Abstract
Several chemical modifications of a synthetic fermented egg (SFE) lure were field tested on free-ranging coyotes (Canis latrans) to determine the effects of odor intensity and quality on their behavioral responses. SFE was modified for testing by (1) enhancing one of the four basic odor components (fruity, sulfurous, sweaty, or fishy), (2) deleting one of the basic components, (3) individually testing an odor component, and (4) addition of aldehydes and indoles to SFE. Most behavioral responses, especially visitation, increased with odor intensity. Widely different odors elicited similar visitation. Specific odor quality influenced response rates such as urinating, defecating, digging, scratching, rolling, and pulling.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Albone, E.S., Gosden, P.E., Ware, G.C., MacDonald, D.W., andHough, N.G. 1978. Bacterial action and chemical signalling in the red fox (Vulpes vulpes) and other mammals, pp. 78–91,in Bullard (ed.). Flavor Chemistry of Animal Foods, ACS Symp. Ser. No. 67, American Chemical Society, Washington, D.C.
Barrette, C., andMessier, F. 1980. Scent-marking in free-rangingcoyotes,Canislatrans.Anim. Behav. 28:814–819.
Bowen, W.D., andCowan, I. M. 1980. Scent marking in coyotes.Can. J. Zool. 58:473–480.
Bullard, R.W. 1982. Wild canid associations with fermentation products.Ind. Eng. Chem. Prod. Res. Dev. 21:646–655.
Bullard, R. W., Leiker, T. J., Peterson, J.E., andKilburn, S.R. 1978a. Volatile components of fermented egg, an animal attractant and repellent.J. Agric. Food Chem. 26:155–159.
Bullard, R.W., Shumake, S.A., Campbell, D.L., andTurkowski, F.J. 1978b. Preparation and evalutation of a synthetic egg coyote attractant and deer repellent.J. Agric. Food Chem. 26:160–163.
Byer, A.J., andAbrams, D. 1953. A comparison of the triangular and two-sample taste-test methods.Food Technol 7:185–187.
Camenzind, F.J.. 1978. Behavioral ecology of coyotes on the national elk refuge, Jackson, Wyoming, pp. 267–294,in M. Bekoff (ed.). Coyotes: Biology, Behavior, and Management. Academic Press, New York.
Frazier, W.C. 1967. Food Microbiology, 2nd ed. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Henry, J.D. 1977. The use of urine marking in the scavenging behavior of the red fox (Vulpes vulpes).Behavior 61:82–106.
Hwang, V.S., andMulla, M.S. 1971.Hippelates eye gnat attractants. 1. Isolation and identification of ether-soluble coattractants produced by fermentation of whole-egg solids.Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 64:1086–1091.
Kleiman, D. 1966. Scent marking in candidae.Symp. Zoo/. Soc.London 18:167–177.
Lehner, P.N. 1978. Coyote communication, pp. 127–162,in M. Bekoff (ed.). Coyotes: Biology, Behavior, and Management. Academic Press, New York.
Reiger, I. 1979. Scent rubbing in carnivores.Carnivore 2:17–25.
Roughton, R.D. 1982. A synthetic alternative to fermented egg as a canid attractant.J. Wildl. Manage. 46:230–234.
Timm, R.M., Connolly, G.E., Howard, W.E., Longhurst, W.M., Teranishi, R., Murphy, E.L., andHarris, R.S. 1975. Coyotes respond to fractions to coyote urine.Sei. Biol. J. 1:87–89.
Turkowski, F.J., Popelka, M.L., Green, B.B., andBullard, R.W.1979. Testing the responses of coyotes and other predators to odor attractants, pp. 255–269,in J.R. Beck (ed.). Test Methods for Vertebrate Pest Control and Management Materials, ASTM STP 680. American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia.
Wittes, J., andTurk, A. 1967. ASTM Special Technical Publications No. 440. American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, p. 49.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Bullard, R.W., Turkowski, F.J. & Kilburn, S.R. Responses of free-ranging coyotes to lures and their modifications. J Chem Ecol 9, 877–888 (1983). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00987812
Received:
Revised:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00987812