Mammalian Biology

, Volume 94, Issue 1, pp 30–37 | Cite as

Spatial organization and habitat selection of Geoffroy’s cat in the Espinal of central Argentina

  • Diego Fabián CastilloEmail author
  • Estela Maris Luengos Vidal
  • Nicolás Carmelo Caruso
  • Claudia Manfredi
  • Mauro Lucherini
  • Emma Beatriz Casanave
Original investigation


We report data on the spatial ecology and habitat selection of eight adult Geoffroy’s cat Leopardus geoffroyi (five males and three females) that were radiotracked in an area of the central Argentine Espinal. Mean home range size varied from 2.2 ±1.9 km2 (Kernel95%) to 2.8 ± 2.4 km2 (MCP100%), with male home ranges 4.1 larger than those of females. Core areas (Kernel50%) averaged 0.7 ± 0.7 km2 and were 3 times smaller for females. Daily movement patterns were consistent with the variations in home range sizes being greater in males (590.2m±476.6) than females (413.5m ± 288.1). Home range overlap averaged 38%, and was highly variable between males and females and reached its highest value for intersexual pairs. At second-order resolution, most of individuals had a strong selection for open woodland, while the other habitats were generally avoided. At the home range level, although the electivity index values for the open woodland were positive for all animals, habitat selection showed a high inter-individual variation. Our data support previous studies that suggest that Geoffroy’s cats show a certain degree of flexibility in their spatial behavior. Finally, we argue that natural woodland patches or habitats with dense vegetation are important for L. geoffroyi in the Argentinean Espinal and their alteration can affect the conservation status of this cat.


Compositional analysis Eigenanalysis Home range Leopardus geoffroyi Radiotelemetry 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Aebischer, N.J., Robertson, P.A., Kenward, R.E., 1993. Compositional analysis of habitat use from animal radio-tracking data. Ecology 74, 1313–1325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arturi, M., 2006. Situación ambiental en la ecorregión espinal. In: Brown, A., Martinez Ortiz, U., Acerbi, M., Corcuera, J. (Eds.), La Situación Ambiental Argentina 2005. Fundación Vida Silvestre Argentina, Buenos Aires, pp. 240–245.Google Scholar
  3. Athreya, V., Odden, M., Linnell, J.D.C., Krishnaswamy, J., Karanth, U., 2013. Big cats in our backyards: persistence of large carnivores in a human dominated landscape in India. PLoS One 8 (3), e57872.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. Austin, S.C., Tewes, M.E., Grassman, J.L.I., Silvy, N.J., 2007. Ecology and conservation of the leopard cat Prionailurus bengalensis and clouded leopard Neofelis nebulosa in Khao Yai National Park, Thailand. Acta Zool. Sin. 53, 1–14.Google Scholar
  5. Bailey, T.N., 1974. Social organization in a bobcat population. J. Wildl. Manage. 38, 435–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bekoff, M., Daniels, T.J., Gittleman, J.L., 1984. Life-history patterns and the comparative social ecology of carnivores. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 15, 191–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bisceglia, S.B.C., Pereira, J.A., Teta, P., Quintana, R.D., 2008. Food habits of Geoffroy’s cat (Leopardus geoffroyi) in the central Monte desert of Argentina. J. Arid Environ. 72, 1120–1126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bradshaw, J.W.S., 2016. Sociality in cats: a comparative review. J. Vet. Behav. 11, 113–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Busso, C.A., 1997. Towards an increased and sustainable production in semi-arid rangelands of central Argentina: two decades of research. J. Arid Environ. 36, 197–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Calenge, C., 2006. The package adehabitat for the R software: a tool for the analysis of space and habitat use by animals. Ecol. Modell. 197, 516–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Calenge, C., Dufour, A.B., 2006. Eigenanalysis of selection ratios from animal radio-tracking data. Ecology 87, 2349–2355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Carpenter, F.L., MacMillen, R.E., 1976. Threshold model of feeding territoriality and test with a Hawaiian honeycreeper. Science 194, 639–642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Caruso, N., Manfredi, C., Luengos Vidal, E.M., Casanave, E.B., Lucherini, M., 2012. First density estimation of two sympatric small cats, Leopardus colocolo and Leopardus geoffroyi, in a shrubland area of central Argentina. Ann. Zool. Fennici. 