Home Range and Habitat Use of Coyotes in Southeastern Colorado

Abstract

We tracked 72 radio-collared coyotes (Canis latrans) for 13 consecutive biological seasons spanning 4 years. Coyotes displayed 2 behavior modes based on home-range characteristics: resident and transient. Resident and transient coyotes comprised 78 and 22% of the population, respectively. The mean annual home-range size was 11.3 km2 (range = 2.8-32.0 km2) and 106.5 km2 (range = 60.9-185.3 km2) for resident and transient coyotes, respectively. Yearlings and very old coyotes (>8 yr) accounted for 68% of the transient cohort. Resident annual home ranges in canyon, hill, pinyon (Pinus edulis)-juniper (Juniperus monosperma)prairie, and prairie habitats averaged 5.5, 6.6, 11.1, and 16.5 km2, respectively. Coyotes preferred pinyonjuniper woodlands and shrub-grasslands but used open grassland habitat less than expected. Regression analysis showed that 65% of the variation in resident home ranges could be explained by the amount of available pinyon-juniper cover. Coyotes with access to little or no pinyon-juniper cover used shrub-grasslands. Similarily, 47% of the variation of home ranges for coyotes inhabiting the prairie could be explained by the amount of available shrub-grassland habitat within an animal's home range. J. WILDL. MANAGE. 52(4):640-646 Coyote home ranges have been studied throughout the United States (Gipson and Sealander 1972, Berg and Chesness 1978, Andelt and Gipson 1979, Springer 1982, Woodruff and Keller 1982, Andelt 1985). Most studies pooled home-range sizes from their study area, reported a mean size, and compared their estimate to other studies. To date, no one has attempted to explain the variance in home-range sizes. Laundre, and Keller (1984) concluded that future studies should examine coyote home-range use in relation to physical, faunal, and vegetal characteristics. We describe home-range use and size relative to habitat use by coyotes in southeastern Colorado. We examined the relationship between home-range size and availability of vegetative components. We thank P. A. Terletzky, B. A. Abel, L. A. H ugh, G. B. Perlmutter, F. M. Lentsch, and C. C. Gordon for field assistance; the Western En rgy and Land Use Team (WELUT) and K. M. Firchow for habitat mapping; J. R. Cary for computer assistance; and M. D. Samuel for staistical assistance. J. A. Bissonette, J. W. Laundr6, and an anonymous reviewer provided critical reviews of the manuscript. This study was funded by the Environmental, Energy, and Natural Resources Division, U.S. Army, Fort Carson, Colorado, through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Colorado Fish and Wildlife Assistance Office, Golden, Colorado, and the USFWS Wisconsin Cooperative Wildlife Re' Present address: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Creston Fisheries Center, Kalispell, MT 59901. This content downloaded from 157.55.39.243 on Tue, 04 Oct 2016 06:06:53 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms J. Wildl. Manage. 52(4):1988 COYOTE HOME RANGE AND HABITAT USE * Gese et al. 641 search Unit, the College of Agricultural and Life Sciences, and the Graduate School, University of Wisconsin, Madison.