Biogeography and Anthropogenic Development Shape Mesopredator Distributions in a Rapidly Developing Region. Potash, A. D., Conner, L. M., Lashley, M., Cherry, M., Edelman, A. J., Garrison, E., Greene, D. U., Gulsby, W., Hallett, M. T., Jachowski, D. S., Taillie, P., & McCleery, R. A. Journal of Biogeography, 53(1):e70147, 2026. _eprint: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/jbi.70147![Biogeography and Anthropogenic Development Shape Mesopredator Distributions in a Rapidly Developing Region [link]](https://bibbase.org/img/filetypes/link.svg "link")
Paper doi abstract bibtex Aim To investigate effects of anthropogenic development at regional and landscape scales on the distributions of mid-trophic level mammalian predators (mesopredators) across the southeastern United States. Location The study area encompasses seven ecoregions across a large portion of the southeastern United States. Taxon Mammalian mesopredators. Methods We compiled trail camera data from 21 studies across the southeastern United States and used occupancy modelling to assess mesopredator distributions and account for heterogeneous detection probabilities. We examined drivers of occupancy at regional and landscape scales. At the regional scale, we assessed occupancy patterns across ecoregions differing in topography, productivity, and human population growth. At the landscape scale, we analysed the influence of land cover types (forest, developed, agriculture) and non-native coyote (Canis latrans) activity on occupancy. Results Regionally, mesopredator occurrence was highest in ecoregions characterised by low productivity and greater topographic variability. Common species (predicted occupancy ≥ 0.19) showed positive associations with developed and agricultural land covers, while less common species (predicted occupancy ≤ 0.10) showed negative associations or were too rare to model. Coyote activity had mixed effects, positively associated with some species while negatively associated with others. Main Conclusions Anthropogenic development affects mesopredator communities at both regional and landscape scales, favouring generalist species that are tolerant of human-modified landscapes.
@article{potash_biogeography_2026,
title = {Biogeography and {Anthropogenic} {Development} {Shape} {Mesopredator} {Distributions} in a {Rapidly} {Developing} {Region}},
volume = {53},
copyright = {© 2026 John Wiley \& Sons Ltd.},
issn = {1365-2699},
url = {https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/jbi.70147},
doi = {10.1111/jbi.70147},
abstract = {Aim To investigate effects of anthropogenic development at regional and landscape scales on the distributions of mid-trophic level mammalian predators (mesopredators) across the southeastern United States. Location The study area encompasses seven ecoregions across a large portion of the southeastern United States. Taxon Mammalian mesopredators. Methods We compiled trail camera data from 21 studies across the southeastern United States and used occupancy modelling to assess mesopredator distributions and account for heterogeneous detection probabilities. We examined drivers of occupancy at regional and landscape scales. At the regional scale, we assessed occupancy patterns across ecoregions differing in topography, productivity, and human population growth. At the landscape scale, we analysed the influence of land cover types (forest, developed, agriculture) and non-native coyote (Canis latrans) activity on occupancy. Results Regionally, mesopredator occurrence was highest in ecoregions characterised by low productivity and greater topographic variability. Common species (predicted occupancy ≥ 0.19) showed positive associations with developed and agricultural land covers, while less common species (predicted occupancy ≤ 0.10) showed negative associations or were too rare to model. Coyote activity had mixed effects, positively associated with some species while negatively associated with others. Main Conclusions Anthropogenic development affects mesopredator communities at both regional and landscape scales, favouring generalist species that are tolerant of human-modified landscapes.},
language = {en},
number = {1},
urldate = {2026-05-29},
journal = {Journal of Biogeography},
author = {Potash, Alex D. and Conner, L. Mike and Lashley, Marcus and Cherry, Michael and Edelman, Andrew J. and Garrison, Elina and Greene, Daniel U. and Gulsby, William and Hallett, Matthew T. and Jachowski, David S. and Taillie, Paul and McCleery, Robert A.},
year = {2026},
note = {\_eprint: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/jbi.70147},
keywords = {Terrestrial Ecoregions (Griffith 2010)},
pages = {e70147},
}
Downloads: 0
{"_id":"ZDYDo2C7EfNkLSm9g","bibbaseid":"potash-conner-lashley-cherry-edelman-garrison-greene-gulsby-etal-biogeographyandanthropogenicdevelopmentshapemesopredatordistributionsinarapidlydevelopingregion-2026","author_short":["Potash, A. D.","Conner, L. M.","Lashley, M.","Cherry, M.","Edelman, A. J.","Garrison, E.","Greene, D. U.","Gulsby, W.","Hallett, M. T.","Jachowski, D. S.","Taillie, P.","McCleery, R. A."],"bibdata":{"bibtype":"article","type":"article","title":"Biogeography and Anthropogenic Development Shape Mesopredator Distributions in a Rapidly Developing Region","volume":"53","copyright":"© 2026 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.","issn":"1365-2699","url":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/jbi.70147","doi":"10.1111/jbi.70147","abstract":"Aim To investigate effects of anthropogenic development at regional and landscape scales on the distributions of mid-trophic level mammalian predators (mesopredators) across the southeastern United States. Location The study area encompasses seven ecoregions across a large portion of the southeastern United States. Taxon Mammalian mesopredators. Methods We compiled trail camera data from 21 studies across the southeastern United States and used occupancy modelling to assess mesopredator distributions and account for heterogeneous detection probabilities. We examined drivers of occupancy at