49, 181–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Caruso, N., Guerisoli, M., Luengos Vidal, E.M., Castillo, D., Casanave, E.B., Lucherini, M., 2015. Modelling the ecological niche of an endangered population of Puma concolor. first application of the GNESFA method to an elusive carnivore. Ecol. Modell. 297, 11–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Caruso, N., Lucherini, M., Fortin, D., Casanave, E.B., 2016. Species-Specific Responses of carnivores to human-induced landscape changes in central Argentina. PLoS One 11, e0150488.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. Caruso, N., Luengos Vidal, E.M., Guerisoli, M., Lucherini, M., 2017. Carnivore occurrence: do interview-based surveys produce unreliable results? Oryx 51, 240–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Castillo, D.F., Luengos Vidal, E.M., Lucherini, M., Casanave, E.B., 2008. First report on the Geoffroy’s cat in a highly modified rural area of the Argentine Pampas. Cat News 49, 27–28.Google Scholar
  18. Castillo, D.F., Luengos Vidal, E.M., Casanave, E.B., Lucherini, M., 2012. Habitat selection of Molina’s hog-nosed skunks in relation to prey abundance in the Pampas grassland of Argentina. J. Mammal. 93, 716–721.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Costilla, P., 2010. Nicho trófico de Leopardus geoffroyi en relación a la disponibilidad de micromamíferos en los montes de Caldén. Universidad Nacional del Sur, Argentina, BSc. thesis.Google Scholar
  20. Crooks, K.R., 2002. Relative sensitivites of mammalian carnivores to habitat fragmentation. Conserv. Biol. 16, 488–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Cuellar, E., Maffei, L., Arispe, R., Nooss, A., 2006. Geoffroy’s cats at the northern limit of their range: activity patterns and density estimates from camera trapping in Bolivian dry forest. Stud. Neotrop. Fauna E. 41, 169–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Cuyckens, G.A.E., Pereira, J.A., Trigo, T.C., Da Silva, M., Gonçalves, L., Huaranca, J.C., Bou Pérez, N., Cartes, J.L., Eizirik, E., 2016. Refined assessment of the geographic distribution of Geoffroy’s cat (Leopardus geoffroyi) (Mammalia: Felidae) in the Neotropics. J. Zool. 298, 285–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Di Bitetti, M., Albanesi, S., Foguet, M.J., Cuyckens, G.A.E., Brown, A., 2011. The Yungas Biosphere Reserve of Argentina: a hot spot of South American wild cats. Cat News 54, 25–29.Google Scholar
  24. Di Rienzo, J.A., Casanoves, F., Balzarini, M.G., Gonzalez, L., Tablada, M., Robledo, C.W., 2010. InfoStat Versión 2010. Grupo InfoStat, FCA, Universidad Nacional de Córdoba, Argentina.Google Scholar
  25. Dickson, B.C., Roemer, G.W., McRae, B.H., Rundall, J.M., 2013. Models of regional habitat quality and connectivity for pumas (Puma concolor) in the southwestern United States. PLoS One 8, e81898.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. Diefenbach, D.R., Hansen, LA., Warren, R.J., Conroy, M.J., 2006. Spatial organization of a reintroduced population of bobcats. J. Mammal. 87, 394–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Distel, R.A., 2016. Grazing ecology and the conservation of the Caldenal rangelands, Argentina. J. Arid Environ. 134, 49–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Dunstone, N., Durbin, L., Wyllie, I., Freer, R., Acosta Jamett, G., Mazzolli, M., Rose, S., 2002. Spatial organization, ranging behaviour and habitat use of the kodkod (Oncifelis guigna) in southern Chile. J. Zool. 257, 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Elbroch, L.M., Levy, M., Lubell, M., Quigley, H., Caragiulo, A., 2017. Adaptive social strategies in a solitary carnivore. Sci. Adv. 3, e1701218.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. Emmons, L.H., Feer, F., 1997. Neotropical Rainforest Mammals: A Field Guide. University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London.Google Scholar
