Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Influence of the urban matrix on space use of coyotes in the Chicago metropolitan area

  • Article
  • Published:
Journal of Ethology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Expansion of the coyote’s (Canis latrans) distribution in North America has included most urban areas. Concerns for human safety have resulted in the need to understand the spatial relationship between humans and coyotes in urban landscapes. We examined the space use of coyotes with varying degrees of urban development in the Chicago metropolitan area, IL, USA, between March 2000 and December 2002. We compared home-range size, land use, and habitat use of 41 radio-collared coyotes (5 coyotes residing in developed areas, 29 in less-developed areas, and 7 in a matrix of developed and less-developed areas). The partitioning of coyotes into groups based on their level of exposure to urban development allowed us to examine if differences in use of land types by coyotes was evident in our study area. Coyotes in developed areas had home ranges twice the size of animals in less-developed areas. Nonurban habitats were used by all coyotes in the study area, while urban land was avoided. Coyotes in developed areas had large home ranges and high amounts of urban land in their range, but preferred nonurban habitat. This required the coyotes to travel through a matrix of urban land, thus encountering human activity and possibly increasing the risk of conflict with humans. However, coyotes in developed areas avoided crepuscular times when human activity was highest, suggesting that coyotes in developed areas may reduce conflicts with humans by traveling through the matrix of urban land late at night when the risk of contact with humans is lowest. Coyotes in less-developed areas were less affected by human activity at night and likely posed less risk to humans.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aebischer NJ, Robertson PA (1992) Practical aspects of compositional analysis as applied to pheasant habitat utilization. In: Priede IG, Swift SM (eds) Wildlife telemetry: remote monitoring and tracking of animals. Ellis Horwood Limited, London, pp 285–293

    Google Scholar 

  • Aebischer NJ, Robertson PA, Kenward RE (1993) Compositional analysis of habitat use from animal radio-tracking data. Ecology 74:1313–1325

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andelt WF (1985) Behavioral ecology of coyotes in south Texas. Wildl Monogr 94:1–45

    Google Scholar 

  • Andelt WF, Andelt SH (1981) Habitat use by coyotes in southeastern Nebraska. J Wildl Manag 45:1001–1005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andelt WF, Manan BR (1980) Behavior of an urban coyote. Am Midl Nat 103:399–400

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baker RO, Timm RM (1998) Management of conflicts between urban coyotes and humans in southern California. Vertebr Pest Conf 18:288–312

    Google Scholar 

  • Carbyn LN (1989) Coyote attacks on children in western North America. Wildl Soc Bull 17:444–446

    Google Scholar 

  • Carr GM, MacDonald DW (1986) The sociality of solitary foragers: a model based on resource dispersion. Anim Behav 35:1540–1549

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark KA, Neill SU, Smith JS, Wilson PJ, Whadford VW, McKirahan GW (1994) Epizootic canine rabies transmitted by coyotes in south Texas. J Am Vet Med Assoc 204:536–540

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Gehrt SD (2004) Ecology and management of striped skunks, raccoons, and coyotes in urban landscapes. In: Fascione N, Delach A, Smith M (eds) Predators and people: from conflict to conservation. Island, Washington, pp 81–104

    Google Scholar 

  • Gehrt SD, Anchor C, White LA (2009) Home range and landscape use of coyotes in a metropolitan landscape: conflict or coexistence? J Mammal 90:1045–1057

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gese EM, Andersen DE, Rongstad OJ (1990) Determining home-range size of resident coyotes from point and sequential locations. J Wildl Manag 54:501–506

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gese EM, Rongstad OJ, Mytton WR (1988) Home range and habitat use of coyotes in southeastern Colorado. J Wildl Manag 52:640–646

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gier HT (1968) Coyotes in Kansas (revised). Kansas State College Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 393, Manhattan, Kansas

  • Grinder M (1999) Ecology of coyotes in Tucson, Arizona. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Arizona, Tucson

  • Grinder M, Krausman PR (2001a) Home range, habitat use, and nocturnal activity of coyotes in an urban environment. J Wildl Manag 65:887–898

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grinder M, Krausman PR (2001b) Morbidity–mortality factors and survival of an urban coyote population in Arizona. J Wildl Dis 37:312–317

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Holzman S, Conroy MJ, Pickering J (1992a) Diseases, parasites and survival of coyotes in south-central Georgia. J Wildl Dis 28:572–580

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Holzman S, Conroy MJ, Pickering J (1992b) Home range, movements, and habitat use of coyotes in southcentral Georgia. J Wildl Manag 56:139–146

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howell RG (1982) The urban coyote problem in Los Angeles County. Vertebrate Pest Conf 10:21–23

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson DH (1980) The comparison of usage and availability measurements for evaluation of resource preference. Ecology 61:65–71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laundrè JW, Keller BL (1981) Home range use by coyotes in Idaho. Anim Behav 29:449–461

