You are here
Ecology and Vulnerability Coyote
Ecology and Vulnerability
Coyote
Photo credit: Bill Byrne, MassWildlife
Background
The coyote is a highly adaptable, generalist mammal species that has flourished in the face of human-induced rapid environmental change1,2. ... Read More
Background
The coyote is a highly adaptable, generalist mammal species that has flourished in the face of human-induced rapid environmental change1,2. Originally limited to the western plains, the disappearance of the wolf allowed coyotes to greatly expand their range3,4. Coyotes are now found across most of the continent and can even be found in urban areas3. In the northeast, coyotes expanding eastward came into contact with low density wolf populations, resulting in some inter-breeding and hybridization5,6. These ‘eastern coyotes’ are larger than the western version and have a diet that relies more on white-tailed deer than in other parts of the expanded range3. Coyotes can be found in every town in Massachusetts with the exception of those on Martha’s Vineyard and Nantucket7.
Climate Impacts
Among generalist species, coyotes have been called the ‘champions of change’2. They can travel long distances, exist in a wide range of habitat types, and feed on various types of prey including a wide range of vegetation, invertebrates, and live and dead vertebrates8. Such generalist species are more likely to persist during periods of rapid environmental change than specialist species8,9.
Due to the generalist nature of coyotes, it seems unlikely that climate change will have an impact on the current distribution of coyotes in the state. Climatic variables are poor predictors of coyote distributions through past periods of climate change, suggesting that distributions were determined by factors not directly related to climate4. However, effects on coyote abundance are unclear, although coyote numbers are typically tied to the amount and availability of prey species10,11,12. Some researchers have observed a trend toward greater coyote abundances at lower latitudes and interpreted this to be a result of greater food availability in southern regions during the critical winter months13. If this interpretation is correct, milder winters may result in higher abundances in Massachusetts. However, potential climate related impacts on coyote abundance will likely depend on climate related impacts to prey species abundances.
1. Dowd, J.L.B., and E.M. Gese. 2012. Seasonal variation of coyote diet in northwestern Wyoming: implications for dietary overlap with Canada lynx? Northwest Science 86:289-299.
2. Levy, S. 2012. The new top dog. Nature 485:296-297.
3. Gompper, M.E. 2002. Top carnivores in the suburbs? Ecological and conservation issues raised by colonization of north-eastern North America by coyotes. BioScience 52:185-190.
4. Martínez-Meyer, E., A.T. Peterson, and W.W. Hargrove. 2004. Ecological niches as stable distributional constraints on mammal species, with implications for Pleistocene extinctions and climate change projections for biodiversity. Global Ecology and Biogeography 13:305-314.
5. Wheeldon, T., B. Patterson, and B. White. 2009. Colonization history and ancestry of northeastern coyotes. Biology Letters 6:246-247.
6. Monzón, J., R. Kays, and D.E. Dykhuizen. 2014. Assessment of coyote–wolf–dog admixture using ancestry-informative diagnostic SNPs. Molecular Ecology 23:182-197.
7. Massachusetts EEA. 2015. Eastern coyote. The Official Website of the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs. <http://www.mass.gov/eea/agencies/dfg/dfw/fish-wildlife-plants/mammals/ea.... (Accessed on 21 April 2015).
8. Koblmüller, S., R.K. Wayne, and J.A. Leonard. 2012. Impact of Quaternary climatic changes and interspecific competition on the demographic history of a highly mobile generalist carnivore, the coyote. Biology Letters 8:644-647.
9. Malcolm, J.R., A. Markham, R.P. Neilson, and M. Garaci. 2002. Estimated migration rates under scenarios of global climate change. Journal of Biogeography 29:835-849.
10. Todd, A.W., and L.B. Keith. 1983. Coyote demography during a snowshoe hare decline in Alberta. The Journal of Wildlife Management 47:394-404.
11. Knowlton, F.F., and E.M. Gese. 1995. Coyote population processes revisited. Pages 1-6 in D. Rollins, C. Richardson, T. Blankenship, K. Canon, and S. Henke, editors. Coyotes in the southwest: a compendium of our knowledge. Tex. Parks Wildl. Dep., Austin, Tex.
12. O’Donoghue, M., S. Boutin, C.J. Krebs, and E.J. Hofer. 1997. Numerical responses of coyotes and lynx to the snowshoe hare cycle. Oikos 80:150-167.
13. Windberg, L.A. 1995. Demography of a high-density coyote population. Canadian Journal of Zoology 73:942-954.
Although this species was identified as not vulnerable to climate change, the following factors increase vulnerability:
- Has already experienced slight variations in annual... Read More
Although this species was identified as not vulnerable to climate change, the following factors increase vulnerability:
- Has already experienced slight variations in annual precipitation (over the last 50 years)
The factors below decrease this species' vulnerability to climate change:
- Ability to move across the landscape and/or disperse relatively long distances
- Not restricted by the need for specialized habitat
- Does not require a specialized diet (eats a wide variety of foods)
Hoving, C.L., Y.M. Lee, P.J. Badra, and B.J. Klatt. 2013. Changing climate, changing wildlife: a vulnerability assessment of 400 Species of Greatest Conservation Need and game species in Michigan. Wildlife Division Report No. 3564. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Lansing, MI. Available from: https://www.michigan.gov/documents/dnr/3564_Climate_Vulnerability_Divisi...
Related Adaptation Strategies and Actions
Related Habitats (broad)
Related Habitats (detailed)
Related Species Groups
My Favorites
Show my favoritesHide my favorites
More info
Bookmark your favorite pages here. See the "add this page link" to add a page to your favorites. Click the X to remove a page from the list.
