Temporal activity patterns of North China leopards and their prey in response to moonlight and habitat factors

Abstract

The nocturnal activities of predators and prey are influenced by several factors, including physiological adaptations, habitat quality and, we suspect, corresponds to changes in brightness of moonlight according to moon phase. In this study, we used a dataset from 102 camera traps to explore which factors are related to the activity pattern of North China leopards ( Panthera pardus japonensis ) in Shanxi Tieqiaoshan Provincial Nature Reserve (TPNR), China. We found that nocturnal activities of leopards were irregular during four different lunar phases, and while not strictly lunar philic or lunar phobic, their temporal activity was highest during the brighter moon phases (especially the last quarter) and lower during the new moon phase. On the contrary, roe deer ( Capreolus pygargus ) exhibited lunar philic activity, while wild boar ( Sus scrofa ) and tolai hare ( Lepus tolai ) were evidently lunar phobic, with high and low temporal activity during the full moon, respectively. In terms of temporal overlap, there was positive overlap between leopards and their prey species, including roe deer and tolai hare, while leopard activity did not dip to the same low level of wild boar during the full moon phase. Human activities also more influenced the temporal activity of leopards and wild boar than other species investigated. Generally, our results suggested that besides moonlight risk index (MRI), cloud cover and season have diverse effects on leopard and prey nocturnal activity. Finally, distinct daytime and nighttime habitats were identified, with leopards, wild boar, and tolai hare all using lower elevations at night and higher elevations during the day, while leopards and roe deer were closer to secondary roads during the day than at night.

Facilitation of a free-roaming apex predator in working lands: evaluating factors that influence leopard spatial dynamics and prey availability in a South African biodiversity hotspot

“… Jiang et al, 2015 ; Allen et al, 2020 ; Searle et al, 2020 ; Snider et al, 2021 ; Loveridge et al, 2022 ), and predator-prey overlap ( e.g . Dias, de Campos & Rodrigues, 2018 ; Havmøller et al, 2020 ; Palei et al, 2022 ; Sehgal et al, 2022 ; Zaman et al, 2022 ), have been performed worldwide. However, until relatively recently, few studies have investigated African leopard ( P. p. pardus ) ecology in human-disturbed landscapes (see Marker & Dickman, 2005 ; Williams et al, 2017 ; Strampelli et al, 2018 )—particularly in commercial agricultural regions.…”

The inappropriate use of time‐to‐independence biases estimates of activity patterns of free‐ranging mammals derived from camera traps

“…This may have biased their results, but the nature of these effects is unknown. Studies contrasting prey and predator activity (e.g., Foster et al, 2013 ; Tambling et al, 2015 ; Smith et al, 2020 ; Zaman et al, 2022 ) that apply time‐to‐independence filters may need to be revisited. This is due to the demonstrated differences in the effects of time to independence between these two guilds.…”

“…The daily activity patterns of an animal reflect its phylogeny and the risks and rewards of activity or inactivity that determine fitness (Halle, 2000; Roll et al, 2006). Measuring and comparing activity patterns provides key insights into the behavioral trade‐offs that result in activity, such as food availability, mating opportunities, physiological processes, predation risk, and environmental constraints (Owen‐Smith, 1998; Tambling et al, 2015; Weyer et al, 2020; Zaman et al, 2022). These insights, together with the emerging availability of abundant activity data from camera traps, have led to renewed interest in describing the free‐ranging activity patterns of species and populations and comparing these between groups (e.g., predators and their prey, those at risk of predation vs. those not, and between time periods—Delisle et al, 2021; Diete et al, 2017; O'Connell et al, 2011; Rowcliffe et al, 2014; Smith et al, 2020; Zaman et al, 2022).…”

“…These filters are usually arbitrary (i.e., lacking a rationale), although avoiding pseudoreplication may be invoked (e.g. Zaman et al, 2022 ). They typically are 30 min duration, but may extend to 60 min and even 24 h. This can lead to discarding activity data for appreciable portions of the 24‐h cycle and will likely influence the ensuing estimates of activity patterns.…”

The moon’s influence on the activity of tropical forest mammals

“…Despite intuitive expectations for attraction to the moonlight (lunar philia) or avoidance of moonlight (lunar phobia) and accumulating evidence for each, our knowledge of wildlife responses to the moon and their prevalence in nature is still disjoint. While some species seem to respond strongly to lunar illumination (Kronfeld-Schor et al 2013), others apparently do not respond at all (de Matos Dias et al 2018, Zaman et al 2022), for reasons not fully understood. The most comprehensive assessment of species responses to moonlight is a meta-analysis of 58 species that found that moonlight reduced the activity of species in open habitats yet increased the activity of species in forested environments (Prugh and Golden 2014).…”