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leban F (1999) Resource selection for Windows, version 1.0. University of Idaho, Moscow

  • Litvaitis JA, Shaw JH (1980) Coyote movements, habitat use, and food habits in southwestern Oklahoma. J Wildl Manag 44:62–68

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacDonald DW (1983) The ecology of carnivore social behaviour. Nature 301:379–384

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin D (1999) Wild (and unleashed) coyote is captured in Central Park. New York Times 148:51480, New York, pp B1

  • McClennen N, Wigglesworth RR, Anderson SH (2001) The effect of suburban and agricultural development on the activity patterns of coyotes (Canis latrans). Am Midl Nat 146:27–36

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McClure MF, Smith NR, Shaw WW (1995) Diets of coyotes near the boundary of Saguaro National Monument and Tuscon, Arizona. Southwest Nat 40:101–125

    Google Scholar 

  • McNab NK (1963) Bioenergetics and the determination of home range size. Am Nat 97:133–140

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meia JS, Weber JM (1995) Home ranges and movements of red foxes in central Europe: stability despite environmental changes. Can J Zool 73:1960–1966

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morey PS, Gese EM, Gehrt S (2007) Spatial and temporal variation in the diet of coyotes in the Chicago Metropolitan Area. Am Midl Nat 158:147–161

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Odum EP, Kuenzler EJ (1955) Measurement of territory and home range size in birds. Auk 72:128–137

    Google Scholar 

  • Person DK, Hirth DH (1991) Home range and habitat use of coyotes in farm region of Vermont. J Wildl Manag 55:433–441

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quinn T (1997a) Coyote (Canis latrans) habitat selection in urban areas of western Washington via analysis of routine movements. Northwest Sci 71:289–297

    Google Scholar 

  • Quinn T (1997b) Coyote (Canis latrans) food habits in three urban habitats of western Washington. Northwest Sci 71:1–5

    Google Scholar 

  • Reynolds TD, Laundrè JW (1990) Time intervals for estimating pronghorn and coyote home ranges and daily movements. J Wildl Manag 54:316–322

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Riley SD, Sauvajot RM, Fuller TK, York EC, Kamradt DA, Bromley C, Wayne RK (2002) Effects of urbanization and habitat fragmentation on bobcats and coyotes in southern California. Conserv Biol 17:566–576

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rodgers AR, Carr AP (2002) ESRI ArcView home range extension. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Toronto

    Google Scholar 

  • Shargo ES (1988) Home range, movements, and activity patterns of coyotes (Canis latrans) in Los Angeles suburbs. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles

  • Tigas LA, Van Vuren DH, Sauvajot RM (2002) Behavioral responses of bobcats and coyotes to habitat fragmentation and corridors in an urban environment. Biol Conserv 108:299–306

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Timm RM, Baker RO, Bennett JR, Coolahan CC (2004) Coyote attacks: an increasing suburban problem. Trans North Am Wildl Nat Resour Conf 69:67–88

    Google Scholar 

  • US Census Bureau (2000) State and metropolitan data book. Census Bureau, Washington

  • White GC, Garrott RA (1990) Analysis of wildlife radio-tracking data. Academic, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Worton BJ (1989) Kernal methods for estimating the utilization distribution in home range studie. Ecology 70:164–168

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Funding and logistical support for this project were provided by Cook County Animal and Rabies Control, Max McGraw Wildlife Foundation, Forest Preserve District of Cook County, US Department of Agriculture’s National Wildlife Research Center-Logan Field Station, and Utah State University. We thank J.A. Bissonette, P. Box, and J. Symanzik for reviews of the manuscript. For assistance and support we thank B. Montgomery and C. Paine of the Max McGraw Wildlife Foundation, C. Anchor of the Forest Preserve District of Cook County, P.A. Terletzky and S. Durham of Utah State University, and D. Brooks of the Schaumburg Park District. We extend many thanks to technicians J. Rieb, C. King, C. Mullens, M. Heiser, D. Bogan, C. Diel, B. Fredrick, K. Freeman, M. Neri, T. Pruess, and G. Turcshak for field assistance.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. USDA/WS/National Wildlife Research Center, Department of Wildland Resources, Utah State University, Logan, UT, 84322-5230, USA

    Eric M. Gese

  2. Department of Wildland Resources, Utah State University, Logan, UT, 84322, USA

    Paul S. Morey

  3. School of Environment and Natural Resources, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, 43210, USA

    Stanley D. Gehrt

Authors
  1. Eric M. Gese
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Paul S. Morey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Stanley D. Gehrt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Eric M. Gese.

About this article

Cite this article

Gese, E.M., Morey, P.S. & Gehrt, S.D. Influence of the urban matrix on space use of coyotes in the Chicago metropolitan area. J Ethol 30, 413–425 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10164-012-0339-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10164-012-0339-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation