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA. 50 pp.
Wooding, J.B. 1984. Coyote food habits and the spatial relationship of coyotes and
foxes in Mississippi and Alabama. M.Sc. Thesis. Mississippi State University,
Mississippi State, MS. 43 pp.