The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Mechanistic home range models capture spatial patterns and dynamics of coyote territories in Yellowstone
Open accessAbstract
Patterns of space-use by individuals are fundamental to the ecology of animal populations influencing their social organization, mating systems, demography and the spatial distribution of prey and competitors. To date, the principal method used to analyse the underlying determinants of animal home range patterns has been resource selection analysis (RSA), a spatially implicit approach that examines the relative frequencies of animal relocations in relation to landscape attributes. In this analysis, we adopt an alternative approach, using a series of mechanistic home range models to analyse observed patterns of territorial space-use by coyote packs in the heterogeneous landscape of Yellowstone National Park. Unlike RSAs, mechanistic home range models are derived from underlying correlated random walk models of individual movement behaviour, and yield spatially explicit predictions for patterns of space-use by individuals. As we show here, mechanistic home range models can be used to determine the underlying determinants of animal home range patterns, incorporating both movement responses to underlying landscape heterogeneities and the effects of behavioural interactions between individuals. Our analysis indicates that the spatial arrangement of coyote territories in Yellowstone is determined by the spatial distribution of prey resources and an avoidance response to the presence of neighbouring packs. We then show how the fitted mechanistic home range model can be used to correctly predict observed shifts in the patterns of coyote space-use in response to perturbation.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Modelling territoriality and wolf–deer interactions
Lewis, M. A., & Murray, J. D. (1993) · Nature · doi:10.1038/366738a0 · Cited by 203
Self-citation
Cited by
Ecological models and data in R
Bolker, B. M. (2008) · doi:10.2307/j.ctvcm4g37 · Cited by 1,297
“In other cases, you might have to run a complicated population dynamics model for each set of parameters and so each likelihood function evaluation could take minutes or longer (Moorcroft et al., 2006).”
BackgroundBörger, L., Dalziel, B. D., & Fryxell, J. M. (2008) · Ecology Letters · doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2008.01182.x · Cited by 616
Integrated step selection analysis: bridging the gap between resource selection and animal movement
Avgar, T., Potts, J. R., Lewis, M. A., & Boyce, M. S. (2016) · Methods in Ecology and Evolution · doi:10.1111/2041-210x.12528 · Cited by 594
Self-citationMueller, T., & Fagan, W. F. (2008) · Oikos · doi:10.1111/j.0030-1299.2008.16291.x · Cited by 399
Suite of simple metrics reveals common movement syndromes across vertebrate taxa
Abrahms, B., Seidel, D. P., Dougherty, E., Hazen, E. L., Bograd, S. J., Wilson, A. M., Weldon McNutt, J., Costa, D. P., Blake, S., Brashares, J. S., et al. (2017) · Movement Ecology · doi:10.1186/s40462-017-0104-2 · Cited by 109
Metadata
- Authors
- Moorcroft, P. R., Lewis, M. A., & Crabtree, R. L.
- Venue
- Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
- Publisher
- The Royal Society
- Published
- 2006-04-18
- Volume
- 273
- Issue
- 1594
- Pages
- 1651-1659
- ISSN
- 0080-4649 (ISSN-L)
- 0962-8452
- 1471-2954
- OpenAlex
- W2124411978
- Cited by
- 218
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 4.68
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Mechanistic home range models capture spatial patterns and dynamics of coyote territories in Yellowstone. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1098/rspb.2005.3439
- The paper
- Moorcroft, P. R., Lewis, M. A., & Crabtree, R. L. (2006). Mechanistic home range models capture spatial patterns and dynamics of coyote territories in Yellowstone. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2005.3439
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.