Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41407910›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

Large-scale experimental assessment of coyote behavior across urban and rural landscapes.

Julie K Young, Roland Kays, Austin M Green, Remington J Moll, Jeffrey T Schultz, John F Benson, Sarah Benson-Amram, Justin Brown, Grayson Cahal, Benjamin S Carr and 23 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

33 authors.

Julie K YoungDepartment of Wildland Resources & Ecology Center, Utah State University, Logan, UT, 84322, USA. julie.young@usu.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4522-0157
Roland KaysNorth Carolina Museum of Natural Sciences, Raleigh, NC 27612, USA & Dept. Forestry and Environmental Resources, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, 27612, USA.
Austin M GreenUniversity of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, 84112, USA.
Remington J MollDepartment of Natural Resources and the Environment, University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH, 03824, USA.
Jeffrey T SchultzUSDA-National Wildlife Research Center, Predator Research Facility, Millville, UT, 84326, USA.
John F BensonSchool of Natural Resources, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE, 68583, USA.
Sarah Benson-AmramDepartment of Forest and Conservation Sciences, Department of Zoology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, V6T 1Z4, Canada.
Justin BrownNational Park Service, Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area, 1 Baxter Way, Suite 180, Thousand Oaks, CA, 91362, USA.
Grayson CahalSchool of Environment and Natural Resources, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, 43210, USA.
Benjamin S CarrWarnell School of Forestry and Natural Resources, University of Georgia, Athens, GA, 30622, USA.
Jonathon D CepekNatural Resources, Cleveland Metroparks, Strongsville, OH, 44149, USA.
Emily DavisZoology & Physiology Department, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY, 82071, USA.
Kyle D DoughertySchool of Natural Resources, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE, 68583, USA.
Travis GalloDepartment of Environmental Science and Technology, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA.
Stan D GehrtSchool of Environment and Natural Resources, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, 43210, USA.
Kaitlin O GoodeUrban Wildlife Program, Department of Natural Resources - Wildlife Resources Division, 30025, Social Circle, GA, USA.
Trayl GraceSchool of Biological Sciences, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, 84112, USA.
Molly HenlingSchool of Environmental and Forest Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, 98195, USA.
Lucian HimesNatural Science Division, Pepperdine University, Malibu, CA, USA.
Stephanie KellerUSDA-National Wildlife Research Center, Predator Research Facility, Millville, UT, 84326, USA.
Michel T KohlWarnell School of Forestry and Natural Resources, University of Georgia, Athens, GA, 30622, USA.
Scott LaPoint, Black Rock Forest, Cornwall, NY, 12518, USA.
Javier MonzónNatural Science Division, Pepperdine University, Malibu, CA, USA.
Christopher NagyMianus River Gorge, Inc, New York City, NY, USA.
Emma PalmerBarnard College, New York City, NY, 10027, USA.
Laura R PrughSchool of Environmental and Forest Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, 98195, USA.
Sam RaberSchool of Biological Sciences, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, 84112, USA.
Kate RitzelDepartment of Environmental Science and Policy, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA, 22030, USA.
Seth P D RileyNational Park Service, Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area, 1 Baxter Way, Suite 180, Thousand Oaks, CA, 91362, USA.
Christopher J SchellDepartment of Environmental Science, Policy, and Management, University of California Berkeley, 130 Mulford Hall, Berkeley, CA, 94720-3114, USA.
Çağan H ŞekercioğluSchool of Biological Sciences, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, 84112, USA.
Lauren StantonDepartment of Environmental Science, Policy, and Management, University of California Berkeley, 130 Mulford Hall, Berkeley, CA, 94720-3114, USA.
Stewart W BreckUSDA-National Wildlife Research Center, Predator Research Facility, Millville, UT, 84326, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Carnivores must navigate the complexities of human modifications to their environment. Natural resources and biodiversity decline in urban areas, while people in rural areas often pose greater direct risk through actions such as hunting. To evaluate if carnivore populations adapt their behavior to local risks in rural and urban environments, we compared behavioral responses to novel objects in coyotes (Canis latrans). We placed an attractant at arrays of 30 camera-trap stations at 16 pairs of urban and rural field sites across the USA, with a novel object placed at half of the stations. Coyotes exhibited more cautious behavior and remained farther from the attractant at all sites with the novel object; however, urban coyotes got closer to the attractant than rural coyotes. There were few behavioral differences between urban and rural coyotes and none between eastern and western coyotes. Coyotes across the USA exhibit neophobic behavior but urban coyotes, especially western coyotes, are willing to take more risk (i.e., be closer to the attractant). The consistency in most metrics of coyote behavior suggest that solutions developed in one area could be universally useful. This study also demonstrates the effectiveness of a large, collaborative approach to studying broad-scale patterns in behavioral traits.

Indexed as

Behavior, AnimalCoyotesAnimalsEcosystemHumansRural PopulationUnited StatesBayesian statisticsBehaviorCanis latransDetectionNovel objectUrbanization

Identifiers

PMID41407910
PMCPMC12830961

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.