4.0 Article

Isotopic investigation of niche partitioning among native carnivores and the non-native coyote (Canis latrans)

Journal

ISOTOPES IN ENVIRONMENTAL AND HEALTH STUDIES
Volume 50, Issue 3, Pages 414-424

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/10256016.2014.897946

Keywords

animals; bobcat; carbon-13; coexistence; coyote; food; gray fox; hair; isotope ecology; niche partitioning; red fox

Funding

  1. Northeastern States Research Cooperative through USDA Forest Service [10DG11242307048]
  2. SUNY-ESF Samuel Grober Graduate Fellowship

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We employed stable carbon (delta C-13) and nitrogen (delta N-15) isotopes within a hypothetico-deductive framework to explore potential resource partitioning among terrestrial mammalian carnivores. Isotope values were acquired using guard hair samples from bobcat (Lynx rufus), coyote (Canis latrans), gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus), and red fox (Vulpes vulpes) in the Adirondack Park, NY, USA. Enrichment along the delta C-13 axis was expected to reflect the use of human sources of food (reflecting a corn subsidy), and by extension tolerance for human-modified environments, whereas enrichment along the delta N-15 axis was expected to reflect a higher level of carnivory (i.e. amount of animal-based protein in the diet) - two mechanisms by which these now sympatric species may achieve a dynamic coexistence. Although bobcats were the only obligate carnivore, all four species shared a similar delta N-15 space. In contrast, bobcat had a lower and distinct delta C-13 signature compared to foxes, consistent with the a priori expectation of bobcats being the species least tolerant of human activities. Isotope signatures for coyotes, which colonized the region in the 1920s, overlapped all three native carnivores, bobcats the least, gray fox the most, indicating their potential competitive influence on this suite of native carnivores.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available