Space use by resident and transient coyotes in an urban–rural landscape mosaic
Numi Mitchell A F , Michael W. Strohbach B , Ralph Pratt C , Wendy C. Finn D and Eric G. Strauss E
+ Author Affiliations
- Author Affiliations
A The Conservation Agency, 67 Howland Ave, Jamestown, RI 02835, USA.
B Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Department of Geography, Landscape Ecology Lab, Unter den Linden 6, 10099 Berlin, Germany.
C West Greenwich Animal Hospital, 14 Victory Hwy, West Greenwich, RI 02817, USA.
D Department of Natural Resources Science, University of Rhode Island, Kingston, RI 02881, USA.
E Loyola Marymount University Center for Urban Resilience, 1 LMU Drive, Los Angeles, CA 90045, USA.
F Corresponding author. Email: numimitchell@gmail.com
Wildlife Research 42(6) 461-469 https://doi.org/10.1071/WR15020
Submitted: 2 February 2015 Accepted: 15 August 2015 Published: 28 September 2015
Journal Compilation © CSIRO Publishing 2015 Open Access CC BY-NC-ND
Abstract
Context: Coyotes (Canis latrans) have adapted successfully to human landscape alteration in the past 150 years and in recent decades have successfully moved into urban areas. While this causes concern about human–wildlife conflicts, research also suggests that coyotes tend to avoid humans and human activity in urban areas. For improving management, a better understanding of space use by coyotes is needed.
Aims: To study how coyote social behaviour influences fine-scale space use in urban areas we present results from an extensive, multi-year GPS telemetry study (2005–13). The study area in coastal Rhode Island is a mosaic of rural, suburban and urban land use and coyotes have only recently arrived.
Methods: We differentiated between two social classes: residents (individuals that have established a territory; n = 24) and transients (individuals that have no territory; n = 7). Space use was analysed using mixed effect models and detailed land-cover data.
Key results: Coyotes tended to select for agricultural and densely vegetated land cover and against land used for housing and commerce. Pasture and cropland were preferred by residents and avoided by transients, especially at night, indicating the role of agricultural land as prime foraging habitat. Both groups selected densely vegetated land cover for daytime shelter sites. Transients selected for densely vegetated land cover both day and night, indicating use for both shelter and foraging. Resident coyotes avoided high- and medium-density housing more than transients.
Conclusions: We interpret land-cover selection by resident coyotes as indicative of coyote habitat preference, while transients more often occupied marginal habitats that probably do not reflect their preferences. Differences in land cover selection between residents and transients suggest that transients have a corollary strategy to avoid residents.
Implications: With cover and food appearing to be important drivers of space use, coexistence strategies can build on controlling food resources as well as on the tendency of coyotes to avoid humans. Nevertheless, transients, having the need to avoid territorial resident coyotes as well, show a reduced aversion to land cover with high human activity, creating a higher potential for human–wildlife conflicts.
Additional keywords: Canis latrans, GPS telemetry, human–wildlife interaction, resource selection, Rhode Island, suburban, urban.
References
Allen, B. L., Goullet, M., Allen, L. R., Lisle, A., and Leung, L. K. P. (2013). Dingoes at the doorstep: preliminary data on the ecology of dingoes in urban areas. Landscape and Urban Planning 119, 131–135.| Dingoes at the doorstep: preliminary data on the ecology of dingoes in urban areas.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Atwood, T. C., Weeks, H. P., and Gehring, T. M. (2004). Spatial ecology of coyotes along a suburban-to-rural gradient. The Journal of Wildlife Management 68, 1000–1009.
| Spatial ecology of coyotes along a suburban-to-rural gradient.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Bateman, P. W., and Fleming, P. A. (2012). Big city life: carnivores in urban environments. Journal of Zoology 287, 1–23.
| Big city life: carnivores in urban environments.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Bekoff, M. (1977). Canis latrans. Mammalian Species 79, 1–9.
| Canis latrans.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Bivand, R. S., and Rundel, C. (2014). ‘rgeos: Interface to Geometry Engine – Open Source (GEOS). R Package Version 0.3–6.’ Available at: http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=rgeos [verified 20 January 2015].
