Coyotes and White-Tailed Deer are two of the most “conspicuous” wildlife species in urban areas. They have constantly been in a predator-prey relationship since their ranges overlapped. Coyotes typically predate on fawns and scavenge on carrion from adults. This study hypothesized that “both deer and coyote detections will increase with distance to urban center; and decrease with housing density, road density, and human visitation” (Magle et. al, 2014). The researchers had a suspicion that human disturbance will cause more impact to the coyotes directly. The white-tail deer require quality vegetation and have to be selective on habitat traits to survive. Coyotes can have ranges that lack all green space as long as there is adequate food supply being other animals. They also hypothesized that “coyote and deer detections will increase with proximity to water, habitat-patch area, and canopy cover” (Magle et. al, 2014).

Methods

Using camera traps, the researchers followed three, 50km transects going away from Chicago’s urban center. These transects cover many forms of civilization being urban, suburban, exurban, and forest. Each transect contained 10, 5km sections that contained at least 2 stations, but not more than 4 in locations that contained potential habitat. 4 times a year a camera was deployed at each station for 30 days. They applied coyote attracting lures to each location. Using GIS, they quantified landscape attributes that can be used to understand the animals’ presence around human disturbances.

Results

1055/4679 photos were of deer and coyotes. 93 cameras total were operating during majority of the study. 22/93 of the cameras were never triggered by deer or coyotes. Deer were positively correlated to canopy cover and negatively correlated to distance to water source. Seasonal colonization of deer were negatively affected by housing density, patch area, and photos of humans and dogs on cameras. Coyotes detection had a positive correlation to season and canopy cover and distance from urban center. Coyotes displayed a negative affect when humans and dogs were reported on cameras. The presence of deer had no affect on the coyotes as to favor or not favoring their appearance. Deer did have a correlation with coyote appearance and was negatively affected if a coyote had been around recently. Urban center distance to locations where animals were reported on camera had no significant relationship. Deer were most active around dawn and dusk but coyotes were more active around midnight and miday. Hypothesis were supported by their research that both species would select patches on basic requirements. Deer appeared to show a pattern that in a habitat limited area, such as urban landscapes, they do not perceive threats as cautiously as they would in a rural environment. They are more willing to take risk to forage in urban landscapes where predators have been than they would in rural areas.

1. S. B. Magle, L. S. Simoni, E. W. Lehrer, J. S. Brown, Urban predator–prey association: Coyote and deer distributions in the Chicago Metropolitan Area. Urban Ecosystems. 17, 875–891 (2014).

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006320714002791?ref=pdf_download&fr=RR-2&rr=8c11bf51087b236b

Human development has affected large carnivores for centuries. As human development expands these predators have been extirpated from their once vast ranges. Cougars were once found throughout North America but are now restricted almost exclusively to the western part of the continent. Despite this, large predators have shown the ability to persist through a human-dominated landscape with many anthropogenic features. This study aimed to prove that cougars are capable of adjusting their behavior in order to survive and expand their population into these modified environments.

Over the last 20 years, Alberta, Canada has experienced gradual urbanization and population growth. Due to its rural nature and forested landscape it still supports a relatively stable cougar population in the west-central region. Researchers used telemetry collars on 42 cougars to track use of the landscape around anthropogenic features. These features included private lands, towns and industrial infrastructure from the forestry and natural gas industries. Individuals were split into two classes based on their home-range, Rural and Wilderness. Land cover maps with forest edges and continuous forest layers were generated for the landscape. Using GIS, roads, pipelines, seismic lines, and oil and gas well locations were included, buildings were added from satellite images. 

Exponential resource selection functions were used to pinpoint major landscape characteristics that influenced cougar selection. Through a 2-step approach, individual cougar responses were calculated separately and compared amongst themselves, to estimate functional response. Temporal changes were considered with runs of the model for night and day activity. Functional response was assessed through a plot of the top coefficients for each habitat type and the availability of it within each cougar’s home range. The study yielded variable results but some themes were consistent. Cougars selected most consistently for edge and avoided areas of high building density. Cougars were more likely to interact with anthropogenic features at night rather than during the day. Wilderness cougars avoided pipelines, seismic lines, and well-sites at a much higher rate than rural cougars, who may be used to them. Overall, these functional responses show that “cougars demonstrated reduced sensitivity in their selection of habitat near some anthropogenic features” in areas of high human development.

