Urban Ecosystems

, Volume 20, Issue 6, pp 1239–1248 | Cite as

Coyote, fox, and bobcat response to anthropogenic and natural landscape features in a small urban area

  • Jason V. LombardiEmail author
  • Christopher E. Comer
  • Daniel G. Scognamillo
  • Warren C. Conway


Increasing urbanization across the southeastern United States presents unique challenges for wildlife; however certain species have learned to adapt and thrive in these environments. Coyotes (Canis latrans), bobcats (Lynx rufus), red foxes (Vulpes vulpes) and gray foxes (Urocyon cinereoargenteus) are four common medium-sized carnivores that have become closely associated with urban areas. The goal for this study was to determine how urban landscape features influence density and occurrence of these species in a small urban area and to evaluate if any effects were similar to those observed in larger urban areas. We conducted two eight-week camera surveys in the city of Nacogdoches, Texas (pop. 32,699) and immediate surrounding areas in summer and fall 2013. We evaluated single-season spatially explicit capture-recapture and occupancy models to estimate density, and occurrence, respectively, based on anthropogenic and natural features around each camera site. Coyotes (fall: 1.38 coyotes/km2) and bobcats (fall: 0.64 coyotes/km2) were associated with areas of green space, but their response to large and small green spaces changed seasonally. Conversely, red foxes (fall: 2.53 red foxes/km2) were more likely to occur near developed areas and were less detectable in areas with greater probability of coyote presence in fall only. In summer, gray foxes (fall: 0.05 gray foxes/km2) were more likely to occur in areas with lower building density and closer to buildings. This study indicates coyotes, foxes and bobcats respond to small-scale urbanization in a similar manner as large-scale urbanization.


Urbanization Coyote Spatially explicit capture-recapture Bobcat Camera trap Red fox Gray fox 



We thank the United States Department of Agriculture McIntire-Stennis Cooperative Forestry Program and the Rumsey Research and Development Fund for providing financial support for this research project. We are grateful for the logistical support provided by the County of Nacogdoches, the City of Nacogdoches, Stephen F. Austin State University and 76 private residential, commercial and industrial landowners who allowed us to conduct our research on their properties. We are thankful for our two technicians, the independent observer for validating the photo identifications as well as 20 undergraduate and graduate student volunteers who assisted with fieldwork.


