Traditionally, spoor (tracks, pug marks) have been used as a cost effective tool to assess the presence and in some cases the individual identity of larger mammals. Automated camera traps are now increasingly utilised to monitor wildlife, primarily as the cost has greatly declined and statistical approaches to data analysis have improved. While camera traps have become ubiquitous, we have little understanding of their effectiveness when compared to traditional approaches using spoor in the field. Here, we 1) test the success of camera traps in recording a range of carnivore species against spoor in realistic field settings (dirt roads in a South African wilderness reserve); 2) ask if simple measures of spoor size taken by amateur volunteers are likely to allow individual leopards to be tracked in the field and 3) for a trained tracker, ask if this approach may allow individual leopards to be followed with confidence in savannah habitat. We found that camera traps under‐recorded mammalian top and meso‐carnivores when compared with spoor in the field, with camera traps more likely to underrecord the presence of smaller carnivores (civet 64%; genet 46%, Meller's mongoose 45%) than larger (jackal sp. 30%, brown hyena 22%), while leopard was more likely to be recorded by camera trap (all recorded by camera trap only). We found that amateur trackers could be beneficial in regards to recording leopard presence; however the large variance in measurements of spoor taken by volunteers suggests that this approach is unlikely to allow the collection of further information about individual leopards. Nevertheless, the use of simple spoor measurements in the field by a trained field researcher increases their ability to reliably follow a leopard trail in difficult terrain. This allows researchers to glean further data on leopard behaviour and habitat use without the need for complex spoor analysis.

Fences are utilized throughout the world to restrict the movements of wildlife, protecting them from threats and reducing human-wildlife conflict. In South Africa the number of privately-owned fenced game reserves has greatly increased in recent years, but little is known about how fencing affects the distribution and movements of target and non-target mammals. We surveyed 2m either side of the complete fence line of a recently established commercial game reserve in South Africa, identifying signs of animal presence (spoor, scat, foraging or other field signs) while also recording damage (holes) to the fence. Every 250m we carried out 100m perpendicular transects either side of the fence, recording vegetation cover and height at 10m intervals along the transect. We found that livestock (largely cattle) were excluded from the reserve. However, 12% of records of large animal species were recorded outside of the fence line. These species had been introduced to the reserve, strongly suggesting that they had crossed the boundary into the surrounding farmland. Sixteen naturally present wild species were found on both sides of the fence, but we found more evidence of their presence inside the reserve. Observational evidence suggests that they were regularly crossing the boundary, particularly where the fence was damaged, with hole size affecting species recorded. We also found evidence that the construction of the fence had led to a difference in vegetation structure with plant richness and percentage of non-woody plant cover significantly higher inside the fence. While fencing was highly effective at preventing movement of livestock, introduced and wild animals were able to cross the boundary, via holes in the fence. This work shows that the efficacy of the most common approach to preventing animal movement around protected areas depends on the species being considered and fence condition.

No abstract

Background: Leopards (Panthera pardus) show genetically determined colour variation. Erythristic (strawberry) morphs, where individuals are paler and black pigment in the coat is replaced by a red-brown colour, are exceptionally rare in the wild. Historically, few records exist, with only five putative records known from India.Objectives: To record the presence of erythristic leopards in our study site (Thaba Tholo Wilderness Reserve, Mpumalanga) and to collate records from across South Africa. Method: A network of camera traps was used to record individual leopards at Thaba Tholo. We also surveyed local experts, searched the popular South African press, and used social media to request observations.Results: Two out of 28 individual leopards (7.1%) recorded in our study site over 3 years were of this colour morph. We obtained records of five other erythristic leopards in the North West and Mpumalanga regions, with no reports outside of this population.Conclusions: Erythristic leopards are widely dispersed across north-east South Africa, predominantly in the Lydenburg region, Mpumalanga. The presence of this rare colour morph may reflect the consequences of population fragmentation.

Human-carnivore conflict occurs globally, particularly in regions where large carnivores predate livestock. Retaliatory killings do occur, and although predation of livestock by carnivores happens, losses from other factors such as disease or injury can be misattributed because of landowner perceptions. Game farming for both trophy hunting and eco-tourism is becoming increasingly common in South Africa, and there has been a rapid increase in the cost of game animals (in some species as much as five-fold) between 2010 and 2015. This could result in an increase in conflict between commercial game farmers and carnivores. We conducted two questionnaire surveys of farmers in 2010 and 2015 to investigate this. We asked if there had been changes in farming practices, perceived predator activity, perceived amount of livestock and commercial game losses, and actions taken towards carnivores in a South African farming community. We found no significant change in farming types in the area or losses of livestock between the years. However, there was a significant increase in perceived commercial game losses reported, even though protection of game had increased. Actions taken towards carnivores by livestock/game farmers were also significantly more negative in 2015 compared to farmers growing crops, but there was no such difference in 2010. We suggest that these changes could be a result of the increase in game prices over that period, leading to greater financial losses when an animal is predated, which in turn could increase the likelihood of retaliatory killings of carnivores.