Estimating cougar predation rates from GPS location clusters

By C. Anderson, F. Lindzey. 2003

234 citations recorded by the source corpus.

We examined cougar (Puma concolor) predation from Global Positioning System (GPS) location clusters (≥2 locations within 200 m on the same or consecutive nights) of 11 cougars during September-May, 1999-2001. Location success of GPS averaged 2.4-5.0 of 6 location attempts/night/cougar. We surveyed potential predation sites during summer-fall 2000 and summer 2001 to identify prey composition (n = 74; 3-388 days post predation) and record predation-site variables (n = 97; 3-270 days post predation). We developed a model to estimate probability that a cougar killed a large mammal from data collected at GPS location clusters where the probability of predation increased with number of nights (defined as locations at 2200, 0200, or 0500 hr) of cougar presence within a 200-m radius (P< 0.001). Mean estimated cougar predation rates for large mammals were 7.3 days/kill for subadult females (1-2.5 yr; n = 3, 90% CI: 6.3 to 9.9), 7.0 days/kill for adult females (n = 2, 90% CI: 5.8 to 10.8), 5.4 days/kill for family groups (females with young; n = 3, 90% CI: 4.5 to 8.4), 9.5 days/kill for a subadult male (1-2.5 yr; n = 1, 90% CI: 6.9 to 16.4), and 7.8 days/kill for adult males ( n = 2, 90% CI: 6.8 to 10.7). We may have slightly overestimated cougar predation rates due to our inability to separate scavenging from predation. We detected 45 deer (Odocoileus spp.), 15 elk (Cervus elaphus), 6 pronghorn (Antilocapra americana), 2 livestock, I moose (Alces alces), and 6 small mammals at cougar predation sites. Comparisons between cougar sexes suggested that females selected mule deer and males selected elk (P < 0.001). Cougars averaged 3.0 nights on pronghorn carcasses, 3.4 nights on deer carasses, and 6.0 nights on elk carcasses. Most cougar predation (81.7%) occurred between 1901-0500 hr and peaked from 2201-0200 hr (31.7%). Applying GPS technology to identify predation rates and prey selection will allow managers to efficiently estimate the ability of an area's prey base to sustain or be affected by cougar predation.

Subfields: Ecology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/22e2649ef0dca29219a7a9725cea2bd266e38c80

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Ecology

Citations in the corpus

Anticoagulant Exposure and Notoedric Mange in Bobcats and Mountain Lions in Urban Southern California (2007, background): “Rodents commonly constitute a significant component of bobcat diets (Anderson and Lovallo 2003), but mountain lions specialize on ungulate prey, and 157 (95.2”
Cougar kill rate and prey composition in a multiprey system. (2010, methodology): “Although previous research has applied GPS telemetry to estimate cougar kill rate, estimates were obtained using models and not continuous monitoring (e.g., Anderson and Lindzey 2003, Mattson et al. 2007).”
Wolves, white-tailed deer, and beaver: implications of seasonal prey switching for woodland caribou declines (2013, methodology): “Scats were collected at GPS location clusters (defined as 5 consecutive locations within 100 m, Anderson and Lindzey 2003) representing wolf kill and resting sites.”
Puma activity patterns and temporal overlap with prey in a human‐modified landscape at Southeastern Brazil (2018, unknown): “Clusters of locations were defined as any three or more locations within 50 m of each other elapsed over a minimum of 24 h (adapted from [Anderson & Lindzey, 2003;]).”
Puma optimizer (PO): a novel metaheuristic optimization algorithm and its application in machine learning (2024, unknown): “The female weighs between 29 and 64 kg, and the average weight of the female is about 55 kg [60].”