Urban coyotes select cryptic den sites near human development where conflict rates increase
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The establishment of coyote ( Canis latrans ) populations in urban areas across North America has been accompanied by increased rates of human–coyote conflict. One factor thought to promote physical conflict between coyotes and people or pets is the presence of coyote pups near natal dens; however, this idea has not been tested, and no multivariate study of den selection within cities has occurred. Our objectives were to conduct a multivariate analysis of third‐ (i.e., home range) and fourth‐order (i.e., den sites) habitat selection at dens and determine whether proximity to dens is associated with reports of physical conflict with coyotes. We found 120 dens by following coyote trails using snow tracking within urban green spaces that comprise presumed high‐quality habitat for coyotes in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. We used resource selection functions to assess habitat selection for dens, testing variables related to land cover and anthropogenic features at the third order, and testing microsite habitat features via paired sites at the fourth order. We defined conflict encounters from comments in a community reporting database and used general linear models to assess their spatial proximity to the nearest den and prevalence during the pup‐rearing period compared to the rest of the year. Habitat selection was strongest at the fourth order, wherein coyotes selected for abundant hiding cover, steep slopes, and eastern exposure. The prevalence of physical conflict with coyotes increased during the pup‐rearing period. Conflict also increased near known dens as an overall effect and when reports occurred outside of naturalized urban areas. These results suggest that coyotes in Edmonton den in green spaces near human development in microsites that minimize detection by people via steep slopes and dense vegetation. We suggest urban wildlife managers increase public safety education about recognition of coyote denning habitat and coyote defensive behaviors, especially outside of naturalized urban areas, because of the observed increase in physical conflict near dens.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".