Coyote foraging ecology and vigilance in response to gray wolf reintroduction in Yellowstone National Park
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Coyotes (Canis latrans) in Yellowstone National Park (YNP) have lived in the absence of wolves (Canis lupus) for over 60 years. I examined whether wolf reintroduction in 1995 and 1996 in YNP influenced coyote vigilance and foraging ecology. From December 1997 to July 2000, my co-workers and I collected 1708 h of coyote activity budgets. Once wolves became established in the Park, they once again provided a continuous source of carrion in the Lamar Valley and we found that coyotes began feeding on carcasses throughout the year. Although we documented that wolves killed coyotes, it also became clear that surviving coyotes quickly adjusted their behaviors when wolves were present. When coyotes were near wolves or in areas of high wolf use, they fed on carcasses much more; however, they increased the amount of time spent in vigilance activities and decreased rest. There appears to be a trade-off in which wolf kills provide a quick source of food that is energetically advantageous to coyotes; however, attendant costs included increased vigilance, decreased rest, and a higher risk of being killed. Changes in the behavior of coyotes in response to the reintroduction of this large carnivore may ultimately have wide-ranging cascading effects throughout the ecosystem.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".