Interference competition between gray wolves and coyotes in Yellowstone National Park
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Factors influencing the outcome of interspecific interactions between sympatric carnivores, along with population-level consequences, are not clearly understood. The reintroduction of gray wolves ( Canis lupus L., 1758) to Yellowstone National Park provides a rare opportunity to study interactions with coyotes ( Canis latrans Say, 1823), which had lived in the absence of wolves for >60 years. We evaluated direct interactions between wolves and coyotes to identify factors influencing the outcomes of interspecific interactions and describe the context and degree of competition and coexistence. Using radio-collared wolves, we documented 337 wolf–coyote interactions from 1995 to 2007. The majority (75%) of interactions occurred at ungulate-carcass sites. Wolves initiated the majority of encounters (85%), generally outnumbered coyotes (39%), and dominated (91%) most interactions. Wolves typically (79%) chased coyotes without physical contact; however, 25 interactions (7%) resulted in a coyote death. Interactions decreased over time, suggesting coyote adaptation or a decline in coyote density. In the majority (80%) of fatal interactions, wolves outnumbered coyotes. However, wolves did not outnumber coyotes in interactions (n = 18) where coyotes chased or attacked/harassed wolves. Our results suggest that wolves are the dominant canid, group size may influence the outcome of interactions, and coyotes must benefit from the access to carrion at wolf-killed carcasses.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".