Next Article in Journal
S. aureus Biofilm Protein Expression Linked to Antimicrobial Resistance: A Proteomic Study
Previous Article in Journal
Use of Omics Data in Fracture Prediction; a Scoping and Systematic Review in Horses and Humans
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Animals
Volume 11
Issue 4
10.3390/ani11040965
animals-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Puma (Puma concolor) in the Neighborhood? Records Near Human Settlements and Insights into Human-Carnivore Coexistence in Central Chile

by
Diego Ramírez-Álvarez
1,*,
Constanza Napolitano
2,3,* and
Iván Salgado
1
1
Unidad de Vida Silvestre, Servicio Agrícola y Ganadero (SAG), Región de O’Higgins, Rancagua 2820000, Chile
2
Departamento de Ciencias Biológicas y Biodiversidad, Universidad de Los Lagos, Osorno 5312435, Chile
3
Instituto de Ecología y Biodiversidad (IEB), Santiago 7800003, Chile
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Animals 2021, 11(4), 965; https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11040965
Submission received: 5 January 2021 / Revised: 26 January 2021 / Accepted: 3 February 2021 / Published: 31 March 2021
(This article belongs to the Section Wildlife)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:

Simple Summary

The presence of carnivores near human settlements is a poorly studied topic that generates concern and perception of risk in some human communities, especially for medium to large felids. Apart from the conflict of the potential predation of livestock, there is the insecurity perception of a potential attack on people. To gain a better understanding of how, when, and how close pumas approached human settlements, we analyze 51 puma records near populated areas over eight years in central Chile. The results show that pumas approached human-populated areas; in 23.5% of the records pumas are found between 0 and 999 m from the nearest human settlement, 25.5% are between 1000 and 4999 m, and 51% are over 5000 m. We associate puma records with landscape features, such as mountain ranges, land-use, road, and urban infrastructure; and based on previous knowledge of puma biology, behavior, and habitat preference, we identify their area of occupation and the potential biological corridor used for their movements from the Andes Range to the coast. Our results show the adaptability of pumas to human-dominated landscapes, and their capacity to overcome landscape barriers, such as human infrastructure, contributing to a better understanding of the population dynamics in the study area. Studies on human–carnivore coexistence, through formulas that consider local realities and the reduction of implicit risks for humans, are urgently needed, both globally and locally, and likely the only way to secure the long-term conservation of pumas in human-dominated landscapes.

Abstract

The wildland–urban interface lies at the confluence of human-dominated and wild landscapes—creating a number of management and conservation challenges. Wildlife sightings near human settlements have appeared to increase in the last years. This article reports 51 records of presences, sightings, and livestock attacks of Puma concolor, a large-sized felid, collected from 2012 to 2020 across the O’Higgins region in central Chile. Puma records were concentrated in the east of the region in the Andes Range and foothills (90%). The number of puma records is higher in the last four to six years than in previously studied years. Of the 51 records, 23.5% are between 0 and 999 m from the nearest human settlement (classified as very close), 25.5% are between 1000 and 4999 m (moderately close), and 51% are over 5000 m (distant). Most of the sightings are recorded in the summer (35%) and spring (29%). We identify an area of approximately 9000 km2 of suitable habitat as the most probable corridor effectively connecting pumas moving between eastern and western areas, encompassing the Angostura de Paine mountain range. Our results contribute to the understanding of the presence and movements of P. concolor near urban areas and human settlements, confirming their persistence in and adaptation to human-dominated landscapes. We also provide insights into human–carnivore coexistence in the current global context in the densely populated central Chile.

1. Introduction

Puma concolor [1] (puma, cougar, mountain lion) has a wide latitudinal range of distribution in the American continent [2,3], from southeast Alaska [4] to the austral Patagonian plains in Chile and Argentina [5,6]. This species has high dispersal capacity, being capable of covering large distances in short periods of time [7,8,9,10,11]. P. concolor home range size varies by sex, age, season, and spatial distribution and density of prey [12,13,14,15].
Home ranges between 65 km2 and 510 km2 have been reported in North America. Home ranges of resident male mountain lions are typically larger than those of females; they overlap a number of female home ranges, but only occasionally those of other resident males. The mean home range for resident males is between 437 and 510 km2; for resident females, it is between 177 and 192 km2 [16,17].
The Chilean subspecies, P. concolor puma [18] [3], is distributed in the country from the border with Peru as the northern limit to the Strait of Magallanes in the south, excluding Chiloé Island and Tierra del Fuego [6,19].
Home ranges in Chilean Patagonia varied between 24 and 260 km2; female home ranges extensively overlapped with those of other males and females, but male home ranges overlapped for only short time periods [20,21]. In the Coquimbo region of northern Chile, home ranges of 503 km2 and 631 km2 were reported for an adult female and a male, respectively, the largest home ranges recorded for the species in Chile [22]. These studies confirm that home ranges are inversely correlated with prey density [21].
The current spatial occupation of the species in central Chile is closely associated with the Andes Range [23,24]. However, the species can occupy a wide diversity of ecosystems, including desert, tropical forest, Altiplano, temperate forests, coastal plains, and Mediterranean scrubland [25,26,27]; its pre-Hispanic distribution in central Chile included the entire altitudinal territory, from sea level to the high mountains [28,29,30].
According to the IUCN Red List, the current conservation status of pumas for their complete distribution range is Least Concern [31], while the national classification in Chile is Near Threatened [32]. Among the factors that have been reported to facilitate a sustained population decline of pumas in Chile are the historical modification of its habitat, indiscriminate hunting in past decades (Figure 1), and a drastic reduction of its natural prey [33]. In fact, given its generalist feeding habits, in central Chile, the puma has had to modify its diet from the ancestral consumption of native prey, mainly Lama guanicoe, to post-colonization introduced prey, mainly lagomorphs (Oryctolagus cuniculus and Lepus capensis) and to a lesser extent domestic cattle [34,35].
Central Chile has experienced a notable expansion of the human-population into wilderness areas in recent decades, converting land to residential or agricultural use [36,37]. Together with the transhumance activity of cattle or mountain range summer grazing, this has led this felid to have greater availability of domestic prey, such as goats, sheep, cattle, and horses, accentuating the historical conflict between it and livestock production [35,38,39,40].
The O’Higgins region, an administrative territory in central Chile, encompasses an area of 16,387 km2 of the rich Mediterranean ecosystem and is part of the 25 priority hotspots for the conservation of global biodiversity [41]. This region presents the representative geographical topography of central Chile from east to west: Andes Range, Andes foothills, intermediate depression, Coast Range, and coastal plain.
Records of permanent puma presence in the coastal area and intermediate depression of the O’Higgins region in past decades were compiled by Castillo [29]. Unfortunately, the historical persecution and hunting by humans in these areas (Figure 1), due to conflict with livestock activities and occupation for human settlements and agricultural activity, relegated the species currently mostly to the Andes Range area of the region.
P. concolor maintains a stable population with a density of 0.75 adults per 100 km2 in the Alto Cachapoal basin [42] in the Andes Range of the O’Higgins region, relatively far away from human activity. This is one of the lowest densities for the species in South America, compared to densities of 3.4 to 6 individuals per 100 km2 reported for Chilean Patagonia [10,20] and 3.4 to 6.8 individuals per 100 km2 reported for the tropical forests of Brazil and the Bolivian Chaco, respectively [43,44]. However, this small Andean population in the O’Higgins region shows healthy ecological and biological dynamics, apparently breeding successfully, producing offspring that successfully reach the age of dispersal and adulthood, and feeding mainly on lagomorphs, birds, and other native mammals, and to a much lesser extent on transhumant cattle during the summer season [35,45].
The species has been banned from hunting and capture in Chile since the early 1980s, which may have facilitated a relative recovery and stabilization of its populations. Reports of cougar sightings and/or attacks on domestic cattle are increasingly frequent in recent years in the lower foothills, the intermediate depression, and even in the coastal area of the O’Higgins region [46].
Here we report records of P. concolor from the last eight years (2012–2020) across the O’Higgins region in central Chile, showing their distance of approach to human settlements, proposing suitable habitat areas for spatial movements and dispersal, and discussing human-wildlife coexistence in the current global context. We document that this species, which we believe commonly displays refractory behavior towards humans and mostly occupies territories far from urbanization, in some situations approaches human settlements.

