Reports of encounters between people and generalist urban‐adapted carnivores are increasing around the world. In North America, coyotes Canis latrans are among the carnivores that appear to be especially capable of incorporating novel anthropogenic food types, including those found in cities. Consuming anthropogenic food may benefit coyotes by increasing their dietary diversity, but it may also lead to increased interactions and conflicts with humans. To test these hypotheses, we compared the diets of urban and rural coyotes from two urban and three rural sites spanning 32 200 km2 in Alberta, Canada. We analyzed scat samples to calculate diet diversity at the level of both individuals (species per scat) and populations (Shannon index) and to determine the frequency of anthropogenic food consumption. We complemented this comparison with stable isotope analyses of hair samples taken from individual urban and rural coyotes that were or were not reported by the public for repeatedly visiting backyards and schoolyards during the day. Relative to rural coyotes, urban coyotes had more diverse diets at the level of both individuals and populations, consumed anthropogenic food more often, and animals less often, than rural coyotes. Although urban coyotes assimilated more anthropogenic food than the rural coyotes overall, the urban coyotes reported for conflict assimilated less protein and were more likely to be diseased. Our results suggest that processed anthropogenic food may contribute to the success of urban coyotes, but does not entirely correlate with conflict. Instead, some seemingly innocuous, but low‐protein food sources such as bird feeders, compost, and cultivated fruit trees may contribute disproportionately to encounters with people for coyotes and other urban‐adapted opportunistic carnivores.

Many plants attract insect pollinators with floral nectar (FN) and ant "bodyguards" with extrafloral nectar (EFN). If nectar production is costly or physiologically linked across glands, investment in one mutualism may trade off with investment in the other. We confirmed that changes in FN and EFN availability alter pollination and ant defense mutualisms in a field population of Turnera ulmifolia. Plants with additional FN tended to produce more seeds, while plants with reduced EFN production experienced less florivory. We then mimicked the consumptive effects of mutualists by removing FN or EFN daily for 50 days in a full factorial design using three Turnera species (T. joelii, T. subulata, and T. ulmifolia) in a glasshouse experiment. For T. ulmifolia and T. subulata, but not T. joelii, removing either nectar reduced production of the other, showing for the first time that EFN and FN production can trade off. In T. subulata, increased investment in FN decreased seed set, suggesting that nectar production can have direct fitness costs. Through the linked expression of EFN and FN, floral visitors may negatively affect biotic defense, and extrafloral nectary visitors may negatively affect pollination.

Ants on flowers can disrupt pollination by consuming rewards or harassing pollinators, but it is difficult to disentangle the effects of these exploitative and interference forms of competition on pollinator behavior. Using highly rewarding and quickly replenishing artificial flowers that simulate male or female function, we allowed bumblebees (Bombus impatiens) to forage (1) on flowers with or without ants (Myrmica rubra) and (2) on flowers with or without ant scent cues. Bumblebees transferred significantly more pollen analogue both to and from ant-free flowers, demonstrating that interference competition with ants is sufficient to modify pollinator foraging behavior. Bees also removed significantly less pollen analogue from ant-scented flowers than from controls, making this the first study to show that bees can use ant scent to avoid harassment at flowers. Ant effects on pollinator behavior, possibly in addition to their effects on pollen viability, may contribute to the evolution of floral traits minimizing ant visitation.

Terms of Use1. Archived content may only be used for academic research. Any content downloaded for text based experiments should be destroyed when the experiment is complete. 2. Archived content may not be used for purposes that are intended for or directed towards commercial advantage or monetary compensation by means of sale, resale, licence, loan, transfer or any other form of commercial exploitation ("Commercial Purposes"). 3. Archived content may not be published verbatim in whole or in part, whether or not this is done for Commercial Purposes, either in print or online. 4. This restriction does not apply to reproducing normal quotations with an appropriate citation. In the case of text-mining, individual words, concepts and quotes up to 100 words per matching sentence may be used, whereas longer paragraphs of text and images cannot (without specific permission from Springer Nature). 5. All use must be fully attributed. Attribution must take the form of a link -using the article DOI -to the published article on the journal's website. 6. All use must ensure that the authors' moral right to the integrity of their work is not compromised. 7. Where content in the document is identified as belonging to a third party, it is the obligation of the user to ensure that any use complies with copyright policies of the owner.8. Any use of Springer Nature content is at your own risk and Springer Nature accepts no liability arising from such use. How to cite TSpace itemsAlways cite the published version, so the author(s) will receive recognition through services that track citation counts, e.g. Scopus. If you need to cite the page number of the author manuscript from TSpace because you cannot access the published version, then cite the TSpace version in addition to the published version using the permanent URI (handle) found on the record page.