Urban Ecosystems

, Volume 10, Issue 4, pp 413–425 | Cite as

The influence of anthropogenic resources on multi-scale habitat selection by raccoons

  • Clare K. BozekEmail author
  • Suzanne Prange
  • Stanley D. Gehrt


With the continuing spread of urban areas, gaining a greater understanding of the effect of human presence on wildlife species is essential for wildlife managers. We determined the influence of anthropogenic resources on home range size and habitat selection of raccoons (Procyon lotor) during summer (June–August) 1996–2000 for 120 raccoons at three sites exposed to varying levels of urbanization and anthropogenic resources, specifically food. Home range estimates were larger (P < 0.05) at the rural site than the suburban and urban sites for both genders. We used compositional analysis to examine raccoon habitat selection at the second-order home range, second-order core area, and third-order home range scales. Woodland was consistently a highly-selected habitat type for both sexes at every spatial scale. Relative to other habitat types, habitat associated with human-related food (human use areas) was selected most often at the urban site, intermediately at the suburban site, and not selected at the rural site. Spatial scale also affected habitat selection. Human use areas were preferentially selected at the second- and third-order level at the urban site, third-order level only at the suburban site, and at neither level at the rural site. Additionally, intersexual differences in habitat selection were reduced at the urban site, with both sexes preferentially selecting for human use areas as well as woodland habitat. Smaller home ranges in urbanized environments are often attributed to the abundant and concentrated anthropogenic resources associated with human activity, but with little empirical support. Our habitat selection analyses followed our predictions that raccoon foraging is strongly influenced by the artificial distribution and abundance of human-related food. Male and female raccoons in urban areas reduce their foraging patterns and focus their foraging activity on anthropogenic foods.


Raccoon Procyon lotor Habitat selection Illinois 



This study was supported by the Max McGraw Wildlife Foundation, the Forest Preserve District of Cook County, and the Furbearer Fund of the Illinois Department of Natural Resources. McHenry County Conservation District allowed access to their property. Numerous persons from the Max McGraw Wildlife Foundation assisted with fieldwork. We especially thank Chris Anchor and Brad Woodson for providing access and logistical support.


  1. Aebischer NJ, Robertson PA, Kenward RE (1993) Compositional analysis of habitat use from animal radio-tracking data. Ecology 74:1313–1325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bingham RL, Brennan LA (2004) Comparison of Type I error rates for statistical analyses of resource selection. J Wildl Manage 68:206–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chamberlain MJ, Conner LM, Leopold BD, Hodges KM (2003) Space use and multi-scale habitat selection of adult raccoons in Central Mississippi. J Wildl Manage 67:334–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dalgish J, Anderson S (1979) A field experiment on learning by raccoons. J Mammal 60:620–622CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Destefano S, Deblinger RD, Miller C (2005) Suburban wildlife: lessons, challenges, and opportunities. Urban Ecosyst 8:131–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ditchkoff SS, Saalfeld ST, Gibson CJ (2006) Animal behavior in urban ecosystems: modifications due to human-induced stress. Urban Ecosyst 9:5–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dwyer JF, Schroeder W, Buck RL (1985) Patterns of use in an urban forest recreation area. In: Wood J (ed) Proceedings of the 1985 National Outdoor Recreation Trends Symposium II. United States Department of the Interior, Atlanta, Georgia, pp 81–89Google Scholar
  8. Gehrt SD (2003) Raccoons Procyon lotor and allies. In: Feldhamer GA, Thompson BC, Chapman JA, (eds) Wild mammals of North America: biology, management, and conservation, 2nd edn. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD, pp 611–634Google Scholar
  9. 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, DC, pp 81–104Google Scholar
  10. Gehrt SD, Fritzell EK (1997) Sexual differences in home ranges of raccoons. J Mammal 78:921–931CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hadidian J, Manski DA, Riley S (1991) Daytime resting site selection in an urban raccoon population. In: Adams LW, Leedy DL (eds) Wildlife conservation in metropolitan environments. National Institute for Urban Wildlife, Columbia, MD, pp 39–45Google Scholar
  12. Hoffmann CO, Gottschang JL (1977) Numbers, distribution, and movements of a raccoon population in a suburban residential community. J Mammal 58:623–636CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hooge PN, Eichenlaub B (1997) Animal movement extension to ArcView, version 1.1. Alaska Biological Science Center, US Geological Survey, Anchorage, AKGoogle Scholar
  14. Johnson DH (1980) The comparison of usage and availability measurements for evaluating resource preference. Ecology 61:65–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kaufmann JH (1982) Raccoon and allies. In: Chapman JA, Feldhamer GA (eds) Wild mammals of North America: biology, management and economics. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD, pp 567–585Google Scholar
  16. Lair H (1987) Estimating the location of the focal center in red squirrel home ranges. Ecology 68:1092–1101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. McKinney ML (2002) Urbanization, biodiversity, and conservation. BioScience 52:883–890CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. McNay RS, Morgan JA, Bunnell FL (1994) Characterizing independence of observations in movements of Columbian black-tailed deer. J Wildl Manage 58:422–429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Mohr CO (1947) Table of equivalent populations of North American small mammals. Am Midl Nat 37:223–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Montgomery GG (1969) Weaning of captive raccoons. J Wildl Manage 33:154–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Pedlar JH, Fahrig L, Merriam HG (1997) Raccoon habitat use at 2 spatial scales. J Wildl Manage 61:102–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Prange S, Gehrt SD (2004) Changes in mesopredator-community structure in response to urbanization. Can J Zool 82:1804–1817CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Prange S, Gehrt SD, Wiggers EP (2004) Influences of anthropogenic resources on raccoon (Procyon lotor) movements and spatial distribution. J Mammal 85:483–490CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Rosatte RC, Power MJ, MacInnes CD (1991) Ecology of urban skunks, raccoons, and foxes in metropolitan Toronto. In: Adams LW, Leedy DL (eds) Wildlife conservation in metropolitan environments. National Institute for Urban Wildlife Symposium Series 2, Columbia, MD, pp 31–38Google Scholar
  25. Sandell M (1989) The mating tactics and spacing patterns of solitary carnivores. In: Gittleman JL (ed) Carnivore Behavior, ecology, and evolution. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY, pp 164–182Google Scholar
  26. Sanderson GC, Nalbandov AV (1973) The reproductive cycle of the raccoon in Illinois. Illinois Nat Hist Surv Bull 31:25–85Google Scholar
  27. Schinner JR, Cauley DL (1974) The ecology of urban raccoons in Cincinnati, Ohio. In Noyes JH, Progulske DR (eds) Wildlife in an urbanizing environment. Planning and resources development series number 28. Holdsworth Natural Resources Center, Amherst, MA, pp 125–130Google Scholar
  28. Seaman DE, Millspaugh JJ, Kernohan BJ, Brundige GC, Raedeke KJ, Gitzen RA (1999) Effects of sample size on kernel home range estimates. J Wildl Manage 63:739–747CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. US Bureau of the Census (2006) Statistical abstract of the United States: 2006, 125th edn. US Bureau of the Census, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  30. Worton BJ (1989) Kernel methods for estimating the utilization distribution in home-range studies. Ecology 70:164–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Clare K. Bozek
    • 1
    • 3
    Email author
  • Suzanne Prange
    • 2
  • Stanley D. Gehrt
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Environment and Natural ResourcesThe Ohio State UniversityColumbusUSA
  2. 2.Max McGraw Wildlife FoundationDundeeUSA
  3. 3.SteubenvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations