Food Habits of Coyotes, Gray Foxes, and Bobcats in a Coastal Southern California Urban Landscape
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many carnivores are sensitive to habitat fragmentation, and the capacity to shift diets may improve their ability to persist in urban areas. We collected and identified contents of a total of 119 scats from coyotes (Canis latrans), 58 scats from gray foxes (Urocyon cinereoargenteus), and 31 scats from bobcats (Lynx rufus) within habitat fragments of varying size in the San Diego area in coastal southern California. Coyote diet was generalist, composed of mostly mammals but also anthropogenic items, fruit and seeds, birds, and invertebrates. Dietary breadth of coyotes was similar in small urban habitat fragments and larger sites, but composition differed, suggestive of the opportunistic habits of coyotes. Notably, domestic cats occurred in 29% of coyote scats in small urban fragments, implicating coyotes as a threat to cats. Like coyotes, gray foxes had an omnivorous diet consisting of mammals, fruit and seeds, invertebrates, and birds. As with coyotes, dietary breadth of gray foxes was similar in urban habitat remnants and larger control sites. Bobcats, not detected in small urban fragments, had a more specialized diet focused primarily on mammalian prey. Such resource specialization might limit bobcats' ability to exploit anthropogenic subsidies and hence persist in small urban patches, compared to more opportunistic carnivores such as coyotes and gray foxes.
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".