Calenge, C. (2006). The package ‘adehabitat’ for the R software: a tool for the analysis of space and habitat use by animals. Ecological Modelling 197, 516–519.
| The package ‘adehabitat’ for the R software: a tool for the analysis of space and habitat use by animals.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Contesse, P., Hegglin, D., Gloor, S., Bontadina, F., and Deplazes, P. (2004). The diet of urban foxes (Vulpes vulpes) and the availability of anthropogenic food in the city of Zurich, Switzerland. Mammalian Biology Zeitschrift fur Saugetierkunde 69, 81–95.
Crawley, M. J. (2007). ‘The R Book.’ (John Wiley & Sons: West Sussex, UK.)
Fieberg, J., Matthiopoulos, J., Hebblewhite, M., Boyce, M. S., and Frair, J. L. (2010). Correlation and studies of habitat selection: problem, red herring or opportunity? Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences 365, 2233–2244.
| Correlation and studies of habitat selection: problem, red herring or opportunity?Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 20566500PubMed |
Fournier, D. A., Skaug, H. J., Ancheta, J., Ianelli, J., Magnusson, A., Maunder, M. N., Nielsen, A., and Sibert, J. (2012). AD model builder: using automatic differentiation for statistical inference of highly parameterized complex nonlinear models. Optimization Methods & Software 27, 233–249.
| AD model builder: using automatic differentiation for statistical inference of highly parameterized complex nonlinear models.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Gehrt, S. D. (2007). Ecology of coyotes in urban landscapes. In ‘Proceedings of the 12th Wildlife Damage Management Conference’. (Eds D. L. Nolte, W. M. Arjo and D. H. Stalman.) pp. 1–10.
Gehrt, S. D., Anchor, C., and White, L. A. (2009). Home range and landscape use of coyotes in a metropolitan landscape: conflict or coexistence? Journal of Mammalogy 90, 1045–1057.
| Home range and landscape use of coyotes in a metropolitan landscape: conflict or coexistence?Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Gehrt, S. D., Brown, J. L., and Anchor, C. (2011). Is the urban coyote a misanthropic synanthrope? The case from Chicago. Cities and the Environment 4, 3.
Gese, E. M., Rongstad, O. J., and Mytton, W. R. (1988). Home range and habitat use of coyotes in southeastern Colorado. The Journal of Wildlife Management 52, 640–646.
| Home range and habitat use of coyotes in southeastern Colorado.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Gese, E. M., Morey, P. S., and Gehrt, S. D. (2012). Influence of the urban matrix on space use of coyotes in the Chicago metropolitan area. Journal of Ethology 30, 413–425.
| Influence of the urban matrix on space use of coyotes in the Chicago metropolitan area.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Gibeau, M. L. (1998). Use of urban habitats by coyotes in the vicinity of Banff Alberta. Urban Ecosystems 2, 129–139.
| Use of urban habitats by coyotes in the vicinity of Banff Alberta.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Gillies, C. S., Hebblewhite, M., Nielsen, S. E., Krawchuk, M. A., Aldridge, C. L., Frair, J. L., Saher, D. J., Stevens, C. E., and Jerde, C. L. (2006). Application of random effects to the study of resource selection by animals. Journal of Animal Ecology 75, 887–898.
| Application of random effects to the study of resource selection by animals.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 17009752PubMed |
Gloor, S., Bontadina, F., Hegglin, D., Deplazes, P., and Breitenmoser, U. (2001). The rise of urban fox populations in Switzerland. Mammalian Biology 66, 155–164.
