10.5061/DRYAD.396V8N4
Miller, Jennifer R.B.
Panthera Corporation
Pitman, Ross T.
Panthera Corporation
University of Cape Town
Mann, Gareth K.H.
Panthera Corporation
Fuller, Angela K.
Cornell University
Balme, Guy A.
Panthera Corporation
University of Cape Town
Miller, Jennifer R. B.
University of California, Berkeley
Panthera Corporation
University of Cape Town
Cornell University
Mann, Gareth K. H.
Panthera Corporation
University of Cape Town
Data from: Lions and leopards coexist without spatial, temporal or
demographic effects of interspecific competition
Dryad
dataset
2018
species density
multispecies occupancy model
interspecific competition
carnivore
Panthera pardus
temporal overlap
2018-07-16T21:13:03Z
2018-07-16T21:13:03Z
en
https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2656.12883
65319722 bytes
1
CC0 1.0 Universal (CC0 1.0) Public Domain Dedication
1. Although interspecific competition plays a principle role in shaping
species behaviour and demography, little is known about the
population-level outcomes of competition between large carnivores, and the
mechanisms that facilitate coexistence. 2. We conducted a multi-landscape
analysis of two widely distributed, threatened large carnivore competitors
to offer insight into coexistence strategies and assist with species-level
conservation. 3. We evaluated how interference competition affects
occupancy, temporal activity and population density of a dominant
competitor, the lion (Panthera leo), and its subordinate competitor, the
leopard (Panthera pardus). We collected camera-trap data over three years
in ten study sites covering 5,070 km2. We used multispecies occupancy
modelling to assess spatial responses in varying environmental and prey
conditions and competitor presence, and examined temporal overlap and the
relationship between lion and leopard densities across sites and years. 4.
Results showed that both lion and leopard occupancy was independent of –
rather than conditional on – their competitor’s presence across all
environmental covariates. Marginal occupancy probability for leopard was
higher in areas with more bushy, ‘hideable’ habitat, human (tourist)
activity and topographic ruggedness, whereas lion occupancy decreased with
increasing hideable habitat and increased with higher abundance of very
large prey. Temporal overlap was high between carnivores and there was no
detectable relationship between species densities. 4. Lions pose a threat
to the survival of individual leopards, but they exerted no tractable
influence on leopard spatial or temporal dynamics. Furthermore, lions did
not appear to suppress leopard populations, suggesting that intraguild
competitors can coexist in the same areas without population decline.
Aligned conservation strategies that promote functioning ecosystems,
rather than target individual species, are therefore advised to achieve
cost- and space-effective conservation.
Camera trap dataCamera trap data of wildlife species from study sites in
South Africa.Lion leopard densitiesDensities of lions and leopards from
study sites in South Africa.
South Africa