2. Methods

The Agricultural and Livestock Service (SAG, for its acronym in Spanish), part of the Ministry of Agriculture, is the Chilean state institution in charge of the administration and supervision of hunting law regulations and protecting native species in the country. Between May, 2012, and July, 2020, SAG from the O’Higgins region received (citizen’s reports) and collected from its own sources records of presence, sightings, and livestock attacks of P. concolor in different locations across the region. Only verified species assignments were included in this study: Photographs, video recordings, trail camera records, corpse findings, live captures for research purposes, and forensic analysis of attacked cattle. The following data were obtained for each record: Location, date, georeference, altitude, and distance to the nearest human settlement calculated from its perimeter. The settlement was defined as a permanent dwelling site inhabited by more than 100 people. To assess the distance of approach to human settlements, the spatial data was analyzed using the ArcGIS-Pro® software, and a digital elevation model (DEM) obtained from the PALSAR (Phased Array Type L-band Synthetic Aperture Radar) sensor of the Japanese satellite ALOS (Advanced Land Observation Satellite) with a sampling resolution of 12.5 m (Hi-Res Terrain Corrected), along with a cartography of the road network and populated areas in the region. We classified the distance from the P. concolor record to the closest human settlement in three categories: (a) Very close, when the distance was between 0 and 999 m; (b) moderately close, the distance between 1000 and 4999 m; and (c) distant, over 5000 m.
To identify suitable habitat probably used by pumas to move across the region and explore the potential corridor between east and west, we conducted a spatial analysis using ArcGIS Pro® combined with the Chilean land cover layer (LandCover-2014), a land-use vector layer developed by the National Institute of Statistics of Chile (INE for its acronym in Spanish), and a high-resolution digital elevation model from the ALOS PALSAR sensor. Landscape features suitable for puma movements (habitat) were identified and included as geographic inputs: Continuity of vegetation cover, wooded or shrub areas, rugged terrain, and abrupt changes in elevation. We excluded roads and areas of high urban anthropic activity (following puma habitat suitability criteria; [47,48,49]. Landscape features were identified through two digital cartographic tools: The Digital Elevation Molding (DEM) of the Alos Palsar sensor, with a native resolution of 12.5 m, and the Land Cover Classification System (LCCS), a product that discriminates land cover between its biological and physical components, at a spatial resolution of 30 m with at least three levels of classes. To identify and exclude urban areas with high anthropic activity, we used a digital cartographic layer of geographical census division, which discriminates between areas of urban demographic concentration, and other human settlements with low population concentration.

3. Results

We collected 51 records of the presence of P. concolor across the study area (Table 1, Figure 2). Puma records were concentrated in the east of the region, in the Andes Range and foothills (46/51, 90.2%). Only five records (5/51, 9.8%) occurred in the western area, in the intermediate depression, Coast Range, and coastal plain (Figure 3).
Twelve (23.5%) of the 51 records were between 0 and 999 m from the nearest human settlement (classified herein as very close), 13 (25.5%) were between 1000 and 4999 m (moderately close) and 26 records (51%) were over 5000 m from the nearest human settlement (classified as distant) (Figure 3 and Figure 4).
Records varied from 132 to 2725 m elevation, with a median of 465 m for the records very close to human settlements, and 724 and 1471 m for records moderately close and distant, respectively. We found statistically significant differences between distance classes and altitude (Figure 4B) for all comparisons (very close-moderately close: U = 39, z = 2.09, p = 0.037; moderately close-distant: U = 39.5, z = 3.84, p = 0.00012; very close-distant: U = 18, z = 4.32, p < 0.00001).
Three of the 12 records classified as very close to human settlements occurred within the urban limits of cities: Los Lirios in Requínoa (27,968 inhabitants), Machalí (52,505 inhabitants), and San Fernando (58,367 inhabitants) [50] (Figure 3). In two of these records, through security cameras pumas were observed crossing the garden of inhabited houses, and in one of them, the animal is looking into a house through the window in a stalking position, probably due to an indoor pet (Figure 2A).
Almost all records classified as very close to human settlements corresponded to P. concolor in transit, where the animal was not seen again prowling in the area, therefore no capture or translocation was required, except for one case in Machalí (Figure 3G). In this case, a cougar was cornered by a group of stray dogs (Canis familiaris) among dense Rubus ulmifolius scrub in an urban park; therefore, a containment operation had to be conducted to restrain the dogs, and a controlled escape route towards the nearby hills had to be secured for the puma, through which it finally escaped into its natural habitat.
The human settlement that showed the highest recurrence of P. concolor sightings, with two very close records and three moderately close records, was Chacayes (276 inhabitants, 34°14′59′′ S 70°28′30′′ W, 917 m) [50], an Andean village in the Machalí commune at the junction of the Pangal and Cipreses Rivers and at the entrance of the Rio Cipreses National Reserve.
All records classified as distant from human settlements corresponded to sightings in the Andes Range and its foothills, either in mining or hydroelectric facilities, derived from studies with camera traps, or occasional findings in hiking or mountaineering activities. Three of the five records located in the western area were very close to human settlements, and the other two moderately close (Figure 3). Two of them were located in the intermediate depression, a finding of a puma corpse (killed by a vehicle collision) near the town of Santa Inés and a sighting in Lago Rapel, in addition to three other sightings in the Coast Range pine plantations and the coastal plain.
Most of the sightings were recorded in the summer and spring seasons; 18 in summer (35%), 15 in spring (29%), 9 in autumn (18%), and 9 in winter (18%), and mainly in December (Figure 4C, Table 1). The season with the highest proportion of occurrence of very close records was winter (44%), and that with the lowest proportion was spring (7%) (all comparisons statistically non-significant).
The number of records was higher for the last 4 to 6 years (2015–2020) compared to the number of sightings recorded in the previously studied years (2012–2014) (Figure 4D, Table 1). From 2015 onwards, a higher proportion of occurrence of very close and moderately close sightings was recorded (all comparisons statistically non-significant).
Only 16 of the 51 records had photos (12 records) or videos (four records). In these images we could identify four males (25%, 4/16), six females (37.5%, 6/16) and six juveniles (37.5%, 6/16). Two records corresponded to a female with two cubs. The estimated body condition for the animals in these images were: Three males 3/5, one male 4/5, six females 3/5, four juveniles 3/5, and two juveniles 2/5.
Only 24 of the 51 records had confirmed the time of the day when the sighting occurred. For puma records very close to human settlements, 40% (2/5) occurred during the day and 60% (3/5) at night. For moderately close records, 17% (1/6) occurred during the day and 83% (5/6) at night. For distant records, 23% (3/13) occurred during the day, 23% (3/13) at dusk, and 54% (7/13) at night (Figure 4A) (all comparisons statistically non-significant).
The spatial analysis to identify suitable habitat probably used by pumas to move across the region estimated an area of approximately 9000 km2, the most probable corridor east-west being the mountains of Angostura de Paine to Altos de Cantillana, which range across the north of the region (Figure 5). Based on our records, this mountain range could effectively connect pumas between the eastern and western areas.