  31. Fahrig, L., 2003. Effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 34, 487–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Farrell, L.E., Levy, D.M., Donovan, T., Mickey, R., Howard, A., Vashon, J., Freeman, M., Royar, K., Kilpatric, C.W., 2018. Landscape connectivity for bobcat (Lynx rufus) and lynx (Lynx canadensis) in the Northeastern United States. PLoS One 13 (3), e0194243.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  33. Farris, Z.J., Golden, Karpanty, S., Murphy, A., Stauffer, D., Ratelolahy, F., Andrianjakarivelo, V., Holmes, C.M., Kelly, M.J., 2015. Hunting, exotic carnivores, and habitat loss: anthropogenic effects on a native carnivore community. Madagascar. PLoS ONE 10, e0136456.Google Scholar
  34. Fernández, O.A., Gil, M.E., Distel, R.A., 2009. The challenge of rangeland degradation in a temperate semiarid region of Argentina: the Caldenal. Land Degrad. Dev. 20, 431–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Gantchoff, M.G., Belant, J.L., Masson, D.A., 2014. Land use affects mammal community composition in a multiple use protected area, east-central Argentina. Latin American J. Conserv. 4, 7–13.Google Scholar
  36. Gittleman, J.L., Harvey, P.H., 1982. Carnivore home-range size, metabolic needs and ecology. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 10, 57–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Grassman, L.I., Tewes, M.E., Silvy, N.J., Kreetiyutanont, K., 2005. Ecology of three sympatric felids in a mixed evergreen forest in north-central Thailand. J. Mammal. 86, 29–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Grigione, M.M., Beier, P., Hopkins, R.A., Neal, D., Padley, W.D., Schonewald, C.M., Johnson, M.L., 2002. Ecological and allometric determinants of home-range size for mountain lions (Puma concolor). Anim. Conserv. 5, 317–324.Google Scholar
  39. Guerisoli, M.M., Luengos Vidal, E., Franchini, M., Caruso, N., Casanave, E.B., Lucherini, M., 2017. Characterization of puma-livestock conflicts in rangelands of central Argentina. R. Soc. Open Sci. 4, 170852.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  40. Guidobono, J.S., Munoz, J., Muschetto, E., Teta, P., Busch, M., 2016. Food habits of Geoffroy’s cat (Leopardus geoffroyi) in agroecosystem habitats of Buenos Aires, Argentina. Ecologia Austral 26, 40–50.Google Scholar
  41. Gutierrez, S.M., Harmsen, B.J., Doncaster, C.P., Kay, E., Foster, R.J., 2017. Ranging behavior and habitat selection of pacas (Cunículus paca) in central Belize. J. Mammal. 98, 542–550.Google Scholar
  42. Harper, G.A., 2007. Habitat selection of feral cats (Felts catus) on a temperate, forested island. Austral. Ecol. 32, 305–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Harveson, P.M., Tewes, M.E., Anderson, G.L., Laack, L.L, 2004. Habitat use by ocelots in south Texas: implications for restoration. Wild. Soc. Bull. 32, 948–954.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Hoffmann, M., Belant, J.L., Chanson, J.S., Cox, N.A., Lamoreux, J., Rodrigues, A.S.L., Schipper, J., Stuart, S.N., 2011. The changing fates of the world’s mammals, Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B: Biol. Sci. 366 (1578), 2598.Google Scholar
  45. Inskip, C., Zimmermann, A., 2009. Human-felid conflict: a review of patterns and priorities worldwide. Oryx 43, 18–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Jędrzejewski, W., Schmidt, K., Okarma, H., Kowalczyk, R., 2002. Movement pattern and home range use by the Eurasian lynx in Bialowieza Primeval Forest (Poland). Ann. Zool. Fennici 39, 29–41.Google Scholar
  47. Johnson, D.H., 1980. The comparison of usage and availability measurements for evaluating resource preference. Ecology 61, 65–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Johnson, W.E., Franklin, W.L., 1991. Feeding and spatial ecology of Felis geoffroyi in southern Patagonia. J. Mammal. 72, 815–820.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Kenward, R.E., South, A.B., Walls, S.S., 2003. Range6 v1.2: Forthe Analysis of Tracking and Location Data. Online Manual. Anatrack Ltd., Wareham, UK.Google Scholar
  50. Koehler, G.M., Hornocker, M.G., 1991. Seasonal resource use among mountain lions, bobcats and coyotes. J. Mammal. 72, 391–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Kruuk, H.H., 1986. Interactions between Felidae and their prey species: a review. In: Miller, S.D., Everett, D.D. (Eds.), Cats of the World: Biology, Conservation and Management. National Wildlife Federation, Washington, DC, pp. 353–374.Google Scholar
