| Summary: | Background Interspecific competition affects species fitness, community assemblages and structure, and the geographic distributions of species. Established dominance hierarchies among species mitigate the need for fighting and contribute to the realized niche for subordinate species. This is especially important for apex predators, many of which simultaneous contend with the costs of competition with more dominant species and the costs associated with human hunting and lethal management. Methods Pumas are a widespread solitary felid heavily regulated through hunting to reduce conflicts with livestock and people. Across their range, pumas overlap with six apex predators (gray wolf, grizzly bear, American black bear, jaguar, coyote, maned wolf), two of which (gray wolf, grizzly bear) are currently expanding in North America following recovery efforts. We conducted a literature search to assess whether pumas were subordinate or dominant with sympatric apex predators, as well as with three felid mesocarnivores with similar ecology (ocelot, bobcat, Canada lynx). We also conducted an analysis of the spatial distributions of pumas and their dominant sympatric competitors to estimate in what part of their range, pumas are dominant versus subordinate. Results We used 64 sources to assess dominance among pumas and other apex predators, and 13 sources to assess their relationships with felid mesocarnivores. Evidence suggested that wolves, grizzly bears, black bears, and jaguars are dominant over pumas, but that pumas are dominant over coyotes and maned wolves. Evidence suggested that pumas are also dominant over all three felid mesocarnivores with which they share range. More broadly, pumas are subordinate to at least one other apex carnivore in 10,799,252 (47.5%) of their 22,735,268 km2 range across North and South America. Discussion Subordinate pumas change their habitat use, suffer displacement at food sources, likely experience increased energetic demands from harassment, exhibit increased starvation, and are sometimes directly killed in competitive interactions with dominant competitors. Nevertheless, we lack research clearly linking the costs of competition to puma fitness. Further, we lack research that assesses the influence of human effects simultaneous with the negative effects of competition with other sympatric carnivores. Until the time that we understand whether competitive effects are additive with human management, or even potentially synergistic, we encourage caution among managers responsible for determining harvest limits for pumas and other subordinate, apex carnivores in areas where they are sympatric with dominant species. This may be especially important information for managers working in regions where wolves and brown bears are recolonizing and recovering, and historic competition scenarios among multiple apex predators are being realized.
|
|---|
