Resident Coyotes Research Articles

Land cover and space use influence coyote carnivory: evidence from stable-isotope analysis

For many species, the relationship between space use and diet composition is complex, with individuals adopting varying space use strategies such as territoriality to facilitate resource acquisition. Coyotes (Canis latrans) exhibit two disparate types of space use; defending mutually exclusive territories (residents) or moving nomadically across landscapes (transients). Resident coyotes have increased access to familiar food resources, thus improved foraging opportunities to compensate for the energetic costs of defending territories. Conversely, transients do not defend territories and are able to redirect energetic costs of territorial defense towards extensive movements in search of mates and breeding opportunities. These differences in space use attributed to different behavioral strategies likely influence foraging and ultimately diet composition, but these relationships have not been well studied. We investigated diet composition of resident and transient coyotes in the southeastern United States by pairing individual space use patterns with analysis of stable carbon (δ13C) and nitrogen (δ15N) isotope values to assess diet. During 2016–2017, we monitored 41 coyotes (26 residents, 15 transients) with GPS radio-collars along the Savannah River area in the southeastern United States. We observed a canopy effect on δ13C values and little anthropogenic food in coyote diets, suggesting 13C enrichment is likely more influenced by reduced canopy cover than consumption of human foods. We also observed other land cover effects, such as agricultural cover and road density, on δ15N values as well as reduced space used by coyotes, suggesting that cover types and localized, resident-like space use can influence the degree of carnivory in coyotes. Finally, diets and niche space did not differ between resident and transient coyotes despite differences observed in the proportional contribution of potential food sources to their diets. Although our stable isotope mixing models detected differences between the diets of resident and transient coyotes, both relied mostly on mammalian prey (52.8%, SD = 15.9 for residents, 42.0%, SD = 15.6 for transients). Resident coyotes consumed more game birds (21.3%, SD = 11.6 vs 13.7%, SD = 8.8) and less fruit (10.5%, SD = 6.9 vs 21.3%, SD = 10.7) and insects (7.2%, SD = 4.7 vs 14.3%, SD = 8.5) than did transients. Our findings indicate that coyote populations fall on a feeding continuum of omnivory to carnivory in which variability in feeding strategies is influenced by land cover characteristics and space use behaviors.

Anthropogenic subsidies influence resource use during a mange epizootic in a desert coyote population.

Colonization of urban areas by synanthropic wildlife introduces novel and complex alterations to established ecological processes, including the emergence and spread of infectious diseases. Aggregation at urban resources can increase disease transfer, with wide-ranging species potentially infecting outlying populations. The garrison at the National Training Center, Fort Irwin, California, USA, was recently colonized by mange-infected coyotes (Canis latrans) that also use the surrounding Mojave Desert. This situation provided an ideal opportunity to examine the effects of urban resources on disease dynamics. We evaluated seasonal space use and determined the influence of anthropogenic subsidies, water sources, and prey density on urban resource selection. We found no difference in home range size between healthy and infected individuals, but infected residents had considerably more spatial overlap with one another than healthy residents. All coyotes selected for anthropogenic subsidies during all seasons, while infected coyotes seasonally selected for urban water sources, and healthy coyotes seasonally selected for urban areas with greater densities of natural prey. These results suggest that while all coyotes were selecting for anthropogenic subsidies, infected resident coyotes demonstrated a greater tolerance for other conspecifics, which could be facilitating the horizontal transfer of sarcoptic mange to non-resident coyotes. Conversely, healthy coyotes also selected for natural prey and healthy residents exhibited a lack of spatial overlap with other coyotes suggesting they were not reliant on anthropogenic subsidies and were maintaining territories. Understanding the association between urban wildlife, zoonotic diseases, and urban resources can be critical in determining effective responses for mitigating future epizootics.

