We examined how several ecological factors influenced home-range size for 57 mountain lions inhabiting three regions of California. Our specific objectives were to investigate: (1) the relationship between home-range size and sex, age and reproductive status; (2) how broad-scale habitat differences and prey relative abundances influenced home-range size; (3) how seasonality, within these habitats, affected home-range size; (4) whether there was a significant relationship between body mass and home-range size. Results indicate that the effects of season on home-range size influenced the study areas differently. Both intrinsic factors, such as sex and body mass, and extrinsic factors, such as deer relative abundance and study site, influenced home-range size for mountain lions in this analysis. Linear relationships, however, between body mass and home-range size were not evident for any of our study locations. Curvilinear relationships, in contrast, existed between body mass and homerange size for all study areas during particular seasons, influenced strongly by animal sex. Conservation strategies designed to protect mountain lions and their habitats should reflect the above balance between intrinsic and extrinsic factors which influence home-range size.

A large part of ecological theory has been developed with the assumption that intra- and inter-specific patterns of density and spatial distribution can be consistently and reliably compared, and that these patterns have represented populations across nonstudied landscapes. These assumptions are erroneous. We found that log population density estimates consistently decreased linearly with log spatial extent of study areas for species of terrestrial Carnivora. The size of the study area accounted for most of the variation in population estimates, and study areas increased with the female body mass of the study species. But study sites consistently had higher densities than can be expected for nonstudy sites, regardless of the size of the study area, because study sites are typically chosen based on a priori knowledge of high density. Inter-specific comparisons of density and distribution might provide more insight into community organization after intra-specific density estimates have been scaled by the study areas, and related to the nonstudied landscapes within each species' geographic range.

Ecological theory and wildlife management often depend on reliable comparison and interpretation of population density estimates. A synthesis of 1,772 mammalian carnivore population estimates (713 unique to reference, species, site, and size of study area) from 74 species revealed global patterns among aspects of study and interpretive design that undermine the reliability and usefulness of density comparisons. The spatial extent of the study area could explain most of the variation in density, probably because study areas are typically delineated around population clusters. We related the scale-defined density estimates (regression residuals) to 28 other variables measured from the published literature, but none provided convincing biological explanation of the variation in density. Many aspects of study and interpretive design were possibly ill-suited to identifying the factor(s) influencing density. Study attributes and findings were reported inconsistently, and were subject to ideological motivations. Descriptions of vegetation were most difficult to relate to density. More intensive sampling and estimation methods produced above-average density estimates, but the differences were slight and the evidence lacking for concluding whether these more intensive methods were also more accurate. The first underlying factor extracted from principle-components analysis described the growing recognition of population declines and range reductions among large-bodied carnivores, which has also influenced study design. Another factor described an increasing trend for density to be compared and extrapolated to larger areas, but without adjusting for the effect of scale. To understand the factors influencing carnivore distribution and abundance, sampling and reporting methods (e.g., site description with maps) will need to represent the available pool of species, locations, and ecological conditions at larger-than-conventional spatial and temporal scales.

No abstract