  52. Lantschner, M.V., Rusch, V., Hayes, J.P., 2012. Habitat use by carnivores at different spatial scales in a plantation forest landscape in Patagonia, Argentina. For. Ecol. Manage. 269, 271–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Liberg, O., Sandell, M., 1988. Spatial organisation and reproductive tactics in the domestic cat and other felids. In: Turner, D.C., Batenson, P. (Eds.), The Domestic Cat, the Biology of its Behaviour. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 83–98.Google Scholar
  54. Lynch, G.S., Kirby, J.D., Warren, R.J., Conner, L.M., 2008. Bobcat spatial distribution and habitat use relative to population reduction. J. Wildl. Manage. 72, 107–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Macdonald, D.W., 1983. The ecology of carnivore social behaviour. Nature 301, 379–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Macdonald, D.W., Loveridge, A.J., Nowell, K., 2010. Dramatis personae: an introduction to wild felids. In: Macdonald, D.W., Loveridge, A.J. (Eds.), Biology and Conservation of Wild Felids. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 3–58.Google Scholar
  57. Machado, R.F., Cerezer, F.O., Hendges, CD., Caceres, N.C, 2017. Factors affecting the home range size of felids (Mammalia, Carnivora) with emphasis on three American species. Ecol. Austral. 27, 232–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Maher, C.R., Lott, D.F., 1995. Definitions of territoriality used in the study of variation in vertebrate spacing systems. Anim. Behav. 49, 1581–1597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Maher, C.R., Lott, D.F., 2000. A review of ecological determinants of territoriality within vertebrate species. Am. Midl. Nat. 143, 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Manfredi, C., Lucherini, M., Canepuccia, A.D., Casanave, E.B., 2004. Geographical variation in the diet of Geoffroy’s cat (Oncifelis geoffroyi) in pampas grassland of Argentina. J. Mammal. 85, 1111–1115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Manfredi, C., Soler, L., Lucherini, M., Casanave, E.B., 2006. Home range and habitat use by Geoffroy’s cat (Oncifelis geoffroyi) in a wet grassland in Argentina. J. Zool. 268, 381–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Manfredi, C., Luengos Vidal, E., Castillo, D.F., Lucherini, M., Casanave, E.B., 2012. Home range size and habitat selection of Geoffroy’s cat (Leopardus geoffroyi, Felidae, Carnivora) in the pampas grassland. Mammalia 76, 105–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. McLoughlin, P.D., Ferguson, S.H., 2000. A hierarchical pattern of limiting factors helps explain variation in home range size. Écoscience 7, 123–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. McNab, B.K., 1963. Bioenergetics and the determinations of home range size. Am. Nat. 97, 133–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. McNab, B.K., 2000. The standard energetics of mammalian carnivores: Felidae and Hyaenidae. Can. J. Zool. 78, 2227–2239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Mellen, J.D., 1993. A comparative analysis of scent-marking, social and reproductive behavior in 20 species of small cats (Felis). Amer. Zool. 33, 151–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Montenegro, J., Acosta, A., 2008. Innovatite program for habitat use and preference evaluation. Universitas Scientiarum 13, 208–217.Google Scholar
  68. Napolitano, C., Bennett, M., Johnson, W.E., O’brien, S.J., Marquet, PA, Barría, I., Poulin, E., Iriarte, A., 2008. Ecological and biogeographical inferences on two sympatric and enigmatic Andean cat species using genetic identification of faecal samples. Mol. Ecol. 17, 678–690.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Nielsen, C.K., Woolf, A., 2001. Spatial organisation of bobcats (Lynx rufus) in Southern Illinois. Am. Midl. Nat. 146, 43–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Ojeda, R.A., Chillo, V., Díaz, G., 2012. Libro rojo de los mamíferos amenazados de la Argentina. Sociedad Argentina para el Estudio de los Mamíferos (SAREM), Mendoza.Google Scholar
  71. Oliveira, T.Gd., Tortato, M.A., Silveira, L., Kasper, C.B., Mazim, F.D., Lucherini, M., Jácomo, A.T., Soares, J.B.G., Marques, R.V., Sunquist, M.E., 2010. Ocelot ecology and its effect on the small-felid guild in the lowland Neotropics. In: Macdonald, D.W., Loveridge, A.J. (Eds.), Biology and Conservation of Wild Felids. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 563–574.Google Scholar
