Roadless Areas
Home/Species/ Kit Fox

Vulpes macrotis

Merriam, 1888

Kit Fox

G4Apparently Secure Found in 14 roadless areas NatureServe Explorer →
G4Apparently SecureGlobal Rank
Least concernIUCN
PSESA Status
MediumThreat Impact
Identity
Unique IDELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.102982
Element CodeAMAJA03040
Record TypeSPECIES
ClassificationSpecies
Classification StatusStandard
Name CategoryVertebrate Animal
IUCNLeast concern
Endemicoccurs (regularly, as a native taxon) in multiple nations
KingdomAnimalia
PhylumCraniata
ClassMammalia
OrderCarnivora
FamilyCanidae
GenusVulpes
USESAPS
Other Common Names
kit fox (EN)
Concept Reference
Mercure, A., et al. 1993. Genetic subdivisions among small canids: mitochondrial DNA differentiation of swift, kit, and arctic foxes. Evolution 47:1313-1328.
Taxonomic Comments
Vulpes macrotis is treated as a species separate from V. velox.
Conservation Status
Rank Method Rank calculation - Biotics v2
Review Date2025-11-05
Change Date1996-11-15
Edition Date2025-11-05
Edition AuthorsGundy, R. L. (2025)
Threat ImpactMedium
Range Extent20,000-2,500,000 square km (about 8000-1,000,000 square miles)
Number of Occurrences81 - 300
Rank Reasons
This species is widespread in the southwestern U.S. and the northern half of México. It is threatened by habitat loss, habitat fragmentation, road mortality, and sarcoptic mange.
Range Extent Comments
This species occurs in the southwestern United States south to central México. This species is found in southeastern Oregon, Nevada, Utah, western Colorado, southern California, Arizona, New Mexico, western Texas, Baja California, Sonora, Chihuahua, Coahuila, western Nuevo León, and Zacatecas. Using Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) (2025) records from 2000-2025, range extent is estimated to be 2.454 million km² (RARECAT 2025).
Occurrences Comments
Applying a 15 km separation distance to GBIF (2025) records from 2000-2025, 267 occurrences are estimated (RARECAT 2025).
Threat Impact Comments
This species is threatened by habitat loss, road mortality, sarcoptic mange, and persecution. Sarcoptic mange is a highly fatal disease in this species that has been impacting the population around Bakersfield, California with over 450 reported cases (Cypher et al. 2017, Loredo et al. 2020, Rudd et al. 2020). Increasing exploitation of human food sources (i.e., trash) puts this species at risk of interactions with mange and road mortality (Newsome et al. 2010). This species actively avoids areas with regular off-highway vehicle use, creating habitat fragmentation (Jones et al. 2016).
Ecology & Habitat

Habitat

Primarily open desert, shrubby or shrub-grass habitat. In central California, found in alkali sink, valley grassland, foothill woodland. In Mohave Desert, occurs in crosote bush; in Great Basin, in shadscale, greasewood and sagebrush.

Young are born in an underground den. Den usually has multiple entrances (3 or more) and may be 3-6 m long, reaching 127 cm in depth. In Utah, most dens were on flat, well-drained uplands (Daneke et al. 1985). Several dens may be used, especially in summer.

Ecology

White and Garrot (1997) looked at available data on kit and swift fox populations and concluded that prey abundance and interference competition by coyotes may regulate fox populations. They suspected that prey abundance and behavioral spacing mechanisms are the major factors regulating fox densities. They felt that coyote-related mortalities may be less important but still might act in concert with prey abundance to reduce the amplitude of fox population variations and keep foxes at lower densities than they might otherwise attain.

White and Garrot (1999) further concluded that high-amplitude fluctuations in kit fox abundance may be related to random, precipitation-influenced changes in prey abundance and need not reflect special or persistent causes such as predation or disease.

Maximum population density in optimum habitat in western Utah was about 2 adults per 259 ha.

Seasonal home range in Utah averaged less than 5 sq km; no overlap for same-sex adults (Daneke et al. 1985, O'Neal et al. 1987). In western Arizona, home range averaged 9.8 sq km in females, 12.3 sq km in males; home ranges commonly overlapped (Zoellick and Smith 1992). In the San Joaquin Valley, California, home ranges were 2.6-5.2 sq km (Morrel 1972). Dispersal distance (mostly juveniles) in Kern County, California, was 1.8-32.3 km (mean 7.8 km) (Scrivner et al. 1987).