regional and landscape scales. At the regional scale, we assessed occupancy patterns across ecoregions differing in topography, productivity, and human population growth. At the landscape scale, we analysed the influence of land cover types (forest, developed, agriculture) and non-native coyote (Canis latrans) activity on occupancy. Results Regionally, mesopredator occurrence was highest in ecoregions characterised by low productivity and greater topographic variability. Common species (predicted occupancy ≥ 0.19) showed positive associations with developed and agricultural land covers, while less common species (predicted occupancy ≤ 0.10) showed negative associations or were too rare to model. Coyote activity had mixed effects, positively associated with some species while negatively associated with others. Main Conclusions Anthropogenic development affects mesopredator communities at both regional and landscape scales, favouring generalist species that are tolerant of human-modified landscapes.","language":"en","number":"1","urldate":"2026-05-29","journal":"Journal of Biogeography","author":[{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Potash"],"firstnames":["Alex","D."],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Conner"],"firstnames":["L.","Mike"],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Lashley"],"firstnames":["Marcus"],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Cherry"],"firstnames":["Michael"],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Edelman"],"firstnames":["Andrew","J."],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Garrison"],"firstnames":["Elina"],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Greene"],"firstnames":["Daniel","U."],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Gulsby"],"firstnames":["William"],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Hallett"],"firstnames":["Matthew","T."],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Jachowski"],"firstnames":["David","S."],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Taillie"],"firstnames":["Paul"],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["McCleery"],"firstnames":["Robert","A."],"suffixes":[]}],"year":"2026","note":"_eprint: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/jbi.70147","keywords":"Terrestrial Ecoregions (Griffith 2010)","pages":"e70147","bibtex":"@article{potash_biogeography_2026,\n\ttitle = {Biogeography and {Anthropogenic} {Development} {Shape} {Mesopredator} {Distributions} in a {Rapidly} {Developing} {Region}},\n\tvolume = {53},\n\tcopyright = {© 2026 John Wiley \\& Sons Ltd.},\n\tissn = {1365-2699},\n\turl = {https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/jbi.70147},\n\tdoi = {10.1111/jbi.70147},\n\tabstract = {Aim To investigate effects of anthropogenic development at regional and landscape scales on the distributions of mid-trophic level mammalian predators (mesopredators) across the southeastern United States. Location The study area encompasses seven ecoregions across a large portion of the southeastern United States. Taxon Mammalian mesopredators. Methods We compiled trail camera data from 21 studies across the southeastern United States and used occupancy modelling to assess mesopredator distributions and account for heterogeneous detection probabilities. We examined drivers of occupancy at regional and landscape scales. At the regional scale, we assessed occupancy patterns across ecoregions differing in topography, productivity, and human population growth. At the landscape scale, we analysed the influence of land cover types (forest, developed, agriculture) and non-native coyote (Canis latrans) activity on occupancy. Results Regionally, mesopredator occurrence was highest in ecoregions characterised by low productivity and greater topographic variability. Common species (predicted occupancy ≥ 0.19) showed positive associations with developed and agricultural land covers, while less common species (predicted occupancy ≤ 0.10) showed negative associations or were too rare to model. Coyote activity had mixed effects, positively associated with some species while negatively associated with others. Main Conclusions Anthropogenic development affects mesopredator communities at both regional and landscape scales, favouring generalist species that are tolerant of human-modified landscapes.},\n\tlanguage = {en},\n\tnumber = {1},\n\turldate = {2026-05-29},\n\tjournal = {Journal of Biogeography},\n\tauthor = {Potash, Alex D. and Conner, L. Mike and Lashley, Marcus and Cherry, Michael and Edelman, Andrew J. and Garrison, Elina and Greene, Daniel U. and Gulsby, William and Hallett, Matthew T. and Jachowski, David S. and Taillie, Paul and McCleery, Robert A.},\n\tyear = {2026},\n\tnote = {\\_eprint: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/jbi.70147},\n\tkeywords = {Terrestrial Ecoregions (Griffith 2010)},\n\tpages = {e70147},\n}\n\n\n\n","author_short":["Potash, A. D.","Conner, L. M.","Lashley, M.","Cherry, M.","Edelman, A. J.","Garrison, E.","Greene, D. U.","Gulsby, W.","Hallett, M. T.","Jachowski, D. S.","Taillie, P.","McCleery, R. A."],"key":"potash_biogeography_2026","id":"potash_biogeography_2026","bibbaseid":"potash-conner-lashley-cherry-edelman-garrison-greene-gulsby-etal-biogeographyandanthropogenicdevelopmentshapemesopredatordistributionsinarapidlydevelopingregion-2026","role":"author","urls":{"Paper":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/jbi.70147"},"keyword":["Terrestrial Ecoregions (Griffith 2010)"],"metadata":{"authorlinks":{}}},"bibtype":"article","biburl":"https://bibbase.org/zotero/NAAtlas2024","dataSources":["qLjf8q88GSLZ5dAmC"],"keywords":["terrestrial ecoregions (griffith 2010)"],"search_terms":["biogeography","anthropogenic","development","shape","mesopredator","distributions","rapidly","developing","region","potash","conner","lashley","cherry","edelman","garrison","greene","gulsby","hallett","jachowski","taillie","mccleery"],"title":"Biogeography and Anthropogenic Development Shape Mesopredator Distributions in a Rapidly Developing Region","year":2026}