Cheetah (Acinonyx jubatus)- Data, Pictures & Videos

[Acinonyx sp.]

Cheetah, Acinonyx jubatus Schreber, 1776 

Other names
Guepard (French); Gepard (German); guepardo, chita (Spanish); jagluiperd (Afrikaans: South Africa); abo shamani (Amharic: Ethiopia); fahd (Arabic); bogolo bogolo (Bournouan); marukopta (Burkina Faso); siho (Fufulde: Cameroon); rabbi (Hausa); /uayb (Hei//kum Bushman: Namibia); !a’o (Ju/hoan Bushman: Botswana, Namibia); kisakasaka (Kasanga: Zaire); duma, msongo (KiSwahili); lengau, letlotse (Setswana: Botswana); dindingwe, ihlosi (Shona: Zimbabwe); haramacad, daharab, horkob (Somalia); ngulule (Zulu: South Africa). 

Description and Behavior (Plate 2) 
The cheetah is built for speed, with a deep chest, wasp waist, and proportionately longer limbs than the other big cats (Gonyea 1976). Average adult weight is 43 kg for males and 38 kg for females in the Serengeti (n=l7: Caro et al. 1987). Flexion of the elongated spine has been measured as increasing the cheetah’s stride length by 11% at speeds of 56 kph (Hildebrand 1959, 1961). The canines are small relative to other felids: a reduction in the size of roots of the upper canines allows a larger nasal aperture for increased air intake, which is critical for allowing the cheetah to recover from its sprint while it suffocates its prey by throttling it (P. Leyhausen in Ewer 1973, Kingdon 1977). Its claws remain exposed, lacking the skin sheaths found in most other felids, and thus provide additional traction like a sprinter’s cleats. The foot shows several other modifications: the digital pads and also the metacarpal pad are extremely hard and pointed at the front, possibly as an adaption to sudden braking, and the palmar pads bear a pair of longitudinal ridges instead of the more usual slight depressions-the functional equivalent of tire treads, serving as anti-skid devices (Pocock 1916, Ewer 1973). The prominent dew claws are used as hooks to trip up fast-running prey. The long tail helps the cheetah’s balance as it swerves during a chase. Finally, the cheetah has enlarged bronchi, lungs, heart, and adrenals (Eaton 1974). According to K. Sevrin (pers. comm. in Eaton 1974: 24), a captive cheetah was accurately clocked at 112 kph over a short distance. In the wild, out of 78 chases measured and timed by G. Frame (Frame and Frame 1981: 181), the top speed was 87 kph. Antelopes, the main prey of cheetah, reach top speeds of 80-97 kph (Garland 1983), so peak speeds reached at some portion of a cheetah’s sprint probably do exceed the oft-quoted, but seldom documented, 110 kph. Cheetah sprints rarely last longer than 200-300 m, while most antelope can run much further. Heat builds up rapidly during a sprint, and cheetahs have not evolved the evaporative heat release mechanisms of gazelles and goats, even though their energetic cost of running is equivalent (Taylor and Rowntree 1973, Taylor et al. 1974). Despite its refinements, the cheetah, like the other cats, is a sprinter rather than a courser. Cheetahs are pale yellow with white underbellies, covered all over with small round black spots. They are readily distinguished from their spotted relatives by their “tear lines”-heavy black lines extending from the inner corner of each eye to the outer corner of the mouth. Both melanistic and albino cheetah specimens have been reported (Guggisberg 1975), and remarkably pale animals have been reported from desert regions (Dragesco-Joffe 1993, P. Gros in Zitt. 1993). A more notorious single-locus genetic mutation (Van Aarde and Van Dyk 1986) produces the blotched tabby pattern of the so-called king cheetah (Plate 2), which was once classified as a separate species (Pocock 1927), and was the subject of a major investigative expedition (Bottriell 1987). This mutation has historically been recorded only from a restricted area in southern Africa