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.
Similar content being viewed by others
Impacts of coyote colonization on coastal mammalian predators
Urban coyote spatiotemporal overlap with humans is associated with environmental characteristics not human sociodemographics
Public support for restrictions on the killing of coyotes at odds with organized stakeholder group preferences for management
Data availability
The datasets generated and analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
References
Salamin, N., Wüest, R. O., Lavergne, S., Thuiller, W. & Pearman, P. B. Assessing rapid evolution in a changing environment. Trends Ecol. Evol. 25, 692–698 (2010).
Alberti, M. et al. The complexity of urban Eco-evolutionary dynamics. BioScience 70, 772–793 (2020).
Caspi, T., Johnson, J. R., Lambert, M. R., Schell, C. J. & Sih, A. Behavioral plasticity can facilitate evolution in urban environments. Trends Ecol. Evol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2022.08.002 (2022).
Fischer, J. D., Cleeton, S. H., Lyons, T. P. & Miller, J. R. Urbanization and the predation paradox: the role of trophic dynamics in structuring vertebrate communities. BioScience 62, 809–818 (2012).
Levin, R. et al. The urban lead (Pb) burden in humans, animals and the natural environment. Environ. Res. 193, 110377 (2021).
Essl, F. et al. A conceptual framework for Range-Expanding species that track Human-Induced environmental change. BioScience 69, 908–919 (2019).
Lowry, H., Lill, A. & Wong, B. B. M. Behavioural responses of wildlife to urban environments. Biol. Rev. 88, 537–549 (2013).
Baxter-Gilbert, J., Riley, J. L. & Measey, J. Fortune favors the bold toad: urban-derived behavioral traits May provide advantages for invasive amphibian populations. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 75, 130 (2021).
Breck, S. W., Poessel, S. A., Mahoney, P. & Young, J. K. The intrepid urban coyote: a comparison of bold and exploratory behavior in Coyotes from urban and rural environments. Sci. Rep. 9, 2104 (2019).
Šlipogor, V., Graf, C., Massen, J. J. M. & Bugnyar, T. Personality and social environment predict cognitive performance in common marmosets (Callithrix jacchus). Sci. Rep. 12, 6702 (2022).
Isaksson, C., Rodewald, A. D. & Gil, D. Behavioural and ecological consequences of urban life in birds. Front Ecol. Evol. 6, 50 (2018).
Magura, T. et al. Are there personality differences between rural vs. Urban-Living individuals of a specialist ground beetle. Carabus convexus? Insects. 12, 646 (2021).
Beckmann, J. P. & Berger, J. Rapid ecological and behavioural changes in carnivores: the responses of black bears (Ursus americanus) to altered food. J. Zool. 261, 207–212 (2003).
Schell, C. J. et al. The evolutionary consequences of human–wildlife conflict in cities. Evol. Appl. 14, 178–197 (2021).
Kellert, S. R., Black, M., Rush, C. R. & Bath, A. J. Human culture and large carnivore conservation in North America. Conserv. Biol. 10, 977–990 (1996).
Young, J. K., Ma, Z., Laudati, A. & Berger, J. Human–carnivore interactions: lessons learned from communities in the American West. Hum. Dimens Wildl. 20, 349–366 (2015).
Young, J. K., Coppock, D. L., Baggio, J. A., Rood, K. A. & Yirga, G. Linking human perceptions and spotted hyena behavior in urban areas of Ethiopia. Animals 10, 2400 (2020).
Hahs, A. K. et al. Urbanisation generates multiple trait syndromes for terrestrial animal taxa worldwide. Nat. Commun. 14, 4751 (2023).
Poessel, S. A., Gese, E. M. & Young, J. K. Environmental factors influencing the occurrence of Coyotes and conflicts in urban areas. Landsc. Urban Plan. 157, 259–269 (2017).
Adducci, A. et al. Urban Coyotes are genetically distinct from Coyotes in natural habitats. J. Urban Ecol. 6, juaa010 (2020).
Schell, C. J., Young, J. K., Lonsdorf, E. V., Santymire, R. M. & Mateo, J. M. Parental habituation to human disturbance over time reduces fear of humans in Coyote offspring. Ecol. Evol. 8, 12965–12980 (2018).
Hody, J. W. & Kays, R. Mapping the expansion of coyotes (Canis latrans) across North and Central America. ZooKeys 81–97 (2018). https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.759.15149
Yu-Sung, S. & Yajima, M. R2jags: Using R to Run ‘JAGS’. (2024).
Gelman, A. Parameterization and bayesian modeling. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 99, 537–545 (2004).
