Environmental Management

, Volume 56, Issue 4, pp 903–915 | Cite as

Livestock Predation by Puma (Puma concolor) in the Highlands of a Southeastern Brazilian Atlantic Forest

  • Francesca Belem Lopes PalmeiraEmail author
  • Cristiano Trapé Trinca
  • Claudio Maluf Haddad


We evaluated local opinion about reducing livestock losses to puma (Puma concolor) and the potential for conflict among livestock breeders inside a protected area in the highlands of a southeastern Brazilian Atlantic forest. We also quantified the number and type of livestock losses, and determined if predation by puma was correlated with property profile and landscape characteristics. We conducted semistructured interviews with 42 livestock breeders sampled in 36 rural properties. When asked how to reduce predation, 33 % of livestock breeders refused to answer, 26 % suggested improving livestock husbandry practices, 19 % stated that there was no appropriate action, 17 % favored removing the “problem” individual, and 5 % suggested killing the puma. Opinion on how to solve predation was independent of herd size and history of losses, and was correlated with respondent age class. Older respondents tended to suggest removing or killing pumas. Attitudes toward predation represented high potential for conflict among livestock breeders who demonstrated high discordance among responses. Horses were the most common prey (51 %), followed by cattle (28 %), sheep (17 %), and goats (4 %); totaling 47 animals attacked between 2004 and 2007. Annual predation was approximately 12 ± 5 animals, equivalent to 0.4 % of the total livestock. Property elevation and distance from the urban center were the main predictors of predation probability. This survey used a novel approach that has not been addressed directly in other studies on livestock predation and demonstrated that the high potential for conflict among livestock breeders should be considered before implementing management actions.


Attitudes Conservation Generalized linear model Human–wildlife interaction Potential for conflict index 



Thanks to the Horto Florestal (Campos do Jordão State Park), especially Marco Antonio P. Marcondes and Waldir Joel de Andrade, and the Instituto Florestal (Process SMA N 42.769/2006) for institutional support and permission to conduct this survey. Thanks to all the livestock breeders who kindly agreed to participate in the interviews, especially Seu Jorge, Pedro Henrique de Oliveira, Fabinho, and Nelson M. Marcelino for their field assistance in data collection. We thank the Environmental/Forest Police and Fire Department at Campos do Jordão for information provided, as well as Pedro Paulo Filho, Arthur Bicudo, Antonio Scafuto Neto, Orlando Paggiaro, Mr. Roberto (Romalar), Fotótica Shimazu, Fernando, Tião and Cali for donation of photos and other materials. We thank our parents, Ana Maria T. Trinca, Walter Trinca, and Benvinda B. Lopes for the infrastructure provided and complete financial support of fieldwork activities. Thanks to Ronaldo G. Morato for a reference provided and Renata A. Miotto for helping us to find the target journal. We are very grateful for helpful comments and suggestions from reviewers, Heather Aslin and José R. Soto-Shoender, and the editors-in-chief.