Gompper, M. E. (2002). Top carnivores in the suburbs? Ecological and conservation issues raised by colonization of north-eastern North America by coyotes. Bioscience 52, 185–190.
| Top carnivores in the suburbs? Ecological and conservation issues raised by colonization of north-eastern North America by coyotes.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Grinder, M. I., and Krausman, P. R. (2001). Home range, habitat use, and nocturnal activity of coyotes in an urban environment. The Journal of Wildlife Management 65, 887–898.
| Home range, habitat use, and nocturnal activity of coyotes in an urban environment.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Harrison, D. J. (1992). Dispersal characteristics of juvenile coyotes in Maine. The Journal of Wildlife Management 56, 128–138.
| Dispersal characteristics of juvenile coyotes in Maine.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Hebblewhite, M., and Merrill, E. (2008). Modelling wildlife–human relationships for social species with mixed-effects resource selection models. Journal of Applied Ecology 45, 834–844.
| Modelling wildlife–human relationships for social species with mixed-effects resource selection models.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Hinton, J. W., van Manen, F. T., and Chamberlain, M. J. (2015). Space use and habitat selection by resident and transient coyotes (Canis latrans). PLoS One 10, e0132203.
| Space use and habitat selection by resident and transient coyotes (Canis latrans).Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 26148130PubMed |
Johnson, D. H. (1980). The comparison of usage and availability measurements for evaluating resource preference. Ecology 61, 65–71.
| The comparison of usage and availability measurements for evaluating resource preference.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Kamler, J. F., and Gipson, P. S. (2000). Space and habitat use by resident and transient coyotes. Canadian Journal of Zoology 78, 2106–2111.
| Space and habitat use by resident and transient coyotes.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Kamler, J. F., Ballard, W. B., Lemons, P. R., and Gilliland, R. L. (2005). Home range and habitat use of coyotes in an area of native prairie, farmland and CRP fields. American Midland Naturalist 153, 396–404.
| Home range and habitat use of coyotes in an area of native prairie, farmland and CRP fields.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Latham, A. D. M., Latham, M. C., Boyce, M. S., and Boutin, S. (2013). Spatial relationships of sympatric wolves (Canis lupus) and coyotes (C. latrans) with woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) during the calving season in a human-modified boreal landscape. Wildlife Research 40, 250–260.
| Spatial relationships of sympatric wolves (Canis lupus) and coyotes (C. latrans) with woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) during the calving season in a human-modified boreal landscape.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Legget, P., and Legget, R. (1988). ‘Autobiography of Leggett’s Fox Trapping Methods.’ (Legget’s: Boonsboro, MD.)
Magle, S. B., Poessel, S. A., Crooks, K. R., and Breck, S. W. (2014a). More dogs less bite: the relationship between human–coyote conflict and prairie dog colonies in an urban landscape. Landscape and Urban Planning 127, 146–153.
| More dogs less bite: the relationship between human–coyote conflict and prairie dog colonies in an urban landscape.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Magle, S. B., Simoni, L. S., Lehrer, E. W., and Brown, J. S. (2014b). Urban predator–prey association: coyote and deer distributions in the Chicago metropolitan area. Urban Ecosystems 17, 875–891.
| Urban predator–prey association: coyote and deer distributions in the Chicago metropolitan area.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Manly, B. F. J. (2002). ‘Resource Selection by Animals.’ (Kluwer Academic Publishers: Dordrecht, Netherlands.)
Marks, C. A., and Bloomfield, T. E. (2006). Home-range size and selection of natal den and diurnal shelter sites by urban red foxes (Vulpes vulpes) in Melbourne. Wildlife Research 33, 339–347.
| Home-range size and selection of natal den and diurnal shelter sites by urban red foxes (Vulpes vulpes) in Melbourne.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Murray, M., Edwards, M. A., Abercrombie, B., and Saint Clair, C. C. (2015). Poor health is associated with use of anthropogenic resources in an urban carnivore. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences 282, 20150009.
| Poor health is associated with use of anthropogenic resources in an urban carnivore.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Newsome, T. M., Ballard, G., Dickman, C. R., Fleming, P. J. S., and van de Ven, R. (2013). Home range, activity and sociality of a top predator, the dingo: a test of the resource dispersion hypothesis. Ecography 36, 914–925.
| Home range, activity and sociality of a top predator, the dingo: a test of the resource dispersion hypothesis.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Newsome, S. D., Garbe, H. M., Wilson, E. C., and Gehrt, S. D. (2015). Individual variation in anthropogenic resource use in an urban carnivore. Oecologia 178, 115–128.
| Individual variation in anthropogenic resource use in an urban carnivore.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 25669449PubMed |
Payton, M. E., and Greenstone, M. H. (2003). Overlapping confidence intervals or standard error intervals: what do they mean in terms of statistical significance? Journal of Insect Science 3, 34.
| 15841249PubMed |
Pebesma, E. J., and Bivand, R. S. (2005). Classes and methods for spatial data in R. R News 5, 9–13.
Poessel, S. A., Breck, S. W., Teel, T. L., Shwiff, S., Crooks, K. R., and Angeloni, L. (2013). Patterns of human–coyote conflicts in the Denver metropolitan area. The Journal of Wildlife Management 77, 297–305.
| Patterns of human–coyote conflicts in the Denver metropolitan area.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Powell, R. A. (2000). Animal home ranges and territories and home range estimators. In ‘Research Techniques in Animal Ecology: Controversies and Consequences’. (Eds L. Boitani and T. K. Fuller.) pp. 65–110. (Columbia University Press, New York.)
R Development Core Team (2014). ‘R: a Language and Environment for Statistical Computing.’ 3rd edn. (R Foundation for Statistical Computing.) Available at: http://www.R-project.org/ [verified 29 July 2015]
Richer, M.-C., Crête, M., Ouellet, J. P., Rivest, L. P., and Huot, J. (2002). The low performance of forest versus rural coyotes in northeastern North America: inequality between presence and availability of prey. Ecoscience 9, 44–54.
RIGIS (2014). ‘Land Cover/Land Use for Rhode Island 2011. Rhode Island Geographic Information System (RIGIS) Data Distribution System.’ (Environmental Data Center, University of Rhode Island, Kingston, Rhode Island.) Available at: http://www.edc.uri.edu/rigis [verified 9 October 2014].
Riley, S. P. D., Sauvajot, R. M., Fuller, T. K., York, E. C., Kamradt, D. A., Bromley, C., and Wayne, R. K. (2003). Effects of urbanization and habitat fragmentation on bobcats and coyotes in southern California. Conservation Biology 17, 566–576.
| Effects of urbanization and habitat fragmentation on bobcats and coyotes in southern California.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Sacks, B. N., Brown, S. K., and Ernest, H. B. (2004). Population structure of California coyotes corresponds to habitat-specific breaks and illuminates species history. Molecular Ecology 13, 1265–1275.
| 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD2cXktl2rtr8%3D&md5=b40164829a2ed2866edf7d8577a1ef2cCAS | 15078462PubMed |
Way, J. G. (2002). Radio-collared coyote crosses Cape Cod Canal. Northeast Wildlife 57, 63–65.
Way, J. G., Ortega, I. M., and Strauss, E. G. (2004). Movement and activity patterns of eastern coyotes in a coastal, suburban environment. Northeastern Naturalist 11, 237–254.
| Movement and activity patterns of eastern coyotes in a coastal, suburban environment.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Weckel, M., Bogan, D. A., Burke, R. L., Nagy, C., Siemer, W. F., Green, T., and Mitchell, N. (2015). Coyotes go ‘Bridge and Tunnel’: a narrow opportunity to study the socio-ecological impacts of coyote range expansion on Long Island, NY pre- and post-arrival. Cities and the Environment 8, 5.
White, L. A., and Gehrt, S. D. (2009). Coyote attacks on humans in the United States and Canada. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 14, 419–432.
| Coyote attacks on humans in the United States and Canada.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Windberg, L. A., and Knowlton, F. F. (1988). Management implications of coyote spacing patterns in southern Texas. The Journal of Wildlife Management 52, 632–640.
| Management implications of coyote spacing patterns in southern Texas.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
