人还是食肉动物?比较狩猎和大型食肉动物对北美洲顶级中型食肉动物数量的生境依赖性影响

IF 5.4 1区 环境科学与生态学 Q1 BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION
Ecography Pub Date : 2024-11-05 DOI:10.1111/ecog.07390
Remington J. Moll, Austin M. Green, Maximilian L. Allen, Roland Kays
{"title":"人还是食肉动物?比较狩猎和大型食肉动物对北美洲顶级中型食肉动物数量的生境依赖性影响","authors":"Remington J. Moll, Austin M. Green, Maximilian L. Allen, Roland Kays","doi":"10.1111/ecog.07390","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Variation in animal abundance is shaped by scale-dependent habitat, competition, and anthropogenic influences. Coyotes <i>Canis latrans</i> have dramatically increased in abundance while expanding their range over the past 100 years. Management goals typically seek to lower coyote populations to reduce their threats to humans, pets, livestock and sensitive prey. Despite their outsized ecological and social roles in the Americas, the factors affecting coyote abundance across their range remain unclear. We fit Royle–Nichols abundance models at two spatial scales in a Bayesian hierarchical framework to three years of data from 4587 camera trap sites arranged in 254 arrays across the contiguous USA to assess how habitat, large carnivores, anthropogenic development and hunting regulations affect coyote abundance. Coyote abundance was highest in southwestern USA and lowest in the northeast. Abundance responded to some factors as expected, including positive (soft mast, agriculture, grass/shrub habitat, urban–natural edge) and negative (latitude and forest cover) relationships. Colonization date had a negative relationship, suggesting coyote populations have not reached carrying capacity in recently colonized regions. Several relationships were scale-dependent, including urban development, which was negative at local (100-m) scales but positive at larger (5-km) scales. Large carnivore effects were habitat-dependent, with sometimes opposing relationships manifesting across variation in forest cover and urban development. Coyote abundance was higher where human hunting was permitted, and this relationship was strongest at local scales. These results, including a national map of coyote abundance, update ecological understanding of coyotes and can inform coyote management at local and landscape scales. These findings expand results from local studies suggesting that directly hunting coyotes does not decrease their abundance and may actually increase it. Ongoing large carnivore recoveries globally will likely affect subordinate carnivore abundance, but not in universally negative ways, and our work demonstrates how such effects can be habitat and scale dependent.","PeriodicalId":51026,"journal":{"name":"Ecography","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"People or predators? Comparing habitat-dependent effects of hunting and large carnivores on the abundance of North America's top mesocarnivore\",\"authors\":\"Remington J. Moll, Austin M. Green, Maximilian L. Allen, Roland Kays\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/ecog.07390\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Variation in animal abundance is shaped by scale-dependent habitat, competition, and anthropogenic influences. Coyotes <i>Canis latrans</i> have dramatically increased in abundance while expanding their range over the past 100 years. Management goals typically seek to lower coyote populations to reduce their threats to humans, pets, livestock and sensitive prey. Despite their outsized ecological and social roles in the Americas, the factors affecting coyote abundance across their range remain unclear. We fit Royle–Nichols abundance models at two spatial scales in a Bayesian hierarchical framework to three years of data from 4587 camera trap sites arranged in 254 arrays across the contiguous USA to assess how habitat, large carnivores, anthropogenic development and hunting regulations affect coyote abundance. Coyote abundance was highest in southwestern USA and lowest in the northeast. Abundance responded to some factors as expected, including positive (soft mast, agriculture, grass/shrub habitat, urban–natural edge) and negative (latitude and forest cover) relationships. Colonization date had a negative relationship, suggesting coyote populations have not reached carrying capacity in recently colonized regions. Several relationships were scale-dependent, including urban development, which was negative at local (100-m) scales but positive at larger (5-km) scales. Large carnivore effects were habitat-dependent, with sometimes opposing relationships manifesting across variation in forest cover and urban development. Coyote abundance was higher where human hunting was permitted, and this relationship was strongest at local scales. These results, including a national map of coyote abundance, update ecological understanding of coyotes and can inform coyote management at local and landscape scales. These findings expand results from local studies suggesting that directly hunting coyotes does not decrease their abundance and may actually increase it. Ongoing large carnivore recoveries globally will likely affect subordinate carnivore abundance, but not in universally negative ways, and our work demonstrates how such effects can be habitat and scale dependent.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51026,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ecography\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ecography\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"93\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/ecog.07390\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"环境科学与生态学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ecography","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/ecog.07390","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

