DNA metabarcoding reveals that coyotes in New York City consume wide variety of native prey species and human food

Abstract

Carnivores are currently colonizing cities where they were previously absent. These urban environments are novel ecosystems characterized by habitat degradation and fragmentation, availability of human food, and different prey assemblages than surrounding areas. Coyotes (Canis latrans) established a breeding population in New York City (NYC) over the last few decades, but their ecology within NYC is poorly understood. In this study, we used non-invasive scat sampling and DNA metabarcoding to profile vertebrate, invertebrate, and plant dietary items with the goal to compare the diets of urban coyotes to those inhabiting non-urban areas. We found that both urban and non-urban coyotes consumed a variety of plants and animals as well as human food. Raccoons (Procyon lotor) were an important food item for coyotes within and outside NYC. In contrast, white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) were mainly eaten by coyotes inhabiting non-urban areas. Domestic chicken (Gallus gallus) was the human food item found in most scats from both urban and non-urban coyotes. Domestic cats (Felis catus) were consumed by urban coyotes but were detected in only a small proportion of the scats (<5%), which differs markedly from high rates of cat depredation in some other cities. In addition, we compared our genetic metabarcoding analysis to a morphological analysis of the same scat samples. We found that the detection similarity between the two methods was low and it varied depending on the type of diet item.

Supplementation of seasonal natural resources with year‐round anthropogenic resources by coyotes in natural fragments within a high‐density urban area

“…Intraguild predation is common in carnivores, and coyotes are among the top three canids to practice this behavior (Palomares and Caro 1999), killing bobcats Lynx rufus , and grey foxes Urocyon cinereoargenteus (Fedriani et al 2000), as well as domestic and feral canids and felids (Gehrt et al 2013, Kays et al 2015, Poessel et al 2017). After domestic cats, raccoons were the second most common mesocarnivore found in scats in this study but had low occurrence at 6% compared to 18% found in rural Ohio (Cepek 2004) or 27% in urban New York (Henger 2022). Other studies have similarly found low to no evidence of raccoon consumption (Gehrt and Prange 2007).…”

“…For example, these methods could address biases from overrepresentation of resident coyotes and alpha pairs, and underrepresentation of highly digested food items, respectively. Molecular methods also reduce error in field identification of predator species, as well as scat contents, which can further illuminate predator prey relationships by providing exact species identification (Morin et al 2016, Shi et al 2021), and identification of anthropogenic sources (Larson et al 2020, Henger et al 2022). Despite their benefits, these methods are more costly, which can critically limit sample sizes.…”

Exploring the potential effects of forest urbanization on the interplay between small mammal communities and their gut microbiota

“…With regard to GM, the higher diversity in these habitats with intermediate levels of urbanization could be mediated by a larger diversity of food available (e.g. [ 36 ]) resulting in larger ecological niche and greater external microbial diversity [ 110 ].…”

The animal welfare, environmental impact, pest control functions, and disease effects of free‐ranging cats can be generalized and all are grounds for humanely reducing their numbers

“…Cats contained on their owner's property live approximately 4–5 times longer than cats ranging unrestricted (Loyd, Hernandez, Abernathy, et al, 2013, quoting data from the Humane Society of the United States; see also Crawford et al, 2020; Kreisler et al, 2019). The causes of shorter life expectancy are myriad, including trauma (particularly vehicular strikes) (Egenvall et al, 2009; Moreau et al, 2003; Rochlitz, 2003a, 2003b, 2004; Wilson et al, 2017), fighting (Arhant et al, 2022; Egenvall et al, 2010), animal attacks (Crooks & Soulé, 1999; Henger et al, 2022; Heyward et al, 2022; Klainbart et al, 2022), intentional and incidental poisoning (de Siqueira et al, 2012), infectious disease (Hosie et al, 2009) and human persecution (Read, 2019; Rebollada‐Merino et al, 2020). Studies establishing these risks include owner surveys (Calver et al, 2013), data from veterinary surgeries (Kolata, 1980; Kolata et al, 1974), following free‐ranging cats over time (Calver et al, 2007), changes in veterinary consultations or owner experiences following compulsory cat containment (ACT Government, 2011), and monitoring cat activities using collar‐borne video cameras or GPS radio‐collars (Bruce et al, 2019; Roetman et al, 2018).…”