Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Carnivora. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Social Interactions in a Solitary Carnivore; L. Mark Elbroch, Howard Quigley DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/cz/zow080 zow080 First published online: 10 July 2016
Topic Started: Aug 1 2016, 05:18 PM (668 Views)
Taipan
Member Avatar
Administrator

Journal Reference:
L. Mark Elbroch, Howard Quigley Social interactions in a solitary carnivore DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/cz/zow080 zow080 First published online: 10 July 2016

Abstract
In total, 177 of 245 terrestrial carnivores are described as solitary, and much of carnivore ecology is built on the assumptions that interactions between adult solitary carnivores are rare. We employed Global Positioning System (GPS) technology and motion-triggered cameras to test predictions of land-tenure territoriality and the resource dispersion hypothesis in a territorial carnivore, the puma Puma concolor. We documented 89 independent GPS interactions, 60% of which occurred at puma kills (n = 53), 59 camera interactions, 11 (17%) of which captured courtship behaviors, and 5 other interactions (1 F-F, 3 M-F, and 1 M-M). Mean minimum weekly contact rates were 5.5 times higher in winter, the season when elk Cervus elaphus were aggregated at lower elevations and during which puma courtship primarily occurred. In winter, contacts rates were 0.6 ± 0.3 (standard deviation (SD)) interactions/week vs. 0.1 ± 0.1 (SD) interactions/week during summer. The preponderance of interactions at food sources supported the resource dispersion hypothesis, which predicts that resource fluxes can explain temporary social behaviors that do not result in any apparent benefits for the individuals involved. Conspecific tolerance is logical when a prey is so large that the predator that killed it cannot consume it entirely, and thus, the costs of tolerating a conspecific sharing the kill are less than the potential costs associated with defending it and being injured. Puma aggregations at kills numbered as high as 9, emphasizing the need for future research on what explains tolerance among solitary carnivores.

Pumas, contact rates, and conspecific tolerance

Posted Image
Figure 1. Characteristic hissing and posturing of adult female pumas Puma concolor meeting at a carcass.

The duration of interactions at puma kills was 25.4 ± 27.8 h (SD) (range 2–121 h), whereas interactions unassociated with food sources were 8.7 ± 18.2 h (SD) (range 1–76 h). We were only able to determine 2 cases in which an incoming puma displaced the puma that had made the kill; more typically, the pair alternated feeding at the carcass. Zero M-M interactions resulted in mortality, but 2 M-F interactions resulted in the death of the females. We classified the first event as predation rather than intraspecific strife. M68, a 2-yr old sub-adult male puma that we believe had not eaten for more than 5 weeks because we did not find prey remains at any place where GPS locations were aggregated; his last confirmed prey was a porcupine and he may have suffered injuries that limited his mobility (Elbroch et al. 2016a). M68 encountered F59, an 18-month sub-adult female puma, away from a food resource and killed her. He lay atop her carcass and consumed her over the following 4 days. Visually, we confirmed his starving status—all his ribs, pelvis, and leg bones were showing through his coat.
We classified the second M-F interaction resulting in mortality as intraspecific strife. F51, a resident female with 2 7-month old kittens, encountered and attacked M85, a mature male wandering into previously held territory by an adjacent male recently killed by a hunter. Evidence (e.g., tracks in the snow) did not suggest that M85 threatened F51 or her kittens, but we suspect that the defense of her offspring triggered the attack. M85 ultimately killed F51.

Attached to this post:
Attached File Social_Interactions_in_a_Solitary_Carnivore.pdf (647.88 KB)
Attached File Elbroch_SuppInfo_Video1.mov (4.08 MB)
Attached File Elbroch_SuppInfo_Video4.mov (3.89 MB)
Edited by Taipan, Aug 1 2016, 05:20 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
« Previous Topic · Paper & PDF Share · Next Topic »
Add Reply