Wild Canid Distribution and Co-existence in a Natural–Urban Matrix of the Pioneer Valley of Western Massachusetts

Although development and urbanization are typically believed to have negative impacts on carnivoran species, some species can successfully navigate an urban matrix. Sympatric carnivorans compete for limited resources in urban areas, likely with system-specific impacts to their distributions and acti...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Northeastern naturalist 2019-04, Vol.26 (2), p.325-342
Hauptverfasser: LeFlore, Eric G, Fuller, Todd K, Finn, John T, DeStefano, Stephen, Organ, John F
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 342
container_issue 2
container_start_page 325
container_title Northeastern naturalist
container_volume 26
creator LeFlore, Eric G
Fuller, Todd K
Finn, John T
DeStefano, Stephen
Organ, John F
description Although development and urbanization are typically believed to have negative impacts on carnivoran species, some species can successfully navigate an urban matrix. Sympatric carnivorans compete for limited resources in urban areas, likely with system-specific impacts to their distributions and activity patterns. We used automatically triggered wildlife cameras to assess the local distribution and co-existence of Canis latrans (Coyote), Vulpes vulpes (Red Fox), and Urocyon cinereoargenteus (Gray Fox) across the Pioneer Valley, MA, in relation to different levels of human development. We placed cameras at 79 locations in forested, altered, and urban land-use areas from September to November 2012 and accumulated 1670 trap nights. We determined site characteristics and detection rates for 12 other wildlife species for each camera location to develop a generalized linear model for the local distribution of each focal canid species across the study area. We also compared diel activity patterns among Coyotes, Red Foxes, and Gray Foxes, and calculated coefficients of overlap between each pair. The local distribution of Coyotes was positively associated with the detection rates of their prey and not associated with detection rates of sympatric carnivoran species. Red Foxes and Gray Foxes had negative relationships with the detection rate of Coyotes, and none of the 3 canid species showed a positive correlation with increased levels of urbanization. There was a high degree of temporal overlap in diel activity patterns and limited spatial overlap of our focal species, which suggests that any competition avoidance across our study area occurred at the spatial level. Coyotes fill the role of top predator in the Pioneer Valley, and likely have a negative impact on the local distributions of smaller canids, while their own local distributions seem to be driven by prey availability.
doi_str_mv 10.1656/045.026.0208
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>jstor_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2270869159</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><jstor_id>48688906</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>48688906</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-b320t-55ac6a829c9fa323cd908bc6a4ef02df2746477368e47c05bbde78f88f8937cc3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kMtKxDAUhoMoOI7u3AoBd2LHNElzWcp4BW8Lx1mWNE2ZDrUdkxRmdr6Db-iTeMqISyGHhP98_8nhR-g4JZNUZOKC8GxCqIAiageNUs1UkjEid-FNNE1Eqvk-OghhSUhKBdcjFOZ1U-KpaesSX9Uh-rroY9212LQgd4lbg-ha63ANGn4ysfem-f78mvnCtPjRgGONuwrHhcMvYHTO4zfTNG4zqHMHbj9wIRi76IOLMRyivco0wR393mM0u7l-nd4lD8-399PLh6RglMQky4wVRlFtdWUYZbbURBUgcVcRWlZUcsGlZEI5Li3JiqJ0UlUKjmbSWjZGp9u5K9999LBJvux638KXOaWSKKHTTAN1vqWs70LwrspXvn43fpOnJB9izSHWHGLNh1gBP9niyxA7_8dyJZTSRED_bNsv6g7S-H_YD-sWghA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2270869159</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Wild Canid Distribution and Co-existence in a Natural–Urban Matrix of the Pioneer Valley of Western Massachusetts</title><source>JSTOR Archive Collection A-Z Listing</source><creator>LeFlore, Eric G ; Fuller, Todd K ; Finn, John T ; DeStefano, Stephen ; Organ, John F</creator><creatorcontrib>LeFlore, Eric G ; Fuller, Todd K ; Finn, John T ; DeStefano, Stephen ; Organ, John F</creatorcontrib><description>Although development and urbanization are typically believed to have negative impacts on carnivoran species, some species can successfully navigate an urban matrix. Sympatric carnivorans compete for limited resources in urban areas, likely with system-specific impacts to