Reproduction

Breeds from December to January-February. Females are monestrous. Gestation lasts probably 49-56 days. One litter of 4-5 is produced usually in February or March. Pups first emerge from the den at about 1 month. Young are tended by both sexes. Family groups usually split up in October.
Terrestrial Habitats
Shrubland/chaparralSavannaGrassland/herbaceousDesertPlaya/salt flat
Other Nations (1)
United StatesN4
ProvinceRankNative
ColoradoS1Yes
CaliforniaSNRYes
New MexicoS4Yes
UtahS3Yes
ArizonaS3Yes
OregonS1Yes
Navajo NationS3Yes
NevadaS3Yes
TexasS1Yes
IdahoS2Yes
Threat Assessments
ThreatScopeSeverityTiming
1 - Residential & commercial developmentSmall (1-10%)Serious or 31-70% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
1.1 - Housing & urban areasSmall (1-10%)Serious or 31-70% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
1.2 - Commercial & industrial areasSmall (1-10%)Serious or 31-70% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
2 - Agriculture & aquacultureLarge (31-70%)Slight or 1-10% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
2.1 - Annual & perennial non-timber cropsLarge (31-70%)Slight or 1-10% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
2.3 - Livestock farming & ranchingLarge (31-70%)Slight or 1-10% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
4 - Transportation & service corridorsRestricted (11-30%)Moderate or 11-30% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
4.1 - Roads & railroadsRestricted (11-30%)Moderate or 11-30% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
5 - Biological resource useRestricted (11-30%)Moderate - slightHigh (continuing)
5.1 - Hunting & collecting terrestrial animalsRestricted (11-30%)Moderate - slightHigh (continuing)
5.1.3 - Persecution/controlRestricted (11-30%)Moderate - slightHigh (continuing)
8 - Invasive & other problematic species, genes & diseasesSmall (1-10%)Serious or 31-70% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
8.2 - Problematic native species/diseasesSmall (1-10%)Serious or 31-70% pop. declineHigh (continuing)

—

Roadless Areas (14)
California (5)
AreaForestAcres
Fox MountainLos Padres National Forest52,072
Garcia MountainLos Padres National Forest7,850
Lpoor CanyonLos Padres National Forest13,762
Machesna MountainLos Padres National Forest12,271
Soldier CanyonInyo National Forest40,589
Nevada (6)
AreaForestAcres
Bald Mtn.Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest41,598
Fourmile HillHumboldt-Toiyabe National Forest15,718
SaulsburyHumboldt-Toiyabe National Forest30,957
Toquima CaveHumboldt-Toiyabe National Forest43,147
Warm SpringsHumboldt-Toiyabe National Forest29,540
Wellington HillsHumboldt-Toiyabe National Forest21,009
New Mexico (3)
AreaForestAcres
Apache Kid ContiguousCibola National Forest67,542
Pueblo MesaSanta Fe National Forest3,540
YoungsvilleSanta Fe National Forest6,122
References (43)
  1. American Society of Mammalogists (ASM). 2025. Mammal Diversity Database (Version 1.13) [Data set]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10595931. Online. Available: https://www.mammaldiversity.org/
  2. Baker, R. J., L. C. Bradley, R. D. Bradley, J. W. Dragoo, M. D. Engstrom, R. S. Hoffman, C. A. Jones, F. Reid, D. W. Rice, and C. Jones. 2003a. Revised checklist of North American mammals north of Mexico, 2003. Museum of Texas Tech University Occasional Papers 229:1-23.
  3. Bradley, R.D., L.K. Ammerman, R.J. Baker, L.C. Bradley, J.A. Cook. R.C. Dowler, C. Jones, D.J. Schmidly, F.B. Stangl Jr., R.A. Van den Bussche and B. Würsig. 2014. Revised checklist of North American mammals north of Mexico, 2014. Museum of Texas Tech University Occasional Papers 327:1-28. Available at: http://www.nsrl.ttu.edu/publications/opapers/ops/OP327.pdf
  4. Cypher, B., and R. List. 2014. <i>Vulpes macrotis</i>. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2014: e.T41587A62259374. doi: 10.2305/IUCN.UK.2014-3.RLTS.T41587A62259374.en.
  5. Cypher, B. L., and K. A. Spencer. 1998. Competitive interactions between coyotes and San Joaquin kit foxes. Journal of Mammalogy 79:204-
  6. Cypher, B. L., J. L. Rudd, T. L. Westall, L. W. WOods, N. Stephenson, J. E. Foley, D. Richardson, and D. L. Clifford. 2017. Sarcoptic mange in endangered kit foxes (<i>Vulpes macrotis mutica</i>): case histories, diagnoses, and implications for conservation. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 53(1): 46–53. doi: 10.7589/2016-05-098
  7. Daneke, D., M. Sunquist, and S. Berwick. 1985. Notes on kit fox biology in Utah. Southwest Nat. 29:361-362.
  8. Dragoo, J. W., and R. K. Wayne. 2003. Systematics and population genetics of swift and kit foxes. Pages 207-222 in M. A. Sovada and L. Carbyn, editors. The swift fox: ecology and conservation of swift foxes in a changing world. Canadian High Plains Research Center, University of Regina, Regina, Saskatchewan.
  9. Dragoo, J. W., et al. 1990. Evolutionary and taxonomic relationships among North American arid-land foxes. J. Mammalogy 71:318-332.
  10. Egoscue, H. J. 1956. Preliminary studies of the kit fox in Utah. Journal of Mammalogy 37:351-357.
  11. Egoscue, H. J. 1975. Population dynamics of the kit fox in western Utah. Bulletin of the Southern California Academy of Science 74:122-127.
  12. Fauna West Wildlife Consultants. 1991. A bibliography of literature and papers pertaining to swift and kit foxes. Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks.
  13. Ginsberg, J. R., and D. W. Macdonald. 1990. Foxes, wolves, jackals, and dogs: An action plan for the conservation of canids. Gland, Switzerland, IUCN.
  14. Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF). 2025. Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) data portal. Online. Available: https://www.gbif.org/ (accessed 2025).
  15. Hoffmeister, D. F. 1986. Mammals of Arizona. University of Arizona Press and Arizona Game and Fish Department. 602 pp.
  16. Jones, A. S., J. J. Anderson, B. G. Dickson, S. Boe, and E. S. Rubin. 2016. Off-highway vehicle road networks and kit fox space use. The Journal of Wildlife Management 81(2): 230-237. doi: 10.1002/jwmg.21204
  17. Koopman, M. E., B. L. Cypher, and J. H. Scrivner. 2000. Dispersal patterns of San Joaquin kit foxes (<i>Vulpes macrotis mutica</i>). Journal of Mammalogy 81:213-222.
  18. Koopman, M. E., J. H. Scrivner, and T. T. Kato. 1998. Patterns of den use by San Joaquin kit foxes. Journal of Wildlife Management 62:373-
  19. Loredo, A. I., J. L. Rudd, J. E. Foley, D. L. Clifford, and B. L. Cypher. 2020. Climatic suitability of San Joaquin kit fox (<i>Vulpes macrotis mutica</i>) dens for sarcoptic mange (<i>Sarcoptes scabiei</i>) transmission. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 56(1): 126–133. doi: 10.7589/2019-02-035
