Resource partitioning between kit foxes (<i>Vulpes macrotis</i>) and coyotes (<i>Canis latrans</i>): a comparison of historical and contemporary dietary overlap
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Range expansions by generalists can alter communities and introduce competitive pressures on native species. In the Great Basin Desert, USA, coyotes (Canis latrans Say, 1823) have colonized and are now sympatric with native kit foxes (Vulpes macrotis Merriam, 1888). Since both species have similar diets, dietary partitioning may facilitate coexistence. We analyzed coyote and kit fox diets, then compared our results to an earlier study. Because populations are dynamic, we expected that decreases in prey or increases in predator abundance could alter dietary patterns. We found no significant changes in population-level prey diversity for kit foxes or coyotes, but found high levels of dietary overlap between species. We did detect a significant decrease in the relative importance of leporids (family Leporidae) in the diets of both canids, but they remained important for coyotes. The relative importance of small mammals was greater for kit foxes than coyotes, but their importance had not changed significantly over time. We detected significant declines in prey diversity per sample (scat-level dietary diversity) for both canids, suggesting that during a foraging event, individuals may encounter less diverse prey now than historically. These findings suggested that kit foxes and coyotes were not limited by prey, despite high dietary overlap.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".