Influence of hybridization on animal space use: A case study using coyote range expansion

Oikos

Volumn 124, Issue 5, 2015, Pages 535-542

  Ellington, E Hance ^a   Murray, Dennis L ^a  

^a TRENT UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANIMAL COMMUNITY; ECOSYSTEM FUNCTION; ENVIRONMENTAL FACTOR; HETEROGENEITY; HOME RANGE; HYBRIDIZATION; INTROGRESSION; LIFE HISTORY TRAIT; RANGE EXPANSION; SPACE USE;

NORTH AMERICA;

ANIMALIA; CANIDAE; CANIS; CANIS FAMILIARIS; CANIS LATRANS;

EID: 84928826265     PISSN: 00301299     EISSN: 16000706     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/oik.01824     Document Type: Article

References (62)

1. Adams, J. R. et al. 2003. Widespread occurrence of a domestic dog mitochondrial DNA haplotype in southeastern US coyotes. - Mol. Ecol. 12: 541-546.
2. Arino, O. et al. 2007. GlobCover: ESA service for global land cover from MERIS. - Proc. Int. Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symp., July 2007, Barcelona, Spain.
3. Arnold, M. L. 2006. Evolution through genetic exchange. - Oxford Univ. Press
4. Atwood, T. C. and Weeks, Jr, H. P. 2003. Spatial home-range overlap and temporal interaction in eastern coyotes: the influence of pair types and fragmentation. - Can. J. Zool. 81: 1589-1597.
5. Bekoff, M. and Wells, M. C. 1981. Behavioural budgeting by wild coyotes: the influence of food resources and social organization. - Anim. Behav. 29: 794-801.
6. Benson, J. F. et al. 2012. Spatial genetic and morphologic structure of wolves and coyotes in relation to environmental heterogeneity in a Canis hybrid zone. - Mol. Ecol. 21: 5934-5954.
7. Benson, J. F. et al. 2014. A protected area influences genotype-specific survival and the structure of a Canis hybrid zone. - Ecology 95: 254-264
8. Berger, K. M. and Gese, E. M. 2007. Does interference competition with wolves limit the distribution and abundance of coyotes? - J. Anim. Ecol. 76: 1075-1085.
9. Bohling, J. H. and Waits, L. P. 2011. Assessing the prevalence of hybridization between sympatric Canis species surrounding the red wolf (Canis rufus) recovery area in North Carolina. - Mol. Ecol. 20: 2142-2156.
10. Burnham, K. P. and Anderson, D. R. 2002. Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical-theoretic approach. - Springer.
11. Dowling, T. E. and DeMarais, B. D. 1993. Evolutionary significance of introgressive hybridization in cyprinid fishes. - Nature 362: 444-446.
12. Ellington, E. H. et al. 2015. Using multiple imputation to estimate missing data in meta-regression. - Meth. Ecol. Evol. doi: 10.1111/2041-210X.12322.
13. ESA, European Space Agency 2008. GlobCover products description and validation report. -ftp://uranus.esrin.esa.int/pub/globcover_v2/global/GLOBCOVER_Products_Description_Validation_Report_I2.1.pdf accessed 14 February 2013.
14. Fedriani, J. M. et al. 2001. Does availability of anthropogenic food enhance densities of omnivorous mammals? An example with coyotes in southern California. - Ecography 24: 325-331.
15. Garroway, C. J. et al. 2010. Climate change induced hybridization in flying squirrels. - Global Change Biol. 16: 113-121.
16. Gese, E. M. 1998. Response of neighboring coyotes (Canis latrans) to social disruption in an adjacent pack. - Can. J. Zool. 76: 1960-1963.
17. Gittleman, J. L. and Harvey, P. H. 1982. Carnivore home-range size, metabolic needs and ecology. - Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 10: 57-63.
18. Gompper, M. E. 2002. The ecology of northeast coyotes: current knowledge and priorities for future research. - WCS Working Paper No. 17.
19. Gompper, M. E. and Gittleman, J. L. 1991. Home range scaling: intraspecifc and comparative trends. - Oecologia 87: 343-348.
20. Grant, P. R. and Grant, B. R. 2002. Unpredictable evolution in a 30-year study of Darwin's finches. - Science 296: 707-711
21. Gorini, L. et al. 2012. Habitat heterogeneity and mammalian predator-prey interactions. - Mammal Rev. 42: 55-77.
22. Gurka, M. J. 2006. Selecting the best linear mixed model under REML. - Am. Stat. 60: 19-26.
23. Jetz, W. et al. 2004. The scaling of animal space use. - Science 306: 266-268.
24. Kays, R. W. et al. 2010. Rapid adaptive evolution of northeastern coyotes via hybridization with wolves. - Biol. Lett. 5: 1-5.
25. Kelly, B. T. et al. 1999. Population and habitat viability assessment workshop for the red wolf (Canis rufus). - Conservation Breeding Specialist Group (SSC/IUCN).
26. Kilgo, J. C. et al. 2010. Can coyotes affect deer populations in southeastern North America? - J. Wildl. Manage. 74: 929-933.
27. Kirkpatrick, M. and Ravigné, V. 2002. Speciation by natural and sexual selection: models and experiments. - Am. Nat. 159: S22-S35.
28. Kyle C. J. et al. 2006. Genetic nature of eastern wolves: past, present and future. - Conserv. Genet. 7: 273-287.
29. Larivière, S. and Crête, M. 1993. The size of eastern coyotes (Canis latrans): a comment. - J. Mammal. 74: 1072-1074.
30. Laundre, J. W. and Keller, B. L. 1984. Home range size of coyotes: a critical review. - J. Wildl. Manage. 48: 127-139.
31. Lindstedt, S. L. et al. 1986. Home range, time and body size in mammals. - Ecology 67: 413-418.
32. Lipsey M. W. and Wilson D. B. 2001. Practical meta-analysis. - Sage Publications.
33. López-López, J. A. et al. 2013. Estimation of the predictive power of the model in mixed-effects meta-regression: a simulation study. - Brit. J. Math. Stat. Psychol. 67: 30-48.
34. McLoughlin, P. D. and Ferguson, S. H. 2000. A hierarchical pattern of limiting factors helps explain variation in home range size. - Ecoscience 7: 123-130.
35. Mohr, C. O. 1947. Table of equivalent populations of North American small mammals. - Am. Midl. Nat. 37: 223-249.
36. Mysterud, A. et al. 2001. The effect of season, sex, and feeding style on home range area versus body mass scaling in temperate ruminants. - Oecologia 127: 30-39.
37. Neira, C. et al. 2005. Benthic macrofaunal communities of three sites in San Francisco Bay invaded by hybrid Spartina, with comparison to uninvaded habitats. - Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 292: 111-126.
38. Nilsen, E. B. et al. 2005. Can intra-specific variation in carnivore home-range size be explained using remote-sensing estimates of environmental productivity? - Ecoscience 12: 68-75.
39. Nilsen, E. B. et al. 2008. Can minimum convex polygon home ranges be used to draw biologically meaningful conclusions? - Ecol. Res. 23: 635-639.
40. Nowak, R. M. 2005. Walker's carnivores of the World. - Johns Hopkins Univ. Press
41. Parmesan, C. and Yohe, G. 2003. A globally coherent fingerprint of climate change impacts across natural systems. - Nature 421: 37-42.
42. Patterson, B. R. and Messier, F. 2001. Social organization and space use of coyotes in eastern Canada relative to prey distribution and abundance. - J. Mammal. 82: 463-477.
43. Patterson, B. R. et al. 1998. Prey switching and feeding habits of eastern coyotes in relation to snowshoe hare and white-tailed deer densities. - Can. J. Zool. 76: 1885-1897.
44. Pettorelli, N. 2013. The normalized difference vegetation index. - Oxford Univ. Press.
45. Pilgrim, K. L. et al. 1998. Testing for wolf-coyote hybridization in the Rocky Mountains using mitochondrial DNA. - J. Wildl. Manage. 62: 683-689.
46. Potts, W. M. et al. 2014 Ocean warming, a rapid distributional shift and the hybridization of a coastal fish species. - Global Change Biol. 20: 2765-2777.
47. Richer, M. C. et al. 2002. The low performance of forest versus rural coyotes in northeastern North America: inequality between presence and availability of prey. - Ecoscience 9: 44-54.
48. Rutledge, L. Y. et al. 2010. Genetic differentiation of eastern wolves in Algonquin Park despite bridging gene flow between coyotes and grey wolves. - Heredity 105: 520-531.
49. Ryan, M. E. et al. 2009. Invasive hybrid tiger salamander genotypes impact native amphibians. - Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106: 11166-11171.
50. Sacks, B. N. and Neale, J. C. 2002. Foraging strategy of a generalist predator toward a special prey: coyote predation on sheep. - Ecol. Appl. 12: 299-306.
51. Seehausen, O. et al. 2008. Speciation reversal and biodiversity dynamics with hybridization in changing environments. - Mol. Ecol. 17: 30-44.
52. Shivik, J. A. et al. 1997. Coyote activity patterns in the Sierra Nevada. - W. N. Am. Nat. 57: 355-358.
53. Slater, G. J. et al. 2009 Implications of predatory specialization for cranial form and function in canids. - J. Zool. 278: 81-188.
54. Suarez, A. V. and Tsutsui, N. D. 2008. The evolutionary consequences of biological invasions. - Mol. Ecol. 17: 351-360.
55. Thompson, S. G. and Sharp, S. J. 1999. Explaining heterogeneity in meta-analysis: a comparison of methods. - Stat. Med. 18: 2693-2708.
56. Thompson, S. G. and Higgins, J. P. T. 2002. How should meta-regression analyses be undertaken and interpreted? - Stat. Med. 21: 1559-1573.
57. Verbeke, G. and Molenberghs, G. 2009. Linear mixed models for longitudinal data. - Springer.
58. Viechtbauer, W. 2010. Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metaphor package. - J. Stat. Softw. 36: 1-48.
59. von Holdt, B. M. et al. 2011. A genome-wide perspective on the evolutionary history of enigmatic wolf-like canids. - Genome Res. 21: 1294-1305.
60. Way, J. G. 2007. A comparison of body mass of Canis latrans (coyotes) between eastern and western North America. - Northeast Nat. 14: 111-124.
61. Wheeldon, T. J. and Patterson, B. R. 2012. Genetic and morphological differentiation of wolves (Canis lupus) and coyotes (Canis latrans) in northeastern Ontario. - Can. J. Zool. 90: 1221-1230.
62. Worton, B. J. 1989. Kernel methods for estimating the utilization distribution in home-range studies. - Ecology 70: 164-168.