I think the classification of rural and wilderness cougars is a key highlight of this study. Animals that are more exposed to people will behave differently than more isolated species of the same species, so this is something they could not leave out. The anthropogenic features were well laid out and did a good job of describing the urban aspects of the landscape. I think agricultural infrastructure could’ve been focused on as well, especially in areas where cougars may kill livestock. The split of day and night also provides a deeper layer to the results though I am curious if they could have expanded further into exact periods such as dusk and dawn. The data analysis is well done and allowed the researchers to really justify their conclusions. 

Their discussion section does a nice job of relating their findings to those of other similar studies of cougars in other areas of the world. The study highlights that while cougars do avoid human development and activity, they may be able to adjust their selective behavior to coexist with it. The researchers suggest that ongoing conservation will only be supported if these selection thresholds are identified and kept in check. Humans must learn to live with large carnivores around them as their habitats experience increasing decline.

Knopff A.A, Knopff K.H, Boyce M.S, St. Clair C.C. 2014. Flexible habitat selection by cougars in response to anthropogenic development. Biological Conservation 178:136–145. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006320714002791?ref=pdf_download&fr=RR-2&rr=8c11bf51087b236b 

Pollinators are some of the world’s most important species, as they provide ecological services needed for agriculture, plant growth, and seed transportation. In urban areas, more and more pollinators are facing difficulties finding plants for pollination, especially native pollinators. This is due to degraded habitat, insecticides/pesticides, urban infrastructure, and human caused pollution. Riparian edges in and around urban areas are facing extreme degradation, as polluted runoff flows into these areas, people plant non-native or invasive species in these areas, or people use herbicides there. These areas are especially important for pollinators, whether they be migratory or native. This is especially important to me, as I work with bees, and am interested in working in the entomology field.

In a research article, Pollinators and urban riparian vegetation: important contributors to urban diversity conservation, from 2022, researchers did an observational study in which they recorded data comparing riparian vegetation and bee and butterfly abundance and richness. This study took place in Chongqing, China, along the Qingshui stream and the Phoenix Stream, (QS and PS from here on out). The study took place over a year, with observations occurring during each season, 11 times total. Plants were noted and identified on-site, with pollinators being collected in nets and taken back for proper identification. Using the Shannon-Wiener Index, richness index, and the Pielou Index, the researchers analyzed the richness and abundance of bees and butterflies along the two streams, and compared that data with the type of plants where they were found.

They found that the richness and abundance of native plants was very similar along both streams, but that composition of plants was very different. Unsurprisingly, higher bee and butterfly abundance and richness was observed during the spring and summer months, with it falling off a bit in the fall and winter months.  They found that bee and butterfly richness was significantly correlated with an abundance of native flowering vegetation. They also found that the habitat heterogeneity was more complex for butterflies than for bees. A section of QS had been destroyed due to herbicide use halfway through the experiment, and they observed an immediate decline in bee and butterfly populations along this section of the stream.

This paper shows the importance of preserving riparian buffers and edges in urban areas, but also preserving the integrity of these areas. Pollinators are extremely important to urban areas, as well as rural, and one way we can continue to promote them is through planting more native species. I think one way we could do this is by simply planting more native plants along sidewalks to increase pollinator presence, (at least in Raleigh), or by planting native pollinator plants in our gardens.

Zhang, X., Zhang, L., Wang, Y. et al. Pollinators and urban riparian vegetation: important contributors to urban diversity conservation. Environ Sci Eur 34, 78 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12302-022-00661-9

In the paper, Configuration and location of small urban gardens affect colonization by monarch butterflies, researchers conducted an observational experiment in order to see how urban gardens affect monarch butterfly migration, and how citizens and naturalists can more efficiently assist in the migration process. The main focus of these gardens was placement of milkweed species, where at least one Asclepias species was planted, either common, butterfly, swamp, or a combination thereof. The experiment took place on the east coast in the cities of Lexington and  Richmond, Virginia, and Berea, Kentucky. The experiment took place in 2017 and 2018, both years between the months of April- September. This period was split into April-July and June-September so that June and July had more data than the other months, as this is the peak butterfly migration period through this area of the US.

The experiment included 22 pre-existing registered Monarch Waystations, which were monitored in agreement with the property and land owners, and 15 gardens spread out that each had adjusted factors. Of the pre-registered Monarch Waystations, these were treated all the same, and were given the label of “structured” or “unstructured”, with “structured” meaning that the milkweeds were planted in an orderly array, and “unstructured” meaning they were mixed with other grasses, forbes, nectar-bearing plants, and other flowers. The gardens were set up in 5.5 x 5.5 meter plots, with three different set treatments. The first treatment was the “perimeter milkweeds”, where the flowers were placed in a 1 meter wide perimeter around the garden, evenly spaced out, with the other types of nectaring and foliage plants in the middle of the plot. The second treatment was essentially the inverse of that, referred to as the “interior milkweeds”, where the milkweeds were planted on the interior of the plot, evenly spaced, with the other plants along the perimeter. The third treatment was labeled as “mixed”, where the milkweeds were randomly dispersed around the garden with the other plants. Water, soil, nutrients, and weeds were all control factors, though predators were unable to be. The plants were each checked for pupae and larval spottings then left to continue pupating. 

How the gardens were set up.

At the end of the experiment, the scientists compiled the number of monarch pupas, eggs, and larva along with the type of treatment they were found on, and compared the data. They found that monarch butterflies were 2.5-4 times more likely to be drawn to the milkweed plants that were around the perimeter of the gardens rather than on the inside or mixed. They were also more drawn to the milkweeds that were separated from other plants, or that were not touching other plants. At the Monarch Waystations, the researchers found that the Monarchs were 5 x more likely to use a structured Waystation than an unstructured one. 

I think this paper is really interesting, as it applies directly to where I live, and also my area of interest. Monarch butterflies are an endangered species that have recently seen an 80% decrease in population in the last 25 years. This means that we must make efforts to attempt to support them on their migrational journey. Urban areas affect these populations of butterflies via light pollution, sometimes drawing them towards those urban areas, or causing them to migrate at night. If more Monarchs find themselves in urban areas, then urban areas need to be able to have plans and projects in place to assist this migration, even if it is simply through encouraging citizens to create and cultivate more Monarch-focused gardens that are planted efficiently. 

Baker, Adam M., and Daniel A. Potter. “Configuration and location of small urban gardens affect colonization by monarch butterflies.” Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution 7 (2019): 474.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/gcb.12884

As urbanization continues around the world wildlife are affected by a variety of artificial factors. Artificial lighting is a strong factor that affects nocturnal wildlife in urban areas. Bats in particular can be impacted by artificial lighting, as it may disrupt their movement and behavior. The common pipistrelle (Pipistrellus pipistrellus) is an urban dwelling bat commonly found in cities of the United Kingdom. Researchers in this study explored the relationship between pipistrelle movement between tree cover gaps and crossing distance and light intensity. 

Through stratified sampling in England’s West Midlands, gaps in urban tree cover were selected for surveying. These gaps varied in distance and lighting level and were surveyed using bat detectors and researchers who recorded their flight path. After surveying, logistic regression models were generated to identify minimum lighting levels required to create a barrier effect. These thresholds modelled as a function of crossing distance. The model was applied to Birmingham, England maps of tree cover and artificial lighting to create a model of landscape resistance to bat movement due to light. Future urban lighting scenarios were considered through these spatial models. The majority of pipistrelles crossed in the darker parts of the gaps indicating an aversion to light pollution. Light requirements to create a barrier reduced as crossing distances increased. 

A strength of this paper is the layout of the methods section. It is split into 5 distinct subsections that clearly describe the study. Each subsection is very thorough and explains the reasoning behind many of the team’s decisions. I think the location of the study was a good choice because it can be generalized across the UK, as many of the urban centers have similar structural layouts. The model can be applied to maps of different cities for further research. The study could have benefitted from a second city with a more rural landscape to compare the differences in bat cover gap usage. 

I think the potential lighting scenario models should have been further explored with a few more scenarios. They only looked at a Bright City and Dark City model in their analysis. If a moderately lit city model was included additional conclusions could have been drawn. Additional species could have been included as well to add more complexity to the results. The results section is very concise and clearly explains their findings. The discussion is quite thorough and does a good job of looking to the future. Further research can explore the dimming of artificial light sources during periods of high wildlife activity. Other nocturnal wildlife species should also be studied to assess their tolerance and reactions to artificial light.