  1. Adams CE, Lindsey KJ (2010) Urban wildlife management. CRC Press, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  2. Adkins CA, Stott P (1998) Home ranges, movements and habitat associations of red foxes Vulpes vulpes in suburban Toronto, Ontario, Canada. J Zool 24:335–346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2002) Model selection and multimodal inference: a practical information theoretic, 2nd edn. Springer-Verlag, NYGoogle Scholar
  4. Chang M, Aguilar GJR (1980) Effects of climate and soil on the radial growth of loblolly pine (Pinus taeda L.) in a humid environment of southeastern USA. For Ecol Manag 3:141–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. City of Nacogdoches (2010) City of Nacogdoches GIS-zoning. Available online at Accessed 13 March 2013
  6. Claire JDJ, Anderson EM, Macfarland DM (2015) Predicting bobcat abundance at a landscape scale and evaluating occupancy as a density index in central Wisconsin. J Wildl Manag 79:469–480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cove MV, Jones BM, Bossart AJ, Clever DR Jr, Dunwoody RK, White BC, Jackson VL (2012) Use of camera traps to examine the mesopredator release hypothesis in a fragmented Midwestern landscape. Am Midl Nat 168:456–465CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Crooks KR (2002) Relative sensitivities of mammalian carnivores to habitat fragmentation. Conserv Biol 16:488–502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Crooks KR, Soulé ME (1999) Mesopredator release and avifaunal extinctions in a fragmented system. Nature 400:563–566CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cypher BL (1993) Food item use by three sympatric canids in southern Illinois. Transactions of the Illinois State Academy of Science 86:139–144Google Scholar
  11. Davis, AE (2010) Estimating seasonal abundance of bobcats (Lynx rufus) and coyotes (Canis latrans) in East Texas using a photographic and genetic mark-recapture model. Thesis. Stephen F. Austin State University, NacogdochesGoogle Scholar
  12. Efford MG (2014) Package ‘secr’ version 2.8.2. Department of Zoology, University of Otago, DunedinGoogle Scholar
  13. Fidino MA, Lehrer EW, Magle SB (2016) Habitat dynamics of the Virginia Opossum in a highly urban landscape. Am Midl Nat 175:155–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gehrt SD, Riley SPD (2010) Coyotes (Canis latrans). In: Gehrt SD, Riley SPD, Cypher BL (eds) Urban carnivores: ecology, conflict and conservation. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore pp, pp 78–95Google Scholar
  15. Gehrt SD, Anchor C, White LA (2009) Home range and landscape use of coyotes in a metropolitan landscape: conflict or coexistence? J Mammal 90:1045–1057Google Scholar
  16. Gehrt SD, Brown JL, Anchor CA (2011) Is the urban coyote a misanthropic synanthrope? The case from Chicago. Cities and the Environment 4:1–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gerber BD, Karpanthy SM, Kelly MJ (2012) Evaluating the potential biases in carnivore capture-recapture studies associated with the use of lure and varying density estimation techniques using photographic-sampling techniques of the Malagasy civet. Popul Ecol 54:43–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gese EM, Morey PS, Gehrt SD (2012) Influence of the urban matrix on space use of coyotes in the Chicago metropolitan areas. J Ethol 30:413–425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Glen AS, Dickman CR, Soulé ME, Mackey BG (2007) Evaluating the role of the dingo as a trophic regulator in Australian ecosystems. Austral Ecology 32:492–501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Goad EH, Pejchar L, Reed SE, Knight RL (2014) Habitat use by mammals varies along an exurban development gradient in northern Colorado. Biol Conserv 176:172–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gosselink TE, Van Deelan TR, Warner RE, Joselyn MG (2003) Temporal habitat partitioning and spatial use by coyotes and red foxes in east-central Illinois. J Wildl Manag 67:90–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gosselink TE, Van Deelan TR, Warner RE, Mankin PC (2007) Survival and cause-specific mortality of red foxes in agricultural and urban areas of Illinois. J Wildl Manag 71:1862–1873CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Grinder MI, Krausman PR (2001) Home range, habitat use, and nocturnal activity of coyotes in an urban environment. J Wildl Manag 65:887–898CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Harris S, Baker P (2001) Urban foxes. Whittet Books, Stowmarket, SuffolkGoogle Scholar
  25. Harrison RL (1993) A comparison of gray fox ecology between residential and undeveloped rural landscapes. J Wildl Manag 53:181–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Heilbrun RD, Silvy ND, Tewes ME, Peterson MJ (2003) Using automatic triggered cameras to individually identify bobcats. Wildl Soc Bull 31:748–755Google Scholar
  27. Hines JE (2016) Program PRESENCE v10.9– software to measure patch occupancy and other related parameters. USGS-PWRC. Available online at Accessed on 10 December 2016
  28. Howe EJ, Obbard ME, Kyle CJ (2013) Combining data from 43 standardized surveys to estimate densities of American black bears by spatially explicit capture-recapture. Popul Ecol 55:595–607CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kanda LL, Fuller TK, Sievert PR (2006) Landscape associations of road-killed Virginia opossums (Didelphis virginiana) in central Massachusetts. Am Midl Nat 156:128–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kapfer JM, Kirk RW (2012) Observations of gray foxes (Urocyon cinereoargenteus) in a suburban landscape in the piedmont of North Carolina. Southeast Nat 11:507–516CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lambe HJ (2016) Movement patterns, home range and den site selection of urban red foxes (Vulpes vulpes) on Prince Edward Island, Canada. Thesis. University of Prince Edward Island, CharlottetownGoogle Scholar
  32. Larrucea E, Brussard PF, Jaeger MM, Barrrett RH (2007) Cameras, coyotes, and the assumption of equal detectability. J Wildl Manag 71:1682–1689CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Larson RN, Morin DJ, Wierzbowska IA, Crooks KR (2015) Food habits of coyotes, gray foxes and bobcats in a coastal southern California urban landscape. Western North American Naturalist 75:339–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lewis JS, Logan KA, Alldredge MW, Bailey LL, Vande Woude S, Crooks KR (2015) The effects of urbanization on population density, occupancy and detection probability of wild felids. Ecol Appl 25:1880–1895CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Lombardi JV (2014) Ecology of mesopredators within a small urban area in east Texas. Thesis. Stephen F. Austin State University, NacogdochesGoogle Scholar
  36. Mackenzie DI, Bailey LL (2004) Assessing the fit of site-occupancy models. J Agric Biol Environ Stat 9:300–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. MacKenzie DI, Nichols JD, Royale JA, Pollock KH, Bailey LL, Hines JE (2006) Occupancy estimation and modelling: inferring patterns and dynamics of species occurrence. Academic Press, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  38. McKinney ML (2002) Urbanization, biodiversity, and conservation: the impacts of urbanization on native species are poorly studied, but educating a highly urbanized human population about these impacts can greatly improve species conservation in all ecosystems. Bioscience 52:883–890CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. McKinney ML (2006) Urbanization as a major cause of biotic homogenization. Biol Conserv 127:247–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Meek PD, Ballard G, Claridge A, Kays R, Moseby K, O’Brien T, Connell AO, Sanderson J, Swann DE, Tobler M, Townsend S (2014) Recommended guiding principles for reporting on camera trapping research. Biodivers Conserv 23:2321–2343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Nagy CM, Koestner C, Clemente S, Weckel M (2016) Occupancy and breeding status of coyotes in New York City parks, 2011-2014. Urban Naturalist 9:1–16Google Scholar
  42. Noigere TM, Davis FW, Duggan JM, Crooks KR, Boydston EE (2013) Carnivore use of avocado orchards across agricultural - wildland gradient. PLOSone. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0068025 Google Scholar
  43. Ordeñana MA, Crooks KR, Boydston EE, Fisher RN, Lyren LM, Siudyla S, Haas CD, Harris S, Hathaway SA, Turschak GM, Miles AK, Van Vuren DH (2010) Effects of urbanization on carnivore species distribution and richness. J Mammal 91:1322–1331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Poessel SA, Breck SW, Gese EM (2016) Spatial ecology of coyotes in the Denver metropolitan area: influence of the urban matrix. J Mammal 97:1414–1427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Poessel SA, Gese EM, Young JK (2014) Influence of habitat structure and food on patch choice on captive coyotes. Appl Anim Behav Sci 157:127–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Prugh LR, Stoner CJ, Epps CW, Bean WT, Ripple WJ, Laliberte AS, Brasheres JS (2009) The rise of the mesopredator. Bioscience 59:779–791CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Randa LA, Yunger JA (2006) Carnivore occurrence along an urban-rural gradient: a landscape-level analysis. J Mammal 87:1154–1164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Riley SPD (2006) Spatial ecology of bobcats and gray foxes in urban and rural zones of a national park. J Wildl Manag 70:1425–1435CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Riley SPD, Boydston EE, Crooks KR, Lyren LM (2010) Bobcats (Lynx rufus) in: Gehrt SD, Riley SPD, Cypher BL (eds) urban carnivores: ecology, conflict and conservation. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, pp 121–138Google Scholar
  50. Riley SP, Hadidian J, Manski DA (1998) Population density, survival, and rabies in raccoons in an urban national park. Can J Zool 76:1153–1164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Riley SPD, Sauvajot RM, Fuller TK, York EC, Kamradt DA, Bromley C, Wayne RK (2003) Effects of urbanization and habitat fragmentation on bobcats and coyotes in Southern California. Conserv Biol 17:566–576CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Roberts SB (2007) Ecology of white-tailed deer and bobcats on Kiawah Island. Implications for suburban habitat preservation. Dissertation. University of Georgia, Athens, South CarolinaGoogle Scholar
  53. Roundtree III GH (2004) Comparative study of the home range and habitat usage of red foxes and gray foxes in an urban setting. A preliminary report. In: Shaw WW, Harris LK, VanDruff L (eds) Proceedings of the 4th international urban wildlife symposium, pp 238–244Google Scholar
  54. Royle A, Nichols JD (2003) Estimating abundance from repeated presence-absence data or point counts. Ecology 84:777–790CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Royle JA, Nichols JD, Kery M (2005) Modeling occurrence and abundance of species when detection is imperfect. Oikos 110:353–359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Ruell EW, Riley SPD, Douglas MR, Pollinger JP, Crooks KR (2009) Estimating bobcat population sizes and densities in a fragmented urban landscape using noninvasive capture-recapture sampling. J Mammal 90:129–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Salek M, Drahnikova L, Tkadlec E (2015) Changes in home range sizes and population densities of carnivore species along the natural to urban habitat gradient. Mammal Rev. doi: 10.1111/mam.12027 Google Scholar
  58. Sarmento P, Cruz J, Eira C, Fonseca C (2009) Evaluation of camera trapping for estimating red fox abundance. J Wildl Manag 73:1207–1212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Schlexer FV (2008) Attracting animals to detection devices. In: Long RA, MacKay P, Zielinski WJ, Ray JC (eds) Noninvasive survey methods for carnivores. Island Pres, Washington, pp 263–292Google Scholar
  60. Schmidly DJ, Bradley RD (2016) The mammals of Texas. University of Texas Press, AustinGoogle Scholar
  61. Soulsbury CD, Baker PJ, Iossa G, Harris S (2010) Red foxes (Vulpes vulpes). In: Gehrt SD, SPD R, Cypher BL (eds) Urban carnivores: ecology, conflict and conservation. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, pp 62–77Google Scholar
  62. Symmank ME, Comer CE, Kroll JC (2008) Estimating bobcat abundance in east Texas using infrared-triggered cameras. In Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 62:64–69Google Scholar
  63. Thorton DH, Pekins CE (2015) Spatially explicit capture-recapture analysis of bobcat (Lynx rufus) density: implications for mesocarnivore monitoring. Wildl Res 42:394–404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Tolber M (2013) Camera base version 1.6.1 user guide. San Diego Zoo Conservation Institute, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  65. U.S. Census Bureau (2011) Statistical abstract of the United States: 2012 (131st edition). Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  66. United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division (2014). World urbanization prospects: The 2014 revision, highlights (ST/ESA/SER.A/352)Google Scholar
  67. US Geological Survey, Gap Analysis Program (GAP) (2011) National land cover, version 2Google Scholar
  68. Way JG, Auger PJ, Ortega IM, Strauss EG (2002) Eastern coyote denning behavior in an anthropogenic environment. Northeast Wildlife 56:18–30Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Arthur Temple College of Forestry and AgricultureStephen F. Austin State UniversityNacogdochesUSA
  2. 2.Caesar Kleberg Wildlife Research InstituteTexas A&M University-KingsvilleKingsvilleUSA
  3. 3.Department of Natural Resources ManagementTexas Tech UniversityLubbockUSA

Personalised recommendations