Severe environmental conditions create severe conflicts: A novel ecological pathway to extreme coyote attacks on humans

Abstract Identifying the circumstances and causes of carnivore attacks on humans is important for prevention of future incidents as well as employing effective wildlife management strategies. Cape Breton Highlands National Park (CBHNP) in Nova Scotia has experienced multiple attacks by coyotes Canis latrans on humans, including a fatal attack on an adult in 2009. Here we use a combination of data on space use and diet collected from 2011 to 2013 to reveal that limited resources and a reliance on a large ungulate (moose, Alces americanus) as the mechanism leading to aggression by coyotes in CBHNP. Resident coyotes exhibited large home range sizes (mean = 77.5 km2) indicative of limited resources and spatiotemporal avoidance of human activity. Carbon (δ13C) and nitrogen (δ15N) isotope values of sub‐sampled coyote whiskers (n = 32), which provide a longitudinal record of diet over the months before collection, revealed little intra‐ and inter‐individual variation with nearly all individuals specializing on moose, a pattern that agrees with indices of natural resource availability. Specifically, stable isotope mixing models show that moose was the most important prey for most coyotes (25/32), representing between 41% and 78% of dietary inputs. Only four coyotes exhibited use of anthropogenic resources (human foods), and only one of seven coyotes involved in attacks on people had been consuming human foods before the attacks. Synthesis and Applications: We have described a unique ecological system in which a generalist carnivore has expanded its niche to specialize on a large prey species, with the unfortunate consequence of also expanding pathways to conflicts with people. Our results suggest extreme unprovoked predatory attacks by coyotes on people are likely to be quite rare and associated with unique ecological characteristics. Extreme management actions such as bounties are unnecessary, but managers may need to employ hazing or lethal removal earlier in the conflict process than under normal circumstances. Also, users of these areas should be made aware of the risks coyotes pose and encouraged to take precautions.

Recursive use of home ranges and seasonal shifts in foraging behavior by a generalist carnivore.

Coyotes (Canis latrans) colonized the southeastern United States over the last century as large predators, including the red wolf (Canis rufus) and eastern cougar (Puma concolor), were extirpated from the region. As a generalist carnivore, the coyote preys on white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) and various smaller mammals, birds, and vegetation. While resource selection by coyotes has been well documented at the home-range scale, little is known about their foraging behavior, which is an important factor in thoroughly understanding influences of coyotes on prey and sympatric carnivores. We assessed third-order resource selection of coyotes at sites across Alabama, Georgia, and South Carolina during 2015-2016. Using GPS collars, we tracked 41 resident coyotes across four calendar seasons and identified suspected foraging areas using recursive analysis where individuals repeatedly returned to known locations. We found that resident coyotes selected for open landcover types throughout the year, while avoiding primary and secondary roads. Additionally, resident coyotes avoided forested landcover types while selecting for forest edges except from April to June when they foraged within interior forest away from edges. Previous studies have documented substantive predation rates on white-tailed deer neonates by coyotes, and that fawn mortality may increase in forested landscapes away from forest edge. Our findings indicate that foraging coyotes may select forest cover types during spring where fawns are more vulnerable to predation. Additionally, there has been debate in the literature as to how coyotes obtain consistent levels of deer in their diets outside of fawning and fall hunting seasons. Our study indicates that use of road-kill carcasses by coyotes was an unlikely explanation for the presence of deer in coyote diets throughout the year, as coyotes in our study were not observed using roads during foraging excursions.

Resident and transient coyotes exhibit differential patterns of movement behavior across heterogeneous landscapes in the southeastern United States.

Coyotes (Canis latrans) are a highly adaptable canid species whose behavioral plasticity has allowed them to persist in a wide array of habitats throughout North America. As generalists, coyotes can alter movement patterns and change territorial strategies between residency (high site fidelity) and transiency (low site fidelity) to maximize fitness. Uncertainty remains about resident and transient coyote movement patterns and habitat use because research has reached conflicting conclusions regarding patterns of habitat use by both groups. We quantified effects of habitat on resident and transient coyote movement behavior using first passage time (FPT) analysis, which assesses recursive movement along an individual's movement path to delineate where they exhibit area‐restricted search (ARS) behaviors relative to habitat attributes. We quantified monthly movement rates for 171 coyotes (76 residents and 53 transients) and then used estimated FPT values in generalized linear mixed models to quantify monthly habitat use for resident and transient coyotes. Transients had greater movement rates than residents across all months except January. Resident FPT values were positively correlated with agricultural land cover during fall and winter, but negatively correlated with agriculture during spring. Resident FPT values were also negatively correlated with developed habitats during May–August, deciduous land cover during June–August, and wetlands during September–January except November. FPT values of transient coyotes were positively correlated with developed areas throughout much of the year and near wetlands during July–September. Transient FPT values were negatively correlated with agriculture during all months except June and July. High FPT values (ARS behavior) of residents and transients were generally correlated with greater densities of edge habitat. Although we observed high individual variation in space use, our study found substantive differences in habitat use between residents and transients, providing further evidence that complexity and plasticity of coyote habitat use is influenced by territorial strategy.

Infection risk varies within urbanized landscapes: the case of coyotes and heartworm

BackgroundUrbanization can have profound effects on ecological interactions. For host–pathogen interactions, differences have been detected between urban and non-urban landscapes. However, host–pathogen interactions may also differ within highly heterogeneous, urbanized landscapes.MethodsWe investigated differences in infection risk (i.e., probability of infection) within urbanized landscapes using the coyote (Canis latrans) and mosquito-borne nematode, Dirofilaria immitis (the causative agent for canine heartworm), as a case study. We focused on a coyote population in Chicago for which extensive behavioral and heartworm infection data has been collected between 2001 and 2016. Our objectives were to: (i) determine how onset and duration of the heartworm transmission season varied over the 16-year period and across the urban–suburban gradient; and (ii) investigate how heartworm infection risk in coyotes varied over the years, across the urban–suburban gradient, by coyote characteristics (e.g., age, sex, resident status), and coyote use of the urbanized landscape (e.g., use of urban areas, mosquito habitats).ResultsWhile onset of the heartworm transmission season differed neither by year nor across the urban–suburban gradient, it was longer closer to the core of Chicago. Of the 315 coyotes sampled, 31.1% were infected with D. immitis. Older coyotes and coyotes sampled in later years (i.e., 2012–2016) were more likely to have heartworm. While coyote location in the urban–suburban gradient was not a significant predictor of infection, the proportion of urban land in coyote home ranges was. Importantly, the size and direction of this association varied by age class. For adults and pups, infection risk declined with urbanization, whereas for subadults it increased. Further, models had a higher predictive power when focusing on resident coyotes (and excluding transient coyotes). The proportion of mosquito habitat in coyote home ranges was not a significant predictor of infection.ConclusionsOur findings suggest that urbanization may affect host exposure to vectors of D. immitis, that risk of infection can vary within urbanized landscapes, and that urbanization–wildlife infection associations may only be detected for animals with certain characteristics (e.g., age class and resident status).Graphical abstract

Fine-scale movements and behaviors of coyotes (Canis latrans) during their reproductive period.

In canids, resident breeders hold territories but require different resources than transient individuals (i.e., dispersers), which may result in differential use of space, land cover, and food by residents and transients. In the southeastern United States, coyote (Canis latrans) reproduction occurs during spring and is energetically demanding for residents, but transients do not reproduce and therefore can exhibit feeding behaviors with lower energetic rewards. Hence, how coyotes behave in their environment likely differs between resident and transient coyotes. We captured and monitored 36 coyotes in Georgia during 2018–2019 and used data from 11 resident breeders, 12 predispersing residents (i.e., offspring of resident breeders), and 11 transients to determine space use, movements, and relationships between these behaviors and landcover characteristics. Average home range size for resident breeders and predispersing offspring was 20.7 ± 2.5 km² and 50.7 ± 10.0 km², respectively. Average size of transient ranges was 241.4 ± 114.5 km². Daily distance moved was 6.3 ± 3.0 km for resident males, 5.5 ± 2.7 km for resident females, and 6.9 ± 4.2 km for transients. We estimated first‐passage time values to assess the scale at which coyotes respond to their environment, and used behavioral change‐point analysis to determine that coyotes exhibited three behavioral states. We found notable differences between resident and transient coyotes in regard to how landcover characteristics influenced their behavioral states. Resident coyotes tended to select for areas with denser vegetation while resting and foraging, but for areas with less dense vegetation and canopy cover when walking. Transient coyotes selected areas closer to roads and with lower canopy cover while resting, but for areas farther from roads when foraging and walking. Our findings suggest that behaviors of both resident and transient coyotes are influenced by varying landcover characteristics, which could have implications for prey.

