Effect of a landfill on the home range and group size of coyotes (<i>Canis latrans</i>) in a tropical deciduous forest

Hidalgo‐Mihart, Mircea G.; Cantú‐Salazar, Lisette; López‐González, Carlos A.; Fernandez, Erin C.; González‐Romero, Alberto

doi:10.1017/s0952836904004868

Cited by 29 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 37 publications

(38 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…They could also exploit highly predictable waste foods by forming social aggregations and tolerating other bears around rubbish dumps (Herrero, ). Similar increases in group size or tolerance of conspecifics around rubbish dumps occurred in populations of dingoes (Newsome et al ., ), coyotes (Hidalgo‐Mihart et al ., ) and red foxes (Bino et al ., ), providing compelling evidence that predators alter their behaviours to exploit resource‐rich human‐provided patches of food. Moreover, in 19 instances predators, including wolves, dingoes, domestic dogs, golden jackals, red foxes, baboons ( Papio cynocephalus ), spotted hyenas, black bears and polar bears ( Ursus maritimus ), altered their home‐range size or activity when they had access to waste foods provided by humans (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/geb.12236/suppinfo).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The ecological effects of providing resource subsidies to predators

Newsome

Dellinger

Pavey

et al. 2014

Global Ecology and Biogeography

277

262

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim Predators often have important roles in structuring ecosystems via their effects on each other and on prey populations. However, these effects may be altered in the presence of anthropogenic food resources, fuelling debate about whether the availability of such resources could alter the ecological role of predators. Here, we review the extent to which human-provided foods are utilised by terrestrial mammalian predators (> 1 kg) across the globe. We also assess whether these resources have a direct impact on the ecology and behaviour of predators and an indirect impact on other co-occurring species.Location Global.Methods Data were derived from searches of the published literature. To summarise the data we grouped studies based on the direct and indirect effects of resource subsidies on predators and co-occurring species. We then compared the types of predators accessing these resources by grouping species taxonomically and into the following categories: (1) domesticated species, (2) mesopredators and (3) top predators.Results Human-provided foods were reported to be utilised by 36 terrestrial predator species in 34 different countries. In the presence of these resources we found that: (1) predator abundance increased, (2) the dietary preferences of predators altered to include the food subsidy, (3) life-history parameters such as survival, reproduction and sociality shifted to the benefit or detriment of the predator, and (4) predators changed their home ranges, activity and movements. In some instances, these modifications indirectly affected co-occurring species via increased predation or competition. Main conclusionsThe availability of human-provided food to predators often results in behavioural or population-induced changes to predators and trophic cascades. We conclude that there is an urgent need to reduce the access of predators to food subsidies to minimise human-wildlife conflicts and to preserve the integrity of ecosystem functioning in human-influenced landscapes world-wide.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The ecological effects of providing resource subsidies to predators

Newsome

Dellinger

Pavey

et al. 2014

Global Ecology and Biogeography

277

262

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Studying coyotes in a tropical deciduous forest in Jalisco Mexico, Hidalgo‐Mihart et al . () compared animals using a landfill dump, where food was available throughout the year, and animals with no access to this clumped resource, where food was distributed between widely spread patches whose dispersion varied seasonally. Home ranges of coyotes around the landfill varied from 0.9 to 9.5 km 2 , whereas those away from this anthropogenic food source varied from 10.9 to 43.7 km 2 .…”

Section: Empirical Evidencementioning

confidence: 99%

Patchwork planet: the resource dispersion hypothesis, society, and the ecology of life

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Virtually nothing in nature is uniform. Observed at the right scale, most entities are clustered rather than evenly distributed, spatially and temporally, and this applies across domains from the distribution of matter in the universe, to habitats across the Earth's surface, and to energy in the landscape. Patchiness means organisms cannot carve out even territories. Instead, their shape and size depends on the dispersion of materials needed for survival and reproduction. This fundamental feature of life is intrinsically understood in ecology, for example, in the ideal free distribution and optimal foraging theory, and is represented in the anatomy as well as behaviour of organisms via the structures and strategies for moving, finding and capturing these patchy resources. But perhaps most striking of all is the role of patchiness in facilitating the formation of social groups – of societies. The resource dispersion hypothesis (RDH) suggests that where resources are dispersed and rich enough, multiple individuals can collapse into groups that share the same space at little cost to each other. Cooperation may be absent, but sociality is favoured nevertheless. Thirty years after the origin of the hypothesis, we review the accumulating models, critiques, evidence and experiments, concluding that RDH is a pervasive feature of animal spacing patterns across a wide range of species, taxonomic groups and ecosystems. In the spirit of the original objective of the Huxley Reviews to ‘suggest and inspire research that will improve our knowledge in the future’, we also take the opportunity to consider wider implications of the RDH. If we live and evolved on a patchwork planet, then we should expect broader effects. Indeed, we suggest that the RDH has played an important role in the evolution of cooperation, biodiversity, behaviour and, not least, in the social organization of humans in our evolutionary past and today.

