Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Urbanization, Grassland, and Diet Influence Coyote (Canis latrans) Parasitism Structure

  • Original Contribution
  • Published:
EcoHealth Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Land use change can alter the ecological mechanisms that influence infectious disease exposure in animal populations. However, few studies have empirically integrated the environmental, spatial, and dietary patterns of wildlife epidemiology. We investigate how urbanization, habitat type, and dietary behavior are associated with coyote (Canis latrans) parasitism structure along a gradient of rural to urban land cover using multivariate redundancy analyses. Coyote fecal samples were collected in eight urban and six rural sites in Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Parasite and diet components were identified using common flotation procedures and fecal dietary analysis, respectively. Redundancy analysis was used to identify the best land cover, connectivity, and dietary predictors. We tested for significance using multiple permutation tests and ANOVAs. Significant factors affecting enteric parasite prevalence included dietary and land cover factors (R 2 = 0.4130, P < 0.05). Variation in dietary behavior was observed between urban and rural sites (R 2 = 0.4712, P < 0.05), as anthropogenic diet items (i.e., garbage, crabapples) were strongly influenced by urbanization. Our research supports that developed habitat, grassland cover, and dietary choice interact to possibly influence the exposure of coyote hosts to enteric parasites and pioneers future investigation of disease ecology for natural populations in anthropogenic landscapes.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aguirre-Macedo M, Vidal-Martínez VM, González-Solís D, Caballero PI (2007) Helminth communities of four commercially important fish species from Chetumal Bay, Mexico. Journal of Helminthology 81(01):19-31.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson MJ (2001) Permutation tests for univariate or multivariate analysis of variance and regression. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 58(3):626-639.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson MJ, Legendre P (1999) An empirical comparison of permutation methods for tests of partial regression coefficients in a linear model. Journal of Statistical Computation and Simulation 62(3):271-303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aguirre AA (2009) Wild canids as sentinels of ecological health: a conservation medicine perspective. Parasites and Vectors 2:S7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Alexander SM, Quinn MS (2011) Coyote (Canis latrans) interactions with humans and pets reported in the Canadian print media (1995–2010). Human Dimensions of Wildlife 16(5):345-359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson MJ (2006) Distance‐based tests for homogeneity of multivariate dispersions. Biometrics 62.1: 245-253.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Baguette M, Van Dyck H (2007) Landscape connectivity and animal behavior: functional grain as a key determinant for dispersal. Landscape Ecology 22:1117-1129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berg MP, Ellers J (2010) Trait plasticity in species interactions: a driving force of community dynamics. Evolutionary Ecology 24:617-629.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beyer HL (2012) Geospatial Modelling Environment (Version 0.7.2.0). (software). URL: http://www.spatialecology.com/gme.

  • Bowman DD, Georgi JR (2009) Georgis’ parasitology for veterinarians. Elsevier Health Sciences, Missouri.

    Google Scholar 

  • ter Braak CJ, Smilauer P (1998) CANOCO reference manual and user’s guide to Canoco for Windows: software for canonical community ordination (version 4).

  • Bradley CA, Altizer S (2007) Urbanization and the ecology of wildlife diseases. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 22:95-102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bush AO, Lafferty, KD, Lotz JM, Shostak AW (1997) Parasitology meets ecology on its own terms: Margolis et al. revisited. The Journal of Parasitology 575–583.

  • Catalano S, Lejeune M, Liccioli S, Verocai GG, Gesy KM, Jenkins EJ, Kutz SJ, Fuentealba C, Duignan PJ, Massolo A (2012) Echinococcus multilocularis in urban coyotes, Alberta, Canada. Emerging Infectious Diseases 18(4):1625-1628.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Chambers CA, Dick TA (2005) Trophic structure of one deep-sea benthic fish community in the eastern Canadian Arctic: application of food, parasites and multivariate analysis. Environmental Biology of Fishes 74(3-4):365-378.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chamrad AD, Box TW (1964) A point frame for sampling rumen contents. Journal of Wildlife Management 473–477.