4. Discussion

The records presented here are relevant to understand the presence and movements of P. concolor near urban areas and human settlements. They confirm the persistence of the species in the intermediate depression and coastal area of central Chile, overcoming urban infrastructure and adapting to human-dominated landscapes that could potentially act as barriers to their dispersal [51].
Obtaining evidence of the presence of P. concolor in the intermediate depression of central Chile is difficult, even with a good sampling effort. Recently, Garcia et al. [52] studied the presence of carnivores for four years (2013–2016), installing 53 camera traps (baited with lynx urine) in 12 remnant patches of sclerophyllous forest and shrubland in vineyard landscapes of the Mediterranean region of central Chile, but did not record P. concolor.
In this study, records classified as very close and moderately close were concentrated in the transition zone between the Andes foothills and the intermediate depression, parallel to the main Chilean north-south highway (Ruta 5 Sur), where most of the populated areas are located. This may explain the significant differences found between distance classes and altitude, and not an actual behavioral difference between the Andes foothills and the lowlands.
Detection probability may not be homogeneous across the study area, and may be higher near human settlements. We acknowledge the observed pattern of distribution may be biased accordingly, and this should be considered when interpreting the results. In this study, we did not find a higher number of records closer to human settlements.
Puma records concentrated along the east of the main Chilean north-south highway, where most of the urban infrastructure is located, suggests that this densely populated strip may constitute one of the determining filters in the dispersal of the species from the east (Andes) to west (coast). It has been described that anthropogenic obstacles modify landscape permeability for pumas, and that dispersal distances are shorter in fragmented than in continuous landscapes [53]. At the wildland–urban interface, Kertson et al. [54] also found that early-successional forest (+), conifer forest (+), distance to the road (−), residential density (−), and elevation (−) were significantly positive and negative predictors of habitat use for P. concolor.
The locality of Chacayes, where the highest recurrence of sightings of P. concolor was recorded, is immersed in an area previously determined as of high transit of P. concolor through studies with satellite positioning collars [35]. Small livestock farming, the main economic activity, together with its geographical location in the Andes foothills may influence this greater number of sightings. Coincident with historical P. concolor sightings and information, we found no records in the southwestern part of the region, which has been the case for at least the past seven decades (personal communications of local inhabitants).
The coastal records of P. concolor in the region support previously studies in Chile reporting that pumas are habitat and diet generalists [48]. In the coastal area, forest plantations of exotic species (Pinus radiata) cover extensive surfaces, providing adequate vegetation coverage for its lurking predation habits and abundant populations of lagomorphs, which together with the occasional consumption of sheep may constitute its local main diet.
Considering that some puma reproductive behavior (communication and denning) may be affected by the proximity to urbanized areas [55], it remains to be clarified whether the coastal and intermediate depression sightings recorded in this study correspond to resident puma subpopulations or to non-resident animals bi-directionally transiting animals coming from the Andean zone. In a metapopulation framework, puma subpopulations separated by areas of non- or less-suitable habitat could be connected by dispersers, providing gene flow [47,56]. The ecological flexibility of pumas and their high dispersal capabilities can promote wide genetic connectivity across large geographic areas [57].
The proposed east-west corridor may connect from the Andes Range and its foothill, to hill chains in the Angostura de Paine sector, Altos de Cantillana and its southern mountain range, and to the Coast Range and coastal plains in the west, at least to the town of Pichilemu in the south. The east-to-west dispersal of P. concolor in the region may follow the source-sink model of population dynamics, which predicts that density drives emigration of subordinate animals to habitats offering lower competition for resources [7], considering that the decision of whether or not to disperse is multi-factorial, context-dependent and highly individualistic [58].
The dispersal of pumas is driven mainly by the search for food and reproductive partners in adults within their territories [10,11]. During the dispersion period of juveniles (between 1 to 2 years of age), the mother expulses her descendants from their birth territory, inducing them to search for their own [56]. It is mainly in this period when young inexperienced individuals may approach populated areas in search of food or to establish their own territories, and are subjected to the pressure of not being able to settle down or being expelled from territories already occupied by adult pumas. In this study, 37.5% of all puma records with identified sex were juveniles.
The proportion of occurrence of records in the different distance classes varied across the temporal distribution (year, season, and time of the day). However, all comparisons were statistically non-significant, probably due to the low sample size. The season with the highest proportion of very close records was winter, probably when snow and food scarcity forces some individuals to descend to lower elevations. The season with the lowest proportion of very close records was spring, with high prey availability for pumas [59].
Regarding the time of the day when the sightings occurred, very close, moderately close, and distant records had an approximately similar proportion of occurrence during dusk/night (60% night, 83% night, and 77% dusk/night (23% dusk, 54% night), respectively), assuming both dusk and night may facilitate puma movements being undetected by humans. However, we cannot properly assess this with our limited dataset. In other large felids, such as leopards, it has been described that in human-dominated landscapes animals shift their activity patterns towards markedly nocturnal [60].
The increased number of puma records we report here in the last 4 to 6 years compared to previously studied years is most probably due to a sustained increase in awareness of the general public and use of social media to share wildlife sightings, especially near human settlements. A growing interest of citizens in wildlife watching, new technologies for observing and capturing images, such as camera traps and the ease of sharing records through social networks, increasingly shows that it is not unusual for carnivores to move through urban areas [61,62,63]. However, this trend may also be attributable in part to a real increase in puma presence/abundance in the region, due to greater protection for the species, however, with our current data, we cannot assess this. Both of these factors may be operating, and other variables, such as yearly climatic conditions and prey availability, could also influence this trend. SAG has not changed its monitoring protocols, database management, or increased surveillance efforts during the period studied.
An unusual increase in puma sightings within the urban radio occurred during 2020 in the capital city of Santiago in Chile (Metropolitan region, adjacent to our study area), attracting the attention of the general public and especially of the wildlife authorities (SAG), who had to capture and relocate the animals. Among possible causes that have been proposed are factors, such as the decrease of prey in the Andean area, due to a long-term mega-drought, the deregulated expansion of the real estate industry into wild areas, and the lockdown effect during the Covid-19 pandemic [64]. A source-sink model of population dynamics from the more abundant source populations in the Andes Range close to the city of Santiago may be another possible cause [7]. Some carnivores approach cities profiting from resources generated by humans or even establish their ecological niche in cities [65,66,67]. However, urban wildlife ecology studies, especially in carnivores, are scarce in South America [63,68]. Therefore, all these possible explanations should still be considered as hypotheses under analysis and evaluated with caution in an inter-disciplinary approach [63].
The small sample size in this study limited the possibility of addressing potential statistically significant patterns on the relationship between the distance to human settlements of puma records and other variables, such as year, season, time of the day, sex, age group, or body condition. Future studies should aim at collecting a larger, long-term dataset covering a much wider area to elucidate many of the aforementioned unsolved questions.
The wildland–urban interface lies at the confluence of human-dominated and wild landscapes, creating a number of management and conservation challenges [54]. For example, the approach of P. concolor to human settlements and urban areas may facilitate a higher probability of indirect or direct contact (including predation) with domestic dogs and cats (Felis silvestris catus), and subsequent transmission of their pathogens, potentially impacting puma populations. The transmission of infectious diseases from domestic dogs and cats have been demonstrated for other Chilean wild cats, facilitated by increased contact probability of human invasion into natural habitats and habitat fragmentation [69,70,71,72,73]. Cross-species transmission of pathogens as threats for puma populations have been studied in North America [74,75,76] and also for other wild felids [77,78,79]. However, to our knowledge, there are no disease studies at the wildland–urban interface in pumas in Chile, thus this potential threat is yet to be uncovered.
Coexistence and land-sharing must involve strategic regional planning and evidence-based management decisions, considering puma biology, landscape features, and human dimensions. A planning scheme should aim to identify areas with the highest human-puma overlap probabilities and try to reduce interactions between pumas and people, focusing on management, education, and landscape planning [49,54]. Strategies should also secure protected wild areas from where carnivore populations can expand and migrate, and protect corridors for dispersal among subpopulations to ensure long-term metapopulation persistence, especially those subpopulations affected by fragmentation or offtake by humans [56]. In our study area in the O’Higgins region, there is one small, protected area located in the intermediate depression (Las Palmas de Cocalán National Park; 3700 ha) and one large protected area at high elevations in the Andes (Rio de Los Cipreses National Reserve; 36,800 ha).
Improved public opinion and protective legislation have been proposed as crucial factors to enable the coexistence of large carnivores and people sharing the same landscapes outside protected areas [80]. Effective law enforcement is essential for coexistence, allowing a shift in social values, cultural acceptance, and favorable habitat changes [81,82]. Understanding the emotions involved in human-wildlife relationships [83,84] and the drivers of people’s tolerance towards those species perceived as dangerous [85,86] is needed. Records of P. concolor attacks on humans are scarce worldwide, and from a probabilistic perspective, they represent a minimal risk [87].
The current challenge is to develop and promote human–carnivore coexistence formulas that consider the local needs, resources, and cultural realities, allowing the sustainable balance between habitability and human development and the conservation of these carnivores [88], without cities becoming sinks for these species [89].
Our evidence of puma transit through or near human settlements without being commonly detected in the O’Higgins region suggests an implicit coexistence between human populations and wild carnivores, which still remains to be understood and assimilated by the local community. A growing interest of citizens in wildlife may be a good starting point, however, in the local communities of central Chile, much work still has to be advanced towards effective human–carnivore coexistence and the long-term persistence of all species.

