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

Abstract

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...

Using Citizen Science to Map Human—Coyote Interaction in Suburban New York, USA

“…We used an information theoretic approach and evaluated models with Akaike's Information Criterion (AIC; Burnham and Anderson 2002). We proposed 14 candidate models of coyote detection based on 1) suburban coyote habitat use of grassland and forested habitats (Quinn 1995, Gibeau 1998, Atwood 2006, 2) observed denning in the vicinity of water (Way 2000), and 3) a negative correlation between coyote activity and human development (McClennen 2001, Riley et al 2003, Randa and Yunger 2006. We constructed models based on natural habitat, elements of human development, and combinations of the two.…”

“…Whether citizen science reaches its goal of further (dFOR 5 distance to deciduous, evergreen, mixed, shrub, or wetland forest; dGRASS 5 distance to grassland, pasture, hay; and dMIDH 5 distance to mid-high density development defined as land with .50% paved surface). We built the model using data collected in 2006 on whether a coyote was seen or heard on the homeowner's property in Westchester County, New York, USA, between 2003 and2006. engaging the larger public in environmental issues remains to be seen.…”

Big city life: carnivores in urban environments

“…Coyotes do not appear to make direct use of buildings for shelter, but within built‐up areas, patches of natural forest and scrub, even undeveloped plots amongst housing, are vital as protective cover (Atwood, Weeks & Gehring, ; Atwood, ; Baker, ). For example, all recorded dens in Cape Cod, US, were naturally dug and >300 m from houses (Way et al ., ).…”

The dynamic nature of territoriality, transience and biding in an exploited coyote population

“…If more productive habitats are also characterised by greater potential mortality, individual behaviour or tolerance for risk (Charnov 1976) may result in rapid territory turnover in these more productive areas, resulting in an alternative form of biding, with residents actively defending temporary territories while waiting for more productive territories to become available. Additionally, in areas with high mortality, resident coyotes may be more tolerant of yearlings remaining in natal territories for an additional year resulting in delayed dispersal (Messier and Barrette 1982, Patterson and Messier 2001, Atwood and Weeks 2003, Atwood 2006. This third, alternative form of a biding area within the resident parents' territory would minimise the associated risk of long-distance dispersal to novel areas and potentially improve survival of yearling subadults.…”