Individual and Temporal Variation in Use of Residential Areas by Urban Coyotes

Coyotes (Canis latrans) have established populations in most major urban centers across North America. While the risk of attacks on humans or their pets is low, the presence of carnivores in areas with high human use has resulted in increased public concern. Having a clearer understanding of which animals are more likely to interact with humans and when interactions are more likely to occur will help mitigate human-carnivore conflicts. Despite clear broad-scale patterns of human avoidance, human-coyote interactions occur most frequently in residential areas. Our purpose was to determine if use of residential areas varied consistently across individuals or time. We used locations from GPS collars deployed on 14 coyotes in the Greater Toronto Area, Ontario, Canada from 2012 to 2017 to fit a step selection function. Average (±SE) home range size estimates were 17.3 ± 4.6 km2 for resident coyotes and 102.8 ± 32.9 km2 for non-residents. We found that coyotes used natural areas more (β = 0.07, SE = 0.02, p < 0.0001), and roads (β = −0.50, SE = 0.13, p < 0.0001) and residential areas (β = −0.79, SE = 0.21, p = 0.0001) less during the day than at night. We also found that coyotes were more likely to use residential areas in the breeding season from January to April (β = 0.69, SE = 0.20, p = 0.0007) and the pup rearing season from May to August (β = 0.54, SE = 0.13, p < 0.0001) than in the dispersal season from September to December. Lastly, we found that resident coyotes were less likely to use residential areas than non-resident coyotes (β = −1.13, SE = 0.26, p < 0.0001). As far as we are aware, our study is the first to identify the seasons when coyotes are more likely to use residential areas. The seasonal patterns in habitat use that we observed reflect patterns that have been previously reported for human-coyote conflicts. Our results demonstrate that reducing the availability of anthropogenic food sources in residential areas, particularly in the winter and spring, should be a priority for managers aiming to reduce human-coyote conflict in urban areas.

Spatial ecology of coyotes in the urbanizing landscape of the Cuyahoga Valley, Ohio.

Urban landscapes can present ecological challenges for wildlife species, yet many species survive, and even thrive, near dense human populations. Coyotes (Canis latrans), for example, have expanded their geographic range across North America and, as a result of their adaptability and behavioral flexibility, are now a common occupant of many urban areas in the United States. We investigated the spatial ecology of 27 coyotes fitted with Global Positioning System (GPS) telemetry collars radio-collared in the Cuyahoga Valley, Ohio. Our objectives were to quantify coyote space use, evaluate resource selection, and investigate coyote movement and activity patterns. To measure space use, we estimated home range (95%) and core area (50%) size of coyotes using the adaptive local convex hull (a-LoCoH) method. We found the mean (± SE) home range size of resident coyotes (4.7 ± 1.8 km2) was significantly smaller than ranges of transient coyotes (67.7 ± 89.6 km2). Similarly, mean (± SE) core area size of resident coyotes (0.9 ± 0.6 km2) was significantly smaller than core areas of transient coyotes (11.9 ± 16.7 km2). Home range and core area size of both resident and transient coyotes did not vary by sex, age, or season. For all coyotes, use of natural land cover was significantly greater than use of altered and developed land. When coyotes were using altered and developed land, GPS fixes were most common at night. Coyote movement patterns differed with respect to status, time period, and season; peaking during nighttime hours. A better understanding of coyote space use and movement within anthropogenic landscapes aids management of people, parks, and wildlife by providing the data necessary for research-based management decisions.

Seasonal space use of transient and resident coyotes (Canis latrans) in North Carolina, USA

Coyote (Canis latrans Say, 1823) is a recent immigrant into eastern United States and little is known about the species’ space use and movement in the region. We compared space use and movement of radio-collared coyotes among biological seasons. We captured and collared 30 coyotes from February through May 2011 and collected 85 386 GPS locations through October 2012 at Fort Bragg Military Installation. We defined four biological seasons according to coyote life history: breeding (December–February), gestation (March–May), pup-rearing (June–August), and dispersal (September–November). Out of 27 radio-collared individuals, we identified 10 as transient and 11 as resident based on home-range size and variability across seasons; 6 switched their status and were classified as intermediate. We observed low variability of core-area size across seasons for resident males and females, whereas we documented high variability for transient males. Movement rate of resident coyotes during spring (449.75 m/h) was greater than summer (295.33 m/h), whereas movement rates did not differ between any other seasons. For transient coyotes, movement rate during summer (283 m/h) was less than fall (374.73 m/h), spring (479.85 m/h), and winter (488.5 m/h). Some coyotes adjusted their residency status seasonally and other individuals dispersed large distances (>200 km).

Spatial ecology of coyotes in the Denver metropolitan area: influence of the urban matrix

Urbanization alters landscapes and ecosystem processes that result in negative impacts for many species. However, urbanization also creates novel environments that certain species, including carnivores, are able to exploit. Coyotes ( Canis latrans ) are 1 example of a species capable of exploiting urban environments throughout North America and, in some cases, becoming involved in human–coyote conflict. As part of a comprehensive study of human–coyote coexistence in the Denver metropolitan area of Colorado, we investigated the spatial ecology of coyotes to determine movement and activity patterns relative to the urban matrix. We examined home-range size, habitat use, and resource selection for 22 coyotes monitored with GPS collars during 2012–2014. Mean (± SD ) home-range size of resident coyotes (11.6±11.0 km2) was smaller than ranges of transient coyotes (200.7±232.4 km2). Home-range size did not vary by season or sex, but resident coyotes during the day (7.2±10.5 km2) had smaller home ranges than during the night (11.3±10.8 km2). Coyotes had high percentages of developed lands (44.5±18.9%) within their home ranges, contrary to previous studies of urban coyotes. However, the percentage of coyote locations in natural lands (48.9±22.4%) was higher than in developed lands (20.6±11.7%). Home-range size of residents was not related to either the percentage of developed lands or altered lands within home ranges. Coyotes selected natural lands over developed lands, and they increased activity at night. Although coyotes were able to thrive in home ranges containing large amounts of development, they continued to avoid areas with high human activity by primarily residing in areas with natural land cover. Similar to urban areas throughout the Northern Hemisphere, coyotes in the Denver metropolitan area have become efficiently adapted to a highly developed landscape, reflecting the flexible nature of this opportunistic carnivore.

Spatial response of coyotes to removal of water availability at anthropogenic water sites

Features containing year-round availability of free water (hereafter water sites) and areas affiliated with water sites (i.e., riparian zones) occurring within arid landscapes represent a potential limiting resource for some desert dwelling vertebrates. Little is known about the relationship between water sites and mammalian carnivores. An increase of water sites in portions of the Great Basin Desert in Utah reportedly contributed to an increase in coyote (Canis latrans) abundance. We examined frequency of visitation and spatial affinity of resident coyotes for water sites at the home range scale extent. Visitation to sites with available water averaged 13.0 visitations/season (SD = 13.5) and ranged from zero to 47. We documented no visits to water sites in 16% (10 of 64) of seasonal home-ranges, <5 visits within 39% (25 of 64) of home ranges, and 25% (28 of 113) of coyote home-ranges did not contain a water site. Water sites associated with riparian vegetation experienced higher visitation than guzzlers (no riparian vegetation present). We found no evidence that removal of water influenced home range size or spatial shifting of home range areas. Water sites, especially guzzlers, do not represent a pivotal resource for the coyote population in our study area.

Space Use and Habitat Selection by Resident and Transient Coyotes (Canis latrans).

