Content uploaded by Arezoo Sanei
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Arezoo Sanei
Content may be subject to copyright.
Prey composition in the Persian leopard
distribution range in Iran
AREZOO SANEI1, MOHAMED ZAKARIA2*
and SHIRIN HERMIDAS3
A study was conducted in 67 protected areas throughout the Islamic Republic of Iran
from 2002 to 2006 to investigate diversity and composition of the Persian leopard potential
prey species over its distribution range in the country. The study was performed concurrently
with leopard distribution studies using direct observations, rapid survey techniques and
collection of secondary data. Nine species, namely: wild goat (Capra aegagrus), wild sheep
(Ovis orientalis), Persian gazelle (Gazella subgutturosa), chinkara or jebeer gazelle (Gazella
bennettii), wild pig (Sus scrofa), roe deer (Capreolus capreolus), red deer (Cervus elaphus),
Indian crested porcupine (Hystrix indica) and Persian wild ass (Equus onager) were studied
as the leopard potential prey species. Although attack of leopard on the Persian wild ass is
recorded, we excluded the species from the results due to its limited distribution range.
Results indicated that wild goat and wild sheep followed by wild pig and Indian crested
porcupine are the most widely distributed potential prey species in the leopard distribution
range in Iran. Moreover, leopard presence is highly correlated with presence of the wild goat
and wild sheep. Nevertheless, opportunistic predation on smaller species such as hare and
rodents is likely as leopard has a diverse diet. Eleven sites are proposed as the most considerable
sites with regard to the diversity of prey communities. It is suggested that a leopard national
conservation plan is essential to protect the leopard particularly as an umbrella species in its
current proposed distribution range. However, the priorities in allocation of resources could
be given to the sites have been identified through this study to have the most diverse prey
communities (i.e. Golestan, Jahan Nama, Parvar, Touran, Khosh Yeilagh, Sorkheh Hesar,
Kavir, Sarigol and Salook).
Key words: Panthera pardus saxicolor, Persian leopard, potential prey, prey composition,
prey availability, distribution range, Iran
ASIA LIFE SCIENCES Supplement 7: 19-30, 2011
The Asian International Journal of Life Sciences
1Asian Leopard Specialist Society, Tehran, Iran. e-mail: arezoo.saneii@leopardspecialists.com &
arezoo.sanei@gmail.com Website: www.leopardspecialists.com
2Department of Forest Management, Faculty of Forestry, Universiti Putra Malaysia, 43400
UPM Serdang, Selangor Darul Ehsan, Malaysia. *Corresponding author: e-mail-
mzakaria@putra.upm.edu.my
3Asian Leopard Specialist Society, Tehran, Iran. e-mail: felids@persian-leopard.com
Received 22 January 2011; Accepted 15 August 2011.
© Rushing Water Publishers Ltd. 2011. Printed in the Philippines
Sanei, Zakaria & Hermidas 2011
20 Asia Life Sciences Suppl. 7, 2011
INTRODUCTION
The Persian leopard (Panthera pardus saxicolor Pocock 1927) is listed as a
protected species under the Iran’s Wildlife Conservation Law enacted in 1999.
Leopards have a wide distribution in the country (Sanei 2005, 2007 in Persian) and
their presence has been verified in 74 out of 90 protected and non-protected sites (i.e.
82%) across the country (Sanei & Zakaria 2011). Kiabi et al. (2002) estimated that
550-850 individuals of leopards are present in Iran while 55% of them are found in
protected areas. Prey availability in the leopard present areas in Iran is a critical concern
to sustain current leopard populations in the country.
Leopards are well known to have a catholic diet as they have been reported to
feed on a wide variety of species ranging from small invertebrates and rodents to
large prey species the size of a giraffe calf (Ott 2004, Mills & Harvey 2001, Stevenson-
Hamilton 1947). Various studies have examined the sizes of preys most preferred by
the leopards. Hayward et al. (2006) studied 33 published and unpublished studies
from 13 countries on leopard diet and suggested that leopards significantly prefer to
feed on prey species with 25 kg of mean body mass. Owen-Smith and Mills (2008)
revealed that even though leopard, cheetah and wild dog in the Kruger National Park,
South Africa feed on prey species of about half to twice their weights, but dietary
preferences are different.
