Deviations from this puma latest shoes standard system, with same-sex individuals having overlapping ranges, have been noted for several species of large cats (pumas [ Puma concolor  Hopkins et al. 1986 ; Núñez et al. 2002 ; Seidensticker et al. 1973 ], leopards [ Muckenhirn and Eisenberg 1973 ], and jaguars [ Núñez et al. 2002 ; Rabinowitz and Nottingham 1986 ]). It has been suggested that females maintain stable and evenly distributed exclusive ranges when prey are abundant, and overlapping ranges when prey are scarce, seasonal, or clumped ( Sandell 1989 ; Sunquist and Sunquist 2002 ).Núñez et al.

Conversely, lower densities of females with larger and less-stable ranges are associated with overlapping ranges of dominant males, in this case roaming presumably becomes a more effective mate-acquisition strategy ( Sandell 1989 ; Sunquist and Sunquist 2002 ).These generic patterns are not observed in all field studies. Ranges of males overlap for jaguars, pumas, and leopards in areas where densities puma leather sneakers of females are high and ranges are overlapping ( Muckenhirn and Eisenberg 1973 ; Núñez et al. 2002 ). In this case, it seems likely that males as well as females are responding to clumped distributions of prey, and dominance hierarchies may be expressed in other ways than exclusive territories.

In this study, puma lifestyle shoes we tackled the fundamental issue of small sample sizes in studies of large cats by deploying an extensive network of camera traps to capture timed locations of jaguars and pumas. The unique spot pattern of jaguars allows individual recognition from camera-trap photographs ( Silver et al. 2004 ). Although recognition of individual pumas may be possible under certain circumstances ( Kelly et al. 2008 ), in the present study individual pumas could not be identified with certainty over the long term because of their plain brown coat pattern ( Harmsen 2006 ).

Jaguars were individually identified from photographic captures. Cameras had an enforced 3-min delay between puma mexico exposures to prevent wasting film on herd-forming species such as peccaries. Each photograph was stamped with the time and date, allowing calculation of time intervals between consecutive captures at the same camera location. To ensure spatiotemporal independence, simultaneously running camera stations were separated by >2 km. Any jaguar or puma captured at 2 stations on a single day was recorded for analysis at only 1 of the stations, chosen at random. Minitab version 14 (Minitab Ltd., Coventry, United Kingdom) was used for all statistical analyses.

Data were used only from camera locations with e"3 captures per single species ( n = 22 camera stations). The runs test was performed on the pooled data set ( n = 853 cat captures). This analysis used only cameras separated by >2 km.Capture frequency of jaguars and pumas was positively correlated at each camera location ( r = 0.65 between log 10 captures, P n = 93) indicating that both species used the same areas ( Fig. 4a ). However, jaguars and pumas did not appear to use the same areas at the same time: capture rates of jaguars and pumas were never simultaneously high at the same location within the same month ( Fig. 4b ; Pearson correlation between logio nonzero captures, r = 0.09, P = 0.17, n = 258). puma official site

This suggests the possibility of an inverse relationship of the sort jaguar × puma = constant. However, log 10 (month/jaguar) was not correlated with log 10 (puma/month) ( r = 0.08, P = 0.35). The capture rates per location-month thus were uncorrelated but not simultaneously high in general. No single location biased the pattern in Fig. 4b , with correlations for individual camera locations of "0.8 r <� 0.5, indicating no fixed relation between capture rates at any given location.The interval between consecutive jaguar captures did not differ significantly from that between consecutive puma captures ( Table 1 ).