Observational analysis shows diel activity shifts in pumas at kill sites, indicating significant effects from competition and human activity.
The feeding ecology of apex carnivores is affected by multiple intrinsic (e.g., sex and age) and extrinsic (e.g., prey density, habitat availability, presence of dominant competitors) factors, yet little research has explored how these factors affect the temporal use of resources. We placed video camera traps at puma ( Puma concolor ) kill sites and used a series of comparative analyses to understand if pumas varied in their diel activity at kill sites. We found that the diel activity of male pumas at kill sites peaked around midnight, but the diel activity of females and family groups peaked just after sunset, supporting our hypothesis that other sex/age classes would shift diel activity to avoid the potential risk posed by male pumas. We also observed changes in diel activity according to whether pumas fed during the visit to a kill site or not, their visit duration, and the number of days since the kill was made—suggesting that pumas adjusted the diel aspect of feeding to minimize competition risk while maximizing energy/nutrient intake as carcass quality degraded. Finally, contrary to our predictions, human activity had a greater impact on puma diel activity at kill sites than the human footprint, suggesting that pumas are more sensitive to short‐term anthropogenic disturbances near their kills than proximity to permanent structures. Our study highlights how both intrinsic and extrinsic factors lead to diel variation in kill sites by pumas. Better understanding the dynamics of the feeding ecology of apex carnivores—including how they balance the competing forces of feeding efficiency, safety, and competition—will facilitate developing more effective conservation strategies to minimize costly disturbances while feeding for apex carnivores.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Allen et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: