Estimating species population density directly contributes to the conservation of species. As keystone species, carnivores are important to conserve; however, estimating density of wide‐ranging, elusive and solitary carnivores has proven difficult. The leopard (Panthera pardus) is the last large free‐roaming top carnivore in South Africa, and no formal density study had been conducted across the Eastern and Western Cape. We estimated leopard density and abundance using GPS data from 21 collared leopards and a spatially explicit capture–mark–recapture (SECR) method with camera trap survey data. Four regional sites were surveyed using 173 camera trap locations over 15,390 camera trap days, capturing 740 leopard images of which 77 individuals were identified. SECR averaged 0.95 leopards/100 km2 and the two GPS methods averaged 1 and 1.11 leopards/100 km2. Based on predicted available leopard habitat for the region, leopard abundance was estimated between 467 (±112.8) and 553 (±168.8) in the Western Cape and between 365 (±93.2) and 430 (±139.9) in the Eastern Cape. Discrepancies in density estimates can be complex stemming from biological behaviour, anthropogenic factors and prey density. However, our estimates appear to show relatively little variation, suggesting that SECR methods and GPS data capture the population density estimates of the species well.

Apex predators play a critical role in maintaining the health of ecosystems but are highly susceptible to habitat degradation and loss caused by land-use changes, and to anthropogenic mortality. The leopard Panthera pardus is the last free-roaming large carnivore in the Western Cape province, South Africa. During 2011–2015, we carried out a camera-trap survey across three regions covering c. 30,000 km2 of the Western Cape. Our survey comprised 151 camera sites sampling nearly 14,000 camera-trap nights, resulting in the identification of 71 individuals. We used two spatially explicit capture–recapture methods (R programmes secr and SPACECAP) to provide a comprehensive density analysis capable of incorporating environmental and anthropogenic factors. Leopard density was estimated to be 0.35 and 1.18 leopards/100 km2, using secr and SPACECAP, respectively. Leopard population size was predicted to be 102–345 individuals for our three study regions. With these estimates and the predicted available leopard habitat for the province, we extrapolated that the Western Cape supports an estimated 175–588 individuals. Providing a comprehensive baseline population density estimate is critical to understanding population dynamics across a mixed landscape and helping to determine the most appropriate conservation actions. Spatially explicit capture–recapture methods are unbiased by edge effects and superior to traditional capture–mark–recapture methods when estimating animal densities. We therefore recommend further utilization of robust spatial methods as they continue to be advanced.

Translocations are commonly employed to mitigate human–carnivore conflict but rarely evaluated, resulting in conflicting reports of success, particularly for leopards (Panthera pardus). We evaluate the status of available leopard translocation data, the factors driving the intentional removal of leopards, and the potential causal factors associated with successful and failed translocation events. We obtained data on 60 leopard translocation events across five provinces in South Africa between 1994 and 2021. We considered a successful translocation outcome when (1) the animal was moved outside of its original home range, (2) the animal established a new home range away from the capture site, (3) no substantive livestock losses were linked to the translocated animal in the post-release monitoring period, and (4) the animal survived at least 6 months post-translocation. If mortality occurred due to factors that were equally likely to impact resident individuals and were unrelated to the translocation event (e.g., poaching), the event was not considered a failed effort. Most translocations were the result of human–carnivore conflict (HCC; 82%, n = 49), stressing the high prevalence of HCC and the importance of advocating preventative conflict mitigation efforts to conserve leopards. The leopards were moved distances from 2.5 to 196.3 km (63.3 ± 51.7km). Forty (67%) translocation events had unknown outcomes, indicating the limited data available on translocation outcomes. This also indicates the disparity in the objectives of translocations by various entities involved with translocations and suggests that monitoring be a prerequisite for future translocations. Twenty events offered reliable outcomes by means of post-event monitoring, with seven (12%) considered successful, with three (5%) as failures, and with four (7%) not moved beyond their original home ranges, while six (8%) ended in unrelated deaths. The failed events were attributed to inter/intra-specific competition, and one animal returned to its original home range after a translocation distance of 68 km. Translocation success was strongly explained by translocation distance. We found that damage-causing leopards were successfully translocated under specific conditions, and longer translocation distances increase success. Translocations are commonly employed but are still poorly monitored. We discuss basic standardized protocols to improve future leopard translocations (including pre- and post-monitoring) while advocating alternative non-lethal practices to reduce the prevalence of human–carnivore conflict.