Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 193

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Assessing differential prey selection patterns between two sympatric large carnivores

Husseman, Jason S., Murray, Dennis L., Power, Gary, Mack, Curt, Wenger, C. R., Quigley, Howard·2003·Oikos

Abstract

Several conceptual models describing patterns of prey selection by predators have been proposed, but such models rarely have been tested empirically, particularly with terrestrial carnivores. We examined patterns of prey selection by sympatric wolves ( Canis lupus ) and cougars ( Puma concolor ) to determine i) if both predators selected disadvantaged prey disproportionately from the prey population, and ii) if the specific nature and intensity of prey selection differed according to disparity in hunting behavior between predator species. We documented prey characteristics and kill site attributes of predator kills during winters 1999–2001 in Idaho, and located 120 wolf‐killed and 98 cougar‐killed ungulates on our study site. Elk ( Cervus elephus ) were the primary prey for both predators, followed by mule deer ( Odocoileus hemionus ). Both predators preyed disproportionately on elk calves and old individuals; among mule deer, wolves appeared to select for fawns, whereas cougars killed primarily adults. Nutritional status of prey, as determined by percent femur marrow fat, was consistently poorer in wolf‐killed prey. We found that wolf kills occurred in habitat that was more reflective of the entire study area than cougar kills, suggesting that the coursing hunting behavior of wolves likely operated on a larger spatial scale than did the ambush hunting strategy of cougars. We concluded that the disparity in prey selection and hunting habitat between predators probably was a function of predator‐specific hunting behavior and capture success, where the longer prey chases and lower capture success of wolf packs mandated a stronger selection for disadvantaged prey. For cougars, prey selection seemed to be limited primarily by prey size, which could be a function of the solitary hunting behavior of this species and the risks associated with capturing prime‐aged prey.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1034/j.1600-0706.2003.12230.x

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 2 references

Cited by

See all 193

Metadata

Authors
Husseman, J. S., Murray, D. L., Power, G., Mack, C., Wenger, C. R., & Quigley, H.
Venue
Oikos
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2003-05-06
Volume
101
Issue
3
Pages
591-601
ISSN
  • 0030-1299 (ISSN-L)
  • 1600-0706
OpenAlex
W2168486440
Cited by
193
References
2
FWCI
2.53
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Assessing differential prey selection patterns between two sympatric large carnivores. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1034/j.1600-0706.2003.12230.x
The paper
Husseman, J. S., Murray, D. L., Power, G., Mack, C., Wenger, C. R., & Quigley, H. (2003). Assessing differential prey selection patterns between two sympatric large carnivores. Oikos. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0706.2003.12230.x

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.