It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
Coyotes (Canis latrans) are believed to contribute to declining kit fox (Vulpes macrotis) numbers in the Great Basin desert through intraguild predation. Intraguild prey have been shown to exhibit adaptive compromise, whereby an animal increases selection for risky, but food-rich areas during times of food stress (i.e. winter). We evaluated the habitat selection of kit foxes in the Great Basin desert to elucidate if they demonstrated adaptive compromise as a method of coexisting with coyotes. We created 2nd order resource selection functions to analyze kit fox habitat selection associated with coyote relative probability of use (RPU), prey abundance, and type of soil substrate. In the summer, we found that kit fox selection for areas of relatively more abundant prey was not significant, and there was a small positive selection for coyote RPU. In the winter, we found a positive relationship between kit fox selection and prey abundance as well as a stronger selection for coyote RPU. These findings do follow the pattern of adaptive compromise. We also found kit foxes selected for silty and sandy soils, which are conducive to den construction, as they use dens seasonally for breeding but also year-round for multiple uses, including refugia from predators and extreme heat. Soil substrate appeared to be an important factor impacting kit fox habitat selection.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details
1 Utah State University, Department of Wildland Resources, Logan, USA (GRID:grid.53857.3c) (ISNI:0000 0001 2185 8768); Life Science II RM 251, Carbondale, USA (GRID:grid.53857.3c)
2 Utah State University, U.S. Department of Agriculture/APHIS/Wildlife Services, National Wildlife Research Center, Department of Wildland Resources, Logan, USA (GRID:grid.53857.3c) (ISNI:0000 0001 2185 8768)
3 Utah State University, U.S. Geological Survey, Utah Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit Department of Wildland Resources and The Ecology Center, Logan, USA (GRID:grid.53857.3c) (ISNI:0000 0001 2185 8768)
4 National Wildlife Research Center, U.S. Department of Agriculture/APHIS/Wildlife Services, Gainesville, USA (GRID:grid.53857.3c) (ISNI:0000 0004 0636 8906)




