(2002) and Muckenhirn and puma alife Eisenberg (1973) inferred that the high level of overlap found for female jaguars, pumas, and leopards was influenced by seasonally clumped distributions of prey species around permanent water holes. Seidensticker et al. (1973) suggested that ranges of female pumas overlapped in response to the migratory movement of deer between seasons. Among large cats in general, higher densities of females with small and stable ranges are associated with exclusive home ranges of males for dominant individuals, presumably maximizing the number of monitored females.

Conversely, lower densities of females with larger and less-stable ranges are associated with overlapping ranges of dominant males, in this case roaming presumably becomes a more effective mate-acquisition strategy ( Sandell 1989 ; Sunquist and Sunquist 2002 ).These generic patterns are not observed in all field studies. Ranges of males overlap for jaguars, pumas, and leopards in areas where densities of females are high and ranges are overlapping ( Muckenhirn and Eisenberg 1973 ; puma athletic shoes Núñez et al. 2002 ). In this case, it seems likely that males as well as females are responding to clumped distributions of prey, and dominance hierarchies may be expressed in other ways than exclusive territories.

If distribution patterns of males are dictated by the strategy that maximizes the number of mating opportunities puma basket black for the dominant males ( Sandell 1989 ), subordinates may be more focused on finding food and consequently have similar land-tenure strategies as females. In a study of jaguars in Belize, Rabinowitz and Nottingham (1986) found high overlap of males within an area of high overall population density sustained by abundant and easy-to-catch nine-banded armadillos ( Dasypus novemcinctus ). Although little was known about ranges of females, this pattern contrasts with the expectation that abundant prey would give rise to small, exclusive ranges for females and larger, exclusive ranges for males.

These trails are the major corridors of travel for both jaguars and pumas, and individuals puma basket bow present within the immediate area of a camera are reliably caught on camera ( Harmsen 2006 ; Maffei et al. 2004 ; Rabinowitz and Nottingham 1986 ). Additional high-density camera arrays sampling small areas (10 km 2 ) on and off trails showed that off-trail photographs of jaguars were accompanied in 95% of the instances by on-trail photographs of the same individuals on the same day ( Harmsen 2006 ). We were therefore able to use the time interval between individual captures at a camera location as an index of presence in an area, with longer intervals between recaptures of the same individual indicating that it had traveled farther away.

Jaguars were individually identified from photographic captures. Cameras had an enforced 3-min delay between exposures to prevent wasting film on herd-forming species such as peccaries. Each photograph was stamped with the time and date, allowing calculation of time intervals between consecutive captures at the same camera location. To ensure spatiotemporal independence, simultaneously running camera stations were separated by >2 km. Any jaguar or puma captured at 2 stations on a single day was recorded for analysis at only 1 of the stations, chosen at random. Minitab version 14 (Minitab Ltd., Coventry, United Kingdom) was used for all statistical analyses.

It was hypothesized that jaguars and pumas avoid (or attract) puma basket heart black each other through time. A significant interaction effect would provide evidence of a longer (or shorter) interval between jaguar puma and puma jaguar captures than between jaguar jaguar and puma puma captures. No difference was expected in number of days between jaguar jaguar captures and puma puma captures (the main effects).If jaguars and pumas avoid each other, then it was expected that captures of each species would be clustered in time. A nonparametric runs test was used to compare the distribution of male-male capture intervals against a random distribution, which is the expected outcome of negligible intera distribution, which is the expected outcome of negligible interaction.