Diet selection in the Coyote <i>Canis latrans</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The Coyote (Canis latrans) is one of the most studied species in North America with at least 445 papers on its diet alone. While this research has yielded excellent reviews of what coyotes eat, it has been inadequate to draw deeper conclusions because no synthesis to date has considered prey availability. We accounted for prey availability by investigating the prey selection of coyotes across its distribution using the traditional Jacobs’ index method, as well as the new iterative preference averaging (IPA) method on scats and biomass. We found that coyotes selected for Dall’s Sheep (Ovis dalli), White-tailed Deer (Odocoileus virginianus), Eastern Cottontail Rabbit (Sylvilagus floridanus), and California Vole (Microtus californicus), which yielded a predator-to-preferred prey mass ratio of 1:2. We also found that coyotes avoided preying on other small mammals, including carnivorans and arboreal species. There was strong concordance between the traditional and IPA method on scats, but this pattern was weakened when biomass was considered. General linear models revealed that coyotes preferred to prey upon larger species that were riskier to hunt, reflecting their ability to hunt in groups, and were least likely to hunt solitary species. Coyotes increasingly selected Mule Deer (O. hemionus) and Snowshoe Hare (Lepus americanus) at higher latitudes, whereas Black-tailed Jackrabbit (L. californicus) were increasingly selected toward the tropics. Mule Deer were increasingly selected at higher coyote densities, while Black-tailed Jackrabbit were increasingly avoided at higher coyote densities. Coyote predation could constrain the realized niche of prey species at the distributional limits of the predator through their increased efficiency of predation reflected in increased prey selection values. These results are integral to improved understandings of Coyote ecology and can inform predictive analyses allowing for spatial variation, which ultimately will lead to better understandings about the ecological role of the coyote across different ecosystems.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".