动物数量的变化是由规模依赖性的栖息地、竞争和人为影响决定的。在过去的 100 年中,郊狼的数量急剧增加,同时活动范围不断扩大。管理目标通常是降低郊狼的数量,以减少它们对人类、宠物、牲畜和敏感猎物的威胁。尽管郊狼在美洲扮演着重要的生态和社会角色,但影响其分布范围内郊狼数量的因素仍不清楚。我们在贝叶斯分层框架下将两个空间尺度的 Royle-Nichols 丰度模型与美国毗连地区 254 个阵列中 4587 个相机陷阱点的三年数据进行了拟合,以评估栖息地、大型食肉动物、人为开发和狩猎法规对郊狼丰度的影响。郊狼的丰度在美国西南部最高,在东北部最低。野狼的丰度与一些预期因素有关,包括正相关(软茎、农业、草地/灌木栖息地、城市-自然边缘)和负相关(纬度和森林覆盖率)。殖民日期呈负相关,表明郊狼种群在最近殖民的地区尚未达到承载能力。有几种关系与尺度有关,包括城市发展,在当地(100 米)尺度上呈负相关,但在更大(5 公里)尺度上呈正相关。大型食肉动物的影响与栖息地有关,森林覆盖率和城市发展的变化有时会产生相反的关系。在允许人类狩猎的地方,郊狼的丰度较高,这种关系在局部范围内最强。这些结果,包括全国郊狼丰度地图,更新了生态学对郊狼的认识,并可为地方和景观尺度的郊狼管理提供信息。这些发现扩展了地方研究的结果,表明直接猎杀郊狼不仅不会减少郊狼的数量,反而可能会增加郊狼的数量。全球范围内大型食肉动物的持续恢复可能会影响从属食肉动物的数量,但并不是普遍的负面影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
People or predators? Comparing habitat-dependent effects of hunting and large carnivores on the abundance of North America's top mesocarnivore
Variation in animal abundance is shaped by scale-dependent habitat, competition, and anthropogenic influences. Coyotes Canis latrans have dramatically increased in abundance while expanding their range over the past 100 years. Management goals typically seek to lower coyote populations to reduce their threats to humans, pets, livestock and sensitive prey. Despite their outsized ecological and social roles in the Americas, the factors affecting coyote abundance across their range remain unclear. We fit Royle–Nichols abundance models at two spatial scales in a Bayesian hierarchical framework to three years of data from 4587 camera trap sites arranged in 254 arrays across the contiguous USA to assess how habitat, large carnivores, anthropogenic development and hunting regulations affect coyote abundance. Coyote abundance was highest in southwestern USA and lowest in the northeast. Abundance responded to some factors as expected, including positive (soft mast, agriculture, grass/shrub habitat, urban–natural edge) and negative (latitude and forest cover) relationships. Colonization date had a negative relationship, suggesting coyote populations have not reached carrying capacity in recently colonized regions. Several relationships were scale-dependent, including urban development, which was negative at local (100-m) scales but positive at larger (5-km) scales. Large carnivore effects were habitat-dependent, with sometimes opposing relationships manifesting across variation in forest cover and urban development. Coyote abundance was higher where human hunting was permitted, and this relationship was strongest at local scales. These results, including a national map of coyote abundance, update ecological understanding of coyotes and can inform coyote management at local and landscape scales. These findings expand results from local studies suggesting that directly hunting coyotes does not decrease their abundance and may actually increase it. Ongoing large carnivore recoveries globally will likely affect subordinate carnivore abundance, but not in universally negative ways, and our work demonstrates how such effects can be habitat and scale dependent.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Ecography
Ecography 环境科学-生态学
CiteScore
11.60
自引率
3.40%
发文量
122
审稿时长
8-16 weeks
期刊介绍: ECOGRAPHY publishes exciting, novel, and important articles that significantly advance understanding of ecological or biodiversity patterns in space or time. Papers focusing on conservation or restoration are welcomed, provided they are anchored in ecological theory and convey a general message that goes beyond a single case study. We encourage papers that seek advancing the field through the development and testing of theory or methodology, or by proposing new tools for analysis or interpretation of ecological phenomena. Manuscripts are expected to address general principles in ecology, though they may do so using a specific model system if they adequately frame the problem relative to a generalized ecological question or problem. Purely descriptive papers are considered only if breaking new ground and/or describing patterns seldom explored. Studies focused on a single species or single location are generally discouraged unless they make a significant contribution to advancing general theory or understanding of biodiversity patterns and processes. Manuscripts merely confirming or marginally extending results of previous work are unlikely to be considered in Ecography. Papers are judged by virtue of their originality, appeal to general interest, and their contribution to new developments in studies of spatial and temporal ecological patterns. There are no biases with regard to taxon, biome, or biogeographical area.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信