Hale, J.D., Fairbrass, A.J., Matthews, T.J., Davies, G. and Sadler, J.P. (2015), The ecological impact of city lighting scenarios: exploring gap crossing thresholds for urban bats. Glob Change Biol, 21: 2467-2478. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12884

As the world becomes rapidly urbanized, wildlife habitats become more encroached upon, leading to greater wildlife colonization of urban habitats. This has led to a dramatic increase in human-wildlife conflicts (HWC), be it threats to human life, wildlife attacks on pets, vehicle collisions, or property damage. Attitudes and perceptions of people within urban areas directly impact how urban wildlife is managed; this highlights the importance of having a well-developed understanding of attitudes towards wildlife. The paper “Perceptions and Attitudes to Understand the human-wildlife Conflict in an Urban Landscape – A Systematic Review” explores that by reviewing many studies and drawing conclusions about the relationship between public opinion and wildlife management. 

The systematic review seeks to answer two questions: How were the perceptions or attitudes of urban residents used to understand urban HWC, and how does the inclusion of citizens’ perceptions or attitudes assist in reducing urban HWC? The authors utilized the PRISMA framework for their systematic review, which are academic standards and protocols to review large amounts of research articles that allow other researchers to reproduce their findings. It’s a transparent research methodology. The inclusion criteria of the paper can be summarized by the papers being relevant to the stated research question, the paper being published after the year 1999, the paper being written in English (which may be a limitation to the study, given its global applicability), the paper being peer-reviewed. The exclusion criteria of the paper can be summarized by relevance to public perception through questionnaires or surveys, non-wild species (such as domesticated animals), and studies conducted in rural areas or laboratory environments. Refer to Figure 1, a graphic representation of the PRISMA framework.

After the literature was screened, the data was extracted from them; several graphical representations were made to show the geographical distribution of the research and the frequency of keywords through word clouds. The country with the largest number of studies was the United States, with 43 research articles comprising 34.68% of the literature. Of that 43 articles, 52 species out of the 56 species mentioned in those papers were mammals and mainly predators (bears, grey wolves, coyotes, and cougars); this made me wonder if this was caused by the large controversy of reintroducing tertiary predators out west. If so, understanding public opinion in those communities would be important because it’s a divisive issue, with some communities being strongly opposed due to livestock predation, property damage, and generally posing a threat to human safety. On the other side of the debate, environmentalists strongly support the reintroduction of predators to restore ecological balance and control prey populations.

The takeaways the authors had for the reader were as follows. Frequent observations of wildlife boost tolerance levels among residents in urban areas, leading to more preference for less lethal wildlife management strategies to mitigate and control conflicts. A large limitation of the current literature on public perception and attitudes is that it fails to address more than one species on a longer time scale. There was a lack of longitudinal studies to study the changes in public perceptions, which should be a high priority among researchers given its impact on effective wildlife management. Addressing that research gap could provide valuable insights into how urban communities evolve in their understanding and acceptance of wildlife.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1470160X23004612

In Malaysia, many of their cities have monkeys interacting with urban areas. Some individuals label monkeys as ‘pests’, due to their behavior. There has be an increase of complaints of urban monkeys, this causes management strategies to mainly reduce human populations that impact animals welfare/conservation. This study aims to see how human activity influences the ecological activity’s of the long-tailed macaque.

Methods

The research took place in Bukit Melawati and Kuala Selangor, which are both known to be a popular tourism site. The study site was divide into 3 zones, these zones included high/medium/low traffic sites. These sites were determined by interviews with residents and determined by team observations.

The research used instantaneous scan sampling for behavior sampling. LTM were observed daily from 9:00 to 17:00, individuals were recorded at specific time points at varying intervals (3 -11 minutes long). A total of 1761 scans were conducted across all time points. Behaviors were categorized into aggression, self-grooming, feeding natural, feeding unnatural, inactive, affiliative interaction, sexual, and travel. Researcher also recorded the type of structures the LTM occupied.

The research analyzed the data by bootstrapping, using a generalized linear model, and a percentage calculation.

Figure 1 – Study area

Results

From the results it was found that the LTM were observed to be traveling, inactive, interacting with other monkeys, and feeding naturally in 94% of the scans (figure 2). Of all of the unnatural feeding, only 10/6% were by humans. Out of all of the inactive LTMS, 54% were alert inactive.