centered on Zimbabwe (Hills and Smithers 1980), but there is a recent report of a single skin recovered in Burkina Faso, west Africa (Frame 1992). A greater degree of sociality has been observed among cheetahs than for most felids, with the exception of the lion. Male and female litter-mates tend to stay together for about six months after independence (Caro 1994). Nearly two decades of intensive research in the Serengeti Plains have shown that, while females split off upon reaching sexual maturity, male litter-mates remain together in coalitions, and sometimes defend territories (Frame and Frame 1984, Caro and Collins 1986). These coalitions, particularly trios, may include unrelated males, with the frequency of this type of grouping estimated at 15% in the Serengeti (Car0 and Collins 1986). Males in coalitions are more likely than solitary males to gain and maintain territories; non-territorial males live a nomadic existence and wander widely (Caro and Collins 1986, 1987a). Territorial males were found to be in better physiological condition and appear to have better access to females during periods of gazelle concentration (Car0 and Collins 1987b, Caro et al. 1989). Large groups of up to 14- 19 animals (including cubs) have been reported occasionally from parts of east and southern Africa where other large predators have been eradicated (Kenya: Graham 1966, P. Gros in Zitt. 1993; Botswana: Gros 1990; Namibia: McVittie 1979, MarkerKraus and Kraus 199 1). The advantages of grouping under such conditions are not clear (S. Durant in Zitt. 1993). In east Africa, the cheetah’s main prey is the Thomson’s gazelle on the plains (Serengeti: Schaller 1968), and impala in the woodlands (Eaton 1974). In the arid bushland of northern Kenya, G. Adamson (in Hamilton 1986a) identified lesser kudu, gerenuk, and dikdik as major prey. In southern Africa, major prey consists of springbok (northeast Botswana: Smithers 1971; Kalahari Gemsbok National Park, South Africa: Mills 1990a; Etosha NP, Namibia: unpubl. data); greater kudu calves and warthog (Namibian ranchland: Morsbach 1987, L. Marker-Kraus, pers. comm.); impala (Kruger National Park, South Africa: de Pienaar 1969, Mills and Biggs 1993); and puku (Zambia: Mitchell et al. 1965). Data are scarce for central and west Africa, but cheetahs have been observed to take red hartebeest, oribi, and kob in ManovoGounda-St. Floris National Park in the Central African Republic (Ruggiero 1991). Cheetahs are also known to take smaller prey, particularly hares (Frame 1977, Labuschagne 1979, 1981), and male coalitions often take much larger prey, such as wildebeest (Dorst and Dandelot 1969, Eaton 1974, McVittie 1979, Caro and Laurenson 1990, Skinner and Smithers 1990). Seasonally, a large proportion of cheetah prey captures consist of immature animals (McLaughlin 1970, Burney 1980). When hunting group-living prey animals; such as Thomson’s gazelles, they tend to select less vigilant solitary individuals (FitzGibbon 1990). Certain aspects of cheetah behavior can be explained as adaptations to compete with other sympatric large predators, particularly lions and hyaenas. Cheetahs are predominantly diurnal, probably because competing predators are nocturnal. It has been suggested that the cheetah’s large litter size may be a strategy to offset high juvenile mortality caused by predators (Burney 1980, Hamilton 1986a, Laurenson 1992, Caro 1994). Cheetahs often lose their kills to lions and hyaenas, and have only rarely been observed to scavenge, or return to a previously abandoned kill (Graham 1966, de Pienaar 1969, Burney 1980, Caro 1982, Stander 1990a). There is preliminary evidence that cheetahs will remain near large kills, rather than abandon them after satiation, on Namibian ranchlands where lions and hyaenas have been eliminated (L. Marker-Kraus, pers. corm-n. 1994). 

