Exploring the Drivers of Ocelot Population Density: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Methodological and Ecological Influences

IF 4.4 2区生物学 Q1 ECOLOGY

Mammal Review Pub Date : 2025-03-11 DOI:10.1111/mam.70002

Henrique Villas Boas Concone, Juliano A. Bogoni, Vinicius Alberici, Anthony J. Giordano, Luiz Gustavo R. Oliveira-Santos, Katia M. P. M. B. Ferraz

{"title":"Exploring the Drivers of Ocelot Population Density: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Methodological and Ecological Influences","authors":"Henrique Villas Boas Concone, Juliano A. Bogoni, Vinicius Alberici, Anthony J. Giordano, Luiz Gustavo R. Oliveira-Santos, Katia M. P. M. B. Ferraz","doi":"10.1111/mam.70002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>Camera trapping associated with capture–recapture models is commonly used to estimate wild felid population density, relying on three main frameworks: spatially explicit capture–recapture (SECR) and two non-spatial approaches (CR-MMDM and CR-hMMDM). Methodological differences, inappropriate sampling designs, and/or insufficient data explain some estimate variability, but the biological factors underpinning this remain undetermined. Prey availability, habitat suitability, and body size may all interact and influence carnivoran population size and density.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Aims</h3>\n \n <p>We aimed to (1) survey ocelot population density data and summarise information on study designs, methodological approaches, and results, (2) evaluate the relationships between them, (3) disentangle methodological and ecological effects on population density estimates, and (4) provide guidance to improve study design and reporting.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Materials & Methods</h3>\n \n <p>Our systematic review discovered 51 studies reporting 228 ocelot population density estimates from 65 sites across 13 countries. We collated ocelot body mass data (BM) and used forest canopy height (GFCH) as a surrogate for habitat suitability, as well as gross primary productivity seasonality (GPP variation) as a proxy for prey availability. Using a meta-analytical framework, we created models to (1) determine mean ocelot population density in the Neotropics and to assess the effects of (2) methodological and (3) ecological variables on population density estimates.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Mean population density was 20.3/100 km<sup>2</sup>, with significant differences among methods. SECR and CR-MMDM yielded comparable estimates (16.6/100 km<sup>2</sup> and 18.9/100 km<sup>2</sup>, respectively), while CR-hMMDM produced higher estimates (27.3/100 km<sup>2</sup>). We found significant positive and negative effects of GFCH and BM, respectively, and a marginally significant negative effect of GPP variation on estimates.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Discussion</h3>\n \n <p>Ocelots thrive in forests with higher canopies, but their population density is limited by local habitat seasonality. Morphological differences further influence variation, with small-bodied populations attaining higher population densities under similar ecological conditions.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>Based on our findings, we provide guidelines to enhance the accuracy and standardization of study designs, methodological approaches, and general reporting. Improving these aspects will strengthen the comparability and reliability of ocelot population density estimates.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":49893,"journal":{"name":"Mammal Review","volume":"55 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Mammal Review","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/mam.70002","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Camera trapping associated with capture–recapture models is commonly used to estimate wild felid population density, relying on three main frameworks: spatially explicit capture–recapture (SECR) and two non-spatial approaches (CR-MMDM and CR-hMMDM). Methodological differences, inappropriate sampling designs, and/or insufficient data explain some estimate variability, but the biological factors underpinning this remain undetermined. Prey availability, habitat suitability, and body size may all interact and influence carnivoran population size and density.

Aims

We aimed to (1) survey ocelot population density data and summarise information on study designs, methodological approaches, and results, (2) evaluate the relationships between them, (3) disentangle methodological and ecological effects on population density estimates, and (4) provide guidance to improve study design and reporting.

Materials & Methods

Our systematic review discovered 51 studies reporting 228 ocelot population density estimates from 65 sites across 13 countries. We collated ocelot body mass data (BM) and used forest canopy height (GFCH) as a surrogate for habitat suitability, as well as gross primary productivity seasonality (GPP variation) as a proxy for prey availability. Using a meta-analytical framework, we created models to (1) determine mean ocelot population density in the Neotropics and to assess the effects of (2) methodological and (3) ecological variables on population density estimates.

Results

Mean population density was 20.3/100 km², with significant differences among methods. SECR and CR-MMDM yielded comparable estimates (16.6/100 km² and 18.9/100 km², respectively), while CR-hMMDM produced higher estimates (27.3/100 km²). We found significant positive and negative effects of GFCH and BM, respectively, and a marginally significant negative effect of GPP variation on estimates.

Discussion

Ocelots thrive in forests with higher canopies, but their population density is limited by local habitat seasonality. Morphological differences further influence variation, with small-bodied populations attaining higher population densities under similar ecological conditions.

Conclusion

Based on our findings, we provide guidelines to enhance the accuracy and standardization of study designs, methodological approaches, and general reporting. Improving these aspects will strengthen the comparability and reliability of ocelot population density estimates.

Abstract Image

查看原文本刊更多论文

探索豹猫种群密度的驱动因素：方法和生态影响的系统回顾和荟萃分析

与捕获-再捕获模型相关的背景摄像机捕获通常用于估计野生野地种群密度，依赖于三个主要框架：空间显式捕获-再捕获（SECR）和两种非空间方法（CR-MMDM和CR-hMMDM）。方法差异、不适当的抽样设计和/或数据不足解释了一些估计变异性，但支撑这一点的生物因素仍未确定。猎物的可用性、栖息地的适宜性和体型都可能相互作用并影响食肉动物的种群大小和密度。我们的目的是(1)调查豹猫种群密度数据，总结研究设计、方法方法和结果的信息；(2)评估它们之间的关系；(3)解开方法和生态对种群密度估计的影响；(4)为改进研究设计和报告提供指导。材料和方法我们的系统综述发现了51项研究报告了来自13个国家65个地点的228个豹猫种群密度估计。我们整理了豹猫的体重数据（BM），并使用森林冠层高度（GFCH）作为栖息地适宜性的替代指标，以及总初级生产力季节性（GPP变化）作为猎物可用性的替代指标。使用元分析框架，我们创建了模型来(1)确定新热带地区的平均豹猫种群密度，并评估(2)方法变量和(3)生态变量对种群密度估计的影响。结果平均种群密度为20.3/100 km2，不同方法间差异有统计学意义。SECR和CR-MMDM产生的估计值相当（分别为16.6/100 km2和18.9/100 km2），而CR-hMMDM产生的估计值更高（27.3/100 km2）。我们发现GFCH和BM分别有显著的正面和负面影响，而GPP变化对估计值有轻微显著的负面影响。豹猫在树冠较高的森林中茁壮成长，但它们的人口密度受到当地栖息地季节性的限制。形态差异进一步影响变异，在相似的生态条件下，体型小的种群密度更高。基于我们的研究结果，我们提供了提高研究设计、方法学方法和一般报告的准确性和标准化的指南。改进这些方面将加强豹猫种群密度估计的可比性和可靠性。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Mammal Review 生物-动物学

CiteScore

12.20

自引率

4.10%

发文量

审稿时长

>12 weeks

期刊介绍： Mammal Review is the official scientific periodical of the Mammal Society, and covers all aspects of mammalian biology and ecology, including behavioural ecology, biogeography, conservation, ecology, ethology, evolution, genetics, human ecology, management, morphology, and taxonomy. We publish Reviews drawing together information from various sources in the public domain for a new synthesis or analysis of mammalian biology; Predictive Reviews using quantitative models to provide insights into mammalian biology; Perspectives presenting original views on any aspect of mammalian biology; Comments in response to papers published in Mammal Review; and Short Communications describing new findings or methods in mammalian biology.