Cited by 123Wildlife Ecology and ConservationAnimal Ecology and Behavior StudiesRangeland and Wildlife Management

Survival and Cause‐Specific Mortality of Red Foxes in Agricultural and Urban Areas of Illinois

GOSSELINK, TODD E., VAN DEELEN, TIMOTHY R., WARNER, RICHARD E., MANKIN, PHIL C.·2007·The Journal of Wildlife Management

Abstract

Range expansion and population increase by coyotes ( Canis latrans ), reduced hunting and trapping, and intensified agricultural practices in the Midwest have altered red fox ( Vulpes vulpes ) mortality, although relative impacts of these factors are unknown. We examined mortality causes and survival of red foxes in urban and rural agricultural areas of Illinois, using radio telemetry data from 335 foxes (Nov 1996 to May 2002). We used Akaike's Information Criterion to evaluate six survival models for foxes reflecting 1) environmental effects, 2) intrinsic effects, 3) temporal effects, 4) behavioral effects, 5) social effects, and 6) a global model. Environmental and intrinsic models of survival were optimal for adult foxes. Adult foxes with low (0‐20%) and high (80‐100%) percentages of row crops in their home ranges had higher survival than adults with moderate percentages (40‐70%). Heavier adults at capture also survived better. A global model (all covariates) was optimal for juvenile foxes. Higher juvenile survival associated with larger litters, lower body fat, and reduced dispersal time. Yearly survival ranged from 0.18 for rural male juveniles to 0.44 for rural female adults. Adult survival rates (0.35) were 11% higher than juvenile survival rates (0.24). Yearly survival varied for urban foxes due to cyclic outbreaks of sarcoptic mange ( Sarcoptes scabei ). Thus, summer survival (May‐Sep) of urban juveniles ranged from 0.10 (mange present) to 0.83 (no mange recorded). M…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2193/2006-020

Cites

2 of 2 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
GOSSELINK, T. E., VAN DEELEN, T. R., WARNER, R. E., & MANKIN, P. C.
Affiliations
  • Illinois Natural History Survey (US)
  • University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (US)
Corresponding author
GOSSELINK, TODD E.
Venue
The Journal of Wildlife Management
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2007-08
Volume
71
Issue
6
Pages
1862-1873
ISSN
  • 0022-541X (ISSN-L)
  • 1937-2817
OpenAlex
W2110067767
Cited by
123
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 9
FWCI
2.03
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Wildlife Management (publishedVersion)
  • BioOne Complete (BioOne) (submittedVersion)
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
red fox, survival, cause-specific mortality, sarcoptic mange, coyote predation, hunting mortality, roadkill, agricultural land use, row crops, juvenile survival, litter size, fat mass, dispersal, Illinois, wildlife management, source-sink dynamics, radio telemetry

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