Seasonal Variation of Coyote Diet in Northwestern Wyoming: Implications for Dietary Overlap with Canada Lynx?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Exploitative competition through resource utilization may occur between coyotes (Canis latrans) and other carnivores. In the southern periphery of Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis) range, there is concern that increased snowmobile activity may enable coyotes to increase their movements into deep snow areas during the winter months, thereby potentially creating heightened resource competition with lynx, mainly for the lynx's main prey, snowshoe hares (Lepus americanus). We studied the seasonal variation of coyote diets and the dietary overlap between coyotes and lynx in a 512-km2 high-elevation study area in northwestern Wyoming. Dietary shifts by coyotes were documented during the winter, spring, summer, and fall from August 2006 through June 2008. Although lynx are known to primarily prey on snowshoe hares, lynx scats were also collected to assess their diet for comparative purposes. A total of 470 coyote scats and 24 lynx scats were collected, dried and analyzed. Mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) was the predominant prey item for coyotes by percent occurrence (20.1%) for all 3 years combined, followed by elk (Cervus elaphus, 12.5%), montane vole (Microtus montanus, 12.0%), and snowshoe hare (8.0%). Snowshoe hares were the dominant prey item for lynx during the winter, accounting for 85.2% of all prey occurrences. Coyote use of snowshoe hares peaked in the fall (24.1% of all occurrences). We found little dietary overlap between coyotes and lynx during the winter months when lynx mainly fed on snowshoe hares and coyotes fed mostly on ungulates.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".