2025/11/29 by Lucy K. Smyth, Matthew S. Rogan, Guy A. Balme +1 · 1 voice
Environmental Science · #Species Distribution and Climate Change #Wildlife Ecology and Conservation #Wildlife-Road Interactions and Conservation
paper · pdf · doi:10.1111/csp2.70197
openalex created_date 2025/11/29 · openalex publication_date 2025/11/29 · openalex updated_date 2026/07/23
Abstract Leopards are widely distributed throughout Africa, Asia and the Middle East, but have suffered substantial range contractions and population declines. The greater Kruger region of southern Africa contains a key leopard population for which population estimates are lacking. Providing density estimates for leopards within protected areas and understanding the drivers behind density is a fundamental step in monitoring populations and ensuring that conservation authorities can respond to chronic threats to the species. Using multi‐session spatial capture‐recapture models, we have estimated leopard population density from 10 camera trap surveys that incorporated sections of central and southern Kruger National Park (KNP), Sabi Sand Game Reserve (SSGR) and Karingani Game Reserve (KGR). As each protected area varied in ecological characteristics and anthropogenic threat levels, we also tested the impact of a range of covariates on population density. Density varied substantially among sites, ranging from 2.6 ± 0.6 leopards/100 km 2 to 13.2 ± 2.6 leopards/100 km 2 . Density was best explained by Reserve Type and NDVI modeled as main and interactive effects. NDVI was positively associated with leopard densities in the two best protected reserves (SSGR and KNP), but was negatively associated with density in the other (KGR). This suggests that in well protected areas leopard density is more influenced by biological, bottom‐up processes with NDVI serving as a proxy for prey catchability. By contrast, in less well protected areas, the impact of anthropogenically driven mortality may override bottom‐up processes. Though the Kruger leopard population is renowned for its abundance and conservation value, we show these characteristics are limited to particularly well‐protected portions of the ecosystem.