5. Conclusions

Human–carnivore coexistence at the wildland–urban interface creates a number of management and conservation challenges. An interdisciplinary approach with social sciences professionals, wildlife managers, and other key actors is needed to develop successful coexistence formulas to allow the sustainable balance between human development and the long-term conservation of these carnivores sharing the same landscapes with people.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, D.R.-Á., C.N.; methodology, D.R.-Á., I.S., C.N.; software, I.S; validation, D.R.-Á., C.N., I.S.; formal analysis, D.R.-Á., C.N., I.S.; investigation, D.R.-Á., I.S.; resources, D.R.-Á., C.N.; data curation, D.R.-Á.; writing-original draft preparation, D.R.-Á., C.N; writing-review and editing, D.R.-Á., C.N.; visualization, D.R.-Á., C.N., I.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by Agricultural and Livestock Service (SAG, Servicio Agricola y Ganadero) of the O’Higgins region of Chile (D.R.-Á., I.S.) and ANID PAI 77190064 (C.N.).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available in Table 1.

Acknowledgments

We thank the Wildlife Monitoring Project ICAV-UOH and JC Torres for valuable data contribution. We especially acknowledge Lucia Abello and Martin Fernández for their contribution with puma historical photographs and data.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Linnaeus, C. Mantissa Plantarum, Altera. Regni Animalis, Appendix; Impensis Direct: Stockholm, Sweden, 1771; pp. 1–584. [Google Scholar]
  2. Chapman, J.A.; Feldhamer, G.A. (Eds.) Wild Mammals of North America; The Johns Hopkins University Press: Baltimore, MD, USA, 1982; p. 1147. [Google Scholar]
  3. Culver, M.; Jhonson, M.; Peccon-Slattery, J.; O’Brien, S. Genomic Ancestry of the American Puma (Puma concolor). J. Hered. 2000, 91, 186–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  4. MacDonald, S.O.; Cook, J.A. Mammals and amphibians of Southeast Alaska. In The Museum of Southwestern Biology; Special Publication: Albuquerque, NM, USA, 2007; Volume 8, pp. 1–191. [Google Scholar]
  5. Parera, A. Los mamíferos de la Argentina y la Región Austral de Sudamérica. Lista Comentada de Órdenes, Familias y Géneros de la Fauna de Mamíferos Silvestres del Cono Sur, con Mención a los Géneros y Especies de la Argentina; El Ateneo: Buenos Aires, Argentina, 2002; p. 453. [Google Scholar]
  6. Iriarte, A. Mamíferos de Chile; Lynx Edicions: Barcelona, Spain, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  7. Robinson, H.S.; Wielgus, R.B.; Cooley, H.S.; Cooley, S.W. Sink populations in carnivore management: Cougar demography and immigration in a hunted population. Ecol. Appl. 2008, 18, 1028–1037. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Stoner, D.C.; Rieth, W.R.; Wolfe, M.L.; Mecham, M.B.; Neville, A. Long-distance dispersal of a female cougar in a basin and range landscape. J. Wildl. Manag. 2008, 72, 933–939. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Elbroch, M.; Wittmer, H.U.; Saucedo, C.; Corti, P. Long-distance dispersal of a male puma (Puma concolor puma) in Patagonia. Rev. Chil. Hist. Nat. 2009, 82, 459–461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Elbroch, L.M.; Wittmer, H.U. Puma spatial ecology in open habitats with aggregate prey. Mamm. Biol. 2012, 77, 377–384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Hawley, J.E.; Rego, P.W.; Wydeven, A.P.; Schwartz, M.K.; Viner, T.C.; Kays, R.; Pilgrim, K.L.; Jenks, J.A. Long-distance dispersal of a subadult male cougar from South Dakota to Connecticut documented with DNA evidence. J. Mammal. 2016, 97, 1435–1440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Seidensticker, J.C.; Hornocker, M.G.; Wiles, W.V.; Messick, J.P. Mountain lion social organization in the Idaho Primitive Area. Wildl. Monogr. 1973, 35, 3–60. [Google Scholar]
  13. Hansen, K. Cougar: The American Lion; Northland Publishing: Flagstaff, AZ, USA, 1992; p. 129. [Google Scholar]
  14. Laundré, J.; Loxterman, J. Impact of Edge Habitat on Summer Home Range Size in Female Pumas. Am. Midl. Nat. 2007, 157, 221–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Gelin, M.L.; Branch, L.C.; Thornton, D.H.; Novaro, A.J.; Gould, M.J.; Caragiulo, A. Response of pumas (Puma concolor) to migration of their primary prey in Patagonia. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0188877. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Maehr, D.S. Florida panther: Felis concolor coryi. In Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida; Humphrey, S.R., Ed.; Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission: Naples, FL, USA, 1992; Volume 1, pp. 176–189. [Google Scholar]
  17. Tesky, J.L. Puma concolor. In Fire Effects Information System; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory: Fort Collins, CO, USA, 1995. Available online: www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/animals/mammal/puco/all.html (accessed on 21 October 2020).
  18. Molina, G.I. Saggia Sulla Storia Naturale del Chili; Stamperia di S. Tommaso d’ Aquino: Bologna, Italy, 1782. [Google Scholar]
  19. Péfaur, J.; Hermosilla, W.; Di Castri, F.; González, R.; Salinas, F. Estudio preliminar de mamíferos silvestres chilenos: Su distribución, valor económico e importancia. Rev. Soc. Med. Vet. 1968, 18, 1–15. [Google Scholar]
  20. Franklin, W.L.; Johnson, W.E.; Sarno, R.J.; Iriarte, A. Ecology of the Patagonia puma Felis concolor patagonica in southern Chile. Biol. Conserv. 1999, 90, 33–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Bank, M.; Sarno, R.; Campbell, N.; Franklin, W. Predation of guanacos (Lama guanicoe) by southernomost mountain lions (Puma concolor) during a historically severe winter in Torres del Paine National Park, Chile. J. Zool. 2002, 258, 215–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Sepúlveda, C.; Pino, R.; Donoso, D.; Iriarte, A. El Puma en la Región de Coquimbo: Develando su Ecología e Interacción con la Ganadería, Segunda Edición ed; Ediciones SAG Región de Coquimbo y Flora & Fauna Chile: Santiago, Chile, 2017; p. 62.
  23. Quintana, V.; Yáñez, J.; Valdebenito, M. Orden Carnívora. In Mamíferos de Chile; Muñoz-Pedreros, A., Yáñez, J., Eds.; CEA Ediciones: Valdivia, Chile, 2000; pp. 155–187. [Google Scholar]
  24. MMA. Ficha de Clasificación de la Especie Puma concolor en el Marco del Séptimo Proceso de Clasificación de Especies. Ministerio del Medio Ambiente de Chile. 2010; p. 8. Available online: http://www.mma.gob.cl/clasificacionespecies/fichas7proceso/fichas_pac/Puma_concolor_P07.pdf (accessed on 4 September 2020).
  25. Iriarte, J.; Johnson, W.; Franklin, W. Feeding Ecology of the Patagonia Puma in southermost Chile. Rev. Chil. Hist. Nat. 1991, 64, 145–156. [Google Scholar]