Suraci, J. P., Nickel, B. A. & Wilmers, C. C. Fine-scale movement decisions by a large carnivore inform conservation planning in human-dominated landscapes. Landsc. Ecol. 35, 1635–1649 (2020).
Hobbs, N. T. & Hooten, M. B. Bayesian Models: A Statistical Primer for Ecologists (Princeton University Press, 2015).
Greggor, A. L., Thornton, A. & Clayton, N. S. Neophobia is not only avoidance: improving neophobia tests by combining cognition and ecology. Curr. Opin. Behav. Sci. 6, 82–89 (2015).
Mazza, V. & Guenther, A. City mice and country mice: innovative problem solving in rural and urban noncommensal rodents. Anim. Behav. 172, 197–210 (2021).
Greggor, A. L., Clayton, N. S., Fulford, A. J. C. & Thornton, A. Street smart: faster approach towards litter in urban areas by highly neophobic Corvids and less fearful birds. Anim. Behav. 117, 123–133 (2016).
Jarjour, C., Evans, J. C., Routh, M. & Morand-Ferron, J. Does City life reduce neophobia? A study on wild black-capped chickadees. Behav. Ecol. 31, 123–131 (2020).
Berger, K. M., Carnivore-Livestock & Conflicts Effects of subsidized predator control and economic correlates on the sheep industry. Conserv. Biol. 20, 751–761 (2006).
Sherratt, T. N., Dewan, I. & Skelhorn, J. The optimal time to approach an unfamiliar object: a bayesian model. Behav. Ecol. 34, 840–849 (2023).
Atwood, T. C., Weeks, H. P. & Gehring, T. M. Spatial ecology of Coyotes along a Suburban-to-Rural gradient. J. Wildl. Manag. 68, 1000–1009 (2004).
Miller, R. et al. Socio-ecological correlates of neophobia in Corvids. Curr. Biol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2021.10.045 (2021).
Young, J. K., Mahe, M. & Breck, S. Evaluating behavioral syndromes in Coyotes (Canis latrans). J. Ethol. 33, 137–144 (2015).
Guo, S. et al. Automatic identification of individual primates with deep learning techniques. iScience 23, (2020).
Bateman, P. W. & Fleming, P. A. Big City life: carnivores in urban environments. J. Zool. 287, 1–23 (2012).
Šálek, M., Drahníková, L. & Tkadlec, E. Changes in home range sizes and population densities of carnivore species along the natural to urban habitat gradient. Mammal Rev. 45, 1–14 (2015).
Brooks, J., Kays, R. & Hare, B. Coyotes living near cities are bolder: implications for dog evolution and human-wildlife conflict. Behaviour 157, 289–313 (2020).
Acknowledgements
We thank Catherine Escamilla, Ashley Kimmel, Azana Cochran, Patricia Monzon, Sofia Monzon, Antonio Pepe, Nathan Folkerts, students of the Conservation Biology class at the University of Utah, and many others for their help in the field. Funding was provided by Utah State University, USDA-National Wildlife Research Center, Sageland Collaborative, University of Utah’s Global Change and Sustainability Center, the National Science Foundation (awards 1950350 and 1835410), the School of Natural Resources, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Max McGraw Wildlife Foundation, Cook County Animal and Rabies Control, University of Wyoming, and University of Georgia Warnell School of Forestry and Natural Resources.
Funding
Funding was provided by Utah State University, USDA-National Wildlife Research Center, Sageland Collaborative, University of Utah’s Global Change and Sustainability Center, the National Science Foundation (awards 1950350 and 1835410), the School of Natural Resources, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Max McGraw Wildlife Foundation, Cook County Animal and Rabies Control, University of Wyoming, and University of Georgia Warnell School of Forestry and Natural Resources.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
JY, SB, and RK conceived of the idea. JY, RK, SB, and JS wrote the manuscript text. JS and SK coded data, RM, AG, and JY conducted data analysis and made statistical figures. RK made the map. JB, SBA, JB, GC, BC, JC, KD, TG, SG, KG, TG, MH, LH, MK, SL, JM, CN, EP, KR, SR, CS, CS, LS, JY, SB, JS, RK, AG, and RM collected field data and reviewed the manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Supplementary Material 1
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.
Reprints and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Young, J.K., Kays, R., Green, A.M. et al. Large-scale experimental assessment of coyote behavior across urban and rural landscapes.
Sci Rep (2025). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-33189-y
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-33189-y
Keywords
- Bayesian statistics
- Behavior
- Canis latrans
- Detection
- Novel object
- Urbanization
Source: Ecology - nature.com