Biology 
Reproductive season: (W) year-round, although birth peaks have been reported during the rainy season in the Serengeti (November-May: Frame 1977, Laurenson et al. 1992). Gestation: © 90-98 days (Marker-Kraus 1992). Litter size: (W) 4.2 (age l-3 months) on Namibian ranchland (McVittie 1979); 3.5 (age 6-35 days; Laurenson et al. 1992) - 2.6 (age three months; Frame 1977) in the Serengeti; © 3.7 (Marker and O’Brien 1989), range l-8 (Green 1991). Interbirth interval: (W) 15- 19 months (McLaughlin 1970, Schaller 1972). Females readily go into estrus and conceive after losing a litter. Laurenson et al. (1992) found that the interval between the death of the previous litter and the next successful conception was longer for young (86.3 days, n=3) than adult females (17.8 days, n=9). Age at independence: (W) mean 18 months (Laurenson et al. 1992), range 13-20 months (Frame 1984) (sub-adults leave mother); 17-27 months (females leave sibling groups: Frame 1980, Laurenson et al. 1992). Age atjirst reproduction: (W) females 24 (n=2: Schaller 1972) - 36 months (n=4: Laurenson et al. 1992); males 30-36 months (Car0 1991). © females 2-3 years (n=lO); males l-2 years (n=8) (McKeown 1992). Age at last reproduction: © females 10 years; males up to 14 years (McKeown 1992). Sex ratio: (W) cubs: 1 male:0.95 female (n=ll7); adults and independent sub-adults: 1 male: 1.9 females (n= 169). This suggests differential male dispersal and mortality (Frame and Frame 1984), although males can be shyer than females and more difficult to observe (Caro and Collins 1986). Juvenile mortality: (W) Other large carnivores, as well as baboons (L. Marker-Kraus in Zitt. 1993), are known to kill cheetah cubs. In the Serengeti, the number of lions on the grassy plains which constitute the Serengeti Cheetah Project’s study area have increased tenfold since the 1960s following an increase in wildebeest after rinderpest control measures. Under such circumstances, cheetah cub mortality is very high: Laurenson (in press, pers.comm. 1993) found that 73% of cub deaths were due to predation (mainly lion), and that a total of 95% of 125 cubs failed to survive to independence. Longevity: (W) 12-14 years (Frame and Frame 1980). However, Laurenson (in press) estimates the mean life expectancy of females reaching three years of age in the Serengeti at only an additional 3.9 years. Territorial males probably live longer, on average, than single males (Car0 and Collins 1986, Caro et al. 1989). © average 10.5 and up to 21 years (L. Marker-Kraus in Zitt. 1993).

Principal Threats 

Genetic homogeneity: Genetic research has demonstrated that both captive and free-ranging cheetahs exhibit a very high level of homogeneity in coding DNA, on a par with inbred strains of laboratory mice (O’Brien et al. 1983, 1985, 1986, 1987a). The cheetah appears to have suffered (Menotti-Raymond and O’Brien 1993). The factors which a series of severe population bottlenecks in its history, with would have led to these ancient population bottlenecks the first and most significant occurring possibly during are not clear, but both their causes and consequences could the late Pleistocene extinctions, around 10,000 years ago be of significance to cheetah conservation today. der the cheetah an exceptionally vulnerable species (O’Brien et al. 1983). Genetic variation is thought to be essential to the long-term adaptability and persistence of populations by providing sufficient genetic options on which natural selection can operate in response to environmental change. The evidence for cheetahs being compromised by their genes arises mainly from captivity, where epidemics of infectious disease have occurred with high mortality (O’Brien et al. 1985, Evermann et al. 1988). Increased susceptibility to disease has been linked to genetic monomorphism (O’Brien and Evermann 1988). Zoos have had great difficulty in breeding cheetahs. Captive female cheetahs conceive infrequently, and when they do, cub mortality is relatively high (28-36%) (Marker and O’Brien 1989; Marker-Kraus and Grisham 1993), although these rates are similar to those of other felid and carnivore species kept in captivity (Loudon 1985). Finally, both wild and captive male cheetahs have high levels of abnormal sperm (71-76%: Wildt et al. 1987a), and success with in vitro fertilization using cheetah sperm is relatively low compared to other felid species (Donoghue et al. 1992). However, there is no evidence that reproduction is compromised in the wild (Caro and Laurenson 1994). To a large extent, the cheetah’s poor reproductive performance in captivity is linked to institutional management practices. First, some zoos have had high success in breeding cheetahs (Van Dyk 199 1, Lindburg et al. 1993). Factors which appear to facilitate breeding include large enclosures with long views, constant separation and reintroduction of males and females, and provision of secluded nest boxes for mothers with young (Lee 1992, Laurenson 1993). Second, vulnerability to disease increases in captive situations, and ulations, no epidemics have been reported from wild popalthough cheetahs in some parks h .ave been reported to suffer a relatively high incidence of mange (Caro et al. 1987, Bowland 1993, R. Kock in litt. 1993). Finally, some captive males are very fertile and others essentially infertile, despite having similar levels of poor quality sperm (Donoghue et al. 1992, Lindburg et al. 1993, Wildt et al. 1993a). The cheetah’s genetic monomorphism is a fascinating aspect of it's biology and potentially of importance to it's conservation, but implications for management of wild populations are not yet evident. 