their distributions and activity patterns. We used automatically triggered wildlife cameras to assess the local distribution and co-existence of Canis latrans (Coyote), Vulpes vulpes (Red Fox), and Urocyon cinereoargenteus (Gray Fox) across the Pioneer Valley, MA, in relation to different levels of human development. We placed cameras at 79 locations in forested, altered, and urban land-use areas from September to November 2012 and accumulated 1670 trap nights. We determined site characteristics and detection rates for 12 other wildlife species for each camera location to develop a generalized linear model for the local distribution of each focal canid species across the study area. We also compared diel activity patterns among Coyotes, Red Foxes, and Gray Foxes, and calculated coefficients of overlap between each pair. The local distribution of Coyotes was positively associated with the detection rates of their prey and not associated with detection rates of sympatric carnivoran species. Red Foxes and Gray Foxes had negative relationships with the detection rate of Coyotes, and none of the 3 canid species showed a positive correlation with increased levels of urbanization. There was a high degree of temporal overlap in diel activity patterns and limited spatial overlap of our focal species, which suggests that any competition avoidance across our study area occurred at the spatial level. Coyotes fill the role of top predator in the Pioneer Valley, and likely have a negative impact on the local distributions of smaller canids, while their own local distributions seem to be driven by prey availability.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1092-6194</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1938-5307</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1656/045.026.0208</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Steuben: Humboldt Field Research Institute</publisher><subject>Activity patterns ; Animal behavior ; Cameras ; Canis latrans ; Coexistence ; Coyotes ; Diel activity ; Foxes ; Land use ; Level (quantity) ; Prey ; Species ; Statistical models ; Sympatric populations ; Urban areas ; Urbanization ; Urocyon cinereoargenteus ; Vulpes vulpes ; Wildlife ; Wildlife management</subject><ispartof>Northeastern naturalist, 2019-04, Vol.26 (2), p.325-342</ispartof><rights>Copyright Northeastern Naturalist 2019</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-b320t-55ac6a829c9fa323cd908bc6a4ef02df2746477368e47c05bbde78f88f8937cc3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-b320t-55ac6a829c9fa323cd908bc6a4ef02df2746477368e47c05bbde78f88f8937cc3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/48688906$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/48688906$$EHTML$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,803,27922,27923,58015,58248</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>LeFlore, Eric G</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fuller, Todd K</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Finn, John T</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>DeStefano, Stephen</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Organ, John F</creatorcontrib><title>Wild Canid Distribution and Co-existence in a Natural–Urban Matrix of the Pioneer Valley of Western Massachusetts</title><title>Northeastern naturalist</title><description>Although development and urbanization are typically believed to have negative impacts on carnivoran species, some species can successfully navigate an urban matrix. Sympatric carnivorans compete for limited resources in urban areas, likely with system-specific impacts to their distributions and activity patterns. We used automatically triggered wildlife cameras to assess the local distribution and co-existence of Canis latrans (Coyote), Vulpes vulpes (Red Fox), and Urocyon cinereoargenteus (Gray Fox) across the Pioneer Valley, MA, in relation to different levels of human development. We placed cameras at 79 locations in forested, altered, and urban land-use areas from September to November 2012 and accumulated 1670 trap nights. We determined site characteristics and detection rates for 12 other wildlife species for each camera location to develop a generalized linear model for the local distribution of each focal canid species across the study area. We also compared diel activity patterns among Coyotes, Red Foxes, and Gray Foxes, and calculated coefficients of overlap between each