↓ Skip to main content

Competition and intraguild predation among three sympatric carnivores

Overview of attention for article published in Oecologia, October 2000
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (82nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
wikipedia
21 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
327 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
720 Mendeley
Title
Competition and intraguild predation among three sympatric carnivores
Published in
Oecologia, October 2000
DOI 10.1007/s004420000448
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jose M. Fedriani, Todd K. Fuller, Raymond M. Sauvajot, Eric C. York

Abstract

We examined the relative roles of dominance in agonistic interactions and energetic constraints related to body size in determining local abundances of coyotes (Canis latrans, 8-20 kg), gray foxes (Urocyon cinereoargenteus, 3-5 kg) and bobcats (Felis rufus, 5-15 kg) at three study sites (hereafter referred to as NP, CP, and SP) in the Santa Monica Mountains of California. We hypothesized that the largest and behaviorally dominant species, the coyote, would exploit a wider range of resources (i.e., a higher number of habitat and/or food types) and, consequently, would occur in higher density than the other two carnivores. We evaluated our hypotheses by quantifying their diets, food overlap, habitat-specific abundances, as well as their overall relative abundance at the three study sites. We identified behavioral dominance of coyotes over foxes and bobcats in Santa Monica because 7 of 12 recorded gray fox deaths and 2 of 5 recorded bobcat deaths were due to coyote predation, and no coyotes died as a result of their interactions with bobcats or foxes. Coyotes and bobcats were present in a variety of habitats types (8 out of 9), including both open and brushy habitats, whereas gray foxes were chiefly restricted to brushy habitats. There was a negative relationship between the abundances of coyotes and gray foxes (P=0.020) across habitats, suggesting that foxes avoided habitats of high coyote predation risk. Coyote abundance was low in NP, high in CP, and intermediate in SP. Bobcat abundance changed little across study sites, and gray foxes were very abundant in NP, absent in CP, and scarce in SP; this suggests a negative relationship between coyote and fox abundances across study sites, as well. Bobcats were solely carnivorous, relying on small mammals (lagomorphs and rodents) throughout the year and at all three sites. Coyotes and gray foxes also relied on small mammals year-round at all sites, though they also ate significant amounts of fruit. Though there were strong overall interspecific differences in food habits of carnivores (P<0.0001), average seasonal food overlaps were high due to the importance of small mammals in all carnivore diets [bobcat-gray fox: 0.79±0.09 (SD), n=4; bobcat-coyote: 0.69±0.16, n=6; coyote-gray fox: 0.52±0.05, n=4]. As hypothesized, coyotes used more food types and more habitat types than did bobcats and gray foxes and, overall, coyotes were the most abundant of the three species and ranged more widely than did gray foxes. We propose that coyotes limit the number and distribution of gray foxes in Santa Monica Mountains, and that those two carnivores exemplified a case in which the relationship between their body size and local abundance is governed by competitive dominance of the largest species rather than by energetic equivalences. However, in the case of the intermediate-sized bobcat no such a pattern emerged, likely due to rarity or inconsistency of agonistic interactions and/or behavioral avoidance of encounters by subordinate species.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 720 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 10 1%
United Kingdom 10 1%
Brazil 10 1%
India 6 <1%
Chile 2 <1%
Germany 2 <1%
China 2 <1%
Iran, Islamic Republic of 2 <1%
Czechia 2 <1%
Other 15 2%
Unknown 659 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 147 20%
Student > Master 142 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 130 18%
Student > Bachelor 63 9%
Other 39 5%
Other 105 15%
Unknown 94 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 398 55%
Environmental Science 172 24%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 16 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 1%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 5 <1%
Other 17 2%
Unknown 104 14%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 April 2024.
All research outputs
#6,522,631
of 24,703,339 outputs
Outputs from Oecologia
#1,313
of 4,408 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#11,574
of 38,962 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Oecologia
#4
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,703,339 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,408 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 38,962 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.