Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2019 Dec 30;14(12):e0227028.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0227028. eCollection 2019.

Spatial ecology of coyotes in the urbanizing landscape of the Cuyahoga Valley, Ohio

Gregory A Franckowiak  1 , Marlo Perdicas  2 , Gregory A Smith  3
Affiliations

Spatial ecology of coyotes in the urbanizing landscape of the Cuyahoga Valley, Ohio

Gregory A Franckowiak et al. PLoS One. .

Abstract

Urban landscapes can present ecological challenges for wildlife species, yet many species survive, and even thrive, near dense human populations. Coyotes (Canis latrans), for example, have expanded their geographic range across North America and, as a result of their adaptability and behavioral flexibility, are now a common occupant of many urban areas in the United States. We investigated the spatial ecology of 27 coyotes fitted with Global Positioning System (GPS) telemetry collars radio-collared in the Cuyahoga Valley, Ohio. Our objectives were to quantify coyote space use, evaluate resource selection, and investigate coyote movement and activity patterns. To measure space use, we estimated home range (95%) and core area (50%) size of coyotes using the adaptive local convex hull (a-LoCoH) method. We found the mean (± SE) home range size of resident coyotes (4.7 ± 1.8 km2) was significantly smaller than ranges of transient coyotes (67.7 ± 89.6 km2). Similarly, mean (± SE) core area size of resident coyotes (0.9 ± 0.6 km2) was significantly smaller than core areas of transient coyotes (11.9 ± 16.7 km2). Home range and core area size of both resident and transient coyotes did not vary by sex, age, or season. For all coyotes, use of natural land cover was significantly greater than use of altered and developed land. When coyotes were using altered and developed land, GPS fixes were most common at night. Coyote movement patterns differed with respect to status, time period, and season; peaking during nighttime hours. A better understanding of coyote space use and movement within anthropogenic landscapes aids management of people, parks, and wildlife by providing the data necessary for research-based management decisions.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

This study was funded by the Summit Metro Parks who employs Marlo Perdicas. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.

Figures

Fig 1
Fig 1. Map of the Cuyahoga Valley and 3 land cover categories, Ohio 2010–2012.
Fig 2
Fig 2
Home ranges of resident coyotes (Canis latrans) that are (a) fragmented and bordered by roads or (b) almost completely surrounded by developed land in the Cuyahoga Valley, Ohio, 2010–2012.
Fig 3
Fig 3
Percentage of the three broad land cover types comprising composite and seasonal resident coyote (n = 13) (a) home ranges and (b) core areas in the Cuyahoga Valley, Ohio, 2010–2012.
Fig 4
Fig 4
Relationship between resident coyote (n = 13, Canis latrans) composite (a) home range and (b) core area size and the percentage of altered and developed land cover types within, Cuyahoga Valley, Ohio, 2010–2012.
Fig 5
Fig 5
Interaction plots of a) Sex*Land Cover, b) Status*Land Cover, c) Time Period*Land Cover, d) Land Cover* Distance to Roads, and e) Time Period*Distance to Roads for the top model in the composite home range model set, of coyotes (Canis latrans) radio-collared in the Cuyahoga Valley, Ohio, 2010–2012.
Fig 6
Fig 6
Interaction plots of a) Season*Land Cover, and b) Season*Distance to Roads for the top model in the seasonal home range model set of coyotes (Canis latrans) radio-collared in the Cuyahoga Valley, Ohio, 2010–2012.
Fig 7
Fig 7. Seasonal activity patterns of GPS collared resident and transient coyotes (Canis latrans) in the Cuyahoga Valley, OH, 2010–2012.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Hamer AJ, Mcdonnell MJ. The response of herpetofauna to urbanization: Inferring patterns of persistence from wildlife databases. Austral Ecol. 2010;35: 568–580. 10.1111/j.1442-9993.2009.02068.x - DOI
    1. McKinney Michaek L. Urbanization, biodiversity, and conservation. Bioscience. 2002;52: 883–890.
    1. Lowry H, Lill A, Wong BBM. Behavioural responses of wildlife to urban environments. Biol Rev. 2013;88: 537–549. 10.1111/brv.12012 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Riley SPD. Spatial ecology of bobcats and gray foxes in urban and rural zones of a national park. J Wildl Manage. 2006;70: 1425–1435. 10.2193/0022-541x(2006)70[1425:seobag]2.0.co;2 - DOI
    1. Gese EM, Morey PS, Gehrt SD. Influence of the urban matrix on space use of coyotes in the Chicago metropolitan area. J Ethol. 2012;30: 413–425. 10.1007/s10164-012-0339-8 - DOI

Publication types