Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T12:40:03.111Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Local and continental correlates of the abundance of a neotropical cat, the ocelot (Leopardus pardalis)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 March 2008

Mario S. Di Bitetti ,
Agustín Paviolo ,
Carlos D. De Angelo  and
Yamil E. Di Blanco
Mario S. Di Bitetti*
Affiliation:
National Research Council of Argentina (CONICET), Laboratorio de Investigaciones Ecológicas de las Yungas (LIEY), University of Tucumán Asociación Civil Centro de Investigaciones del Bosque Atlántico (CeIBA), Yapeyú 23, (3370) Puerto Iguazú, Misiones, Argentina
Agustín Paviolo
Affiliation:
National Research Council of Argentina (CONICET), Laboratorio de Investigaciones Ecológicas de las Yungas (LIEY), University of Tucumán Asociación Civil Centro de Investigaciones del Bosque Atlántico (CeIBA), Yapeyú 23, (3370) Puerto Iguazú, Misiones, Argentina
Carlos D. De Angelo
Affiliation:
National Research Council of Argentina (CONICET), Laboratorio de Investigaciones Ecológicas de las Yungas (LIEY), University of Tucumán Asociación Civil Centro de Investigaciones del Bosque Atlántico (CeIBA), Yapeyú 23, (3370) Puerto Iguazú, Misiones, Argentina
Yamil E. Di Blanco
Affiliation:
Asociación Civil Centro de Investigaciones del Bosque Atlántico (CeIBA), Yapeyú 23, (3370) Puerto Iguazú, Misiones, Argentina
*
1Corresponding author. Email: dibitetti@yahoo.com.ar
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract:

As top predators, wild cats play a key ecological role in tropical forests, but little is known about the factors that regulate their abundance. This study looked for correlates of ocelot (Leopardus pardalis) abundance at two spatial scales. First, camera-trap surveys conducted in the Atlantic Forest of Misiones, Argentina, were used to test the hypothesis that selective logging and poaching affect the local abundance of this cat. Second, published density estimates (N = 21) were used to test the hypothesis that rainfall and latitude are correlated with the abundance of ocelots across their continental range. In Misiones, ocelot densities ranged from 4.96 ± 1.33 individuals per 100 km2 in the intensely logged and hunted areas to 17.6 ± 2.25 individuals per 100 km2 in areas with low human impact. The frequency of records, number of individuals recorded per station, and density estimates were 2–3 times higher in areas with relatively low levels of logging and poaching. At a continental scale, ocelot densities decrease with latitude and increase with rainfall. Primary productivity seems to determine the abundance of wild cats across their range, but at a local scale their abundance may be affected by logging and poaching or by competition with other species.

Keywords

Atlantic Forestdensityfelidspoachinglatitudeloggingneotropical catsocelotrainfalltropical forest
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Tropical Ecology , Volume 24 , Issue 2 , March 2008 , pp. 189 - 200
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

LITERATURE CITED

BERTONATTI, C. & CORCUERA, J. 2000. Situación ambiental Argentina 2000. Fundación Vida Silvestre Argentina, Buenos Aires. 440 pp.Google Scholar
CARBONE, C. & GITTLEMAN, J. L. 2002. A common rule for the scaling of carnivore density. Science 295:2273–2276.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
CARBONE, C., CHRISTIE, S., CONFORTI, K., COULSON, T., FRANKLIN, N., GINSBERG, J. R., GRIFFITHS, M., HOLDEN, J., KAWANISHI, K., KINNAIRD, M., LAIDLAW, R., LYNAM, A., MACDONALD, D. W., MARTYR, D., MCDOUGAL, C., NATH, L., O'BRIEN, T., SEIDENSTICKER, J., SMITH, D. J. L., SUNQUIST, M., TILSON, R. & WAN SHAHRUDDIN, W. N. 2001. The use of photographic rates to estimate densities of tigers and other cryptic mammals. Animal Conservation 4:75–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
