Potential vs. Realized Large Carnivore Density: The Influence of Livestock on Carnivore Carrying Capacity Estimation

Biodiversity conservation is crucial for maintaining ecosystem services, with large carnivores playing a key role in regulating prey populations and nutrient cycling. Estimating population densities is critical for conservation management, yet comparisons between realized densities and prey‐based carrying capacity predictions remain scarce. We estimated realized densities of leopard ( Panthera pardus ) and cheetah ( Acinonyx jubatus ) in a woodland savanna of Namibia using spatial capture–recapture (SCR) models based on camera‐trap detections. Realized leopard density was 8.6 individuals per 100 km 2 (SE = 1.7). Under a wild‐prey‐only carrying‐capacity scenario, predicted density was substantially lower at 4.0 leopards per 100 km 2 (95% CI: 2.8–5.1). When livestock biomass was incorporated into the model, predicted potential density increased to 9.3 leopards per 100 km 2 (95% CI: 8.95–9.82), suggesting that livestock availability may substantially elevate the ecological carrying capacity for leopards in the same study area. Cheetah detections from our camera‐trap survey were insufficient for SCR estimation, with only one independent capture recorded across 660 trap‐nights. Therefore, as realized cheetah density we used previously published camera‐trap‐derived density estimates for this landscape (1.94 individuals per 100 km 2 ; 95% CI: 1.33–2.84). Cheetah density predicted from wild‐prey biomass models was 2.08 individuals per 100 km 2 (95% CI: 1.56–2.43), closely aligning with realized estimates from the same study area and suggesting that livestock availability had limited or no effect on cheetah population density. Our findings underscore the carnivore species‐specific limitations of applying prey‐only carrying capacity models in open, unfenced rangelands, where both wild herbivores and free‐grazing livestock move freely. Incorporating both wild prey and livestock availability into carrying‐capacity assessments provides a more realistic framework for understanding carnivore persistence in open systems, thereby guiding targeted management to prevent further declines of large carnivores. We recommend strengthening livestock husbandry practices to mitigate human–carnivore conflict and implementing long‐term monitoring of prey availability and carnivore prey selection of wild versus domestic species, to better understand how prey dynamics influence carnivore carrying capacity and predator–prey interactions in relation to depredation conflict.