Differential effects of human density, environmental health, and group size on urban coyote detection, boldness, and exploration

TL;DR

Urban coyotes show different behaviors based on human density and pollution, with higher boldness and exploration in areas with more people.

Contribution

This study reveals how urban coyote behavior varies with human density and group size, offering new insights into urban wildlife adaptation.

Findings

Coyote detections decrease in areas with high human density and pollution.

Boldness and exploration increase with human density and group size.

Pollution does not significantly affect coyote risk-taking behavior.

Abstract

Comparative studies show that urban coyotes behave differently from rural counterparts. However, these studies often homogenize cities. Cities feature diverse pressures for wildlife, such as variation in human densities and environmental health, two factors known to increase risk-taking. This heterogeneity creates a landscape of risk, which may drive locally adapted behavioral strategies within cities. Yet, the influence of these pressures on coyote behavior remains unclear. To investigate this, we conducted novel object testing at 24 sites across gradients of human density and pollution. We recorded coyote detections, group size, and behavioral responses to the novel object, focusing on time spent alert, time spent close, and total exploration. We found that coyote detections varied with human density and pollution, with markedly lower detections in areas with high human density and pollution. Coyote boldness (time spent alert and close) and exploration were uniformly associated with human density, with coyotes in high human density areas displaying elevated boldness and heightened exploration. We also found that time spent close and exploration increase with group size. In contrast, coyote risk-taking did not vary with pollution. Our results suggest that heterogeneity in human density, environmental health, and social context differentially affects coyote ecology, which may have consequences for human-carnivore coexistence.

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1038/s41598-025-21946-y.

Figures