# The influence of snow on lynx and coyote movements: does morphology affect behavior?

> Lynx have big, snowshoe-like feet; coyotes carry up to nearly nine times more weight on each square centimetre of foot. By following almost 400 km of trails in the Yukon snow, researchers found that coyotes make up for much of this by choosing shallow, hard snow and walking in other animals’ trails, and that they may ambush snowshoe hares rather than chase them.

Summary by Kersey Lawrence, Original Wisdom. Updated 9 November 2026. Page: https://www.originalwisdom.com/tracking-literature/1991-murray-boutin-influence-snow-lynx-coyote/

## Citation and access

- **Authors:** Dennis L. Murray and Stan Boutin
- **Year published:** 1991
- **Journal or source:** Oecologia
- **Full citation:** Murray, D. L. and Boutin, S. 1991. The influence of snow on lynx and coyote movements: does morphology affect behavior? Oecologia 88: 463-469.
- **DOI:** 10.1007/BF00317707
- **Access status:** Publisher link only
- **Where to find it:** https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00317707

## Tags

- **Species:** Mammals > Canada lynx; Mammals > Coyote; Mammals > Grey wolf; Mammals > Moose; Mammals > Red fox; Mammals > Snowshoe hare; Mammals > Wolverine
- **Region:** North America > Canada
- **Tracking:** Feeding signs; Paths; Snow tracks; Track counts; Track measurements; Tracking; Tracks; Tracks and signs identification; Trailing
- **Behaviour and ecology:** Behaviour; Habitat selection; Hunting; Movement; Predation; Scavenging
- **Methods and technology:** Analysis of variance (ANOVA); Body-size comparison; Linear regression
- **Data type:** New field data
- **Observer qualification:** Not reported
- **Discipline:** Behaviour and ecology; Wildlife tracking
- **Year published:** 1991

## Detailed keywords

- **Species:** Studied: lynx (Lynx canadensis) and coyote (Canis latrans). Main prey, also measured for foot-load: snowshoe hare (Lepus americanus). Trails used by the predators included those of snowshoe hare, lynx, coyote, wolf, wolverine, moose and people (on snowshoes and roads). Track look-alike: red fox (Vulpes vulpes), told apart from coyote by track size, known home ranges of radio-collared animals, sightings and the spatial exclusion of foxes from coyote areas.
- **Location and habitat:** A 175 km² valley in southwestern Yukon, Canada (61° N, 138° W), from the valley floor at 830 m up to 1169 m. Snowfall increased with elevation; total snow accumulation in the study winter averaged 65 cm. Hare density about 3.4 hares per hectare, near a peak in the hare cycle.
- **Topics:** snow and animal movement; foot-load (body mass divided by foot area); chest height; sinking depth of footprints; snow depth and snow hardness; morphological versus behavioural adaptations to snow; use of elevation; choice of travel routes; use of trails made by other animals; hunting tactics (ambush versus chase); chases of snowshoe hares; scavenging along predator trails; telling coyote tracks from red fox tracks.
- **Statistics or models:** Analysis of variance (ANOVA, one-, two- and three-way); stepwise linear regression; G-test with Williams’ correction; Student t-test and paired t-tests; arcsine square-root transformation of percentages; significance at P < 0.05; the tracking session as the experimental unit. Inconsistencies in the paper: (1) the Summary says coyotes had 4.1 to 8.8 times the foot-load of lynx, while the Results and Table 1 give 3.4 to 8.8 times; (2) the text says 32 successful lynx chases and 25 successful coyote chases, while Table 3 gives 33 and 24 or 25 depending on the row; (3) on untracked snow, the text says hardness on predator tracks was “lower” than off-track, although the penetrometer figures show the snow on the tracks was harder; (4) a P-value for lynx snow depth is printed as “P > 0.015”, probably meant as 0.15.
- **Data type:** New field data. Track counts on snowmobile trails, November 1988 to April 1989; trailing of fresh tracks, November 1988 to March 1989 (208 km of lynx and 188 km of coyote tracks); snow sites measured eight times through winter 1988-89; lynx and coyote carcasses from trappers in winter 1988-89; snowshoe hares snared in December 1989.

## Synopsis

### 1. What they did

Lynx and coyotes are mid-sized carnivores of similar size and weight, and both live where snow covers the ground in winter. Lynx have large feet for their weight, while coyotes have small feet and are thought to struggle more in snow. The authors asked whether coyotes make up for their small feet through behaviour, and how this shapes where and how each species moves.

They worked in a valley in southwestern Yukon, Canada, through the winter of 1988-89:

- Body measurements. They weighed and measured skinned carcasses of 58 lynx and 10 coyotes from trappers, and 21 snowshoe hares. They traced the paws to get foot area, then worked out foot-load (body mass divided by foot area) and chest height.

- Snow conditions. At 16 sites at low and high elevations, they measured snow depth and snow hardness eight times over the winter. Hardness was measured by dropping a “penetrometer” (a soft-drink can filled with lead, 150 g) from 50 cm and measuring how deep it sank.

