Urban Ecosystems

, Volume 14, Issue 4, pp 655–663 | Cite as

Diet of Florida coyotes in a protected wildland and suburban habitat

  • Melissa M. GrigioneEmail author
  • Prabir Burman
  • Sarah Clavio
  • Steve J. Harper
  • Denara Manning
  • Ronald J. Sarno


Coyotes (Canis latrans) arrived to Florida (USA) in the 1960s and are currently found throughout most of the state. The purpose of this study was to determine if the diet of Florida coyotes differed between suburban and wildland habitat types or across seasons. Fresh coyote fecal samples were collected from wildland and suburban habitats in Pinellas County, Florida (USA; 27°54′N, 82°41′W) from May 2005 to March 2007. Diet items in the 49 wildland and 71 suburban samples were identified to the lowest possible taxonomic level by gross morphological characteristics and medullary configurations of dorsal guard hairs. A Poisson regression was utilized to determine the main and interactive effects of habitat and season on the number of different food items per sample. Coyotes in the wildland habitat had greater diet diversity than suburban coyotes. In addition, anthropogenic waste was recovered over twice as often from coyote fecal samples collected in the suburban habitat. In the wildland habitat, vegetative matter (96%), Insecta (53%), and Rodentia (45%) were recovered most often, as opposed to berries (56%) and Lagomorpha (32%) in the suburban habitat. In both habitats, vegetative matter, berries, and Lagomorpha were recovered most often from coyote fecal samples, whereas Odocoileus virginianus, Lagomorpha, and berries varied the most between wet and dry seasons. This study suggests that as urbanization increases, diet diversity for the coyote will likely decrease and consumption of anthropogenic items will likely increase. As a result of this, human–coyote conflicts may become more common—particularly in counties, like Pinellas, that are undergoing urbanization.


Canis latrans Carnivores Coyotes Diet Florida Urban ecology 



We wish to thank Jay Jones, Catherine Hughes, and Michelle Dachsteiner for their assistance in the field and laboratory. We express appreciation to Dr. Bruce Rinker and the staff at Brooker Creek Preserve for providing access to the Preserve, use of an ATV, and for being an integral part of this study. We are grateful for the assistance of Pinellas County Animal Control, specifically Kenny Mitchell, Dr. Welch Agnew, and Richard Stahl. Lastly we would like to express our sincere thanks to Pinellas County for funding this research.


  1. Azevedo FC, Lester V, Gorsuch W, Lariviere S, Wirsing AJ, Murray DL (2006) Dietary breadth and overlap among five sympatric prairie carnivores. J Zool 269:127–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barnett J, Dobshinsky A (2007) An alternative future: Florida in the 21st Century 2020 2040 2060. University of Pennsylvania: PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  3. Chen E, Gerber JF (1990) Climate. In: Myers RL, Ewel JJ (eds) Ecosystems in Florida. University of Central Florida Press, Orlando, pp 11–34Google Scholar
  4. Crossett RL, Elliott CL (1991) Winter food habits of red foxes and coyotes in central Kentucky. Proc Annu Conf Southeast Assoc Fish Wildl Agencies 45:97–103Google Scholar
  5. Dobson A, Barnett A (2008) An introduction to generalized linear models. Chapman & Hall: Boca Raton (FL)Google Scholar
  6. Fedriani JM, Fuller TK, Sauvajot RM (2001) Does availability of anthropogenic food enhance densities of omnivorous mammals? An example with coyotes in southern California. Ecography 24:325–331Google Scholar
  7. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) (2004) Florida’s endangered species, threatened species, and species of special concern.
  8. Gompper ME, Goodman RM, Kays RW, Ray JC, Fiorello CV, Wade SE (2003) A survey of the parasites of coyotes (Canis latrans) in New York based on fecal analysis. J Wildl Dis 39:712–717PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Grinder M, Krausman PR (2001) Home range, habitat use, and nocturnal activity of coyotes in an urban environment. J Wildl Manage 65:887–898CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Lingle S, Pellis SM, Wilson WF (2005) Interspecific variation in antipredator behaviour leads to differential vulnerability of mule deer and white-tailed deer fawns early in life. J Anim Ecol 74:1140–1149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Marzluff JM, Bowman R, Donnelly R (2001) A historical perspective on urban bird research: trends, terms, and approaches. In: Marzluff JM, Bowman R, Donnelly R (eds) Avian ecology and conservation in an urbanizing world. Kluwer, Norwell, pp 2–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. McCown W, Scheick B (2007) The coyote in Florida. Fish and Wildlife Research Institute. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission ( Tallahassee, Florida
  13. Prugh LR (2005) Coyote prey selection and community stability during a decline in food supply. Oikos 110:253–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Quinn T (1997) Coyote (Canis latrans) food habits in three urban habitat types of western Washington. Northwest Sci 71:1–5Google Scholar
  15. Stratman MR, Pelton MR (1997) Food habits of coyotes in Northwestern Florida. Proc Annu Conf Southeast Assoc Fish Wildl Agencies 51:269–275Google Scholar
  16. Thornton DH, Sunquist ME, Main MB (2004) Ecological separation within newly sympatric populations of coyotes and bobcats in South-Central Florida. J Mammal 85:973–982CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. United States Census Bureau (USCB) (2009)
  18. Wagner GD, Hill EP (1994) Evaluation of southeastern coyote diets during the wild turkey reproductive season. Proc Annu Conf Southeast Assoc Fish Wildl Agencies 48:173–181Google Scholar
  19. Wilkins L, Langworthy M, Rathbun CD, Sullivan R (1982) Identification of the dorsal guard hairs of some of Florida mammals. Technical Report prepared for the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission. University of Florida, Gainesville, FloridaGoogle Scholar
  20. Wilson DE (2005) Mammal species of the world: a taxonomic and geographic reference. Johns Hopkins University Press, BaltimoreGoogle Scholar
  21. Wooding JB, Hill EP, Sumner PW (1984) Coyote food habits in Mississippi and Alabama. Proc Annu Conf Southeast Assoc Fish Wildl Agencies 38:182–188Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Melissa M. Grigione
    • 1
    Email author
  • Prabir Burman
    • 2
  • Sarah Clavio
    • 3
  • Steve J. Harper
    • 4
  • Denara Manning
    • 3
  • Ronald J. Sarno
    • 5
  1. 1.Department of BiologyPace UniversityPleasantvilleUSA
  2. 2.Department of StatisticsUniversity of California-DavisDavisUSA
  3. 3.Department of Environmental Science and PolicyUniversity of South FloridaTampaUSA
  4. 4.Pinellas County Environmental Management Environmental LandsTarpon SpringsUSA
  5. 5.Department of BiologyHofstra UniversityHempsteadUSA

Personalised recommendations