22 research outputs found

    Home-range sizes of resident coyotes regressed against the percentages of agricultural habitats within home ranges (<i>r</i><sup>2</sup> = 0.39, <i>P</i> < 0.001).

    No full text
    <p>Home-range sizes of resident coyotes regressed against the percentages of agricultural habitats within home ranges (<i>r</i><sup>2</sup> = 0.39, <i>P</i> < 0.001).</p

    Habitat availability and habitat proportions of space used by resident and transient coyotes in northeastern North Carolina during 2009–2011.

    No full text
    <p>Asterisks above the bars represent statistical differences among areas within habitat classes (<i>P</i> < 0.05, Tukey’s test). Study area proportions are shown for reference.</p

    Mean (± SE) body mass, age, and space use of resident and transient coyotes in northeastern North Carolina during 2009–2011.

    No full text
    <p><sup>1</sup>Growing season space use was defined as areas used during March through August.</p><p><sup>2</sup>Harvest season space use was defined as areas used during September through February.</p><p><sup>3</sup>Composite space use was defined as the total area used.</p><p><sup>4</sup>95% probability contour calculated from dynamic Brownian bridge movement models used to estimate the sizes of resident home ranges and transient ranges.</p><p><sup>5</sup>50% probability contour calculated from dynamic Brownian bridge movement models used to estimate the sizes of resident core areas and transient biding areas.</p><p>Mean (± SE) body mass, age, and space use of resident and transient coyotes in northeastern North Carolina during 2009–2011.</p

    Map of the Albemarle Peninsula of northeastern North Carolina with primary habitat types during 2009–2011.

    No full text
    <p>Map of the Albemarle Peninsula of northeastern North Carolina with primary habitat types during 2009–2011.</p

    Relative probability of 3<sup>rd</sup>-order habitat selection by transient coyotes across the Albemarle Peninsula in northeastern North Carolina during 2009–2011.

    No full text
    <p>Relative probability of 3<sup>rd</sup>-order habitat selection by transient coyotes across the Albemarle Peninsula in northeastern North Carolina during 2009–2011.</p

    Relative probability of 3<sup>rd</sup>-order habitat selection by resident coyotes across the Albemarle Peninsula in northeastern North Carolina during 2009–2011.

    No full text
    <p>Relative probability of 3<sup>rd</sup>-order habitat selection by resident coyotes across the Albemarle Peninsula in northeastern North Carolina during 2009–2011.</p

    Transient locations and estimated home ranges of coyotes 505M and 613M in eastern North Carolina.

    No full text
    <p>Coyote 505M was monitored as a transient from 16 April 2009 until 31 May 2009. Coyote 505M established a territory approximately 1 June 2009 and maintained it until 27 October 2009 when he was displaced by a neighboring red wolf pack. Coyote 613M was monitored as a transient from 7 January 2011 until 4 April 2011. Coyote 613M established a territory approximately 5 April 2011 after the resident red wolf pack dissolved after the death of a breeder. Coyote 613M was monitored as a resident from 5 April 2011 until 16 August 2012 when his GPS collar failed.</p

    Habitat selection and diurnal refugia of gray foxes in southwestern Georgia, USA

    No full text
    <div><p>Understanding habitat selection of gray foxes (<i>Urocyon cinereoargenteus</i>) is essential to evaluate their potential response to changes in land use and predator communities. Few studies have evaluated temporal habitat selection or explicitly identified habitats used by gray foxes for diurnal refugia. We used GPS collars to obtain location data for 34 gray foxes (20 males and 14 females) from February 2014 to December 2015 to evaluate temporal (seasonal and diel) habitat selection and selection of diurnal refugia in southwestern Georgia, USA. We analyzed habitat selection at 2 levels, selection of a core area within the home range and selection of locations within the home range. Habitat selection was non-random (<i>P</i> < 0.001) but consistent among seasons, between day and night, and between sexes (<i>P</i> > 0.05). Hardwoods, human use (i.e., areas associated with regular human activity such as buildings, lawns, parking areas, etc.), and roads were selected (<i>P</i> < 0.05), whereas pine dominated stands were used randomly (<i>P</i> > 0.05). Selection of habitats for diurnal refugia did not vary seasonally or by sex (<i>P</i> > 0.05), with foxes selecting (<i>P</i> < 0.05) areas near hardwood forests, roads, agriculture, human use, pastures/food plots, and shrub scrub habitats. Gray foxes were observed on the ground while resting, and we found no evidence of gray foxes diurnally resting in trees. Our results suggest that on our study area, gray foxes are an edge species that prefer forests with a hardwood component in areas near human use and roads.</p></div

    Summary of results from mixed-effect Bayesian resource selection model with interaction of status (resident = 1, transient = 0) for red wolves in eastern North Carolina during 2009–2011.

    Get PDF
    <p>Summary of results from mixed-effect Bayesian resource selection model with interaction of status (resident = 1, transient = 0) for red wolves in eastern North Carolina during 2009–2011.</p

    Habitat availability and habitat proportions of space used by resident and transient red wolves in northeastern North Carolina during 2009–2011.

    No full text
    <p>Asterisks above the bars represent statistical differences among areas within habitat classes (<i>P</i> < 0.05, Tukey’s test). Study area proportions are shown for reference.</p
    corecore