Unintended consequences of wildlife feeders on spatiotemporal activity of white‐tailed deer, coyotes, and wild pigs

Abstract

AbstractSupplemental feeding of wild ungulates has long been and remains a common practice across Europe and North America. Yet by drawing animals together, supplemental feeding can have unintended, negative effects on individual species and broader ecological processes. These include increased risk of disease transmission, intraspecific and interspecific competition, and predation, which are of management concern for white‐tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) in the southeastern United States given the arrival of nonnative wild pigs (Sus scrofa) and coyotes (Canis latrans). We conducted a field experiment between March and July of 2021 to assess the effects of supplemental feeding on spatiotemporal activity patterns of deer and wild pigs at wildlife feeders, and space use of coyotes in the Piedmont region of South Carolina, USA. We observed support for our hypothesis that interspecific competition through increased visitation by larger groups of competitor species reduces use of foraging sites by other subordinate ungulates, where feeders highly visited by wild pigs were rarely visited by deer. While adult deer and wild pigs generally did not shift their temporal activity patterns at feeders, juvenile temporal activity shifted to more frequent visits of feeders during the night, supporting our hypothesis that supplemental feed could increase risk to predator exposure, as coyotes tend to be active during crepuscular hours. Our findings suggest that supplemental feed put out to encourage deer activity could actually deter deer if wild pigs occupy that area, and has potential negative demographic effects if juveniles are at increased risk of predation. Collectively, based on our data, we do not recommend supplemental feeding in the southeastern United States where white‐tailed deer, coyotes, and wild pigs co‐occur. More broadly, given how widespread the legal use of supplemental feed remains across the United States, we encourage landowners and policymakers to consider the full suite of potential direct and indirect, short‐term and long‐term negative impacts supplemental feeding can have on both target and nontarget wildlife populations.