  72. Pereira, J.A., Fracassi, N.G., Uhart, M.M., 2006. Numerical and spatial responses of Geoffroy’s cat (Oncifelis geoffroyi) to prey decline in Argentina. J. Mammal. 87, 1132–1139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Pereira, J.A., Di Bitetti, M.S., Fracassi, N.G., Paviolo, A., De Angelo, C.D., Di Blanco, Y.E., Novaro, A.J., 2011. Population density of Geoffroy’s cat in scrublands of central Argentina. J. Zool. 283, 37–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Pereira, J.A., Walker, R.S., Novaro, A.J., 2012. Effects of livestock on the feeding and spatial ecology of Geoffroy’s cat. J. Arid Environ. 76, 36–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Pereira, J.A., Lucherini, M., Trigo, T., 2015. Leopardus geoffroyi. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2015: e.T15310A50657011.Google Scholar
  76. Poole, K.G., 1994. Characteristics of an unharvested lynx population during a snowshoe hare decline. J. Wildl. Manag. 58, 608–618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Powell, R.A., 2000. Animal home ranges and territories and home range estimators. In: Boitani, L., Fuller, T. (Eds.), Research Techniques in Animal Ecology: Controversies and Consequences. Columbia University Press, New York, pp. 65–110.Google Scholar
  78. R Core Team, 2014. R: a Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.Google Scholar
  79. Rabinowitz, A.R., Nottingham, B.C., 1986. Ecology and behaviour of the Jaguar (Panthers onca) in Belize, Central America. J. Zool. 210, 149–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Rodgers, T.W., Giacalone. J., Heske, E.J., Janecka, J.E., Jansen, P.A., Phillips, C.A., Schooley, R.L, 2015. Socio-spatial organization and kin structure in ocelots from integration of camera trapping and noninvasive genetics. J. Mammal. 96, 120–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Schüttler, E., Reinhard, K., Galuppo, S., Castro, R.A., Bonacic, C., Laker, J., Henle, K., 2017. Habitat use and sensitivity to fragmentation in America’s smallest wildcat. Mamm. Biol. 86, 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Sikes, R.S., the Animal Care and Use Committee of the American Society of Mammalogists, 2016. 2016 Guidelines of the American Society of Mammalogists for the use of wild mammals in research and education. J. Mammal. 97, 663–688.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  83. Silverman, B.W., 1986. Density Estimation for Statistics and Data Analysis. Chapman and Hall, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Soler, L., Lucherini, M., Manfredi, C., Ciuccio, M., Casanave, E.B., 2009. Characteristics of defecation sites of the Geoffroy’s cat Leopardus geoffroyi. Mastozoología Neotropical 16, 485–489.Google Scholar
  85. White, G.C., Garrott, R.A., 1990. Analysis of Wildlife Radiotracking Data. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  86. Wilson, M.C., Chen, X.Y., Corlett, R.T., Didham, R.K., Ding, P., Holt, R.D., Holyoak, M., Hu, G., Hughes, A.C., Jiang, L., Laurance, W.F., Liu, J., Pimm, S.L., Robinson, S.K., Russo, S.E., Si, X., Wilcove, D.S., Wu, J., Yu, M., 2016. Habitat fragmentation and biodiversity conservation: key findings and future challenges. Landscape Ecol. 31, 219–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Ximénez, A., 1973. Notas sobre felidos neotropicales III: contribución al conocimiento de Felis geoffroyi d’Orbigny and Gervais, 1844 y sus formas geográficas (Mammalia, Felidae). Papé is Avulsos de Zoologia 27, 31–43.Google Scholar
  88. Zanin, M., Palomares, F., Brito, D., 2015. What we (don’t) know about the effects of habitat loss and fragmentation on felids. Oryx 49, 96–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Deutsche Gesellschaft für Säugetierkunde, e. V. DGS 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Diego Fabián Castillo
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Estela Maris Luengos Vidal
    • 1
    • 2
  • Nicolás Carmelo Caruso
    • 1
    • 2
  • Claudia Manfredi
    • 2
  • Mauro Lucherini
    • 1
    • 2
  • Emma Beatriz Casanave
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Instituto de Ciencias Biológicas y Biomédicas del Sur (INBIOSUR), Departamento de Biología Bioquímica y FarmaciaUniversidad National del Sur (UNS)-CONICETBahía BlancaArgentina
  2. 2.GECM (Grupo de Ecología Comportamental de Mamíferos), Departamento de Biología Bioquímica y FarmaciaUniversidad National del SurBahía BlancaArgentina

Personalised recommendations