CARO, T. M. & STONER, C. J. 2003. The potential for interspecific competition among African carnivores. Biological Conservation 110:67–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
CHIARELLO, A. G. 2000. Density and population size of mammals in remnants of Brazilian Atlantic Forest. Conservation Biology 14:1649–1657.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
CINTO, J. P. & BERTOLINI, M. P. 2003. Conservation capacity in the Paraná Forest. Pp. 227–244 in Galindo-Leal, C. & de Gusmão Câmara, I. (eds.). The Atlantic Forest of South America. Center for Applied Biodiversity Science, Island Press, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
CRAWSHAW, P. G. 1995. Comparative ecology of ocelot (Felis pardalis) and jaguar (Panthera onca) in a protected subtropical forest in Brazil and Argentina. PhD thesis, University of Florida, Florida, U.S.A.Google Scholar
CRAWSHAW, P. G. 2002. Mortalidad inducida por humanos y conservación de jaguares: el Pantanal y el parque nacional Iguaçu en Brasil. Pp. 451–464 in Medellín, R. A., Equihua, C., Chetkiewicz, C. L., Crawshaw, P. G., Rabinowitz, A., Redford, K. H., Robinson, J. G., Sanderson, E. W. & Taber, A. B. (eds.). El jaguar en el nuevo milenio. Fondo de Cultura Económica, México.Google Scholar
CRESPO, J. A. 1982. Ecología de la comunidad de mamíferos del Parque Nacional Iguazú, Misiones. Revista del Museo Argentino de Ciencias Naturales, Ecología 3:45–162.Google Scholar
CROOKS, K. R. 2002. Relative sensitivities of mammalian carnivores to habitat fragmentation. Conservation Biology 16:488–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
CROOKS, K. R. & SOULÉ, M. E. 1999. Mesopredator release and avifaunal extinctions in a fragmented system. Nature 400:563–566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
CUELLAR, E., MAFFEI, L., ARISPE, R. & NOSS, A. 2006. Geoffroy's cats at the northern limit of their range: activity patterns and density estimates from camera trapping in Bolivian dry forests. Studies in Neotropical Fauna and Environment 41:169–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
CULLEN, L., BODMER, R. E. & VALLADARES-PÁDUA, C. 2000. Effects of hunting in habitat fragments of the Atlantic Forests, Brazil. Biological Conservation 95:49–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
CULLEN, L., BODMER, R. E. & VALLADARES-PÁDUA, C. 2001. Ecological consequences of hunting in Atlantic Forest patches, São Paulo, Brazil. Oryx 35:137–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DAYAN, T. & SIMBERLOFF, D. 2005. Ecological and community-wide character displacement: the next generation. Ecology Letters 8:875–894.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DI BITETTI, M. S. 2001. Home range use by the tufted capuchin monkey, Cebus apella nigritus, in a subtropical rainforest of Argentina. Journal of Zoology, London 253:33–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DI BITETTI, M. S. & JANSON, C. H. 2001. Reproductive socioecology of tufted capuchins (Cebus apella nigritus), in Northeastern Argentina. International Journal of Primatology 22:127–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DI BITETTI, M. S., PLACCI, G. & DIETZ, L. A. 2003. A biodiversity vision for the Upper Paraná Atlantic Forest Ecoregion: designing a biodiversity conservation landscape and setting priorities for conservation action. World Wildlife Fund, Washington D.C.104 pp.Google Scholar
DI BITETTI, M. S., PAVIOLO, A. & DE ANGELO, C. 2006a. Density, habitat use and activity patterns of ocelots (Leopardus pardalis) in the Atlantic Forest of Misiones, Argentina. Journal of Zoology, London 270:153–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DI BITETTI, M., DE ANGELO, C., PAVIOLO, A., SCHIAFFINO, K. & PEROVIC, P. 2006b. Monumento Natural Nacional en peligro: el desafío de conservar al yaguareté en la Argentina. Pp. 420–431 in Brown, A., Martinez Ortiz, U., Acerbi, M. & Corcuera, J. (eds.). La Situación Ambiental Argentina 2005. Fundación Vida Silvestre Argentina, Buenos Aires. 587 pp.Google Scholar