Little information exists on coyote (Canis latrans) space use and habitat selection in the southeastern United States and most studies conducted in the Southeast have been carried out within small study areas (e.g., ≤1,000 km2). Therefore, studying the placement, size, and habitat composition of coyote home ranges over broad geographic areas could provide relevant insights regarding how coyote populations adjust to regionally varying ecological conditions. Despite an increasing number of studies of coyote ecology, few studies have assessed the role of transiency as a life-history strategy among coyotes. During 2009–2011, we used GPS radio-telemetry to study coyote space use and habitat selection on the Albemarle Peninsula of northeastern North Carolina. We quantified space use and 2nd- and 3rd-order habitat selection for resident and transient coyotes to describe space use patterns in a predominantly agricultural landscape. The upper limit of coyote home-range size was approximately 47 km2 and coyotes exhibiting shifting patterns of space use of areas >65 km2 were transients. Transients exhibited localized space use patterns for short durations prior to establishing home ranges, which we defined as “biding” areas. Resident and transient coyotes demonstrated similar habitat selection, notably selection of agricultural over forested habitats. However, transients exhibited stronger selection for roads than resident coyotes. Although transient coyotes are less likely to contribute reproductively to their population, transiency may be an important life history trait that facilitates metapopulation dynamics through dispersal and the eventual replacement of breeding residents lost to mortality.

Individual variation in anthropogenic resource use in an urban carnivore

With increasing urbanization, some animals are adapting to human-dominated systems, offering unique opportunities to study individual adaptation to novel environments. One hypothesis for why some wildlife succeed in urban areas is that they are subsidized with anthropogenic food. Here, we combine individual-level movement patterns with diet composition based on stable isotope analysis to assess the degree to which a rapidly growing population of coyotes (Canis latrans) in Chicago consumes anthropogenic resources. We used telemetry to classify coyotes into three groups based on social class and home range composition: (1) residents with home ranges in urban nature preserves; (2) residents with home ranges that had a high proportion of urban land; and (3) transients that had relatively large home ranges and variable use of urban land. We found that natural and anthropogenic resources in this system can be reliably partitioned with carbon isotopes. Mixing models revealed that resident coyotes associated with most urban nature preserves consumed trace to minimal amounts of anthropogenic resources, while coyotes that live in the urban matrix consume moderate (30-50%) to high (>50%) proportions of anthropogenic resources. Lastly, we found evidence of prey switching between natural and anthropogenic resources and a high degree of inter-individual variation in diet among coyotes. In contrast to the expectation that urban adaptation may dampen ecological variation, our results suggest individuality in movement and diet exemplifies the successful establishment of coyotes in urban Chicago. Our study also suggests that direct anthropogenic food subsidization is not a prerequisite for successful adaptation to urban environments.

Space use by resident and transient coyotes in an urban–rural landscape mosaic

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.

A cable neck‐restraint to live‐capture coyotes

ABSTRACTWe evaluated a cable neck‐restraint for live capture of coyotes (Canis latrans) in Michigan, USA, from 6 January to 22 March 2011. We documented capture efficiency, selectivity, and animal welfare using criteria developed by the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies Best Management Practices and the International Organization for Standardization. We constructed cable restraints with an 8.9‐cm‐diameter minimum loop stop and reverse bend washer locks drilled to 4.8 mm, to more readily relax on 2.4‐mm‐diameter steel cable. Cable restraints were set for 938 trap‐nights during January–March 2011. Capture efficiency was 71.4% (n = 20 coyotes) and selectivity 95.0%. We performed necropsies (n = 11) or external examinations (n = 9) to evaluate capture‐related injuries and released coyotes fitted with Global Positioning System collars (n = 5) to estimate home‐range size. Mean individual injury score of necropsied coyotes was 5.0 ± SD 8.9 and mean total injury score was 7.3 ± SD 9.8; we observed no mortality of coyotes due to capture. Home range sizes of 2 coyotes (8.9 km2 and 16.6 km2) were within the 95% confidence interval of mean home‐range size of resident coyotes captured in foothold traps (16.0 km2 ± SD 5.7, n = 11). Our findings indicate this cable restraint configuration exceeds all Best Management Practices criteria and is suitable for the capture of coyotes in both wildlife management and research arenas. © 2014 The Wildlife Society.

