Use of Camera‐Trapping to Estimate Puma Density and Influencing Factors in Central Brazil

Abstract

We used remotely triggered cameras to collect data on Puma (Puma concolor) abundance and occupancy in an area of tropical forest in Brazil where the species' status is poorly known. To evaluate factors influencing puma occupancy we used data from 5 sampling campaigns in 3 consecutive years (2005 to 2007) and 2 seasons (wet and dry), at a state park and a private forest reserve. We estimated puma numbers and density for the 2007 sampling data by developing a standardized individual identification method. We based individual identification on 1) time‐stable parameters (SP; physical features that do not change over time), and 2) time‐variable parameters (VP; marks that could change over time such as scars and botfly marks). Following individual identification we established a capture‐recapture history and analyzed it using closed population capture‐mark‐recapture models. Puma capture probability was influenced by camera placement (roads vs. trails), sampling year, and prey richness. Puma occupancy was positively associated with species richness and there was a correlation between relative puma and jaguar (Panthera onca) abundance. Identifications enabled us to generate 8 VP histories for each photographed flank, corresponding to 8 individuals. We estimated the sampled population at 9 pumas (SE = 1.03, 95% CI = 8–10 individuals) translating to a density of 3.40 pumas/100 km2. Information collected using camera‐traps can effectively be used to assess puma population size in tropical forests. As habitat progressively disappears and South American felines become more vulnerable, our results support the critical importance of private forest reserves for conservation.

Evaluating the potential biases in carnivore capture–recapture studies associated with the use of lure and varying density estimation techniques using photographic‐sampling data of the Malagasy civet

“…Additionally, a recent simulation study has also provided support for the ML-SECR model under a variety of scenarios, except when animal home range configurations are dramatically asymmetric (Ivan 2011). Despite the availability of these newer models, it is still common for studies to use traditional ad hoc density estimation techniques ðD ¼N s =ETAÞ; Sarmento et al 2009;Gopal et al 2010;Kolowski and Alonso 2010;Negrões et al 2010;Sarmento et al 2010). …”

Identifying individual cougars (Puma concolor) in remote camera images – implications for population estimates

“…One possible reason is that Kelly et al (2008) identified cougars in tropical regions, where botfly (family Oestridae) scars may have aided in correct identification (e.g. Negrões et al 2010;Harmsen et al 2010). Depending on the longevity of botfly scars, pervasiveness of botfly parasites in the cougar population and length of survey, these marks could potentially be as distinctive as conspicuously pelaged species (e.g.…”

“…Additional camera sites (n = 12) were set up using conventional camera-trapping methods, with single Panthera cameras placed along high-use trails (e.g. Karanth 1995;Negrões et al 2010). We placed 1 mL of scent -'Calvin Klein Obsession for Men' (Calvin Klein Inc., New York) and synthetic civet musk or catnip oil (Grawe's Lures, Wahpeton, ND) -on the ground, in front of the cameras.…”

“…Nevertheless, several studies have estimated cougar abundance using photo-CMR, under the assumption that individuals could be identified by traits such as kinked tails, ear nicks, scars or body shape (e.g. Kelly et al 2008;Paviolo et al 2009;Negrões et al 2010;Soria-Díaz et al 2010;Ávila-Nájera María et al 2015;Quiroga et al 2016). Kelly et al (2008) examined the feasibility of photo-tagging cougars where the authors quantified the extent to which independent investigators agreed with one another when assigning ID to cougars in remote camera images.…”

Presence of Mammals in Ontario, Canada, Verified by Trail Camera Photographs Between 2008 and 2010

“…In the past, researchers have used photographs acquired by cameras set up on trails to estimate the abundance and relative density of certain mammalian species (Kelly et al 2008;Negroes et al 2010). However, in those studies, individual animals were identified in the photographs and were used to estimate animal density.…”