Role of Body Size in the Diets of Sympatric Gray and Culpeo Foxes
Abstract
Feeding ecology of sympatric South American gray fox (Dusicyon griseus) and culpeo fox (D. culpaeus) was studied from 1987 to 1990 in Torres del Paine National Park, Chile, to determine if these canids have different patterns of prey selection. Seasonal and species differences in use of prey were compared with availability of prey to determine prey selection by these foxes. Mammals accounted for 90% of 851 items of vertebrate prey occurring in 890 feces of gray foxes. The European hare (Lepus capensis) was the most common vertebrate prey (45%), with lesser amounts of the guanaco (Lama guanicoe; 14%) and Akodon (13%). Of 784 items of vertebrate prey in 645 feces of culpeo foxes, 93% were mammalian. The European hare accounted for 69% of the prey items, and rodents 20%. The proportion of vertebrate prey items consumed by gray and culpeo foxes changed seasonally. Yearly diets of gray and culpeo foxes were significantly different, with ungulates and the European hare contributing most to the difference. Gray foxes were more omnivorous than culpeo foxes, feeding more on beetles and plants, especially from spring through autumn. Gray foxes had a significantly higher (X̄ ± SE) index of food-niche breadth for vertebrates than did culpeo foxes (0.24 ± 0.01 versus 0.09 ± 0.01) and consumed vertebrate prey of a significantly lower mass (2.17 ± 0.07 versus 2.59 ± 0.09 kg). The index of similarity between the diets of the two species was low (0.14). Differences in feeding habits between g…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
The Andean fox also feeds on larger mammals, including artiodactyls, large rodents, and other carnivores such as grisons and hog-nosed skunks.
“This canid also feeds on larger mammals, including artiodactyls (Yáñez & Rau 1980;Johnson & Franklin 1994;Guntiñas et al. 2017), large rodents (Correa & Roa 2005;Guntiñas et al. 2017;Cadena-Ortíz et al. 2020), and other carnivores such as grisons, Galictis (Bell, 1826) and hog-nosed skunks, Conepatus (Gray, 1837) (Johnson & Franklin 1994;Novaro et al. 2004;Zapata et al. 2005;Palacios et al. 2012;G”
From The Andean fox Lycalopex culpaeus (Molina, 1782) in southwestern Colombia: diet and anatomical description (2026) · cites this paper as Johnson & Franklin 1994
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 24 · Cited by 100
- Authors
- Johnson, W. E., & Franklin, W. L.
- Affiliations
- Iowa State University (US)
- Venue
- Journal of Mammalogy
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 1994-02-18
- Volume
- 75
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 163-174
- ISSN
- 0022-2372 (ISSN-L)
- 1545-1542
- OpenAlex
- W2334975457
- Cited by
- 100
- References
- 24
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 4 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 7
- FWCI
- 1.78
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Mammalogy (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Park Service
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Wildlife Ecology and Conservation
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Animal Ecology and Behavior Studies
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Plant and animal studies
- Keywords
- gray fox, culpeo fox, feeding ecology, prey selection, body size, food niche breadth, diet overlap, seasonal diet variation, Lepus europaeus, guanaco, omnivory, fecal analysis, food availability, Torres del Paine National Park
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
