Explore the vast range of titles available.

Human–wildlife interactions, including human–wildlife conflict, are increasingly common as expanding urbanization worldwide creates more opportunities for people to encounter wildlife. Wildlife–vehicle collisions, zoonotic disease transmission, property damage, and physical attacks to people or their pets have negative consequences for both people and wildlife, underscoring the need for comprehensive strategies that mitigate and prevent conflict altogether. Management techniques often aim to deter, relocate, or remove individual organisms, all of which may present a significant selective force in both urban and nonurban systems. Management‐induced selection may significantly affect the adaptive or nonadaptive evolutionary processes of urban populations, yet few studies explicate the links among conflict, wildlife management, and urban evolution. Moreover, the intensity of conflict management can vary considerably by taxon, public perception, policy, religious and cultural beliefs, and geographic region, which underscores the complexity of developing flexible tools to reduce conflict. Here, we present a cross‐disciplinary perspective that integrates human–wildlife conflict, wildlife management, and urban evolution to address how social–ecological processes drive wildlife adaptation in cities. We emphasize that variance in implemented management actions shapes the strength and rate of phenotypic and evolutionary change. We also consider how specific management strategies either promote genetic or plastic changes, and how leveraging those biological inferences could help optimize management actions while minimizing conflict. Investigating human–wildlife conflict as an evolutionary phenomenon may provide insights into how conflict arises and how management plays a critical role in shaping urban wildlife phenotypes.

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.

Urbanization is changing Earth’s ecosystems by altering the interactions and feedbacks between the fundamental ecological and evolutionary processes that maintain life. Humans in cities alter the eco-evolutionary play by simultaneously changing both the actors and the stage on which the eco-evolutionary play takes place. Urbanization modifies land surfaces, microclimates, habitat connectivity, ecological networks, food webs, species diversity, and species composition. These environmental changes can lead to changes in phenotypic, genetic, and cultural makeup of wild populations that have important consequences for ecosystem function and the essential services that nature provides to human society, such as nutrient cycling, pollination, seed dispersal, food production, and water and air purification. Understanding and monitoring urbanization-induced evolutionary changes is important to inform strategies to achieve sustainability. In the present article, we propose that understanding these dynamics requires rigorous characterization of urbanizing regions as rapidly evolving, tightly coupled human–natural systems. We explore how the emergent properties of urbanization affect eco-evolutionary dynamics across space and time. We identify five key urban drivers of change—habitat modification, connectivity, heterogeneity, novel disturbances, and biotic interactions—and highlight the direct consequences of urbanization-driven eco-evolutionary change for nature’s contributions to people. Then, we explore five emerging complexities—landscape complexity, urban discontinuities, socio-ecological heterogeneity, cross-scale interactions, legacies and time lags—that need to be tackled in future research. We propose that the evolving metacommunity concept provides a powerful framework to study urban eco-evolutionary dynamics.

The tendency of wildlife to associate with humans spatially and temporally, i.e., to overlap with humans, is a key factor mediating human-wildlife coexistence in cities. While direct human influence (e.g., food subsidies) is recognized as a mechanism of wildlife overlap with humans, the role of broader urban ecosystem characteristics (e.g., habitat availability, human sociodemographics) in shaping this behavior is a burgeoning area of research. We analyzed the relationship between environmental and societal characteristics and overlap with humans in coyotes, a species of management concern due to emerging human-coyote conflicts in cities across North America. Using high-resolution GPS data from coyotes in the Chicago metropolitan area, we estimated overlap by quantifying coyotes’ spatial selection for human population density during periods of temporal overlap, i.e., periods when coyotes and humans were active. On average, coyotes exhibited high overlap, evidenced by their selection for areas of high human population density during periods of temporal overlap, but with substantial individual variation in this selection. Importantly, the mean level of overlap depended on environmental characteristics. Selection for human population density was negatively associated with the level of impervious surface cover and positively associated with the presence of land uses containing natural habitat features (e.g., parks, golf courses, vacant lots). Coyote selection for human population density was not significantly associated with median income or the proportion of white residents. Our results suggest that natural habitat features in densely populated areas may be hotspots for human-coyote interactions. Efforts to manage human-coyote interactions should focus on these areas and identify individual traits that heighten coyote overlap with humans.