DILLON, A. 2005. Ocelot density and home range in Belize, Central America: camera-trapping and radio telemetry. MSc thesis, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, USA.Google Scholar
DILLON, A. & KELLY, M. J. inpress. Ocelot activity, trap success, and density in Belize: the impact of trap spacing and distance moved on density estimates. Oryx.Google Scholar
DONADIO, E. & BUSKIRK, S. W. 2006. Diet, morphology, and interspecific killing in Carnivora. American Naturalist 167:524–536.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
EMMONS, L. H. 1988. A field study of ocelots (Felis pardalis) in Peru. Revue d'Ecologie La Terre et la Vie 43:133–157.Google Scholar
EMMONS, L. H., SHERMAN, P., BOLSTER, D., GOLDIZEN, A. & TERBORGH, J. 1989. Ocelot behavior in moonlight. Advances in Neotropical Mammalogy 1989:233–242.Google Scholar
FERNANDEZ, E. C. 2002. Ocelot (Leopardus pardalis) ecology in the Chamela-Cuixmala Biosphere Reserve, Jalisco, Mexico. M.Sc. thesis, University of Wyoming, Laramy, USA.Google Scholar
GALINDO-LEAL, C. & DE GUSMÃO CÂMARA, I. 2003. Atlantic Forest hotspot status: an overview. Pp. 3–11 in Galindo-Leal, C. & de Gusmão Câmara, I. (eds.). The Atlantic Forest of South America. Center for Applied Biodiversity Science, Island Press, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
GIRAUDO, A. R., KRAUCZUK, E., ARZAMENDIA, V. & POVEDANO, H. 2003. Critical analysis of protected areas in the Atlantic Forest of Argentina. Pp. 245–261 in Galindo-Leal, C. & de Gusmão Câmara, I. (eds.). The Atlantic Forest of South America. Center for Applied Biodiversity Science, Island Press, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
GROS, P. M., KELLY, M. J. & CARO, T. M. 1996. Estimating carnivore densities for conservation purposes. Oikos 77:197–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
HAINES, A. M., TEWES, M. E. & Laack, L. L. 2005. Survival and sources of mortality in ocelots. Journal of Wildlife Management 69:255–263.2.0.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
HAINES, A. M., TEWES, M. E., LAACK, L. L., HORNE, J. S. & YOUNG, J. H. 2006a. A habitat-based population viability analysis for ocelots (Leopardus pardalis) in the United States. Biological Conservation 132:424–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
HAINES, A. M., JANECKA, J. E., TEWES, M. E., GRASSMAN, L. I. & MORTON, P. 2006b. The importance of private lands for ocelot Leopardus pardalis conservation in the United States. Oryx 40:90–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
HERFINDAL, I., LINNELL, J. D. C., ODDEN, J., NILSEN, E. B. & ANDERSEN, R. 2005. Prey density, environmental productivity and home-range size in the Eurasian lynx (Lynx lynx). Journal of Zoology, London 265:63–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
HETHERINGTON, D. A. & GORMAN, M. L. 2007. Using prey densities to estimate the potential size of reintroduced populations of Eurasian lynx. Biological Conservation 137:37–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
JACOB, A. A. 2002. Ecologia e conservação da jaguatirica (Leopardus pardalis pardalis) no Parque Estadual Morro do Diabo, Pontal do Panarapanema, SP. M.Sc. thesis, Universidade de Brasilia, Brasilia, Brazil.Google Scholar
KARANTH, K. U. 1995. Estimating tiger Panthera tigris populations from camera trap data using capture-recapture models. Biological Conservation 71:333–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
KARANTH, K. U. & NICHOLS, J. D. 1998. Estimation of tiger densities in India using photographic captures and recaptures. Ecology 79:2852–2862.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
KARANTH, K. U. & NICHOLS, J. D. 2002. Monitoring tigers and their prey: a manual for researchers, managers and conservationists in tropical Asia. Centre for Wildlife Studies, Bangalore, Karnataka, India. 193 pp.Google Scholar