  • Chase JM (2003) Community assembly: when should history matter? Oecologia 136(4):489-498.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Daszak P, Cunningham AA, Hyatt AD (2001) Anthropogenic environmental change and the emergence of infectious diseases in wildlife. Acta Tropica 78(2):103-116.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Deplazes P, Hegglin D, Gloor S, Romig T (2004) Wilderness in the city: the urbanization of Echinococcus multilocularis. Trends in Parasitology 20(2):77-84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dryden MW, Payne PA, Ridley R, Smith V (2005) Comparison of common fecal flotation techniques for the recovery of parasite eggs and oocysts. Veterinary Therapeudics 6(1):15-28.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Epe C, Coati N, Schnieder, T (2004) Results of parasitological examinations of faecal samples from horses, ruminants, pigs, dogs, cats, hedgehogs and rabbits between 1998 and 2002. Deutsche Tierarztliche Wochenschrift 111(6):243-247.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Estrada-Peña A, Ostfeld RS, Peterson AT, Poulin R, de la Fuente J (2014) Effects of environmental change on zoonotic disease risk: an ecological primer. Trends in Parasitology 30:205–214.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gems D (2000) Longevity and ageing in parasitic and free-living nematodes. Biogerontology 1:289-307.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Gese EM, Rongstad OJ, Mytton WR (1988) Home range and habitat use of coyotes in southeastern Colorado. Journal of Wildlife Management 52:640-646.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gijbels I, Omelka M (2013) Testing for homogeneity of multivariate dispersions using dissimilarity measures. Biometrics 69.1: 137-145.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 39:712-717.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Grinder MI, Krausman PR (2001) Home range, habitat use, and nocturnal activity of coyotes in an urban environment. Journal of Wildlife Management 65:887-898.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hagenaars TJ, Donnelly CA, Ferguson NM (2004) Spatial heterogeneity and the persistence of infectious diseases. Journal of Theoretical Biology 229:349-359.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Halfpenny J, Biesiot E (1986) A Field Guide to Mammal Tracking in North America. Johnson Printing Company, Boulder.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holmes JC, Podesta R (1968) The helminths of wolves and coyotes from the forested regions of Alberta. Canadian Journal of Zoology 46(6):1193-1204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones ZF, Bock CE, Bock JH (2003) Rodent communities in a grazed and ungrazed Arizona grassland, and a model of habitat relationships among rodents in southwestern grass/shrublands. The American Midland Naturalist 149(2):384-394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy AJ, Carbyn LN (1981) Identification of wolf prey using hair and feather remains with special reference to western Canadian national parks. Canadian Wildlife Service, Toronto.

    Google Scholar 

  • Korkmaz S, Goksuluk D (2014) MVN package: Multivariate Normality Tests. R package v. 3.7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lafferty, KD, Holt RD (2003) How should environmental stress affect the population dynamics of disease? Ecology Letters 6(7):654-664.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Legendre P, Gallagher ED (2001) Ecologically meaningful transformations for ordination 484 of species data. Oecologia 129:271-280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Legendre P, Legendre L (2012) Numerical ecology (Vol. 20). Elsevier, Oxford.

  • Leibold MA, Holyoak M, Mouquet N, Amarasekare P, Chase JM, Hoopes MF, Holt RD, Shurin JB, Law R, Tilman D, Loreau M, Gonzalez A (2004) The metacommunity concept: a framework for multi‐scale community ecology. Ecology Letters 7:601-613.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lesmeister DB, Millspaugh JJ, Wade SE, Gompper ME (2008) A survey of parasites identified in the feces of eastern spotted skunks (Spilogale putorius) in western Arkansas. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 44:1041-1044.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Liccioli S, Catalano S, Kutz SJ, Lejeune M, Verocai GG, Duignan PJ, Fuentealba C, Hart M, Ruckstuhl KE, Massolo A (2012) Gastrointestinal parasites of coyotes (Canis latrans) in the metropolitan area of Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Canadian Journal of Zoology 90(8):1023-1030.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lukasik VM, Alexander SM (2012) Spatial and temporal variation of coyote (Canis latrans) diet in Calgary, Alberta. Cities and the Environment (CATE) 4(1): Article 8.

  • McArdle BH, Anderson MJ (2001) Fitting multivariate models to community data: a comment on distance-based redundancy analysis. Ecology 82(1):290-297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McRae BH, Kavanagh DM (2011) Linkage Mapper Connectivity Analysis Software—The Nature Conservancy. Available at: http://www.circuitscape.org/linkagemapper. Accessed 5 Dec 2013.

  • McManus DP, Zhang W, Li J, Bartley PB (2003) Echinococcosis. The Lancet 362: 1295-1304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelder MP, Russell C, Lindsay LR, Dhar B, Patel SN, Johnson S, Moore S, Kristjanson E, Li Y, Ralevski F (2014) Population-based passive tick surveillance and detection of expanding foci of blacklegged ticks Ixodes scapularis and the Lyme disease agent Borrelia burgdorferi in Ontario, Canada. PloS One 9:e105358.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • O’Connor LJ, Walkden-Brown SW, Kahn LP (2006) Ecology of the free-living stages of major trichostrongylid parasites of sheep. Veterinary Parasitology 142(1):1-15.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Oksanen J (2011) Multivariate analysis of ecological communities in R: vegan tutorial. R package version: 2-0.

  • Park AW (2012) Infectious disease in animal metapopulations: the importance of environmental transmission. Ecology & Evolution 2(7):1398-1407.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patz JA, Daszak P, Tabor GM, Aguirre AA, Pearl M, Epstein J, Wolfe ND, Kilpatrick AM, Foufopoulos J, Molyneux D, Bradley DJ, and Working Group on Land Use Change Disease Emergence (2004) Unhealthy landscapes: policy recommendations on land use change and infectious disease emergence. Environmental Health Perspectives 112:1092.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Peres-Neto PR, Legendre P, Dray S, Borcard D (2006) Variation partitioning of species 521 data matrices: Estimation and comparison of fractions. Ecology 87:2614-2625.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pietrock M, Marcogliese DJ (2003) Free-living endohelminth stages: at the mercy of environmental conditions. Trends in Parasitology 19:293-299.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Raghavan RK, Harrington Jr J, Anderson GA, Hutchinson JS, DeBey BM (2013) Environmental, Climatic, and Residential Neighborhood Determinants of Feline Tularemia. Vector Borne and Zoonotic Diseases 13(7):449-456.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Real LA, Biek R (2007) Spatial dynamics and genetics of infectious diseases on heterogeneous landscapes. Journal of the Royal Society, Interface 4:935-948.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Reperant LA, Hegglin D, Tanner I, Fischer C, Deplazes P (2009) Rodents as shared indicators for zoonotic parasites of carnivores in urban environments. Parasitology 136:329-337.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Rodewald AD, Rohr RP, Fortuna MA, Bascompte J (2014) Community‐level demographic consequences of urbanization: an ecological network approach. Journal of Animal Ecology 43: 1409-1417.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saura S, Bodin Ö, Fortin MJ (2014) Stepping stones are crucial for species’ long‐distance dispersal and range expansion through habitat networks. Journal of Applied Ecology 51(1):171-182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shochat E, Warren PS, Faeth SH, McIntyre NE, Hope D (2006) From patterns to emerging processes in mechanistic urban ecology. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 21:186-191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suzán G, Armién A, Mills JN, Marcé E, Ceballos G, Ávila M, Salazar-Bravo J, Ruedas L, Armien B, Yates TL (2008) Epidemiological considerations of rodent community composition in fragmented landscapes in Panama. Journal of Mammalogy 89:684-690.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor PD, Fahrig L, Henein K, Merriam G (1993) Connectivity is a vital element of landscape structure. Oikos 68:571-573.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor LH, Latham SM, Woolhose MEJ (2001) Risk factors for human disease emergence. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences 356:983-989.

    PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson RCA, Colwell DD, Shury T, Appelbee AJ, Read C, Njiru Z, Olson ME (2009) The molecular epidemiology of Cryptosporidium and Giardia infections in coyotes from Alberta, Canada, and observations on some cohabiting parasites. Veterinary Parasitology 159(2):167–170.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Townroe S, Callaghan A (2014) British container breeding mosquitoes: the impact of urbanisation and climate change on community composition and phenology. PloS One 9:e95325.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Vander Wal E, Paquet PC, Andres, JA (2012) Influence of landscape and social interactions on transmission of disease in a social cervid. Molecular Ecology 21:1271-1282.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Watts AG, Alexander SM (2012) Community variation of gastrointestinal parasites found in urban and rural coyotes (Canis latrans) of Calgary, Alberta. Cities and the Environment (CATE) 4: Article 11.

  • Wang X, Tedford RH (2008) Dogs: their fossil relatives and evolutionary history. Columbia University Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang X, Wang J, Russell C, Proctor P, Bello R, Higuchi K, Zhu H (2014) Clustering of the abundance of West Nile virus vector mosquitoes in Peel Region, Ontario, Canada. Environmental and Ecological Statistics 1–16.

  • Wirsing AJ, Azevedo FC, Larivière S, Murray DL (2007) Patterns of gastrointestinal parasitism among five sympatric prairie carnivores: Are males reservoirs? Journal of Parasitology 93:504–510.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wright AN, Gompper ME (2005) Altered parasite assemblages in raccoons in response to manipulated resource availability. Oecologia 144:148-156.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Zajac AM, Conboy GA (Eds.) (2012) Veterinary clinical parasitology. Wiley, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zuur AF, Ieno EN, Walker NJ, Saveliev AA, GM Smith (2009) Mixed effects of 583 models and extensions in ecology with R. Springer, New York.