Vulnerability in Protected Areas: Many observers have commented on the cheetah’s vulnerability to interspecific competition with other large carnivores, and this is now the primary focus of the long-term cheetah study in the Serengeti (S. Durant, pers. comm.1993). The chief mechanism by which more powerful carnivores-lions, leopards, and hyaenas-limit cheetah abundance is by killing cheetah cubs (Laurenson in press), but these species, as well as (sometimes) jackals, baboons, and vultures, also drive adult cheetahs off their kills. The cheetah’s relatively large litter size may be a strategy to offset high juvenile mortality (Burney 1980, Hamilton 1986a, Laurenson 1992, Caro 1994). Where other large carnivores have largely been eliminated, such as ranchland in Namibia, farmland and pastoral land in Kenya, and in parts of Somalia, cheetahs appear to flourish at higher densities (McVittie 1979, Burney 1980, Hamilton 1986a, Morsbach 1987, A. Simonetta in Zitt. 1993). A strategy of relying solely upon the limited system of protected areas within the cheetah’s range may not be sufficient to ensure the conservation of viable sub-populations. 

Livestock Predation: The survival of the cheetah outside protected areas is affected by conflicts with people over predation on livestock. Cheetahs are reported to prey on young camels and goats in the Air and Termit regions of Niger (T. Anada in Zitt. 1993). In Namibia, the cheetah is viewed as the most important predator of livestock on both commercial and communal farms: annual losses for these farms have been reported at lo- 15% for small stock (sheep and goats) and 3-5% for cattle calves up to eight months of age (Morsbach 1984-1986). Inevitably, stock losses to predators are greater where the natural prey base has been eliminated or reduced: on a 200 km2 ranch in Kenya, where about 9,500 head of livestock graze alongside a still largely intact wild ungulate assemblage, depredation by cheetahs is minimal, accounting for only 11 sheep a year (Mizutani 1993). Although farmers’ estimates of stock losses to cheetah may be inflated, either intentionally or otherwise, the fact remains that the species is widely considered a threat to people’s livelihood, and governments have little hope of preventing the destruction of cheetah on private lands if that is what the owners wish to do. Hamilton (1986a) points out that the cheetah may be more resilient to eradication on ranchland than other large carnivores-which will, for example, take poisoned bait-but the cheetah’s decline on Namibian ranchland during the 1980s is certainly attributable to persecution (Morsbach 1987). Namibia, South Africa, and Zimbabwe are now pursuing a strategy of permitting trophy hunting of cheetahs on private land, with the goal of encouraging landowners to accept and profit from cheetahs on their land. In addition, the Cheetah Conservation Fund of Namibia is working to educate farmers about appropriate management steps that can be taken to minimize stock losses 




https://portals.iucn.org/library/sites/l...96-008.pdf Reply