4.2 Article

HOME RANGE AND LANDSCAPE USE OF COYOTES IN A METROPOLITAN LANDSCAPE: CONFLICT OR COEXISTENCE?

Journal

JOURNAL OF MAMMALOGY
Volume 90, Issue 5, Pages 1045-1057

Publisher

ALLIANCE COMMUNICATIONS GROUP DIVISION ALLEN PRESS
DOI: 10.1644/08-MAMM-A-277.1

Keywords

Canis latrans; Chicago; coyote; Illinois; resource selection; urbanization

Categories

Funding

  1. Cook County Animal and Rabies Control
  2. Max McGraw Wildlife Foundation
  3. Forest Preserve District of Cook County

Ask authors/readers for more resources

An understanding of how top mammalian carnivores respond to urbanization is important for conservation and management of human-wildlife conflicts. Coyotes (Canis latrans) have recently become more prevalent in many metropolitan areas; however, their apparent success is poorly understood. We estimated home-range size and selection of land-use types for coyotes in a heavily urbanized landscape, with a particular focus on responses of coyotes to those parts of the urban landscape with high levels of human development or activity. Mean (+/- SE) annual home ranges of transient coyotes ((X) over bar = 26.80 +/- 2.95 km(2)) were larger than those of resident coyotes ((X) over bar = 4.95 +/- 0.34 km(2).), and home-range size for resisdent coyotes did not vary among seasons or between age and sex classes. Although most home ranges were associated with natural patches of habitat, there was considerable variation among coyotes, with some home ranges entirely lacking patches of natural habitat. Within home ranges, coyotes typically avoided land-use types associated with human activity (i.e., Residential, Urban Grass, and Urban Land) regardless of coyote characteristics, seasons, and activity periods. Few coyotes were nuisances, and conflicts occurred when coyotes were sick or exposed to wildlife feeding by humans. We found little evidence that coyotes were attracted to areas associated with hurnan activity, despite at times having home ranges located in heavily developed areas.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available