pair. The local distribution of Coyotes was positively associated with the detection rates of their prey and not associated with detection rates of sympatric carnivoran species. Red Foxes and Gray Foxes had negative relationships with the detection rate of Coyotes, and none of the 3 canid species showed a positive correlation with increased levels of urbanization. There was a high degree of temporal overlap in diel activity patterns and limited spatial overlap of our focal species, which suggests that any competition avoidance across our study area occurred at the spatial level. Coyotes fill the role of top predator in the Pioneer Valley, and likely have a negative impact on the local distributions of smaller canids, while their own local distributions seem to be driven by prey availability.</description><subject>Activity patterns</subject><subject>Animal behavior</subject><subject>Cameras</subject><subject>Canis latrans</subject><subject>Coexistence</subject><subject>Coyotes</subject><subject>Diel activity</subject><subject>Foxes</subject><subject>Land use</subject><subject>Level (quantity)</subject><subject>Prey</subject><subject>Species</subject><subject>Statistical models</subject><subject>Sympatric populations</subject><subject>Urban areas</subject><subject>Urbanization</subject><subject>Urocyon cinereoargenteus</subject><subject>Vulpes vulpes</subject><subject>Wildlife</subject><subject>Wildlife management</subject><issn>1092-6194</issn><issn>1938-5307</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2019</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kMtKxDAUhoMoOI7u3AoBd2LHNElzWcp4BW8Lx1mWNE2ZDrUdkxRmdr6Db-iTeMqISyGHhP98_8nhR-g4JZNUZOKC8GxCqIAiageNUs1UkjEid-FNNE1Eqvk-OghhSUhKBdcjFOZ1U-KpaesSX9Uh-rroY9212LQgd4lbg-ha63ANGn4ysfem-f78mvnCtPjRgGONuwrHhcMvYHTO4zfTNG4zqHMHbj9wIRi76IOLMRyivco0wR393mM0u7l-nd4lD8-399PLh6RglMQky4wVRlFtdWUYZbbURBUgcVcRWlZUcsGlZEI5Li3JiqJ0UlUKjmbSWjZGp9u5K9999LBJvux638KXOaWSKKHTTAN1vqWs70LwrspXvn43fpOnJB9izSHWHGLNh1gBP9niyxA7_8dyJZTSRED_bNsv6g7S-H_YD-sWghA</recordid><startdate>20190401</startdate><enddate>20190401</enddate><creator>LeFlore, Eric G</creator><creator>Fuller, Todd K</creator><creator>Finn, John T</creator><creator>DeStefano, Stephen</creator><creator>Organ, John F</creator><general>Humboldt Field Research Institute</general><general>Eagle Hill Institute</general><general>Northeastern Naturalist</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>4T-</scope><scope>4U-</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7SS</scope><scope>7ST</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88A</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>BKSAR</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PADUT</scope><scope>PCBAR</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>S0X</scope><scope>SOI</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20190401</creationdate><title>Wild Canid Distribution and Co-existence in a Natural–Urban Matrix of the Pioneer Valley of Western Massachusetts</title><author>LeFlore, Eric G ; Fuller, Todd K ; Finn, John T ; DeStefano, Stephen ; Organ, John F</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-b320t-55ac6a829c9fa323cd908bc6a4ef02df2746477368e47c05bbde78f88f8937cc3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2019</creationdate><topic>Activity patterns</topic><topic>Animal behavior</topic><topic>Cameras</topic><topic>Canis latrans</topic><topic>Coexistence</topic><topic>Coyotes</topic><topic>Diel activity</topic><topic>Foxes</topic><topic>Land use</topic><topic>Level (quantity)</topic><topic>Prey</topic><topic>Species</topic><topic>Statistical models</topic><topic>Sympatric populations</topic><topic>Urban areas</topic><topic>Urbanization</topic><topic>Urocyon cinereoargenteus</topic><topic>Vulpes vulpes</topic><topic>Wildlife</topic><topic>Wildlife management</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>LeFlore, Eric G</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fuller, Todd K</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Finn, John T</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>DeStefano, Stephen</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Organ, John F</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Docstoc</collection><collection>University Readers</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Biology Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Agricultural &amp; Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>eLibrary</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection (ProQuest)</collection><collection>Earth, Atmospheric &amp; Aquatic Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Research Library China</collection><collection>Earth, Atmospheric &amp; Aquatic Science Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>SIRS Editorial</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><jtitle>Northeastern naturalist</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>LeFlore, Eric G</au><au>Fuller, Todd K</au><au>Finn, John T</au><au>DeStefano, Stephen</au><au>Organ, John F</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Wild Canid Distribution and Co-existence in a Natural–Urban Matrix of the Pioneer Valley of Western Massachusetts</atitle><jtitle>Northeastern naturalist</jtitle><date>2019-04-01</date><risdate>2019</risdate><volume>26</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>325</spage><epage>342</epage><pages>325-342</pages><issn>1092-6194</issn><eissn>1938-5307</eissn><abstract>Although development and urbanization are typically believed to have negative impacts on carnivoran species, some species can successfully navigate an urban matrix. Sympatric carnivorans compete for limited resources in urban areas, likely with system-specific impacts to their distributions and activity patterns. We used automatically triggered wildlife cameras to assess the local distribution and co-existence of Canis latrans (Coyote), Vulpes vulpes (Red Fox), and Urocyon cinereoargenteus (Gray Fox) across the Pioneer Valley, MA, in relation to different levels of human development. We placed cameras at 79 locations in forested, altered, and urban land-use areas from September to November 2012 and accumulated 1670 trap nights. We determined site characteristics and detection rates for 12 other wildlife species for each camera location to develop a generalized linear model for the local distribution of each focal canid species across the study area. We also compared diel activity patterns among Coyotes, Red Foxes, and Gray Foxes, and calculated coefficients of overlap between each pair. The local distribution of Coyotes was positively associated with the detection rates of their prey and not associated with detection rates of sympatric carnivoran species. Red Foxes and Gray Foxes had negative relationships with the detection rate of Coyotes, and none of the 3 canid species showed a positive correlation with increased levels of urbanization. There was a high degree of temporal overlap in diel activity patterns and limited spatial overlap of our focal species, which suggests that any competition avoidance across our study area occurred at the spatial level. Coyotes fill the role of top predator in the Pioneer Valley, and likely have a negative impact on the local distributions of smaller canids, while their own local distributions seem to be driven by prey availability.</abstract><cop>Steuben</cop><pub>Humboldt Field Research Institute</pub><doi>10.1656/045.026.0208</doi><tpages>18</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1092-6194
ispartof Northeastern naturalist, 2019-04, Vol.26 (2), p.325-342
issn 1092-6194
1938-5307
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_2270869159
source JSTOR Archive Collection A-Z Listing
subjects Activity patterns
Animal behavior
Cameras
Canis latrans
Coexistence
Coyotes
Diel activity
Foxes
Land use
Level (quantity)
Prey
Species
Statistical models
Sympatric populations
Urban areas
Urbanization
Urocyon cinereoargenteus
Vulpes vulpes
Wildlife
Wildlife management
title Wild Canid Distribution and Co-existence in a Natural–Urban Matrix of the Pioneer Valley of Western Massachusetts
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-09T13%3A49%3A33IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Wild%20Canid%20Distribution%20and%20Co-existence%20in%20a%20Natural%E2%80%93Urban%20Matrix%20of%20the%20Pioneer%20Valley%20of%20Western%20Massachusetts&rft.jtitle=Northeastern%20naturalist&rft.au=LeFlore,%20Eric%20G&rft.date=2019-04-01&rft.volume=26&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=325&rft.epage=342&rft.pages=325-342&rft.issn=1092-6194&rft.eissn=1938-5307&rft_id=info:doi/10.1656/045.026.0208&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_proqu%3E48688906%3C/jstor_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2270869159&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_jstor_id=48688906&rfr_iscdi=true