Fig 1.
Map of the Cuyahoga Valley and 3 land cover categories, Ohio 2010–2012.
Table 1.
Land use, descriptions, and classifications of land covers available to coyotes (Canis latrans) radio-collared in the Cuyahoga Valley, Ohio, 2010–2012.
Table 2.
Composite home range (95% a-LoCoH), core area (50% a-LoCoH), and 95% MCP for coyotes (Canis latrans) radio-collared in the Cuyahoga Valley, Ohio, 2010–2012.
Table 3.
Seasonal home range (95% a-LoCoH), core area (50% a-LoCoH), and 95% MCP for resident coyotes (Canis latrans) radio-collared in the Cuyahoga Valley, Ohio, 2010–2012.
Fig 2.
Home ranges of resident coyotes (Canis latrans) that are (a) fragmented and bordered by roads or (b) almost completely surrounded by developed land in the Cuyahoga Valley, Ohio, 2010–2012.
Fig 3.
Percentage of the three broad land cover types comprising composite and seasonal resident coyote (n = 13) (a) home ranges and (b) core areas in the Cuyahoga Valley, Ohio, 2010–2012.
Fig 4.
Relationship between resident coyote (n = 13, Canis latrans) composite (a) home range and (b) core area size and the percentage of altered and developed land cover types within, Cuyahoga Valley, Ohio, 2010–2012.
Table 4.
Percentage of coyote (n = 27 individuals, Canis latrans) locations found within the three broad land cover categories throughout diel periods in the Cuyahoga Valley, Ohio, 2010–2012.
Fig 5.
Interaction plots of a) Sex*Land Cover, b) Status*Land Cover, c) Time Period*Land Cover, d) Land Cover* Distance to Roads, and e) Time Period*Distance to Roads for the top model in the composite home range model set, of coyotes (Canis latrans) radio-collared in the Cuyahoga Valley, Ohio, 2010–2012.
Table 5.
Top models representing resource selection within composite and seasonal home ranges of coyotes (Canis latrans) radio-collared in the Cuyahoga Valley, Ohio, 2010–2012.
Rows shown in bold indicate top models (ΔAICc < 2), df = degrees of freedom, ΔAICc = deviation for AICc compared with top model, weight = AICc weight.
Table 6.
Beta coefficients of the top models (ΔAICc < 2) in composite model sets used to determine land cover selection of coyotes (Canis latrans) radio-collared in the Cuyahoga Valley, Ohio, 2010–2012.
Fig 6.
Interaction plots of a) Season*Land Cover, and b) Season*Distance to Roads for the top model in the seasonal home range model set of coyotes (Canis latrans) radio-collared in the Cuyahoga Valley, Ohio, 2010–2012.
Table 7.
Beta coefficients of the top models (ΔAICc < 2) in the seasonal model sets used to determine land cover selection of coyotes (Canis latrans) radio-collared in the Cuyahoga Valley, Ohio, 2010–2012.
Fig 7.
Seasonal activity patterns of GPS collared resident and transient coyotes (Canis latrans) in the Cuyahoga Valley, OH, 2010–2012.
Table 8.
Top models showing results from top GLMMs comparing model fitness for 1.5 h movement distances of coyotes (Canis latrans) radio-collared in the Cuyahoga Valley, Ohio, 2010–2012.
Rows shown in bold indicate top models (ΔAICc < 2), df = degrees of freedom, ΔAICc = deviation for AICc compared with top model, weight = AICc weight.
Table 9.
Beta coefficients of the top models (ΔAICc < 2) in the movement model set used to predict movement distances of coyotes (Canis latrans) radio-collared in the Cuyahoga Valley, Ohio, 2010–2012.