Cited by 293Wildlife Ecology and ConservationAnimal Ecology and Behavior StudiesRangeland and Wildlife Management

Wolves–coyotes–foxes: a cascade among carnivores

Levi, Taal, Wilmers, Christopher C.·2012·Ecology

Abstract

Due to the widespread eradication of large canids and felids, top predators in many terrestrial ecosystems are now medium-sized carnivores such as coyotes. Coyotes have been shown to increase songbird and rodent abundance and diversity by suppressing populations of small carnivores such as domestic cats and foxes. The restoration of gray wolves to many parts of North America, however, could alter this interaction chain. Here we use a 30-year time series of wolf, coyote, and fox relative abundance from the state of Minnesota, USA, to show that wolves suppress coyote populations, which in turn releases foxes from top-down control by coyotes. In contrast to mesopredator release theory, which has often considered the consequence of top predator removal in a three-species interaction chain (e.g., coyote-fox-prey), the presence of the top predator releases the smaller predator in a four-species interaction chain. Thus, heavy predation by abundant small predators might be more similar to the historical ecosystem before top-predator extirpation. The restructuring of predator communities due to the loss or restoration of top predators is likely to alter the size spectrum of heavily consumed prey with important implications for biodiversity and human health.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1890/11-0165.1

Cites

45 of 45 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • At regional scales, inverse density relationships between wolves and coyotes and between coyotes and foxes are supported by accounts of spatial and temporal separation.

    “At a broader (regional) scale, inverse relationships between the densities of both wolves and coyotes (Berger & Gese 2007), and coyotes and foxes (Fedriani et al. 2000;Levi & Wilmers 2012) are supported by numerous accounts of spatial and temporal separation.”

    From A continental scale trophic cascade from wolves through coyotes to foxes (2015) · cites this paper as Levi & Wilmers 2012

  • Coyotes and red foxes have similar habitat requirements.

    “This reflects the fact that coyotes and red foxes have similar habitat requirements (McDonald et al. 2008;Levi & Wilmers 2012).”

    From A continental scale trophic cascade from wolves through coyotes to foxes (2015) · cites this paper as Levi & Wilmers 2012

  • Background population fluctuations and poor trapping weather apply equally to coyotes and red foxes because of their biological similarities.

    “However, with respect to the first two factors, these apply equally to coyotes and red foxes because of their biological similarities (McDonald et al. 2008;Levi & Wilmers 2012).”

    From A continental scale trophic cascade from wolves through coyotes to foxes (2015) · cites this paper as Levi & Wilmers 2012

  • At a smaller spatial scale than this study, Levi and Wilmers showed that when wolves suppress coyote populations, foxes are released from coyote top-down control.

    “For example, at a smaller spatial scale than our analyses, Levi & Wilmers (2012) showed that as wolves suppress coyote populations, foxes are released from top-down control by coyotes.”

    From A continental scale trophic cascade from wolves through coyotes to foxes (2015) · cites this paper as Levi & Wilmers 2012

  • Levi and Wilmers demonstrated that bottom-up factors, land-use changes, and habitat differences are insufficient to explain spatial relationships among wolves, coyotes, and foxes.

    “Our results therefore accord with those of Levi & Wilmers (2012) who demonstrated that bottom-up factors, land-use changes and habitat differences are insufficient to explain the pattern of spatial relationships between wolves, coyotes and foxes.”

    From A continental scale trophic cascade from wolves through coyotes to foxes (2015) · cites this paper as Levi & Wilmers 2012

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Levi, T., & Wilmers, C. C.
Affiliations
University of California, Santa Cruz (US)
Corresponding author
Levi, Taal
Venue
Ecology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2012-04
Volume
93
Issue
4
Pages
921-929
ISSN
  • 0012-9658 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-9170
OpenAlex
W2072484216
Cited by
293
References
45
Citations by year
2026: 16 · 2025: 27 · 2024: 25 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 38 · 2020: 28 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 20 · 2017: 19 · 2016: 17 · 2015: 20 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 3
FWCI
7.63
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Ecology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Science Foundation
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Wildlife Ecology and Conservation
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Animal Ecology and Behavior Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Rangeland and Wildlife Management
Keywords
gray wolves, coyote, red fox, mesopredator release, top-down control, predator-prey interactions, Minnesota
MeSH terms
Animals, Feeding Behavior, Foxes, Minnesota, Population Dynamics, Seasons, Wolves, Food Chain, Coyotes

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