Home-range size and selection of natal den and diurnal shelter sites by urban red foxes (Vulpes vulpes) in Melbourne

Marks, Clive A.; Bloomfield, Tim E.

doi:10.1071/wr04058

Cited by 61 publications

(45 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…1A and B). Although they lived in close proximity to humans, avoidance of human development and human activity, expressed through negative selection, confirmed previous research on coyotes (Riley et al 2003;Atwood et al 2004;Gehrt et al 2009;Gehrt et al 2011;Hinton et al 2015), but also on foxes (Gloor et al 2001;Marks and Bloomfield 2006) and dingoes (Newsome et al 2013). Especially during the day, coyotes used brushland-wetland and forest, all of which provide protective cover, disproportionate to the availability of these habitats.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 64%

“…While GPS locations represent usage, sample locations represent availability to each individual (Gillies et al 2006). We chose the 100% MCP, following similar resource selection studies (Gillies et al 2006;Marks and Bloomfield 2006;Latham et al 2013). Other approximations of home range, such as 95% MCP or kernel estimator, would have excluded occasional sallies and areas that animals pass through but spend very little time in (Powell 2000).…”

Section: Analysis Of Resource Selectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Especially for transients, this would have resulted in home ranges much smaller than the area they were observed in and interacted with. One hundred per cent MCP also has the advantage that diurnal shelter sites at the margins of the home ranges are not excluded (Marks and Bloomfield 2006). We used generalised mixed-effects models (GLMMs) for estimating the resource selection function, which are increasingly recognised as a powerful tool for this purpose (Gillies et al 2006;Hebblewhite and Merrill 2008;Fieberg et al 2010).…”

Section: Analysis Of Resource Selectionmentioning

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: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 64%

Section: Analysis Of Resource Selectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Analysis Of Resource Selectionmentioning

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

“…Furthermore, foxes penetrated an average of 66 m into the settlement (maximum 728 m). The mean home range size reported in this study (74.6 ha) is small in comparison to rural foxes' home ranges (Reynolds and Tapper 1995;Dekker et al 2001) but bigger than that of urban foxes (Harris 1980;Marks and Bloomfield 2006 In establishing the prevalence rates, a distinction was therefore made between foxes in villages and small towns, and foxes in the open countryside. The infection rates in foxes with E. multilocularis were as high among village foxes (43%) as among rural foxes (39%).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…In addition, suitable fox habitats have been created over the last few decades through the steady spread of urban areas (Harris and Rayner 1986). With fox densities of up to 10-15 individuals per square kilometre, the population densities in cities are far higher than in rural areas (1-3 foxes/km 2 ) (Harris 1980;Vos 1995;Marks and Bloomfield 2006). As foxes act as vectors for diseases such as rabies and as the main carriers of E. multilocularis, the risk posed to public health is the focus of attention (Trewhella et al 1991;Hofer et al 2000;Stieger et al 2002);Schweiger et al (2007) show that the annual number of AE cases correlates with increasing fox populations and the high prevalence rates in foxes.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Infection pressure of human alveolar echinococcosis due to village and small town foxes (Vuples vulpes) living in close proximity to residents

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study investigated the epidemiological and ecological factors to assess the infection pressure of alveolar echinococcosis to human which are living in villages and small towns. Foxes and fox faeces were examined for Echinococcus multilocularis and foxes were observed by radio telemetry in Upper Bavaria, Germany. Forty-three percent of the village foxes (n=65) had been infected with E. multilocularis. This prevalence rate did not differ significantly from the prevalence among rural foxes, which was 39% (n=33; χ 2 =0.12, df=1, p=0.727) determined by the intestinal scraping technique. PCR analyses of fox faeces showed a higher infection rate of 35% (n=26) among rural foxes than among foxes in villages and small towns (26%, n=69; χ 2 =0.68, df=1, p=0.411). One quarter of the fox faecal samples come from private gardens of residents. The radio-tracking study on 17 foxes showed that foxes preferred the built-up area and grassland outside the villages. Village foxes concentrated their activity within a range of 500 m around the settlement. Sixty-four percent of all bearings for radio-tracked foxes showed positions in areas outside the town, and 36% of bearings were within the settlement. Village foxes, which are infected with E. multilocularis, are able to carry the parasite continuously into settlements and fox faeces present an immediate source of infection to humans, especially within their gardens. Therefore, foxes are responsible for environmental E. multilocularis egg contamination in the vicinity of humans, leading to an infection risk to inhabitants of villages and small towns.

show abstract