PROJECT BACKGROUND AND RATIONALE
A healthy lifestyle is promoted by the City of Edmonton's multifunctional green network. This plan aims to improve the urban environment and provide places for people to come together (City of Edmonton, 2016). Due to this plan, outdoor recreation activities have been integrated into the City of Edmonton planning, and such decisions must include the potential impacts of these activities on wildlife (Marion et al., 2021). In 2017, the city of Edmonton implemented the Dogs in Open Spaces Strategy to provide sustainable and safe recreational activities with dogs within the city (City of Edmonton, 2017). To support these strategies, it is essential to test the effect of on-leash and off-leash policies on wildlife habitat use and estimate their impacts on the behaviour and ecology of wildlife in urban areas disturbance (Gaynor et al., 2018).
Urbanization can lead to habitat loss and fragmentation, which can affect the distribution and abundance of wildlife sources (Reilly et al., 2017). On-leash and off-leash policies can further influence the use of remaining habitats by wildlife, potentially impacting their survival and reproductive success Miller et al., (1973). By understanding the impact of these policies on wildlife habitat use, conservationists and policymakers can make informed decisions about how to manage urban green spaces and protect the wildlife that depends on them. In addition, studying the effect of these policies on wildlife habitat use can provide insight into the ways in which human behaviour and land use decisions influence the ecology of urban areas and the species that inhabit them.
Camera trapping has been used to assess species activity due to the large amount of information it can provide for researchers (presence, date, and time of the occurrence), as opposed to live trapping, in which detection is resource and time sensitive (J. M. Rowcliffe et al., 2014). Additionally, camera trapping remains as a reliable non-invasive tool for wildlife monitoring, especially for large mammals (O'Connell et al., 2006). Therefore, camera traps were selected in this project as the method to assess the detection rate of mammal species remotely and with minimal disturbance.
Urbanization can lead to habitat loss and fragmentation, which can affect the distribution and abundance of wildlife sources (Reilly et al., 2017). On-leash and off-leash policies can further influence the use of remaining habitats by wildlife, potentially impacting their survival and reproductive success Miller et al., (1973). By understanding the impact of these policies on wildlife habitat use, conservationists and policymakers can make informed decisions about how to manage urban green spaces and protect the wildlife that depends on them. In addition, studying the effect of these policies on wildlife habitat use can provide insight into the ways in which human behaviour and land use decisions influence the ecology of urban areas and the species that inhabit them.
Camera trapping has been used to assess species activity due to the large amount of information it can provide for researchers (presence, date, and time of the occurrence), as opposed to live trapping, in which detection is resource and time sensitive (J. M. Rowcliffe et al., 2014). Additionally, camera trapping remains as a reliable non-invasive tool for wildlife monitoring, especially for large mammals (O'Connell et al., 2006). Therefore, camera traps were selected in this project as the method to assess the detection rate of mammal species remotely and with minimal disturbance.
RESEARCH OBJECTIVES
I used camera traps to investigate the effects of on-leash and off-leash policies on wildlife detection rates in Edmonton´s river valley. My objective was to test the effects of on-leash and off-leash policies on the habitat use of species inhabiting urban parks during the winter and summer seasons. I hypothesized that predatory species such as coyotes would be negatively impacted by off-leash policies due to free-roaming dogs in the area, implying a form of predator avoidance of human‐derived risk, and that prey species such as snowshoe hares would therefore be positively associated with the off-leash policy consistent with the predator shield hypothesis (Berger, 2007).
Specifically, I predicted that parks with on-leash policies would see greater predator habitat use (greater detection rate), and lower prey habitat use (lower detection rate), with off-leash parks seeing opposite trends. Therefore, I predicted that free-roaming dogs in parks would have a negative effect on predator detection rates, while prey detection rates would increase due to anticipated reductions in predator habitat use.
Specifically, I predicted that parks with on-leash policies would see greater predator habitat use (greater detection rate), and lower prey habitat use (lower detection rate), with off-leash parks seeing opposite trends. Therefore, I predicted that free-roaming dogs in parks would have a negative effect on predator detection rates, while prey detection rates would increase due to anticipated reductions in predator habitat use.