  26. Redford, K.; Eisenberg, J. Mammals of the Neotropics Vol 2; The University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 1992; p. 430. [Google Scholar]
  27. Nowell, K.; Jackson, P. Wild Cats, Status Survey and Conservation Action Plan; IUCN/SSC Cat Specialist Group: Gland, Switzerland, 1996. [Google Scholar]
  28. Castillo, O. Antecedentes Biogeográficos y Ecológicos del Puma en el Territorio Chileno; Congreso de Geografía y V Jornada de Cartografía Temática: Valparaíso, Chile, 1992. [Google Scholar]
  29. Castillo, O. Sobrevivencia del Puma o León andino (Felis concolor) en el semiárido y en la región central de Chile Sudamericano. Nadir Rev. Electron. Geogr. Austral 2009, 1, 60–80. [Google Scholar]
  30. Grimberg, M. (Ed.) Plan Nacional de Conservación del Guanaco (Lama Guanicoe) en Chile. 2010–2015; CONAF: Santiago, Chile, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  31. Nielsen, C.; Thompson, D.; Kelly, M.; Lopez-Gonzalez, C.A. Puma concolor (errata version published in 2016). IUCN Red List Threat. Species 2015, e.T18868A97216466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. MMA. Decreto Supremo N° 42 2011. Séptimo Proceso de Clasificación de Especies del Reglamento de Clasificación de Especies del Ministerio del Medio Ambiente de Chile; MMA: Santiago, Chile, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  33. Tala, C.H.; Guerrero, S.; Aviles, R.; Stutzin, M. Especies Amenazadas de Chile: Protejámoslas y Evitemos su Extinción; Comisión Nacional del Medio Ambiente; Serie divulgativa sobre Biodiversidad: Santiago, Chile, 2009; Volume I, p. 122. [Google Scholar]
  34. Amar, F.; Melo, O.; Bonacic, C. Efectos Económicos de la Coexistencia Entre Pumas y Ganaderos en la Comuna de San José de Maipo, Región Metropolitana; Reunión Binacional de Ecología: La Serena, Chile, 2007.
  35. Pavez, E.; Guarda, N. Puma y Arriero en el Alto Cachapoal, Hacia la Resolución de un Conflicto; Editorial Kactus: Santiago, Chile, 2017; p. 96. [Google Scholar]
  36. Pauchard, A.; Aguayo, M.; Peña, E.; Urrutia, R. Multiple effects of urbanization on the biodiversity of developing countries: The case of a fast-growing metropolitan area (Concepción, Chile). Biol. Conserv. 2006, 127, 272–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Dobbs, C.; Escobedo, F.J.; Clerici, N.; De la Barrera, F.; Eleuterio, A.A.; MacGregor-Fors, I.; Reyes-Paecke, S.; Vásquez, A.; Camaño, J.D.; Hernández, H.J. Urban ecosystem Services in Latin America: Mismatch between global concepts and regional realities? Urban Ecosyst. 2019, 22, 173–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Bonacic, C.; Galvez, N.; Ibarra, J.; Amar, M.; Sanhueza, D.; Murphy, T.; Guarda, N. Evaluación del Conflicto entre Carnívoros Silvestres y Ganadería; Laboratorio de Vida Silvestre Fauna Australis, Facultad de Agronomía e Ingeniería Forestal; Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile: Santiago, Chile, 2007; p. 94. [Google Scholar]
  39. Guarda, N.; Gálvez, N.; Hernández, F.; Rubio, A.; Ohrens, O.; Bonacic, C. Manual de Verificación: Denuncias de Depredación en Ganado Doméstico; Serie Fauna Australis, Facultad de Agronomía e Ingeniería Forestal, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile; Servicio Agrícola y Ganadero: Santiago, Chile, 2010; p. 80.
  40. Guarda, N.; Bonacic, C. Informe Técnico Final: Ecología y Relación con el ser Humano de Puma Concolor en la Reserva Nacional Río los Cipreses y Zonas Aledañas; Laboratorio Fauna Australis, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Fondo de Investigación Científica Alto Cachapoal, Pacific Hydro Chile: Santiago, Chile, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  41. Myers, N.; Mittermeier, R.A.; Mittermeier, C.G.; B da Fonseca, G.A.; Kent, J. Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 2000, 403, 853–858. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Guarda, N.; Gálvez, N.; Leichtle, J.; Osorio, C.; Bonacic, C. Puma Puma concolor density estimation in the Mediterranean Andes of Chile. Oryx 2017, 51, 263–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  43. Kelly, M.; Noss, A.; Di Bitetti, M.; Maffei, L.; Arispe, R.; Paviolo, A.; Angelo, C.; Di Blanco, Y. Estimating Puma Densities from Camera Trapping across Three Study Sites: Bolivia, Argentina, and Belize. J. Mammal. 2008, 89, 408–418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Negroes, N.; Sarmento, P.; Cruz, J.; Eira, C.; Revilla, E.; Fonseca, C.; Sollmann, R.; Torres, N.; Furtado, M.; Jacomo, A.; et al. Use of Camera-Trapping to Estimate Puma Density and Influencing Factors in Central Brazil. J. Wildl. Manag. 2010, 74, 1195–1203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Guarda, N.; Aguilar, A.; López, J.; Carrasco, J.M.; Orellana NDurán, H.; Lobos, P.; Bonacic, P. Sobrevivencia de crías de puma (Puma concolor) hasta edad de dispersión en la Reserva Nacional Río los Cipreses, Región del Libertador Bernardo O’Higgins. Biodiversidata 2014, 1, 39–41. [Google Scholar]
  46. SAG. Sistema de Atención de Denuncias de Ataques de Carnívoros Silvestres Sobre Ganado Doméstico; Servicio Agrícola y Ganadero: O’Higgins, Chile, 2020.
  47. McRae, B.H.; Beier, P.; Dewald, L.E.; Huynh, L.Y.; Keim, P. Habitat barriers limit gene flow and illuminate historical events in a wide-ranging carnivore, the American puma. Mol. Ecol. 2005, 14, 1965–1977. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Zuñiga, A.; Muñoz-Pedreros, A.; Fierro, A. Habitat use of four terrestrial carnivores in southern Chile. Gayana 2009, 73, 200–210. [Google Scholar]
  49. Banfield, J.E.; Ciuti, S.; Nielsen, C.C.; Boyce, M.S. Cougar roadside habitat selection: Incorporating topography and traffic. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 2020, 23, e01186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. INE. Censo de Población y Vivienda año 2017 del Instituto Nacional de Estadísticas de Chile; INE: Santiago, Chile, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  51. Vickers, T.W.; Sanchez, J.N.; Johnson, C.K.; Morrison, S.A.; Botta, R.; Smith, T.; Cohen, B.S.; Huber, P.R.; Ernest, H.B.; Boyce, W.M. Survival and Mortality of Pumas (Puma concolor) in a Fragmented, Urbanizing Landscape. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0131490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  52. García, C.B.; Svensson, G.L.; Bravo, C.; Undurraga, M.I.; Díaz-Forestier, J.; Godoy, K.; Neaman, A.; Barbosa, O.; Abades, S.; Celis-Diez, J. Remnants of native forests support carnivore diversity in the vineyard landscapes of central Chile. Oryx 2020, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  53. Stoner, D.C.; Wolfe, M.L.; Mecham, C.; Mecham, M.B.; Durham, S.L.; Choate, D.M. Dispersal behaviour of a polygynous carnivore: Do cougars Puma concolor follow source-sink predictions? Wildl. Biol. 2013, 19, 289–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  54. Kertson, B.N.; Spencer, R.D.; Marzluff, J.M.; Hepinstall-Cymerman, J.; Grue, C.E. Cougar space use and movements in the wildland–urban landscape of western Washington. Ecol. Appl. 2011, 21, 2866–2881. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Wilmers, C.C.; Wang, Y.; Nickel, B.; Houghtaling, P.; Shakeri, Y.; Allen, M.L.; Kermish-Wells, J.; Yovovich, V.; Williams, T. Scale Dependent Behavioral Responses to Human Development by a Large Predator, the Puma. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e60590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  56. Sweanor, L.L.; Logan, K.A.; Hornocker, M.G. Cougar dispersal patterns, metapopulation dynamics, and conservation. Conserv. Biol. 2000, 14, 798–808. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  57. Matte, E.; Castilho, C.; Miotto, R.; Sana, D.; Johnson, W.; O’Brien, S.; Freitas, T.; Eizirik, E. Molecular evidence for a recent demographic expansion in the puma (Puma concolor) (Mammalia, Felidae). Genet. Mol. Biol. 2013, 36, 586–597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  58. Cote, J.; Clobert, J.; Brodin, T.; Fogerty, S.; Sih, A. Personality-dependent dispersal: Characterization, ontogeny, and consequences for spatially-structured populations. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B. 2010, 365, 4065–4076. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  59. Allen, M.L.; Elbroch, L.M.; Casady, D.S.; Wittmer, H.U. Seasonal variation in the feeding ecology of pumas (Puma concolor) in northern California. Cannadian J. Zool. 2014, 92, 397–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Odden, M.; Athreya, V.; Rattan, S.; Linnell, J.D.C. Adaptable Neighbours: Movement Patterns of GPS-Collared Leopards in Human Dominated Landscapes in India. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e112044. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  61. Santini, L.; González-Suárez, M.; Russo, D.; Gonzalez-Voyer, A.; von Hardenberg, A.; Ancillotto, L. One strategy does not fit all: Determinants of urban adaptation in mammals. Ecol. Lett. 2019, 22, 365–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  62. Zellmer, A.J.; Wood, E.M.; Surasinghe, T.; Putman, B.J.; Pauly, G.B.; Magle, S.B.; Lewis, J.S.; Kay, C.A.M.; Fidino, M. What can we learn from wildlife sightings during the COVID-19 global shutdown? Ecosphere 2020, 11, e03215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Silva-Rodríguez, E.A.; Gálvez, N.; Swan, G.J.F.; Cusack, J.J.; Moreira-Arce, D. Urban wildlife in times of COVID-19: What can we infer from novel carnivore records in urban areas? Sci. Total Environ. 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Rutz, C.; Loretto, M.C.; Bates, A.E.; Davidson, S.C.; Duarte, C.M.; Jetz, W.; Johnson, M.; Kato, A.; Kays, R.; Mueller, T.; et al. COVID-19 lockdown allows researchers to quantify the effects of human activity on wildlife. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2020, 4, 1156–1159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Bateman, P.W.; Fleming, P.A. Big city life: Carnivores in urban environments. J. Zool. 2012, 287, 1–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Šálek, M.; Drahníková, L.; Tkadlec, E. Changes in home range sizes and population densities of carnivore species along the natural to urban habitat gradient. Mammal Rev. 2015, 45, 1–14. [Google Scholar]
  67. Castañeda, I.; Bellard, C.; Jarić, I.; Pisanu, B.; Chapuis, J.L.; Bonnaud, E. Trophic patterns and home-range size of two generalist urban carnivores: A review. J. Zool. 2019, 307, 79–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  68. Magle, S.B.; Hunt, V.M.; Vernon, M.; Crooks, K.R. Urban wildlife research: Past, present and future. Biol. Conserv. 2012, 155, 23–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Mora, M.; Napolitano, C.; Ortega, R.; Poulin E y Pizarro-Lucero, J. Feline immunodeficiency virus and feline leukemia virus infection in free-ranging guignas (Leopardus guigna) and sympatric domestic cats in human perturbed landscapes on Chiloé Island, Chile. J. Wildl. Dis. 2015, 51, 199–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Napolitano, C.; Gálvez, N.; Bennett, M.; Acosta-Jamett, G.; Sanderson, J. Leopardus guigna. IUCN Red List Threat. Species 2015, e.T15311A50657245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Ortega, R.; Mena, J.; Grecco, S.; Perez, R.; Panzera, Y.; Napolitano, C.; Sandoval, A.Z.N.-A.; Sandoval, D.; Gonzalez-Acuña, D.; Cofré, S.; et al. Domestic dog origin of Carnivore Protoparvovirus 1 infection in a rescued free-ranging guiña (Leopardus guigna). Chile. Transbound. Emerg. Dis. 2020, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Sacristán, I.; Esperon, F.; Pérez, R.; Acuña, F.; Aguilar, E.; Garcia, S.; López, M.J.; Neves, E.; Cabello, J.; Hidalgo-Hermoso, E.; et al. Epidemiology and molecular characterization of Carnivore protoparvovirus-1 infection in the wild felid Leopardus guigna. Chile. Transbound. Emerg. Dis. 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Sacristán, I.; Acuña, F.; Aguilar, E.; Garcia, S.; López, M.J.; Cabello, J.; Hidalgo-Hermoso, E.; Sanderson, J.; Terio, K.A.; Barrs, V.; et al. Cross-species transmission of retroviruses among domestic and wild felids in human-occupied landscapes in Chile. Evol. Appl. 2021, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Cunningham, M.W.; Brown, M.A.; Shindle, D.B.; Terrell, S.P.; Hayes, K.A.; Ferree, B.C.; McBride, R.T.; Blankenship, E.L.; Jansen, D.; Citino, S.B. Epizootiology and management of feline leukemia virus in the Florida puma. J. Wildl. Dis. 2008, 44, 537–552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  75. Foley, J.E.; Swift, P.; Fleer, K.A.; Torres, S.; Girard, Y.A.; Johnson, C.K. Risk factors for exposure to feline pathogens in California mountain lions (Puma concolor). J. Wildl. Dis. 2013, 49, 279–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  76. Lee, J.S.; Bevins, S.N.; Serieys, L.E.K.; Vickers, W.; Logan, K.A.; Aldredge, M.; Boydston, E.E.; Lyren, L.M.; McBride, R.; Roelke-Parker, M.; et al. Evolution of Puma Lentivirus in Bobcats (Lynx rufus) and Mountain Lions (Puma concolor). North America. J. Virol. 2014, 88, 7727–7737. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  77. Antunes, A.; Troyer, J.L.; Roelke, M.E.; Pecon-Slattery, J.; Packer, C.; Winterbach, C.; Winterbach, H.; Hemson, G.; Frank, L.; Stander, P. The evolutionary dynamics of the lion Panthera leo revealed by host and viral population genomics. Plos Genet. 