Remington J. Moll, Austin M. Green, Maximilian L. Allen, Roland Kays
{"title":"People or predators? Comparing habitat-dependent effects of hunting and large carnivores on the abundance of North America's top mesocarnivore","authors":"Remington J. Moll, Austin M. Green, Maximilian L. Allen, Roland Kays","doi":"10.1111/ecog.07390","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Variation in animal abundance is shaped by scale-dependent habitat, competition, and anthropogenic influences. Coyotes <i>Canis latrans</i> have dramatically increased in abundance while expanding their range over the past 100 years. Management goals typically seek to lower coyote populations to reduce their threats to humans, pets, livestock and sensitive prey. Despite their outsized ecological and social roles in the Americas, the factors affecting coyote abundance across their range remain unclear. We fit Royle–Nichols abundance models at two spatial scales in a Bayesian hierarchical framework to three years of data from 4587 camera trap sites arranged in 254 arrays across the contiguous USA to assess how habitat, large carnivores, anthropogenic development and hunting regulations affect coyote abundance. Coyote abundance was highest in southwestern USA and lowest in the northeast. Abundance responded to some factors as expected, including positive (soft mast, agriculture, grass/shrub habitat, urban–natural edge) and negative (latitude and forest cover) relationships. Colonization date had a negative relationship, suggesting coyote populations have not reached carrying capacity in recently colonized regions. Several relationships were scale-dependent, including urban development, which was negative at local (100-m) scales but positive at larger (5-km) scales. Large carnivore effects were habitat-dependent, with sometimes opposing relationships manifesting across variation in forest cover and urban development. Coyote abundance was higher where human hunting was permitted, and this relationship was strongest at local scales. These results, including a national map of coyote abundance, update ecological understanding of coyotes and can inform coyote management at local and landscape scales. These findings expand results from local studies suggesting that directly hunting coyotes does not decrease their abundance and may actually increase it. Ongoing large carnivore recoveries globally will likely affect subordinate carnivore abundance, but not in universally negative ways, and our work demonstrates how such effects can be habitat and scale dependent.","PeriodicalId":51026,"journal":{"name":"Ecography","volume":"242 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ecography","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/ecog.07390","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Variation in animal abundance is shaped by scale-dependent habitat, competition, and anthropogenic influences. Coyotes Canis latrans have dramatically increased in abundance while expanding their range over the past 100 years. Management goals typically seek to lower coyote populations to reduce their threats to humans, pets, livestock and sensitive prey. Despite their outsized ecological and social roles in the Americas, the factors affecting coyote abundance across their range remain unclear. We fit Royle–Nichols abundance models at two spatial scales in a Bayesian hierarchical framework to three years of data from 4587 camera trap sites arranged in 254 arrays across the contiguous USA to assess how habitat, large carnivores, anthropogenic development and hunting regulations affect coyote abundance. Coyote abundance was highest in southwestern USA and lowest in the northeast. Abundance responded to some factors as expected, including positive (soft mast, agriculture, grass/shrub habitat, urban–natural edge) and negative (latitude and forest cover) relationships. Colonization date had a negative relationship, suggesting coyote populations have not reached carrying capacity in recently colonized regions. Several relationships were scale-dependent, including urban development, which was negative at local (100-m) scales but positive at larger (5-km) scales. Large carnivore effects were habitat-dependent, with sometimes opposing relationships manifesting across variation in forest cover and urban development. Coyote abundance was higher where human hunting was permitted, and this relationship was strongest at local scales. These results, including a national map of coyote abundance, update ecological understanding of coyotes and can inform coyote management at local and landscape scales. These findings expand results from local studies suggesting that directly hunting coyotes does not decrease their abundance and may actually increase it. Ongoing large carnivore recoveries globally will likely affect subordinate carnivore abundance, but not in universally negative ways, and our work demonstrates how such effects can be habitat and scale dependent.
期刊介绍:
ECOGRAPHY publishes exciting, novel, and important articles that significantly advance understanding of ecological or biodiversity patterns in space or time. Papers focusing on conservation or restoration are welcomed, provided they are anchored in ecological theory and convey a general message that goes beyond a single case study. We encourage papers that seek advancing the field through the development and testing of theory or methodology, or by proposing new tools for analysis or interpretation of ecological phenomena. Manuscripts are expected to address general principles in ecology, though they may do so using a specific model system if they adequately frame the problem relative to a generalized ecological question or problem.
Purely descriptive papers are considered only if breaking new ground and/or describing patterns seldom explored. Studies focused on a single species or single location are generally discouraged unless they make a significant contribution to advancing general theory or understanding of biodiversity patterns and processes. Manuscripts merely confirming or marginally extending results of previous work are unlikely to be considered in Ecography.
Papers are judged by virtue of their originality, appeal to general interest, and their contribution to new developments in studies of spatial and temporal ecological patterns. There are no biases with regard to taxon, biome, or biogeographical area.