The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Differential Effects of Coyotes and Red Foxes on Duck Nest Success
Abstract
Low recruitment rates prevail among ducks in the Prairie Pothole Region of North America, primarily because of high nest depredation rates. The red fox (Vulpes vulpes) is a major predator of duck eggs, but fox abundance is depressed by coyotes (Canis latrans). We tested the hypothesis that nest success of upland-nesting ducks is higher in areas with coyotes than in areas with red foxes. We conducted the study during 1990-92 in uplands of 36 areas managed for nesting ducks in North Dakota and South Dakota. Overall nest succes averaged 32% (95% CI = 25-40) on 17 study areas where coyotes were the principal canid and 17% (CI = 11-25) on 13 study areas where red foxes were the principal canid (P = 0.01). Both canids were common on 6 other areas, where nest success averaged 25% (CI = 13-47). Habitat composition, predator communities with the exception of canids, and species composition of duck nests in coyote and red fox areas were similar overall. Upon examining only nests with ≥6 eggs on the last visit prior to hatch or depredation, we determined nests with evidence characteristic of fox predation accounted for 4% of depredated nests in coyote areas and 27% in fox areas (P = 0.001). An expanding coyote population is contributing to higher overall nest success. Management of coyotes may be an effective method for increasing duck nest success
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Cited by
Mesopredator release and avifaunal extinctions in a fragmented system
Crooks, K. R., & Soulé, M. E. (1999) · Nature · doi:10.1038/23028 · Cited by 1,721
Predator interactions, mesopredator release and biodiversity conservation.
Ritchie, E. G., & Johnson, C. N. (2009) · Ecology Letters · doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2009.01347.x · Cited by 1,375
Interference interactions, co‐existence and conservation of mammalian carnivores
Linnell, J. D. C., & Strand, O. (2000) · Diversity and Distributions · doi:10.1046/j.1472-4642.2000.00069.x · Cited by 450
Wolves–coyotes–foxes: a cascade among carnivores
Levi, T., & Wilmers, C. C. (2012) · Ecology · doi:10.1890/11-0165.1 · Cited by 293
GOMPPER, M. E. (2002) · BioScience · doi:10.1641/0006-3568(2002)052[0185:tcitse]2.0.co;2 · Cited by 239
Metadata
- Authors
- Sovada, M. A., Sargeant, A. B., & Grier, J. W.
- Venue
- The Journal of Wildlife Management
- Publisher
- JSTOR
- Published
- 1995-01
- Volume
- 59
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 1
- ISSN
- 0022-541X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2074088470
- Cited by
- 199
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 7.98
- 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: Differential Effects of Coyotes and Red Foxes on Duck Nest Success. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2307/3809108
- The paper
- Sovada, M. A., Sargeant, A. B., & Grier, J. W. (1995). Differential Effects of Coyotes and Red Foxes on Duck Nest Success. The Journal of Wildlife Management. https://doi.org/10.2307/3809108
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.