2008, 4, e1000251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  78. Meli, M.L.; Cattori, V.; Martínez, F.; López, G.; Vargas, A.; Simón, M.A.; Zorrilla, I.; Muñoz, A.; Palomares, F.; López-Bao, J.V.; et al. Feline Leukemia Virus and Other Pathogens as Important Threats to the Survival of the Critically Endangered Iberian Lynx (Lynx pardinus). PLoS ONE 2009, 4, e4744. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  79. Meli, M.L.; Cattori, V.; Martínez, F.; López, G.; Vargas, A.; Palomares, F.; López-Bao, J.V.; Hofmann-Lehmann, R.; Lutz, H. Feline leukemia virus infection: A threat for the survival of the critically endangered Iberian lynx (Lynx pardinus). Vet. Immunol. Immunopathol. 2010, 134, 61–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Chapron, G.; Kaczensky, P.; Linell, J.D.C.; von Arx, M.; Huber, D.; Andrén, H.; Lopéz-Bao, J.V.; Adamec, M.; Álvarez, F. Recovery of large carnivores in Europe’s modern human-dominated landscapes. Science 2014, 346, 1517–1519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  81. Gilroy, J.J.; Ordiz, A.; Bischof, R. Carnivore coexistence: Value the wilderness. Science 2015, 347, 382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  82. Gompper, M.E.; Belant, J.L.; Kays, R. Carnivore coexistence: America’s recovery. Science 2015, 347, 382–383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  83. Jacobs, M.H. Human emotions toward wildlife. Hum. Dimens. Wildl. 2012, 17, 1–3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Jacobs, M.; Vaske, J. Understanding emotions as opportunities for and barriers to coexistence with wildlife. In Human–Wildlife Interactions: Turning Conflict into Coexistence; Frank, B., Glikman, J., Marchini, S., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2019; pp. 65–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Kansky, R.; Kidd, M.; Knight, A.T. A wildlife tolerance model and case study for understanding human wildlife conflicts. Biol. Conserv. 2016, 201, 137–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  86. Marino, F.; Kansky, R.; Shivji, I.; Di Croce, A.; Ciucci, P.; Knight, A.T. Understanding drivers of human tolerance to gray wolves and brown bears as a strategy to improve landholder-carnivore coexistence. Conserv. Sci. Pract. 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Laundré, J.W.; Papouchis, C. The Elephant in the room: What can we learn from California regarding the use of sport hunting of pumas (Puma concolor) as a management tool? PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0224638. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  88. De Lucca, E.R.; Chimento, N.R. El puma (Puma concolor) en las pampas de la provincia de Buenos Aires: Una actualización sobre distribución geográfica y conflicto con el hombre. Hist. Nat. 2020, 10, 53–79. [Google Scholar]
  89. Lamb, C.T.; Ford, A.T.; McLellan, B.N.; Proctor, M.F.; Mowat, G.; Ciarniello, L.; Nielsen, S.E.; Boutin, S. The ecology of human–carnivore coexistence. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2020, 117, 17876–17883. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Animals 11 00965 g001 550
Figure 1. Historical photographs of people hunting Puma concolor in O’Higgins region, central Chile. (A) A massive hunt of pumas and foxes organized by a cattle ranch near Pichilemu, 1923, in the Coast Range. (B) From 1947, Altos de Cantillana, a mountain range in the intermediate depression. (C) From 1951, “leoneros”, puma-specialized hunters, in the Andes foothills in central Chile. (D) From 1966, Loncha, a mountain range in the intermediate depression, central Chile.
Figure 1. Historical photographs of people hunting Puma concolor in O’Higgins region, central Chile. (A) A massive hunt of pumas and foxes organized by a cattle ranch near Pichilemu, 1923, in the Coast Range. (B) From 1947, Altos de Cantillana, a mountain range in the intermediate depression. (C) From 1951, “leoneros”, puma-specialized hunters, in the Andes foothills in central Chile. (D) From 1966, Loncha, a mountain range in the intermediate depression, central Chile.
Animals 11 00965 g001
Animals 11 00965 g002 550
Figure 2. Records of P. concolor across the O’Higgins region in central Chile (selection). Different types of evidence are shown: Security cameras (A), trail camera photographs (D,F), live captures (B), and corpses found (C,E). Letters correspond to sites referenced in Figure 3.
Figure 2. Records of P. concolor across the O’Higgins region in central Chile (selection). Different types of evidence are shown: Security cameras (A), trail camera photographs (D,F), live captures (B), and corpses found (C,E). Letters correspond to sites referenced in Figure 3.
Animals 11 00965 g002
Animals 11 00965 g003 550
Figure 3. The geographic location of records of P. concolor in the O’Higgins region, central Chile. Color coding according to proximity to human settlement: Red circle—very close (0 to 999 m); Yellow circle—moderately close (1000 to 4999 m); Green circle—distant (>5000 m). Letters correspond to records from Figure 2 and three sites indicated at the bottom of the figure (G: Machalí, H: Los Lirios, I: San Fernando). Below: The three closest records within the urban limits of large cities in the O’Higgins region. Grey shadow: Urban area, darker grey = high demographic concentration, lighter grey = low demographic concentration.
Figure 3. The geographic location of records of P. concolor in the O’Higgins region, central Chile. Color coding according to proximity to human settlement: Red circle—very close (0 to 999 m); Yellow circle—moderately close (1000 to 4999 m); Green circle—distant (>5000 m). Letters correspond to records from Figure 2 and three sites indicated at the bottom of the figure (G: Machalí, H: Los Lirios, I: San Fernando). Below: The three closest records within the urban limits of large cities in the O’Higgins region. Grey shadow: Urban area, darker grey = high demographic concentration, lighter grey = low demographic concentration.
Animals 11 00965 g003
Animals 11 00965 g004 550
Figure 4. P. concolor records in relation to distance from the nearest human settlement (m), (A) time of the day, (B) altitude, (C) season, and (D) year of the study period. Color coding according to proximity to human settlement: Red—very close (0 to 999 m); Yellow—moderately close (1000 to 4999 m); Green—distant (>5000 m). Dot above box plot in (B) corresponds to an outlier data point.
Figure 4. P. concolor records in relation to distance from the nearest human settlement (m), (A) time of the day, (B) altitude, (C) season, and (D) year of the study period. Color coding according to proximity to human settlement: Red—very close (0 to 999 m); Yellow—moderately close (1000 to 4999 m); Green—distant (>5000 m). Dot above box plot in (B) corresponds to an outlier data point.
Animals 11 00965 g004
Animals 11 00965 g005 550