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the City of Calgary; Spatial and Numeric Data Services (SANDS), at the University of Calgary for spatial data. We would like to thank the Department of Geography, University of Calgary, NSERC, the Alberta Conservation Association for funding of this research. We would especially like to thank the Sandy Cross Conservation Area, Hamish Kerfoot, Big Hill Springs Provincial Park, the Inglewood Bird Sanctuary, and Fish Creek Provincial Park for the allowance of sampling on their land. We further thank Dr. Susan Kutz for the use of laboratory equipment and expertise for parasitological investigation.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alexander G. Watts.

Appendices

Appendix A: Detailed Description of Methods

Site Selection and Sampling

Sites were chosen based on known coyote occupancy to maximize opportunistic sampling yield, while representing habitat differences. A preliminary investigation of sites verified the presence of coyote feces by walking all sites in a grid-like pattern along transects ranging from 1–4 km transects. We observed diminishing yields of fecal samples beyond ~1 km sampling distances in high defection areas. Sampling was, therefore, standardized by surveying a fixed 1 km transect per site, consisting of defined paths and roads known by preliminary observation to be common defecation sites to maximize sample yields per site. Edges of each transect were chosen at a minimum distance of 4 km from other transects in alternative sampling sites derived by an average maximum reported home ranges of coyotes in North American cities. Because individual coyotes were not being tracked or followed, it was assumed that these transects were common defecation areas for local, independent coyote subpopulations.

Laboratory Analyses

We used a double-centrifugation fecal flotation, a common method in carnivore fecal parasitism surveys. While this method can be unreliable for some canid parasite species, such as specific Taenia spp. and Echinococcus spp., we considered this method satisfactory for our objectives because we identified morphologically indistinguishable parasites to the genus-level instead of species-level, assuming that environmental and host associations with parasite groups are similar. We performed preliminary sensitivity analyses of the flotation method to consider the sensitivity of egg oocyst recovery and identification using 2, 4, and 6 g of feces per sample. Multiple flotations were performed on individual samples to address within-sample parasite detectability. In both preliminary analyses, no differences were observed in the detectability of parasite presence/absence at the genus level. Therefore, a total of 4 g of feces were extracted from equally distributed cross sections of each fecal sample and homogenized before centrifugation and multiple microscope slides were prepared per homogenized sample.

Dietary components were identified using a point-frame method. Hairs and bones were classified to the lowest observable taxonomic level (Kennedy and Carbyn 1981) and then aggregated by dietary category (e.g., small mammals, plants, etc.) for analysis. Insects and birds were identified to order, based on exoskeleton remains and feather barbules. Vegetation and anthropogenic items were identified by morphological characteristics, using a dissection microscope. Percent by volume was measured for each dietary component on a 2.5 cm grid.

Tests of Normality

We tested for multivariate homogeneity using permutation tests of observed parasite and diet observations, including beta-adjusted pairwise distances to account for small sample sizes (Anderson 2006, Gijbels and Omelka 2013). No significance was identified among sites for parasitism (P = 0.583) and diet (P = 0.619) suggesting normality among observed prevalence and relative abundance data, respectively. We performed a second test of normality by skewness (P = 0.89) and kurtosis (P = 0.12) using Mardia’s multivariate normality test (Korkmaz and Goksuluk 2014), where parasite prevalence and dietary relative abundances were suggested to be normally distributed.

Multivariate Parameter Selection

We used a constrained canonical ordination method (redundancy analysis RDA; Legendre and Legendre 2012) to explain the variation in coyote enteric parasite prevalence. For parsimony, we limited redundancy models to five predictors (Legendre and Legendre 2012). Before the RDA analyses were performed, we selected the predictors by ranking models using the Leaps library in R (R Development Core Team 2011). Based on the adjusted R 2 values, we kept the top five variables (Peres-Neto et al. 2006). We chose our top RDA models according to (a) overall model significance, (b) significance of axes 1 and 2, (c) significance of at least two of five predictors; and (d) ecological significance to our study system.

Appendix B

See Figure 4

Figure 4
figure a

Structural connectivity of sampled sites in Calgary, Alberta. Urban sites seem to have higher centrality than rural sites. See Figure 1 for abbreviations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Watts, A.G., Lukasik, V.M., Fortin, MJ. et al. Urbanization, Grassland, and Diet Influence Coyote (Canis latrans) Parasitism Structure. EcoHealth 12, 645–659 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10393-015-1040-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10393-015-1040-5

Keywords

Navigation