Figure 2. – Activity of LTM

Observations were mostly during the early morning, followed by early evenings, late evenings, late morning, and afternoon. But these results are not a true representation of LTM present but the amount of time observed. Figure 3A shows the activity budget proportions of LTM

Figure 3 – Activity budget based on time of day, zone, weather, and presence of humans

Based on figure 3B, it showed that most LTM were observed in medium traffic areas. LTM had more time feeding in low traffic zones compared to the rest. Which can lead to to how human presence having an effect on the LTM. In figure 3D, it showed that LTM fed 9.9% of time in the presence of humans compared to 12.8% of the time.

Conclusions.

From the study it showed that LTM can be highly adaptive as they alter their behavior to survive in urban areas. The study also showed that human presence influences LTM behavior, as seen from figure 3. They potentially see humans as threat, due to their feeding being higher when they are not in the presence of humans. This study can help future conservation efforts with LTM.

Study Limitation

I believe one major study limitation of this study was not considering age/sex categories. I believe if this study used that kind of category it would of be very useful. It could possibly show variation of the LTM.

Another study limitation from the research is that it was too short. The study I believed should of been much longer. The study was over a 4 month long period, which doesn’t seem like a lot of time to study behavioral changes of a species.

Entezami, M., Mustaqqim, F., Morris, E., Lim, E. S. H., Prada, J. M., & Paramasivam, S. J. (2024). Effect of human activity and presence on the behavior of long-tailed macaques (Macaca fascicularis) in an urban tourism site in Kuala Selangor, Malaysia. Animals, 14(8), 1173. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani14081173

Overview

Urban coyote sightings are becoming more and more common and are eliciting attention from every direction. Coyotes will shift their hunting patterns if they commonly visit an urban area. They do so by becoming more nocturnal and coming out during times of the night that has less human activity. Urban carnivores, such as coyotes, are likely to visit residential yards for a multitude of reasons. One reason can be due to individual health. Urban wildlife have began associating humans with food, anthropogenic food that is, and this is causing an increase in human wildlife interactions/conflicts. A sick coyote is definitely more likely to search for an easy meal and urban residents often have just what the sick animal is looking for. When an animal is sick, they are said to have a greater acceptance of risk, which can explain why sick animals are more willing to approach objects that a healthy carnivore would be afraid of. Mange has been the most common disease that has been noted from previous studies in sick urban coyotes. Hypothesis for this study was that coyotes use residential yards that contain anthropogenic food sources but also contain cover to conceal them and can vary amongst their body condition. The study took place in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. The coyotes were trapped using padded foothold traps. They were then collared and released. They created 7 landcover types and 4 land use categories to understand a coyotes habitat selection. They also decided to research the time of day that coyotes were entering these residential areas to understand the correlation between human activity and coyote activity.

Results

Healthy coyotes were 4 times more likely to avoid residential areas than sick coyotes even though all but 2 coyotes avoided urban settings. Coyotes tended to avoid residential areas more during the daytime hours than at night. Backyards with fences were 67% less likely to be selected by coyotes, 22% more likely to contain a food source, 3.3% of yards preferred had more cover and 1.3% had more fallen fruit. Diseased coyotes did tend to use residential areas more during the daytime hours than healthy coyotes. Sick coyotes were using anthropogenic housing more frequent then healthy coyotes. With these results, it led the researchers to believe that human-carnivore interactions are more likely to be caused by a sick animal trying to live an easier life than a healthy specimen.

Implications

This study can help explain many reasons one may be seeing an urban carnivore. Some key components to take away from this study is ensuring all trash is kept up and locked up, yards are fenced, bushes are trimmed, decks are sealed off and compost piles are not smelly or wide open. Some things that I think should be taken into consideration is the time of the year. Certain times of the year can change habits. In a time of the year where there is less natural food, you may be more willing to see an urban predator. During spring when young is born for all species, it is likely that there will be less activity seen in an urban environment. Also, location can play a big role in this. This study was only focused in one city in Canada. Different parts of North America can contain coyotes with different habits and mindsets. Chicago is notorious for having coyotes seen during the daytime. They have gotten used to people and there is loads of anthropogenic food sources there.

Source

M. H. Murray, C. C. St. Clair, Predictable features attract urban coyotes to residential yards. The Journal of Wildlife Management. 81, 593–600 (2017).