KARANTH, K. U., NICHOLS, J. D., KUMAR, N. S. & HINES, J. E. 2006. Assessing tiger population dynamics using photographic capture-recapture sampling. Ecology 87:2925–2937.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
KELLY, M. J., NOSS, A. J., DI BITETTI, M. S., MAFFEI, L., ARISPE, R., PAVIOLO, A., DE ANGELO, C. D. & DI BLANCO, Y. E. inpress. Estimating puma densities from camera trapping across three study sites: Bolivia, Argentina, Belize. Journal of Mammalogy.Google Scholar
KITCHENER, A. 1991. The natural history of the Wild Cats. Cornell University Press, Ithaca. 280 pp.Google Scholar
LÓPEZ GONZÁLEZ, C. A., BROWN, D. E. & GALLO REYNOSO, J. P. 2003. The ocelot Leopardus pardalis in north-western México: ecology, distribution and conservation status. Oryx 37:358–364.Google Scholar
LUDLOW, M. E. & SUNQUIST, F. 1987. Ecology and behavior of ocelots in Venezuela. National Geographic Research 3:447–461.Google Scholar
MAFFEI, L., CUÉLLAR, E. & NOSS, A. 2004. One thousand jaguars (Panthera onca) in Bolivias Chaco? Camera trapping in the Kaa-Iya National Park. Journal of Zoology, London 262:295–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MAFFEI, L., NOSS, A. J., CUÉLLAR, E. & RUMIZ, D. I. 2005. Ocelot (Felis pardalis) population densities, activity, and ranging behaviour in the dry forests of eastern Bolivia: data from camera trapping. Journal of Tropical Ecology 21:1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MEIJAARD, E., SHEIL, D., NASI, R., AUGERI, D., ROSENBAUM, B., ISKANDAR, D., SETYAWATI, T., LAMMERTINK, M., RACHMATIKA, I., WONG, A., SOEHARTONO, T., STANLEY, S. & O'BRIEN, T. 2005. Life after logging: reconciling wildlife conservation and production forestry in Indonesian Borneo. CIFOR, Bogor. 345 pp.Google Scholar
MURRAY, R. L. & GARDNER, G. L. 1997. Leopardus pardalis. Mammalian Species 548:1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
NILSEN, E. B., HERFINDAL, I. & LINNEL, J. D. C. 2005. Can intra-specific variation in carnivore home-range size be explained using remote-sensing estimates of environmental productivity? Ecoscience 12:68–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
NOWELL, K. & JACKSON, P. 1996. Wild cats: status survey and action plan. IUCN, Gland. 382 pp.Google Scholar
OLIVEIRA, T. G. DE, SILVEIRA, L., LUCHERINI, M. & SUNQUIST, M. inpress. Ocelot ecology and its effect on the small-felid guild in the lowland Neotropics. In Macdonald, D. W. & Loveridge, A. (eds.). Biology and conservation of wild felids. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
OLSON, D. M., DINERSTEIN, E., WIKRAMANAYAKE, E. D., BURGESS, N. D., POWELL, G. V. N., UNDERWOOD, E. C., D'AMICO, J. A., ITOUA, I., STRAND, H. E., MORRISON, J. C., LOUCKS, C. J., ALLNUTT, T. F., RICKETTS, T. H., KURA, Y., LAMOREUX, J. F., WETTENGEL, W. W., HEDAO, P. & KASSEM, K. R. 2001. Terrestrial ecoregions of the World: a new map of life on Earth. BioScience 51:933–938.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
OTIS, D. L., BURNHAM, K. P., WHITE, G. C. & ANDERSON, D. R. 1978. Statistical inference from capture data on closed animal populations. Wildlife Monographs 62:1–135.Google Scholar
PALOMARES, F., GAONA, P., FERRERAS, P. & DELIBES, M. 1995. Positive effects on game species of top predators by controlling smaller predator populations: an example with lynx, mongooses, and rabbits. Conservation Biology 9:295–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
PAVIOLO, A., DE ANGELO, C. D., DI BLANCO, Y. E. & DI BITETTI, M. S. inpress. Jaguar population decline in the Upper Paraná Atlantic Forest of Argentina and Brazil. Oryx.Google Scholar
PAVIOLO, A., DE ANGELO, C., DI BLANCO, Y., FERRARI, C., DI BITETTI, M., KASPER, C. B., MAZIM, F., SOARES, J. B. G. & GOMES DO OLIVEIRA, T. 2006. The need of transboundary efforts to preserve the southernmost jaguar population in the world. Cat News 45:12–14.Google Scholar
PLACCI, L. G., ARDITI, S. I. & CIOTECK, L. E. 1994. Productividad de hojas, flores y frutos en el Parque Nacional Iguazú, Misiones. Yvyraretá 5:49–56.Google Scholar
PRINCE, S. D. & GOWARD, S. N. 1995. Global primary production: a remote sensing approach. Journal of Biogeography 22:815–835.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
REXSTAD, E. & BURNHAM, K. P. 1991. Users guide for interactive program CAPTURE. Cooperative Fish & Wildlife Research Unit, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado. 21 pp.Google Scholar
ROGERS, C. M. & CARO, M. J. 1998. Song sparrows, top carnivores and nest predation: a test of the mesopredator release hypothesis. Oecologia 116:227–233.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
SANDELL, M. 1989. The mating tactics and spacing patterns of solitary carnivores. Pp. 164–182 in Gittleman, J. L. (ed.). Carnivore behavior, ecology and evolution. Cornell University Press, Ithaca.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SILVER, S. C., OSTRO, L. E. T., MARSH, L. K., MAFFEI, L., NOSS, A. J., KELLY, M. J., WALLACE, R. B., GÓMEZ, H. & AYALA, G. 2004. The use of camera traps for estimating jaguar Panthera onca abundance and density using capture/recapture analysis. Oryx 38:148–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SOISALO, M. K. & CAVALCANTI, S. M. C. 2006. Estimating the density of a jaguar population in the Brazilian Pantanal using camera-traps and capture-recapture sampling in combination with GPS radio-telemetry. Biological Conservation 129:487–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
STANDER, P. E. 1991. Demography of lions in the Etosha National Park, Namibia. Madoqua 18:1–9.Google Scholar
STANDER, P. E., HADEN, P. J., KAQECE, & GHAU, 1997. The ecology of asociality in Namibian leopards. Journal of Zoology, London 242:343–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SUNQUIST, M. & SUNQUIST, F. 2002. Wild cats of the world. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago. 452 pp.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SUNQUIST, M. E., SUNQUIST, F. & DANEKE, D. E. 1989. Ecological separation in a Venezuelan Llanos carnivore community. Advances in Neotropical Mammalogy 1989:197–232.Google Scholar
TERBORGH, J., ESTES, J., PAQUET, P., RALLS, K., BOYD-HEGER, D., MILLER, B. & NOSS, R. 1999. The role of top carnivores in regulating terrestrial ecosystems. Pp. 39–64 in Soulé, M. E. & Terborgh, J. (eds.). Continental conservation: scientific foundations of regional reserve networks. Island Press, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
TERBORGH, J., LOPEZ, L., NUñEZ, P., RAO, M, SHAHABUDDIN, G., ORIHUELA, G., RIVEROS, M., ASCANIO, R., ADLER, G. H., LAMBERT, T. D. & BALBAS, L. 2001. Ecological meltdown in predator-free forest fragments. Science 294:1923–1926.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
TROLLE, M. & KÉRY, M. 2003. Estimation of ocelot density in the Pantanal using capture-recapture analysis of camera-trapping data. Journal of Mammalogy 84:607–614.2.0.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
TROLLE, M. & KÉRY, M. 2005. Camera-trap study of ocelot and other secretive mammals in the northern Pantanal. Mammalia 69:3–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
WALLACE, R. B., GOMEZ, H., AYALA, G. & ESPINOZA, F. 2003. Camera trapping for jaguar (Panthera onca) in the Tuichi Valley, Bolivia. Mastozoología Neotropical 10:5–11.Google Scholar
WHITE, G. C., ANDERSON, D. R., BURNHAM, K. P. & OTIS, D. L. 1982. Capture-recapture and removal methods for sampling closed populations. Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos. 229 pp.Google Scholar
WOODROFFE, R. 2000. Predators and people: using human densities to interpret declines of large carnivores. Animal Conservation 3:165–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
WOODROFFE, R. & GINSBERG, J. R. 1998. Edge effects and the extinction of populations inside protected areas. Science 280:2126–2128.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed