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

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 45 of the 45 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Wolves–coyotes–foxes: a cascade among carnivores

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.

Overview

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.

Verification

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?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 45 references

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Conner M. C, 1983, Scent-station indices as measures of population abundance for bobcats, raccoons, gray foxes, and opossums, Wildlife Society Bulletin, 11, 146
  2. 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2001.99534.x · DOI
  3. Gompper M. E, 2002, The ecology of northeastern coyotes: current knowledge and priorities for future research. Working Paper Number 17
  4. Way J. G, 2002, Eastern coyote home range, territoriality and sociality on urbanized Cape Cod, Massachusetts, Northeast Wildlife, 57, 1

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–200 of 293

Metadata

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