Figure 5. Suitable habitat for P. concolor movements across the region and most probable corridor between eastern and western areas. An area of approximately 9000 km2 of suitable habitat was estimated (in green). The mountains of Angostura de Paine and Altos de Cantillana were identified as the most probable corridor for east-west puma movements. White line represents the main Chilean north-south highway (Ruta 5 Sur). Map scale 1–700,000.
Figure 5. Suitable habitat for P. concolor movements across the region and most probable corridor between eastern and western areas. An area of approximately 9000 km2 of suitable habitat was estimated (in green). The mountains of Angostura de Paine and Altos de Cantillana were identified as the most probable corridor for east-west puma movements. White line represents the main Chilean north-south highway (Ruta 5 Sur). Map scale 1–700,000.
Animals 11 00965 g005
Table
Table 1. Records of P. concolor presence in O’Higgins Region, central Chile, obtained between May 2012 and July 2020. For each record, location, date, georeference (UTM WGS 84 H19), elevation (m.a.s.l.), and source and type of record are shown.
Table 1. Records of P. concolor presence in O’Higgins Region, central Chile, obtained between May 2012 and July 2020. For each record, location, date, georeference (UTM WGS 84 H19), elevation (m.a.s.l.), and source and type of record are shown.
N°LocationDate (m/d/y)H19 EH19 NElevation (m.a.s.l.)Source of RecordType of Record
1Central Chacayes, Machalí05-08-201237313261987501116SAG forensic analysisDrowned puma corpse finding
2Los Lirios, Rancagua01-21-20133358036210431482Citizen reportVideo camera
3Cortaderal, Machalí02-14-201338232761864731701SAG field workLive capture
4Casa Piedra, Codegua10-27-201436450662326461897SAG forensic analysisLivestock attack
5La Confluencia, San Fernando12-12-201435929561453261171SAG forensic analysisLivestock attack
6Cerro Agujereado, Machalí06-09-201536551062089511040Citizen reportCamera trap
7Alto Huemul, San Fernando09-25-201534418561441601352SAG field workSighting
8Codegua, Chimbarongo10-26-20153224696147747498SAG forensic analysisLivestock attack
9El Baluarte, Rengo11-24-20153369506185055535SAG field workSighting
10Glaciar Universidad, San Fernando11-29-201537523361567872414Citizen reportSighting
11Central Chacayes, Machalí12-07-201536821962041121104SAG forensic analysisDrowned puma corpse finding
12Puma Lodge, Machalí12-30-201537869861968681330Citizen reportSighting
13Chapa Verde, Machalí01-19-201636779962315522324SAG field workCorpse finding
14Cajón Río Blanco, Machalí02-17-201637775862131101685SAG field workSighting
15Cerrito San Juan, Machalí07-26-20163488476216399623SAG field workSighting
16Los Peumos, RN Cipreses, Machalí09-13-201636632562029971210Citizen reportCamera trap
17Sierra Nevada, Machalí12-22-20163654966210477903SAG forensic analysisLivestock attack
18Alto Huemul, San Fernando01-05-201734944761339981807SAG field workCorpse finding
19Chacayes, Machalí01-22-20173650776208430885SAG forensic analysisLivestock attack
20Central Chacayes, Machalí02-21-201737217661992831090Citizen reportSighting
21La Correana, San Fernando04-09-201736080961367601409SAG forensic analysisLivestock attack
22La Leonera, Codegua06-01-20173533596231408724Citizen reportPhotograph
23Los Petriles, Chimbarongo09-02-20173240726153298436SAG forensic analysisLivestock attack
24Cajón Portillo, San Fernando10-28-201736789061527611532SAG field workSighting
25La Rufina, San Fernando10-29-20173411146155275794SAG forensic analysisLivestock attack
26Haras Sauzal, Machalí11-27-20173521446207659711Police reportSighting
27Las Cayanas, Machalí12-24-201737943862112891639SAG forensic analysisLivestock attack
28Cruce Alhué, Las Cabras12-26-20172822276225842132Citizen reportCorpse finding
29Hotel La Leonera, Codegua03-24-20183549696232797753SAG forensic analysisLivestock attack
30La Polcura, Navidad03-28-20182287886228110210Citizen reportPhotograph
31Fundo Las Nieves, Rengo04-04-20183473706180227851SAG field workSighting
32Embalse Cauquenes, Requinoa08-06-20183456206203567797Citizen reportCamera trap
33Panilonco, Pichilemu08-07-20182302636201355260Citizen reportPhotograph
34Los Maquis, Pelequen10-23-20183310126184593387Citizen reportSighting
35Agua Buena, San Fernando11-29-20183333536165216608SAG forensic analysisLivestock attack
36La Pimpinela, Requinoa12-11-20183423746197274490Citizen reportSighting
37San Juan de Sierra, Chimbarongo12-28-20183249036157789448Citizen reportSighting
38Quebrada Santa Clara, Machalí01-24-201937151262424812725SAG field workCamera trap
39Picarquín, Mostazal02-13-20203492666241144586SAG forensic analysisLivestock attack
40Tranque Barahona, Machalí02-27-201936013262270261582Citizen reportSighting
41La Matancilla, San Fernando03-04-20193414696153015962SAG forensic analysisLivestock attack
42Camino Central Chacayes, Machalí07-19-20193658746207190992Citizen reportPhotograph
43Río Damas, San Fernando10-02-201937748661370382401SAG field workCamera trap
44Maitenes, Machalí12-17-201935820662200931152Citizen reportVideo camera
45Embalse Colihues, Requinoa02-12-20203443016208833655Citizen reportCamera trap
46Termas del Flaco, San Fernando03-02-202036727961314951735SAG forensic analysisLivestock attack
47Estero Los Leones, Requinoa04-10-20203479886203626724Citizen reportCamera trap
48San Fernando04-26-20203183576169040356Citizen reportVideo camera
49Lago Rapel, Las Cabras06-26-20202722026216714167Citizen reportSighting
50Tranque Barahona, Machalí07-06-202035955862264291598Citizen reportCamera trap
51Panilonco, Pichilemu07-29-20202271016207978180Citizen reportVideo camera
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Ramírez-Álvarez, D.; Napolitano, C.; Salgado, I. Puma (Puma concolor) in the Neighborhood? Records Near Human Settlements and Insights into Human-Carnivore Coexistence in Central Chile. Animals 2021, 11, 965. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11040965

AMA Style

Ramírez-Álvarez D, Napolitano C, Salgado I. Puma (Puma concolor) in the Neighborhood? Records Near Human Settlements and Insights into Human-Carnivore Coexistence in Central Chile. Animals. 2021; 11(4):965. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11040965

Chicago/Turabian Style

Ramírez-Álvarez, Diego, Constanza Napolitano, and Iván Salgado. 2021. "Puma (Puma concolor) in the Neighborhood? Records Near Human Settlements and Insights into Human-Carnivore Coexistence in Central Chile" Animals 11, no. 4: 965. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11040965

APA Style

Ramírez-Álvarez, D., Napolitano, C., & Salgado, I. (2021). Puma (Puma concolor) in the Neighborhood? Records Near Human Settlements and Insights into Human-Carnivore Coexistence in Central Chile. Animals, 11(4), 965. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11040965

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop