Kill rates and associated ecological factors for an apex predator

Abstract

Kill rates and functional responses are fundamental to the study of predator ecology and the understanding of predatory-prey dynamics. As the most widely distributed apex predator in the western hemisphere, pumas (Puma concolor) have been well studied, yet a synthesis of their kill rates is currently lacking. We reviewed the literature and compiled data on sex- and age-specific kill rate estimates of pumas on ungulates, and conducted analyses aimed at understanding ecological factors explaining the observed spatial variation. Kill rate studies on pumas, while numerous, were primarily conducted in Temperate Conifer Forests (< 10% of puma range), revealing a dearth of knowledge across much of their range, especially from tropical and subtropical habitats. Across studies, kill rates in ungulates/week were highest for adult females with kitten(s) (1.24 ± 0.41 ungulates/week) but did not vary significantly between adult males (0.84 ± 0.18) and solitary adult females (0.99 ± 0.26). Kill rates in kg/day differed only marginally among reproductive classes. Kill rates of adult pumas increased with ungulate density, particularly for males. Ungulate species richness had a weak negative association with adult male kill rates. Neither scavenger richness, puma density, the proportion of non-ungulate prey in the diet, nor regional human population density had a significant effect on ungulate kill rates, but additional studies and standardization would provide further insights. Our results had a strong temperate-ecosystem bias highlighting the need for further research across the diverse biomes pumas occupy to fully interpret kill rates for the species. Data from more populations would also allow for multivariate analyses providing deeper inference into the ecological and behavioural factors driving kill rates and functional responses of pumas, and apex predators in general.

Season, prey availability, sex, and age explain prey size selection in a large solitary carnivore

“…Our results highlight the strong influence of season and prey availability on puma prey size selection across sites representing diverse ecological variation, which have been emphasized in recent literature (Allen et al, 2014;Cristescu et al, 2022;Knopff et al, 2010),…”

“…suggest that although males do occasionally kill very large prey where available, this may not be common puma behavior. Prey size also impacts kill rates, assuming that kill rates reflect energetic requirements (Brose, 2010), and although there is evidence that male pumas, which sometimes weigh twice as much as adult females, exhibit lower kill rates than females with dependent young, they exhibit similar rates to females without young (Cristescu et al, 2022).…”

Food limitation reduces risk avoidance by prey, but does not increase kill rates in a simple predator–prey system

“…two vicuñas per week, both during the growing and nongrowing seasons (Figure 3), amounting to an estimated biomass consumption rate of 11.43 kg vicuña day −1 puma −1 (given average adult vicuña weight ~40 kg; Franklin, 2011). This figure falls near the upper end of the average range of ungulate biomass consumption rates for North American pumas (8.28–12.04 kg/day; Cristescu et al, 2022), suggesting that pumas in San Guillermo might be satiated. However, vicuña births are pulsed during the growing season (Donadio et al, 2012), which might increase kill rates and decrease the size of vicuñas killed, because pumas from temperate latitudes typically select for young animals (fawns) following birth pulses of their ungulate prey (Allen et al, 2014; Knopff et al, 2010).…”

Bush Encroachment and Large Carnivore Predation Success in African Landscapes: A Review

“…By using Google Scholar, we increased the chance that search outputs included reports, book chapters, and theses/dissertations, in addition to peer-reviewed scientific journal articles. This search engine was used exclusively in other recent reviews of topics in ecology and predator-prey interactions (e.g., [37][38][39]).…”