Persian Leopard (Panthera pardus saxicolor)

[Styx38]

Pckts Wrote:You used Kill sites to claim only Juveniles where taken and of those kill sites, only 16 were even considered fresh, the rest were old and rotting carcasses. 

Quote:My point was, Scat samples have no way of telling the age or sex of the prey taken, but considering that Sambar were the 2nd most common prey species in scat, it's safe to assume that some were adults as we have already seen Leopards take adult Sambar from varies parks dominated by both, Lions and Tigers.

Yes. The main guy in the study pointed out it was juveniles.

Pckts Wrote:A study comparing prey selection based off of Scat Samples from 1990 to another one in 2008 leave a lot of questions. What methods are they comparing, which areas, age and sex, what was the biomass, etc. 

Quote:Again, I'm also speaking on African Leopards, the contribution of Sambar to Indian Leopards diet is only being discussed because you said initially they don't hunt Sambar.
I agree that if an Apex Predator suddenly goes missing the prey it hunts will see an increase in numbers and the smaller carnivore should see a benefit in this. Whether it'd be from adults or the increase in young, either way it should benefit other predators that no longer have to worry about larger competitors. Does this somehow become more important than having the largest supply of Ungulates on earth?

Correction: I stated that it was rare to none. I posted the national park studies to point out they usually couldn't find adult sambar kills or a minimal amount of sambar in the leopard's diet at their time period, indicating the frequency of large kills was low. The guys who conducted these studies even doubted that a leopard could actually take down an adult sambar due to low frequency of kills. The kills that showed juveniles only supports the misinformed statements of the author.

Yes. If the animal has uninterrupted access to larger kills, then in a few generations you will find more larger individuals among the population. 

What's the point of the largest supply of ungulates when the leopard usually focuses on small to mid sized animals?

Pckts Wrote:First off, Okapi are smaller than Zebra and 2ndly, the amount of Kills contributed by either are statistically insignificant but the taking of their Fawn aren't and with a much higher biomass, adult Zebra, sub adult and fawn all fall victims to Leopards in the C/E Africa far more often than Okapi do to Congo Basin Leopards.

The adult weights seem somewhat comparable on Wikipedia:

Quote:The okapi is a medium-sized giraffid, standing 1.5 m (4 ft 11 in) tall at the shoulder. Its average body length is about 2.5 m (8 ft 2 in) and its weight ranges from 200 to 350 kg (440 to 770 lb).[19

Adults of both sexes can stand from 1.10 to 1.45 m (3.6 to 4.8 ft) high at the withers, are 2.17 to 2.46 m (7.1 to 8.1 ft) long, not counting a 47-to-56 cm (19-to-22 in) tail, and weigh 175 to 385 kg (386 to 849 lb)

Even if this study is wrong, both the animals touch the 300 kg mark. Same thing with the Sambar Deer.

There are a few instances of Leopards killing adult zebra, but nothing compared to frequency of killing Okapi:

Quote:

• Leopards represent significant cause of death for adult okapi.
  

Link: http://library.sandiegozoo.org/factsheet.../okapi.htm but the original source(s) are here: (Spinage 1968) (Bodmer & Rabb 1992)

Also, isn't the Congo considered Central Africa?

There is no difference, except that the available prey with in the prime weight is much higher in one area compared to another and thus offers far more options.

Pckts Wrote:Without larger carnivores it should benefit a Leopard, will it benefit a Leopard more than having the highest prey biomass on earth, I don't think so. 

This is and has always been my point. And when the prey biomass is that high both cats coexist and thrive



"given the relationships between predator density


and prey biomass, when the preferred prey of

these species increases in abundance so will the

predators (van Orsdol et al.1985;Fuller et al.1992;

Hayward et al. 2007d)."





"Although intense competitors, there is no evidence

that lions and hyaenas limit each other’s population

abundance and so there is no predicted response.

Leopards prefer and take prey smaller than that of

other guild members and this, coupled with their

use of denser habitats and adaptability, suggests

they will be largely unaffected by variation in

competitor levels"

http://www.the-eis.com/data/literature/Prey%20preferences%20and%20dietary%20overlap%20amongst%20Africas%20large%20predators.pdf





"In Chitawan National Park where tigers and leopards co-exist, tigers were recorded utilizing a much


wider range of prey sizes than leopards (Seidensticker

1976). The wild ungulate density in the intensive

study area (102 individuals/km2) is one of the highest

reported density in Indian sub-continent (Mondal

2011) and adequate to support both leopard and reintroduced tiger population in the study area (Sankar

et al. 2009). Though leopards and tigers utilized

the same prey species in the study area, but there

is a difference between the sex and size classes of

prey species, as observed by kill records. "


But again, Indian Leopards have far less to chose from, they live in a jungle habitat which means watering holes are spread out and prey doesn't congregate in the 1000s likes it does in Africa, so in turn they probably do suffer more from an Apex predator compared to their African Cousins. 

Your studies still point out that Leopards go for the small prey compared to their bigger or numerous competitors.

While watering holes do bring out a variety of species, doesn't a predator still know where to find its prey?

Pckts Wrote:Also remember you are comparing the largest weights Available for a single population and you're comparing them to all African Leopards.

Quote:If you were to go by locations you can easily find larger or smaller Leopards within certain parks. Again it's going to come down to prey density, terrain, climate and the Individual cat.

If the animal produces more heavy weights in proportion per population, wouldn't that still mean the subspecies is the biggest?

Also, don't forget prey size. Reply