Ecologists often leverage contributory science, also referred to as citizen science, to answer large-scale spatial and temporal biodiversity questions. Contributory science platforms, such as eBird and iNaturalist, provide researchers with incredibly fine-scale data to track biodiversity. However, data generated by these platforms are spatially biased. Research has shown that factors like income, race, and historical redlining can influence spatial patterns of reported eBird and iNaturalist data. However, the role of contemporary residential segregation remains unclear. Additionally, we do not understand how these variables potentially relate to certain Census tracts having more or less biodiversity data than you would expect based on size or population density. To further understand the social factors that may contribute to spatial biases in eBird and iNaturalist data, we focused on three cities within the USA (Oakland, California; St. Louis, Missouri; and Baltimore, Maryland). We specifically investigated how income, race, segregation, and redlining via Home Owners’ Loan Corporation grades (grades A = best, B, C, and D = hazardous and “redlined”) are associated with the difference between reported and expected observations based on area and human population density. We find that census tracts with higher income and more White people generally have more observations than expected. We only find segregation to influence differences in reported and expected observations in Baltimore, with more segregated Census tracts having more observations than expected. Lastly, we find that grades C and D consistently have fewer data than expected compared with grades A and B for both platforms in each city. Our results show that although each city has distinct societal and ecological features, societal inequity permeates each city to shape the uptake of data for two of the largest sources of biodiversity data.

Cities are uniquely complex systems regulated by interactions and feedbacks between nature and human society. Characteristics of human society—including culture, economics, technology and politics—underlie social patterns and activity, creating a heterogeneous environment that can influence and be influenced by both ecological and evolutionary processes. Increasing research on urban ecology and evolutionary biology has coincided with growing interest in eco‐evolutionary dynamics, which encompasses the interactions and reciprocal feedbacks between evolution and ecology. Research on both urban evolutionary biology and eco‐evolutionary dynamics frequently focuses on contemporary evolution of species that have potentially substantial ecological—and even social—significance. Still, little work fully integrates urban evolutionary biology and eco‐evolutionary dynamics, and rarely do researchers in either of these fields fully consider the role of human social patterns and processes. Because cities are fundamentally regulated by human activities, are inherently interconnected and are frequently undergoing social and economic transformation, they represent an opportunity for ecologists and evolutionary biologists to study urban “socio‐eco‐evolutionary dynamics.” Through this new framework, we encourage researchers of urban ecology and evolution to fully integrate human social drivers and feedbacks to increase understanding and conservation of ecosystems, their functions and their contributions to people within and outside cities.

In the past decade, studies have demonstrated that urban and nonurban wildlife populations exhibit differences in foraging behavior and diet. However, little is known about how environmental heterogeneity shapes dietary variation of organisms within cities. We examined the vertebrate prey components of diets of coyotes (Canis latrans) in San Francisco to quantify territory‐ and individual‐level dietary differences and determine how within‐city variation in land cover and land use affects coyote diet. We genotyped fecal samples for individual coyote identification and used DNA metabarcoding to quantify diet composition and individual niche differentiation. The highest contributor to coyote diet overall was anthropogenic food followed by small mammals. The most frequently detected species were domestic chicken, pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae), domestic pig, and raccoon (Procyon lotor). Diet composition varied significantly across territories and among individuals, with territories explaining most of the variation. Within territories (i.e., family groups), the amount of dietary variation attributed to among‐individual differences increased with green space and decreased with impervious surface cover. The quantity of anthropogenic food in scats also was positively correlated with impervious surface cover, suggesting that coyotes consumed more human food in more urbanized territories. The quantity of invasive, human‐commensal rodents in the diet was positively correlated with the number of food services in a territory. Overall, our results revealed substantial intraspecific variation in coyote diet associated with urban landscape heterogeneity and point to a diversifying effect of urbanization on population diet.