  20. Maldonado, J. E., M. Cotera, E. Geffen, and R. K. Wayne. 1997. Relationships of endangered Mexican kit fox (<i>Vulpes macrotis zinseri</i>) to North American arid-land foxes based on mitochondrial DNA sequence data. Southwestern Naturalist 42:460-
  21. McGrew, J.C. 1979. <i>Vulpes macrotis</i>. Mammalian Species, 123: 1-6.
  22. Mercure, A., et al. 1993. Genetic subdivisions among small canids: mitochondrial DNA differentiation of swift, kit, and arctic foxes. Evolution 47:1313-1328.
  23. Morrell, S. H. 1972. Life history of the San Joaquin kit fox. California Fish and Game 58:162-174.
  24. Newsome, S. D., K. Ralls, C. Van Horn Job, M. L. Fogel, and B. L. Cypher. 2010. Article Navigation Journal Article Stable isotopes evaluate exploitation of anthropogenic foods by the endangered San Joaquin kit fox (<i>Vulpes macrotis mutica</i>). Journal of Mammalogy 91(6): 1313–1321. doi: 10.1644/09-MAMM-A-362.1
  25. O'Neal, G. T., J. T. Flinders, and R. P. Clary. 1987. Behavioral ecology of the Nevada kit fox (<i>Vulpes macrotis nevadensis</i>) on a managed desert rangeland. Pages 443-481 in H. H. Genoways, editor, Current Mammalogy 1:1-519. Plenum Press, New York.
  26. <p>NatureServe's Rapid Analysis of Rarity and Endangerment Conservation Assessment Tool (RARECAT). 2025. Version: 2.1.1 (released April 04, 2025).</p>
  27. Ralls, K., and L. Eberhardt. 1997. Assessment of abundance of San Joaquin kit foxes by spotlight surveys. Journal of Mammalogy 78:65-
  28. Ralls, K., and P. J. White. 1995. Predation on San Joaquin kits foxes by larger canids. Journal of Mammalogy 76:723-729.
  29. Rudd, J. L., D. L. Clifford, B. L. Cypher, J. M. Hull, and J. E. Foley. 2020. Use of flumethrin-impregnated collars to manage an epidemic of sarcoptic mange in an urban population of endangered San Joaquin kit foxes (<i>Vulpes macrotis mutica</i>). Journal of Zoo and Wildlife Medicine 51(3): 631–642. doi: 10.1638/2019-0197
  30. Schmidly, D. J. 1977. The mammals of Trans-Pecos Texas including Big Bend National Park and Guadalupe Mountains National Park. Texas A & M University Press, College Station.
  31. Scrivner, J. H., T. P. O'Farrell, and T. T. Kato. 1987. Dispersal of San Joaquin kit foxes, <i>Vulpes macrotis mutica</i>, on Naval Petroleum Reserve #1, Kern County, California. United States Department of Energy Topical Report, EGG 10282-2190.
  32. Sheldon, J. W. 1991. Wild dogs: the natural history of the nondomestic Canidae. Academic Press. 248 pp.
  33. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1990. Endangered and threatened species recovery program: report to Congress. 406 pp.
  34. White, P. J. and K. Ralls. 1993. Reproduction and spacing patterns of kit foxes relative to changing prey availability. Journal of Wildlife Management 57:861-867.
  35. White, P. J., and R. A. Garrott. 1997. Factors regulating kit fox populations. Canadian Journal of Zoology 75:1982-
  36. White, P. J., and R. A. Garrott. 1999. Population dynamics of kit foxes. Canadian Journal of Zoology 77:486-493.
  37. White, P. J., C. A. V. White, and K. Ralls. 1996. Functional and numerical responses of kit foxes to a short-term decline in mammalian prey. Journal of Mammalogy 77:370-376.
  38. White, P. J., K. Ralls, and R. A. Garrott. 1994. Coyote-kit fox interactions as revealed by telemetry. Canadian Journal of Zoology 72:1831-1836.
  39. Whiting, M.J., J. R. Dixon, and R. C. Murray. 1993. Spatial distribution of a population of Texas horned lizards (<i>Phrynosoma cornutum</i>: Phrynosomatidae) relative to habitat and prey. Southwestern Naturalist 38:150-154.
  40. Wilson, D. E., and D. M. Reeder (editors). 1993. Mammal species of the world: a taxonomic and geographic reference. Second edition. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC. xviii + 1206 pp. Available online at: http://www.nmnh.si.edu/msw/.
  41. Wilson, D. E., and D. M. Reeder (editors). 2005. Mammal species of the world: a taxonomic and geographic reference. Third edition. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore. Two volumes. 2,142 pp. [As modified by ASM the Mammal Diversity Database (MDD) at https://www.mammaldiversity.org/index.html]
  42. Wilson, D. E., and S. Ruff. 1999. The Smithsonian book of North American mammals. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. 750 pp.
  43. Zoellick, B. W., and N. S. Smith. 1992. Size and spatial organization of home ranges of kit foxes in Arizona. J. Mamm. 73:83-88.