18 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

    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

    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

    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

    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