Global change is increasing the frequency and severity of human‐wildlife interactions by pushing people and wildlife into increasingly resource‐limited shared spaces. To understand the dynamics of human‐wildlife interactions and what may constitute human‐wildlife coexistence in the Anthropocene, there is a critical need to explore the spatial, temporal, sociocultural and ecological variables that contribute to human‐wildlife conflicts in urban areas. Due to their opportunistic foraging and behavioural flexibility, coyotes (Canis latrans) frequently interact with people in urban environments. San Francisco, California, USA hosts a very high density of coyotes, making it an excellent region for analysing urban human‐coyote interactions and attitudes toward coyotes over time and space. We used a community‐curated long‐term data source from San Francisco Animal Care and Control to summarise a decade of coyote sightings and human‐coyote interactions in San Francisco and to characterise spatiotemporal patterns of attitudes and interaction types in relation to housing density, socioeconomics, pollution and human vulnerability metrics, and green space availability. We found that human‐coyote conflict reports have been significantly increasing over the past 5 years and that there were more conflicts during the coyote pup‐rearing season (April–June), the dry season (June–September) and the COVID‐19 pandemic. Conflict reports were also more likely to involve dogs and occur inside of parks, despite more overall sightings occurring outside of parks. Generalised linear mixed models revealed that conflicts were more likely to occur in places with higher vegetation greenness and median income. Meanwhile reported coyote boldness, hazing and human attitudes toward coyotes were also correlated with pollution burden and human population vulnerability indices. Synthesis and applications: Our results provide compelling evidence suggesting that human‐coyote conflicts are intimately associated with social‐ecological heterogeneities and time, emphasizing that the road to coexistence will require socially informed strategies. Additional long‐term research articulating how the social‐ecological drivers of conflict (e.g. human food subsidies, interactions with domestic species, climate‐induced droughts, socioeconomic disparities, etc.) change over time will be essential in building adaptive management efforts that effectively mitigate future conflicts from occurring. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog. Resumen El cambio global está aumentando la frecuencia y severidad de las interacciones entre humanos y vida silvestre, al empujar ambos hacia espacios compartidos cada vez más limitados en recursos. Para comprender la dinámica de las interacciones entre humanos y la vida silvestre, y lo que puede constituir la coexistencia entre humanos y la fauna en el Antropoceno, es críticamente necesario explorar las variables espaciales, temporales, socioculturales y ecológicas que contribuyen a los conflictos entre humanos y la vida silvestre en áreas urbanas. Debido a su alimentación oportunista y flexibilidad comportamental, los coyotes (Canis latrans) interactúan con frecuencia con las personas en entornos urbanos. San Francisco, California, EE. UU., alberga una densidad muy alta de coyotes, lo que la convierte en una región excelente para analizar las interacciones entre humanos y coyotes urbanos, y las actitudes hacia los coyotes a través del tiempo y el espacio. Utilizamos una fuente de datos comunitaria a largo plazo por San Francisco Animal Care and Control (Control y Cuidado Animal de San Francisco) para resumir una década de avistamientos e interacciones entre humanos y coyotes en San Francisco, y para caracterizar patrones espacio‐temporales de actitudes y tipos de interacción en relación con la densidad de viviendas, datos socioeconómicos, contaminación y métricas de vulnerabilidad humana, así como la disponibilidad de espacios verdes. Encontramos que los informes de conflictos entre humanos y coyotes han aumentado significativamente en los últimos 5 años, y que hubo más conflictos durante la temporada de cría de coyotes (abril‐junio), la temporada seca (junio‐septiembre) y la pandemia de COVID‐19. Los informes de conflictos también fueron más propensos a involucrar perros y ocurrir dentro de parques, a pesar de que en general hubo más avistamientos fuera de los parques. Los modelos mixtos lineales generalizados revelaron que los conflictos fueron más probables en lugares con mayor vegetación e ingreso promedio. A su vez, los reportes de la audacia, el hostigamiento de los coyotes, y las actitudes humanas hacia los coyotes, se correlacionaron con la carga de contaminación y los índices poblacionales de vulnerabilidad humana. Síntesis y aplicaciones: Nuestros resultados proporcionan evidencia convincente que sugiere que los conflictos entre humanos y coyotes están íntimamente asociados con heterogeneidades socioecológicas y el tiempo, enfatizando que el camino hacia la coexistencia requerirá estrategias informadas socialmente. Investigaciones adicionales a largo plazo que articulen cómo los impulsores socioecológicos del conflicto (por ejemplo, los subsidios alimentarios humanos, las interacciones con especies domésticas, las sequías inducidas por el clima, las disparidades socioeconómicas, etc.) cambian con el tiempo será esencial para desarrollar esfuerzos de gestión adaptativos que mitiguen eficazmente futuros conflictos. 摘要 全球变化将人类和野生动物共同推入了日益有限资源的空间內，加大了人类与野生动物互动的频率和严重性。为了解人与野生动物的相互动机制，以及在人类世中何谓人与野生动物共存，迫切需要探讨引致城市地区人与野生动物冲突的空间、时间、社会文化和生态因素。 由于它们的机会性觅食和行为灵活性，郊狼(Canis latrans)在城市环境中经常与人类互动。美国加利福尼亚州旧金山市拥有高密度的郊狼群，因此是分析城市人与郊狼互动和人对待郊狼态度如何随着时空变化的优秀地区。 我们利用旧金山动物控制和护理部门的公众科学项目收集的长期数据，总结了旧金山十年来的郊狼目击和与人互动的报告，并根据住房密度、社会经济、污染和人类脆弱性指标、以及可用绿化范围来表征人们对狠的态度和与狠互动类型的时空分布和模式。 我们发现，过去5年来，人与郊狼的冲突报告明显增加，郊狼幼崽抚育季节(4月至6月)、干季(6月至9月)和COVID‐19疫情期间发生的冲突更多。尽管大部分目击事件发生在公园之外，但冲突报告大多在公园内发生，并涉及狗。广义线性混合模型显示，冲突更可能发生在高度绿化和收入中位数较高的地方。同时，人们报告的郊狼胆量、以及人们对待郊狼的驱赶行为和态度也与污染负担和人类脆弱性指数相关。 综合与应用:我们的研究结果提供了有力的证据，表明人与郊狼的冲突与多样的社会生态因素和时间密切相关，强调实现共存的道路将需要符合社会民生的策略。进一步长期研究人与郊狼冲突的社会生态驱动因素(例如，人类食品补贴、与家畜物种的互动、气候引发的干旱、社会经济差距等)如何随时间变化，将对建立有效减少未来冲突发生的自适应管理机制至关重要。 Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog.

