ArticlePloS one2023
Leopard density and the ecological and anthropogenic factors influencing density in a mixed-use landscape in the Western Cape, South Africa.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Multi-Source Remote Sensing and Ensemble Learning for Habitat Suitability Mapping of the Common Leopard (Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Ecological Factors at a Fine Spatial Scale Influencing Leopard (Ecology and evolution · 2026Article
- Genomic divergence of leopards in the Cape Floristic Region of South Africa: potential drivers for local adaptation.Heredity · 2026Article
- Light Paths and Dark Valleys: Topographic Complexity and Mammal Occupancy in a Semi-Arid Mountain Landscape.Ecology and evolution · 2026Article
- Article
- Leopard density and determinants of space use in a farming landscape in South Africa.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Large carnivores face numerous threats, including habitat loss and fragmentation, direct killing, and prey depletion, leading to significant global range and population declines. Despite such threats, leopards (Panthera pardus) persist outside protected areas throughout most of their range, occupying diverse habitat types and land uses, including peri-urban and rural areas. Understanding of leopard population dynamics in mixed-use landscapes is limited, especially in South Africa, where the majority of leopard research has focused on protected areas. We use spatially explicit capture-recapture models to estimate leopard density across a mixed-use landscape of protected areas, farmland, and urban areas in the Overberg region of the Western Cape, South Africa. Data from 86 paired camera stations provided 221 independent captures of 25 leopards at 50 camera trap stations with a population density estimate of 0.64 leopards per 100 km2 (95% CI: 0.55-0.73). Elevation, terrain ruggedness, and vegetation productivity were important drivers of leopard density in the landscape, being highest on elevated remnants of natural land outside of protected areas. These results are similar to previous research findings in other parts of the Western Cape, where high-lying natural vegetation was shown to serve as both a refuge and a corridor for leopard movement in otherwise transformed landscapes. Given the low leopard density and the prevalence of transformed land intermixed with patches of more suitable leopard habitat, prioritising and preserving connectivity for leopards is vital in this shared landscape. Ecological corridors should be developed in partnership with private landowners through an inclusive and multifaceted conservation strategy which also incorporates monitoring of and rapid mitigation of emerging threats to leopards.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.