  1. Azevedo FCC (2008) Food habits and livestock depredation of sympatric jaguars and pumas in the Iguaçú National Park area, south Brazil. Biotropica 40:494–500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Azevedo FCC, Concone HVB, Pires-da-Silva A, Verdade LM (2010) Puma (Puma concolor) predation on a water buffalo (Bubalus bubalis). Mammalia 74:431–432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bolker BM (2008) Ecological models and data in R. Princeton University Press, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  4. Bulte EH, Rondeau D (2005) Why compensating wildlife damages may be bad for conservation. J Wildl Manag 69:14–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2002) Model selection and multi-model inference: a practical information-theoretic approach, 2nd edn. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. Castilho CS, Marins-Sá LG, Benedet RC, Freitas TO (2011) Landscape genetics of mountain lions (Puma concolor) in southern Brazil. Mamm Biol 76:476–483Google Scholar
  7. Castilho CS, Marins-Sá LG, Benedet RC, Freitas TR (2012) Genetic structure and conservation of Mountain Lions in the south-Brazilian Atlantic rain forest. Genet Mol Biol 35:65–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Clauset R, Soares D (1999) Paisagem paulista: áreas protegidas. Empresa das Artes, São PauloGoogle Scholar
  9. Conforti VL, Azevedo FCC (2003) Local perceptions of jaguars (Panthera onca) and pumas (Puma concolor) in the Iguaçú National Park area, south Brazil. Biol Conserv 111:215–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. De Angelo C, Paviolo A, Di Bitetti M (2011) Differential impact of landscape transformation on pumas (Puma concolor) and jaguars (Panthera onca) in the Upper Paraná Atlantic forest. Divers Distrib 17:422–436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dickman AJ, Macdonald EA, Macdonald DW (2011) A review of financial instruments to pay for predator conservation and encourage human–carnivore coexistence. PNAS 108:13937–13944CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI) (2008) ArcGis Desktop: Release 9.3.1. Environmental Systems Research Institute, RedlandsGoogle Scholar
  13. Graham K, Beckerman AP, Thirgood S (2005) Human–predator–prey conflicts: ecological correlates, prey losses and patterns of management. Biol Conserv 122:159–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Graipel ME, Ghizoni IV Jr, Mazzolli M (2004) Selvageria ou carência nutricional? Cienc Hoje 35:62–65Google Scholar
  15. Gray M, Spencer J Jr, Thain D (2008) Live trapping and monitoring mountain lion movements with in a feral horse population in storey county, Nevada, 2005–2007. In: Timm RM, Madon MB (eds) Proceedings of the 23rd Vertebrate Pestide Conference, University of California, Davis, pp 140–144Google Scholar
  16. Guix JC (1997) Cat communities in six areas of the state of São Paulo, southeastern Brazil, with observations on their feeding habitats. Grupo Estud Ecol Ser Doc 5:16–38Google Scholar
  17. Hemson G, Maclennan S, Mills G, Johnson P, Macdonald D (2009) Community, lions, livestock and money: a spatial and social analysis of attitudes to wildlife and the conservation value of tourism in a human–carnivore conflict in Botswana. Biol Conserv 142:2718–2725CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Holmern T, Nyahongo J, Røskaft E (2007) Livestock loss caused by predators outside the Serengeti National Park, Tanzania. Biol Conserv 135:534–542Google Scholar
  19. Hoogesteijn R (2005) Manual on the problem of depredation caused by jaguars and pumas on cattle ranches. Wildlife Conservation Society, New York, p 35Google Scholar
  20. Inskip C, Zimmermann A (2009) Human–felid conflict: a review of patterns and priorities worldwide. Oryx 43:18–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jackson P, Nowell K (1996) Problems and possible solutions in management of felid predators. J Wildl Res 1:304–314Google Scholar
  22. Jorge MLS, Galetti M, Ribeiro MC, Ferraz KMPMB (2013) Mammal defaunation as surrogate of trophic cascades in a biodiversity hotspot. Biol Conserv 163:49–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kissling DW, Fernández N, Paruelo JM (2009) Spatial risk assessment of livestock exposure to pumas in Patagonia, Argentina. Ecography 32:807–817CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kolowski JM, Holekamp KE (2006) Spatial, temporal, and physical characteristics of livestock depredations by large carnivores along a Kenyan border. Biol Conserv 128:529–541CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Li X, Buzzard P, Chen Y, Jiang X (2013) Patterns of livestock predation by carnivores: human–wildlife conflict in Northwest Yunnan, China. Environ Manag 52:1334–1340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Linnell JDC, Aanes R, Swenson JE, Odden J, Smith ME (1997) Translocation of carnivores as a method for managing problem animals: a review. Biodivers Conserv 6:1245–1257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Linnell JDC, Odden J, Smith ME, Aanes R, Swenson JE (1999) Large carnivores that kill livestock: do “problem individuals” really exists? Wildl Soc Bull 27:698–705Google Scholar
  28. Maclennan SD, Groom RJ, Macdonald DW, Frank LG (2009) Evaluation of a compensation scheme to bring about pastoralist tolerance of lions. Biol Conserv 142:2419–2427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Magioli M, Moreira MZ, Ferraz KMPMB, Miotto RA, Camargo PB, Rodrigues MG, Canhoto MCS, Setz EF (2014) Stable isotope evidence of Puma concolor (Felidae) feeding patterns in agricultural landscapes in southeastern Brazil. Biotropica 0:1–10Google Scholar
  30. Manfredo MJ, Vaske JJ, Teel TL (2003) The potential for conflict index: a graphic approach to practical significance of human dimensions research. Human Dimens Wildl 8:219–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Marchini S, Macdonald DW (2012) Predicting ranchers’ intention to kill jaguars: case studies in Amazonia and Pantanal. Biol Conserv 147:213–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Mazerolle MJ (2013) AICcmodavg: model selection and multimodel inference based on (Q)AIC(c). R package version 1.33.
  33. Mazzolli M (1993) Ocorrência de Puma concolor (Linnaeus) (Felidae, Carnivora) em áreas de vegetação remanescente de Santa Catarina, Brasil. Revta bras Zool 10:581–587CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mazzolli M (2010) Mosaics of exotic forest plantations and native forests as habitat of pumas. Environ Manag 46:237–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mazzolli M, Graipel ME, Dunstone N (2002) Mountain lion depredation in southern Brazil. Biol Conserv 105:43–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Miotto RA, Cervini M, Figueiredo MG, Begotti RA, Galetti PM Jr (2011) Genetic diversity and population structure of pumas (Puma concolor) in southeastern Brazil: implications for conservation in a human-dominated landscape. Conserv Genet 12:1447–1455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Mittermeier RA, Myers N, Gil PR, Mittermeier CG (1999) Hotspots: earth’s biologically richest and most endangered terrestrial ecoregions. CEMAX and Conservation International (CI), Mexico CityGoogle Scholar
  38. Namgail T, Fox JL, Bhatngar YV (2007) Carnivore-caused livestock mortality in Trans-Himalaya. Environ Manag 39:490–496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Ogada MO, Woodroffe R, Oguge NO, Frank LG (2003) Limiting depredation by African carnivores: the role of livestock husbandry. Conserv Biol 17:1521–1530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Oli MK, Taylor IR, Rodgers ME (1994) Snow leopard Panthera uncia predation of livestock: an assessment of local perceptions in the Annapurna Conservation Area, Nepal. Biol Conserv 68:63–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Palmeira FBL, Barrella W (2007) Conflitos causados pela predação de rebanhos domésticos por grandes felinos em comunidades quilombolas na Mata Atlântica. Biota Neotrop 7:21–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Palmeira FBL, Crawshaw PG Jr, Haddad CM, Ferraz KMPMB, Verdade LM (2008) Cattle depredation by puma (Puma concolor) and jaguar (Panthera onca) in central-western Brazil. Biol Conserv 141:118–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Patterson BD, Kasiki SM, Selempo E, Kays RW (2004) Livestock predation by lions (Panthera leo) and others carnivores on ranches neighboring Tsavo National Parks, Kenya. Biol Conserv 119:507–516CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Paviolo A, Di Blanco YE, De Angelo CD, Di Bitetti MS (2009) Protection affects the abundance and activity patterns of pumas in the Atlantic forest. J Mamm 90:926–934CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Peterson MN, Birckhead JL, Leong K, Peterson MJ, Peterson TR (2010) Rearticulating the myth of human–wildlife conflict. Conserv Lett 3:74–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Polisar J, Maxit I, Scognamillo D, Farrell L, Sunquist ME, Eisenberg JF (2003) Jaguars, pumas, their prey base, and cattle ranching: ecological interpretations of a management problem. Biol Conserv 109:297–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. R Core Team (2013) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.
