Abstract
Anthropogenic modifications to landscapes intended to benefit wildlife may negatively influence wildlife communities. Anthropogenic provisioning of free water (water developments) to enhance abundance and distribution of wildlife is a common management practice in arid regions where water is limiting. Despite the long-term and widespread use of water developments, little is known about how they influence native species. Water developments may negatively influence arid-adapted species (e.g., kit fox, Vulpes macrotis) by enabling water-dependent competitors (e.g., coyote, Canis latrans) to expand distribution in arid landscapes (i.e., indirect effect of water hypothesis). We tested the two predictions of the indirect effect of water hypothesis (i.e., coyotes will visit areas with free water more frequently and kit foxes will spatially and temporally avoid coyotes) and evaluated relative use of free water by canids in the Great Basin and Mojave Deserts from 2010 to 2012. We established scent stations in areas with (wet) and without (dry) free water and monitored visitation by canids to these sites and visitation to water sources using infrared-triggered cameras. There was no difference in the proportions of visits to scent stations in wet or dry areas by coyotes or kit foxes at either study area. We did not detect spatial (no negative correlation between visits to scent stations) or temporal (no difference between times when stations were visited) segregation between coyotes and kit foxes. Visitation to water sources was not different for coyotes between study areas, but kit foxes visited water sources more in Mojave than Great Basin. Our results did not support the indirect effect of water hypothesis in the Great Basin or Mojave Deserts for these two canids.
Highlights
Anthropogenic manipulations to landscapes or resources that are designed to benefit wildlife may have negative indirect effects on wildlife communities [1,2,3]
Other potential competitors and predators of kit foxes and coyotes that we observed at scent stations included badgers (Taxidea taxus), bobcats (Lynx rufus), and gray foxes (Urocyon cinereoargenteus); visits from these intraguild species were too few for meaningful comparison (Table 2)
Our study was the first to evaluate the potential indirect effect that anthropogenic water developments may have on canid communities in two deserts
Summary
Anthropogenic manipulations to landscapes or resources that are designed to benefit wildlife may have negative indirect effects on wildlife communities [1,2,3]. Indirect effects from anthropogenic manipulations are likely most pronounced when alteration influences resources that are limiting. Water available for drinking (hereafter free water) is a limiting resource for some species that is often manipulated to increase distribution or density of animals [4,5,6,7]. Despite the widespread and long-term manipulation of free water (e.g., water developments for wildlife and livestock), there is little supporting information and much controversy concerning how this anthropogenic manipulation influences native species [8,9,10]. Manipulating a limiting resource, such as free water, may impose negative indirect effects on native species that have adapted to minimal availability of that resource
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