Factors affecting the elicitation of vocal responses from coyotes Canis latrans

Long‐distance vocalizations by canids play an important role in communication among individuals, and researchers have elicited these vocalizations to estimate canid occurrence and relative abundance. We evaluated the efficacy of broadcasted coyote Canis latrans group‐yip calls and gray wolf C. lupus lone howls to elicit vocal responses from 18 GPS‐collared coyotes on 144 occasions in Michigan's Upper Peninsula during August‐September 2009 and June‐September 2010‐2011. We evaluated coyote responses to each call type using mixed‐effects logistic regression models with time (month), residency status (resident or transient), presence in wolf territory, sex, distance, movement and call type as fixed effects hypothesized to influence coyote vocal response rates. The individual coyote and year were included as random effects. Overall, call type, sex and presence of wolf territory did not affect coyote response rates; however, coyotes did not respond to wolf calls broadcasted at distances of &gt; 2.0 km. Resident coyotes were three times more likely to respond than transients and the greatest overall response rates occurred in August. We conclude that eliciting coyote vocalizations where wolves are present will not bias responses, and we recommend eliciting coyote vocalizations using recorded coyote group‐yip howls during July‐September to estimate the species' presence or density.

Spatial genetic and morphologic structure of wolves and coyotes in relation to environmental heterogeneity in a Canis hybrid zone

Eastern wolves have hybridized extensively with coyotes and gray wolves and are listed as a 'species of special concern' in Canada. However, a distinct population of eastern wolves has been identified in Algonquin Provincial Park (APP) in Ontario. Previous studies of the diverse Canis hybrid zone adjacent to APP have not linked genetic analysis with field data to investigate genotype-specific morphology or determine how resident animals of different ancestry are distributed across the landscape in relation to heterogeneous environmental conditions. Accordingly, we studied resident wolves and coyotes in and adjacent to APP to identify distinct Canis types, clarify the extent of the APP eastern wolf population beyond the park boundaries and investigate fine-scale spatial genetic structure and landscape-genotype associations in the hybrid zone. We documented three genetically distinct Canis types within the APP region that also differed morphologically, corresponding to putative gray wolves, eastern wolves and coyotes. We also documented a substantial number of hybrid individuals (36%) that were admixed between 2 or 3 of the Canis types. Breeding eastern wolves were less common outside of APP, but occurred in some unprotected areas where they were sympatric with a diverse combination of coyotes, gray wolves and hybrids. We found significant spatial genetic structure and identified a steep cline extending west from APP where the dominant genotype shifted abruptly from eastern wolves to coyotes and hybrids. The genotypic pattern to the south and northwest was a more complex mosaic of alternating genotypes. We modelled genetic ancestry in response to prey availability and human disturbance and found that individuals with greater wolf ancestry occupied areas of higher moose density and fewer roads. Our results clarify the structure of the Canis hybrid zone adjacent to APP and provide unique insight into environmental conditions influencing hybridization dynamics between wolves and coyotes.

Home Range and Landscape Use of Coyotes in a Metropolitan Landscape: Conflict or Coexistence?

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 (6 SE) annual home ranges of transient coyotes (X ¯ 5 26.80 6 2.95 km 2 ) were larger than those of resident coyotes (X ¯ 5 4.95 6 0.34 km 2 ), and home-range size for resident 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 human activity, despite at times having home ranges located in heavily developed areas.

Use of Urban Landscape by Coyotes

Abstract Several aspects of the ecology of coyotes (Canis latrans) have been studied in cities (i.e., diet, use and selection of habitat, movements), but additional knowledge will assist persons that are responsible for management of urban predators. We studied coyotes in central Tucson, Pima Co., Arizona, during November 2005–November 2006. Our objectives were to monitor radiocollared coyotes to determine size of home range, to ascertain use of habitat based on land-use categories and movements, and to describe a den of urban coyotes. Average size of home range calculated using the 95% fixed-kernel method was 26.8 ± 5.1 SE km2 for resident coyotes. Overall, land categories used most often were washes, medium-density residential areas, and low-density residential areas. Movements were 800 m/h in areas that were used most during the night (i.e., high-density residential and comm...