show abstract

“…This result would seem counterintuitive, given that territories should increase concomitant with group size (McNab 1963). Despite this theoretical expectation, a body of evidence (e.g., Macdonald 1981;Mills 1982;Geffen et al 1992;Hidalgo-Mihart et al 2004) has accumulated to support the finding that territory size may not always directly correlate with group size in some carnivore species (Macdonald 1983). Rather, spatial and (or) temporal heterogeneity in resource availability can be a primary influence so that territory and group size may vary independently (Macdonald 1981).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…For example, several studies have found that spatial aggregation of critical resources, such as food and cover, has been a primary factor in promoting space-sharing and interaction among putatively unrelated red foxes (Vulpes vulpes (L., 1758): Macdonald 1981 in suburban Oxford; Poulle et al 1994 in rural France; White et al 1996 in suburban Oxford; Macdonald et al 1999 in Saudi Arabia; Baker et al 1998 and2000 in suburban Bristol), golden jackals (Canis aureus L., 1758: Macdonald 1979 at a refuse dump in Israel), and coyotes (Canis latrans Say, 1823: Hidalgo-Mihart et al 2004 at a landfill in Mexico). These results generally support the contention of Macdonald's (1981Macdonald's ( , 1983 resource dispersion hypothesis (RDH) that the spatial distribution of critical resource patches (e.g., food and cover) determines territory size, whereas patch quality (i.e., the average level of resources; Baker et al 2000) determines group size.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The influence of habitat patch attributes on coyote group size and interaction in a fragmented landscape

Atwood¹

2006

Can. J. Zool.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

From February 2000 to January 2002, I investigated correlates of landscape fragmentation with coyote (Canis latrans Say, 1823) group size and resulting effects on within-group spatial interaction in west-central Indiana, USA, to determine whether habitat patch dispersion and attributes mediated group maintenance and persistence. Twenty-one radio-collared coyotes were assigned to 15 social groups; group territories were then classified as having dispersed (n = 10) or aggregated (n = 5) resource patches. Group size was larger in territories with aggregated patches and was directly correlated to forest area and inversely correlated to corridor area (top-ranked model: group size = β 0 + forest area -corridor area; AIC c = -2.12, ∆AIC c = 0.0, ω i = 0.67). Territories with aggregated patches had proportionally more forest (mean = 0.41, SE = 0.02) and less corridor (mean = 0.01, SE = 0.002) habitats than territories with dispersed patches (forest area: mean = 0.11, SE = 0.01; corridor area: mean = 0.03, SE = 0.002). Within-group spatial interaction was not influenced by patch dispersion. I suggest that differences in territory and group sizes relative to patch dispersion reflect the complex combination of environmental pressures present in human-dominated landscapes and their potential to perturb canid social organization.Résumé : Afin de déterminer si les caractéristiques et la dispersion des taches d'habitat sont responsables du maintien et de la persistance des groupes chez le coyote (Canis latrans Say, 1823), la présente étude menée de février 2000 à janvier 2002 dans le centre-ouest de l'Indiana, É.-U., examine les facteurs de corrélation entre la fragmentation de l'habitat et la taille des groupes, ainsi que les effets qui en découlent sur l'interaction spatiale au sein des groupes. Vingt-et-un coyotes munis de colliers radio ont pu être rattachés à 15 groupes sociaux; les territoires des groupes ont ensuite été classifiés comme possédant des taches de ressources dispersées (n = 10) ou contagieuses (n = 5). La taille des groupes est plus grande dans les territoires qui ont des taches contagieuses et elle est en correction directe avec la surface de la forêt et en corrélation inverse avec la surface des corridors (modèle le meilleur : taille du groupe = β 0 + surface de forêt -surface de corridor; AIC c = -2,12, ∆AIC c = 0,0, ω i = 0,67). Les territoires possédant des taches contagieuses ont proportionnellement plus d'habitats forestiers (moyenne = 0,41, ET = 0,02) et moins de corridors (moyenne = 0,01, ET = 0,002) que les territoires avec des taches dispersées (surface de forêt: moyenne = 0,11, ET = 0,01; surface de corridor: moyenne = 0,03, ET = 0,002). L'interaction sociale au sein des groupes n'est pas affectée par la dispersion des taches. Mon hypothèse est que les différences de taille des territoires et des groupes en fonction de la dispersion des taches sont le reflet d'une combinaison complexe de pressions environnementales présente dans les paysages dominés par les humains et du potentiel de perturbation...

show abstract

Effect of a landfill on the home range and group size of coyotes (Canis latrans) in a tropical deciduous forest

Cited by 29 publications

References 37 publications

The ecological effects of providing resource subsidies to predators

The ecological effects of providing resource subsidies to predators

Patchwork planet: the resource dispersion hypothesis, society, and the ecology of life

The influence of habitat patch attributes on coyote group size and interaction in a fragmented landscape

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About