Home Range and Habitat Use of Coyotes in an Area of Native Prairie, Farmland and CRP Fields

Kamler, Jan F.; Ballard, Warren B.; Lemons, Patrick R.; Gilliland, Rickey L.; Mote, Kevin

doi:10.1674/0003-0031(2005)153[0396:hrahuo]2.0.co;2

Cited by 25 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Following Gese et al (1988), Kamler et al (2005) and Gehrt et al (2009), we distinguished resident and transient coyotes by examining movement patterns over the tracking period. Resident coyotes were defined as those consistently frequenting the same home range and core areas (areas within the 40% volume…”

Section: Categorising Residents and Transientsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Atwood et al 2004). 'Pasture' and 'cropland' are two classes dominated by agriculture that have been shown to be used by residents and transients at different levels (Kamler et al 2005). The three housing classes (i.e.…”

Section: Spatial Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In Chicago, transients tend to have a higher share of urbanised land in their home range than residents (Newsome et al 2015). Because transient resource selection is constrained by residents that defend territories, their selection is less likely to be an expression of the true preference of the species (Kamler and Gipson 2000;Kamler et al 2005;Hinton et al 2015). Transients have been found to range over larger areas than residents (e.g.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

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

Mitchell¹,

Strohbach

Pratt

et al. 2015

Wildl. Res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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 . 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.

show abstract

Section: Categorising Residents and Transientsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Spatial Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

Mitchell¹,

Strohbach

Pratt

et al. 2015

Wildl. Res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In contrast, switchgrass monoculture and native warm-season grass polycultures would introduce tall grass management that may augment deer and coyote movements. Vegetation height management alone may not deter deer and coyote use, but changes in vegetation composition or prey availability may affect deer and coyote use, respectively (Andelt and Andelt 1981;Person and Hirth 1991;Kamler et al 2005;Walter et al 2009;Washburn and Begier 2011).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Common airport landscapes of intermittent grasslands, wooded areas, and sometimes row crops, do not deter deer and coyote use (Wright et al 1998;Blackwell et al 2009;DeVault et al 2009). Existing data on mammalian use of native warm-season grass polycultures and switchgrass monocultures are restricted predominately to small mammals (Kamler et al 2005;Schmidt et al 2013), despite aircraft strike risk concerns of deer and coyotes . Greater small mammal diversity and abundance in native warm-season grasses could suggest greater prey availability for predators like coyotes.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Large Mammal Use of Seminatural Grasslands and Implications for Aviation Strike Risk

Iglay

Schwarz

Belant

et al. 2017

Journal of Fish and Wildlife Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Large mammals pose a significant risk to U.S. aircraft safety within airport operation areas and cost airlines millions of dollars in repairs annually. Native warm-season grass polycultures and switchgrass monocultures offer alternative land covers for airports that could benefit current risk-mitigation efforts in addition to offering economic and environmental benefits. We compared use of a native warm-season grass polyculture and switchgrass Panicum virgatum monoculture by white-tailed deer (deer; Odocoileus virginianus) and coyote Canis latrans, using remote cameras in Mississippi, during 2011-2012. Coyotes and deer were observed 27% and 51% less in switchgrass monoculture than in native warm-season grass polyculture, respectively. However, November detections and cumulative hazard score demonstrated the greatest differences between treatments, especially for deer. Considering deer and coyotes are among the most hazardous mammal species to aircraft, switchgrass monocultures could be a better alternative land cover than native warm-season grass polycultures for some airport turf areas. Increased land coverage of switchgrass monocultures could benefit airport wildlife-hazard mitigation but needs validation by comparing alternative land covers to more traditional airport land covers.

show abstract