Contributory science—including citizen and community science—allows scientists to leverage participant‐generated data while providing an opportunity for engaging with local community members. Data yielded by participant‐generated biodiversity platforms allow professional scientists to answer ecological and evolutionary questions across both geographic and temporal scales, which is incredibly valuable for conservation efforts. The data reported to contributory biodiversity platforms, such as eBird and iNaturalist, can be driven by social and ecological variables, leading to biased data. Though empirical work has highlighted the biases in contributory data, little work has articulated how biases arise in contributory data and the societal consequences of these biases. We present a conceptual framework illustrating how social and ecological variables create bias in contributory science data. In this framework, we present four filters— participation , detectability , sampling and preference —that ultimately shape the type and location of contributory biodiversity data. We leverage this framework to examine data from the largest contributory science platforms—eBird and iNaturalist—in St. Louis, Missouri, the United States, and discuss the potential consequences of biased data. Lastly, we conclude by providing several recommendations for researchers and institutions to move towards a more inclusive field. With these recommendations, we provide opportunities to ameliorate biases in contributory data and an opportunity to practice equitable biodiversity conservation. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog.

Human‐carnivore conflicts pose significant challenges in the management and conservation of carnivores across the globe. Abundant research has led to generalizable insights into the causes of such conflicts. For example, conflicts predictably occur when carnivores have access to human food resources, particularly when their natural foods are scarce. However, similar insights into the effectiveness of interventions aimed at coexistence remains comparatively scarce. We hypothesized that this disparity might be reflected in a bias toward research focused on causes of conflict rather than interventions to address it. To test our hypothesis, we evaluated the content of studies on human–carnivore conflicts and coexistence in Canada and the United States from 2010 to 2021. We found that studies disproportionately focused on causes of conflict, with that discrepancy increasing through our study period. We also found a disproportionate focus on black bears and wolves and western jurisdictions, and a disproportionate use of observational (vs. experimental) approaches. Studies on conflict interventions were primarily directed at the carnivores themselves (e.g., lethal approaches) versus human elements (e.g., attractant management, policies), despite evidence that the latter are more effective. We expect that a shift in focus toward solutions‐oriented research, integrating insights across geographies, taxa, social contexts, and disciplines, would facilitate effective interventions and foster coexistence, improving outcomes for people and carnivores alike. There is often a better understanding of causes of human‐carnivore conflict than of interventions that support coexistence. To test whether there might be a similar discrepancy in how often causes versus effective interventions are studied, we examined the focus of published research on human‐carnivore conflict and coexistence in Canada and the United States from 2010–2021. We found that twice as many studies focused on causes of conflict than on interventions supporting coexistence, with that discrepancy increasing through our study period. We also found that most interventions studied were directed at carnivores (e.g., lethal approaches), not humans (e.g., attractant management, policies), despite evidence that addressing human elements is more effective. Our results suggest an untapped opportunity to shift research towards identifying effective solutions that facilitate human‐carnivore coexistence, to advance understanding and support application of approaches that benefit communities and carnivores alike.