  48. Ribeiro MC, Metzger JP, Martensen AC, Ponzoni FJ, Hirota MM (2009) The Brazilian Atlantic forest: how much is left, and how is the remaining forest distributed? Implications for conservation. Biol Conserv 142:1141–1153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Rosas-Rosas OC, Bender LC, Valdez R (2008) Jaguar and puma predation on cattle calves in Northeastern Sonora, Mexico. Rangel Ecol Manag 61:554–560CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Rosas-Rosas OC, Bender LC, Valdez R (2010) Habitat correlates of jaguar kill-sites of cattle in northeastern Sonora, Mexico. Human Wildl Interact 4:103–111Google Scholar
  51. Seibert P, Negreiros OC, Bueno RA, Emmerich W, Moura BV Netto, Marcondes MAP, César SF, Guillamoun JR, Montagna RG, Barreto RAA, Nogueira JCB, Garrido MAO, Mello LE Filho, Emmerich M, Mattos JR, Oliveira MC, Godoi A (1975) Plano de Manejo do Parque Estadual de Campos do Jordão. Boletim Técnico 19. Secretaria de Estado dos Negócios da Agricultura, Coordenadoria da Pesquisa de Recursos Naturais, Instituto Florestal, São PauloGoogle Scholar
  52. Shaw HG, Beier P, Culver M, Grigione M (2007) Puma field guide. The Cougar Network.
  53. Soto-Shoender JR, Giuliano WM (2011) Predation on livestock by large carnivores in the tropical lowlands of Guatemala. Oryx 45:561–568CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Soto-Shoender JR, Main MB (2013) Differences in stakeholder perceptions of the jaguar Panthera onca and puma Puma concolor in the tropical lowlands of Guatemala. Oryx 47:109–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Teichman KJ, Cristescu B, Nielsen SE (2013) Does sex matter? temporal and spatial patterns of cougar–human conflict in British Columbia. PLoS One 8:e74663CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Treves A, Wallace RB, Naughton-Treves L, Morales A (2006) Co-managing human–wildlife conflicts: a review. Human Dimens Wildl 11:383–396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Vaske JJ, Needham MD, Newman P, Manfredo MJ, Petchenik J (2006) Potential for conflict index: hunters’ responses to chronic wasting disease. Wildl Soc Bull 34:44–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Vaske JJ, Beaman J, Barreto H, Shelby LB (2010) An extension and further validation of the potential for conflict index. Leis Sci 32:240–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Verdade LM, Campos CB (2004) How much is a puma worth? Economic compensation as an alternative for the conflict between wildlife conservation and livestock production in Brazil. Biota Neotrop 4:1–4Google Scholar
  60. Wilson SM, Madel MJ, Mattson DJ, Graham JM, Merrill T (2006) Landscape conditions predisposing grizzly bears to conflicts on private agricultural lands in the western USA. Biol Conserv 130:47–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Zar JH (2010) Biostatistical analysis, 5th edn. Pearson Prentice Hall, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  62. Zarco-González MM, Monroy-Vilchis O, Rodríguez-Soto C, Urios V (2012) Spatial factors and management associated with livestock predations by Puma concolor in Central Mexico. Human Ecol. doi: 10.1007/s10745-012-9505-4 Google Scholar
  63. Zimmermann A, Walpole MJ, Leader-Williams N (2005) Cattle ranchers’ attitudes to conflicts with jaguars in the Pantanal of Brazil. Oryx 39:406–412CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Francesca Belem Lopes Palmeira
    • 1
    • 3
    Email author
  • Cristiano Trapé Trinca
    • 1
    • 3
  • Claudio Maluf Haddad
    • 2
  1. 1.Research DepartmentReserva BrasilSão PauloBrazil
  2. 2.Department of Animal Science, “Luiz de Queiroz” College of AgricultureUniversity of Sao Paulo (ESALQ/USP)PiracicabaBrazil
  3. 3.Nova BandeirantesBrazil

Personalised recommendations