- Track counts. They recorded every lynx and coyote track crossing a network of snowmobile trails to compare how much each species used low and high elevations.

- Following tracks. They followed fresh tracks of lynx for 208 km and of coyotes for 188 km. Every 500 paces they measured snow depth and hardness in the track and 1 m to the side, and how deep a footprint had sunk. They noted how much of the time the animal travelled on trails made by other animals, every chase of prey (with the number of bounds and the outcome), and places where the animal scavenged.

### 2. What they found

Feet and bodies

- Coyotes carried 3.4 to 8.8 times the foot-load of lynx, and 5.8 to 8.1 times that of snowshoe hares. Hares had the lowest foot-loads of the three.

- Chest height did not differ between the two predators. Neither species ever sank as deep as their chest; footprints rarely sank more than 20 cm.

Sinking in snow

- On snow of the same hardness, coyotes sank deeper than lynx, but never by more than 4 cm. This was much less than the difference in foot-load would suggest.

- How deep lynx sank depended on snow hardness only; for coyotes, both snow depth and hardness mattered.

Where they travelled

- Coyotes used low elevations more than lynx: 64% of coyote track crossings were at low elevations, compared with 26% for lynx. Snow was shallower at low elevations (about 40 cm against 55 cm higher up).

- Coyote tracks were on shallower and harder snow than lynx tracks.

- Both species chose routes where the snow was shallower and harder than 1 m to the side, even when they were not on another animal’s trail.

- Coyotes travelled on animal trails for 52% of the distance tracked, lynx for 37%. Both used hare trails about equally, but coyotes used other trails (lynx, coyote, wolf, moose and human trails) more often.

- Even with all this, coyotes still sank deeper overall: 9.5 cm on average, compared with 7.7 cm for lynx.

Chases and scavenging

- All successful chases, and most unsuccessful ones, were of snowshoe hares.

- Coyote chases took place on shallower, harder snow than lynx chases.

- Coyote chases took fewer bounds than lynx chases, and successful chases took fewer bounds than unsuccessful ones in both species. Successful coyote chases averaged under one bound; successful lynx chases about two.

- Forty-five percent of coyote scavenging sites were found while coyotes were travelling on other predators’ trails. Only 25% of lynx scavenging was along trails, all of them lynx trails.

### 3. What they concluded

- Lower foot-load is a major advantage in snow. Lynx have this advantage through their body shape.

- Coyotes made up for much of their disadvantage through behaviour: using lower elevations, choosing shallow and hard snow, and travelling on trails made by other animals. On hard snow they sank about as little as lynx.

- Hard snow was limited, though, and in soft snow coyotes sank deeper. Overall, snow was more of a handicap for coyotes than for lynx.

- Travelling on predator trails also gave coyotes extra food through scavenging, so they may have used these trails partly for food and not only for easier travel. The amount of food scavenged was relatively small.

- Snow may have shaped hunting tactics. Because their high foot-load would slow them in snow, coyotes may have needed to start chases at shorter distances and ambush hares rather than run them down, unlike the long chases typical of canids.

### 4. How tracking was or was not used

Tracking was the core field method. The researchers followed fresh lynx and coyote tracks in snow after each snowfall until fresh tracks could no longer be told from older ones (usually 7 to 10 days), and measured distance by counting paces. Along the trail they measured footprint sinking depth and snow on and beside the track, recorded when the animal was walking on another animal’s trail (and whose), read chases from the tracks (number of bounds, success or failure, prey species), and noted scavenging sites. They also counted track crossings on snowmobile trails to compare use of elevations. Because coyote and red fox tracks looked similar there, they identified coyote tracks by track size together with the known home ranges of radio-collared animals, sightings, and knowledge that foxes avoid coyote areas.

### 5. Tracker or observer certification

Not reported. Five co-workers are thanked for “diligent assistance in the field”, but nothing is said about who did the tracking or their experience. Every result depends on reading the trails correctly (for example whose trail an animal was on, the number of bounds in a chase, and telling coyote from red fox tracks).

### 6. Other technologies, skills or innovations

- A simple home-made penetrometer (a lead-filled soft-drink can dropped from 50 cm) to index snow hardness.

- Paw tracings measured with a digital planimeter to work out foot-load.

- Radio-collared animals, used to help estimate how many lynx and coyotes lived in the area and to help tell coyote tracks from fox tracks.

### 8. Implications for tracking (Original Wisdom's observations)

_These are Original Wisdom's observations, not the authors'._

- The study shows how much behaviour can be read from a winter trail: route choice, use of other animals’ trails, chases and their outcome, and scavenging.

- For trackers working in snow, it is a reminder that both lynx and coyotes pick the shallowest and firmest snow they can find, and coyotes often travel in other animals’ trails, which can hide or blur their own footprints.

## Cite this summary

Lawrence, K. 2026. Summary of: The influence of snow on lynx and coyote movements: does morphology affect behavior? (Murray and Boutin, 1991). Original Wisdom, Tracking Literature. https://www.originalwisdom.com/tracking-literature/1991-murray-boutin-influence-snow-lynx-coyote/