Several studies have suggested that leopard is not a non-selective predator in
terms of type and size of prey species (Hayward et al. 2006, Karanth & Sunquist 2000,
Karanth & Sunquist 1995, Hart et al. 1996). Karanth and Sunquist (1995) suggested
that selective predation by leopards in Nagarahole, southern India is a mechanism
which helps them to coexist with other carnivores.
Principally, daily food consumption of an adult leopard is estimated as 2.8 kg/
day for a female and 3.5 kg/day for a male which means 1,008 and 1,260 kg/year for
one female and one male respectively (Baily 1993). However, this amount could differ
as leopard’s body weight is highly variable (Stuart & Stuart 2000).
Karanth and Sunquist (1995) reported that leopards in Nagarahole, southern
India feed on chital (69%) supplemented by sambar (Cervus unicolor), gaur (Bos
gaurus), muntjac (Muntiacus muntjac), langur (Presbytis entellus) and Indian crested
porcupine (Hystrix indica). Grey duiker (Sylvicapra grimmia), steenbok (Raphicerus
campestris), impala (Aepyceros melampus), bushbuck (Tragelaphus scriptus) and
reedbuck (Redunca fulvorufula) were reported from leopard diet in Kruger National
Park (Owen-Smith & Mills 2008). Feeding on wild boar was reported from the rainforests
of Malaysia by Kawanishi (2002). Sanei and Zakaria (2011) found that wild boar is the
main factor affecting leopard distribution pattern in a highly fragmented forest in
Malaysia. In the Middle East, Khorozyan et al. (2005) and Khorozyan and Malkhasyan
(2005) reported that in Armenia, leopard feeds upon benzoar goat (Capra aegagrus),
wild boar, wild boar (Sus scrofa), roe deer (Capreolus capreolus), Indian crested
porcupine (H. indica) and European hare (Lepus europaeus). However, its principal
prey there is the benzoar goat.
Current study conducted in the sites has been reported by Sanei (2005, 2007;
Table 1) as the leopard distribution range in protected areas in the country to
Sanei, Zakaria & Hermidas 2011
20 Asia Life Sciences Suppl. 7, 2011
INTRODUCTION
The Persian leopard (Panthera pardus saxicolor Pocock 1927) is listed as a
protected species under the Iran’s Wildlife Conservation Law enacted in 1999.
Leopards have a wide distribution in the country (Sanei 2005, 2007 in Persian) and
their presence has been verified in 74 out of 90 protected and non-protected sites (i.e.
82%) across the country (Sanei & Zakaria 2011). Kiabi et al. (2002) estimated that
550-850 individuals of leopards are present in Iran while 55% of them are found in
protected areas. Prey availability in the leopard present areas in Iran is a critical concern
to sustain current leopard populations in the country.
Leopards are well known to have a catholic diet as they have been reported to
feed on a wide variety of species ranging from small invertebrates and rodents to
large prey species the size of a giraffe calf (Ott 2004, Mills & Harvey 2001, Stevenson-
Hamilton 1947). Various studies have examined the sizes of preys most preferred by
the leopards. Hayward et al. (2006) studied 33 published and unpublished studies
from 13 countries on leopard diet and suggested that leopards significantly prefer to
feed on prey species with 25 kg of mean body mass. Owen-Smith and Mills (2008)
revealed that even though leopard, cheetah and wild dog in the Kruger National Park,
South Africa feed on prey species of about half to twice their weights, but dietary
preferences are different.
Several studies have suggested that leopard is not a non-selective predator in
terms of type and size of prey species (Hayward et al. 2006, Karanth & Sunquist 2000,
Karanth & Sunquist 1995, Hart et al. 1996). Karanth and Sunquist (1995) suggested
that selective predation by leopards in Nagarahole, southern India is a mechanism
which helps them to coexist with other carnivores.
Principally, daily food consumption of an adult leopard is estimated as 2.8 kg/
day for a female and 3.5 kg/day for a male which means 1,008 and 1,260 kg/year for
one female and one male respectively (Baily 1993). However, this amount could differ
as leopard’s body weight is highly variable (Stuart & Stuart 2000).
Karanth and Sunquist (1995) reported that leopards in Nagarahole, southern
India feed on chital (69%) supplemented by sambar (Cervus unicolor), gaur (Bos
gaurus), muntjac (Muntiacus muntjac), langur (Presbytis entellus) and Indian crested
porcupine (Hystrix indica). Grey duiker (Sylvicapra grimmia), steenbok (Raphicerus
campestris), impala (Aepyceros melampus), bushbuck (Tragelaphus scriptus) and
reedbuck (Redunca fulvorufula) were reported from leopard diet in Kruger National
Park (Owen-Smith & Mills 2008). Feeding on wild boar was reported from the rainforests
of Malaysia by Kawanishi (2002). Sanei and Zakaria (2011) found that wild boar is the
main factor affecting leopard distribution pattern in a highly fragmented forest in
Malaysia. In the Middle East, Khorozyan et al. (2005) and Khorozyan and Malkhasyan
(2005) reported that in Armenia, leopard feeds upon benzoar goat (Capra aegagrus),
wild boar, wild boar (Sus scrofa), roe deer (Capreolus capreolus), Indian crested
porcupine (H. indica) and European hare (Lepus europaeus). However, its principal
prey there is the benzoar goat.
Current study conducted in the sites has been reported by Sanei (2005, 2007;
Table 1) as the leopard distribution range in protected areas in the country to
The Persian leopard (Panthera pardus saxicolor Pocock 1927) is listed as
a protected species under the Iran’s Wildlife Conservation Law enacted in 1999.
Leopards have a wide distribution in the country (Sanei 2005, 2007 in Persian) and
their presence has been veried in 74 out of 90 protected and non-protected sites (i.e.
82%) across the country (Sanei & Zakaria 2011). Kiabi et al. (2002) estimated that
550-850 individuals of leopards are present in Iran while 55% of them are found in
protected areas. Prey availability in the leopard presence areas in Iran is a critical
concern to sustain current leopard population in the country.
Leopards are well known to have a catholic diet as they have been reported to
feed on a wide variety of species ranging from small invertebrates and rodents to large
prey species the size of a giraffe calf (Ott 2004, Mills & Harvey 2001, Stevenson-
Hamilton 1947). Various studies have examined the sizes of preys most preferred by
the leopards. Hayward et al. (2006) studied 33 published and unpublished studies
from 13 countries on leopard diet and suggested that leopards signicantly prefer to
feed on prey species with 25 kg of mean body mass. Owen-Smith and Mills (2008)
revealed that even though leopard, cheetah and wild dog in the Kruger National
Park, South Africa feed on prey species of about half to twice their weights, but
dietary preferences are different.
Several studies have suggested that leopard is not a non-selective predator in
terms of type and size of prey species (Hayward et al. 2006, Karanth & Sunquist
2000, Karanth & Sunquist 1995, Hart et al. 1996). Karanth and Sunquist (1995)
suggested that selective predation by leopards in Nagarahole, southern India is a
mechanism which helps them to coexist with other carnivores.
Principally, daily food consumption of an adult leopard is estimated as 2.8 kg/
day for a female and 3.5 kg/day for a male which means 1,008 and 1,260 kg/year
for one female and one male respectively (Baily 1993). However, this amount could
differ as leopard’s body weight is highly variable (Stuart & Stuart 2000).
Karanth and Sunquist (1995) reported that leopards in Nagarahole, southern
India feed on chital (69%) supplemented by sambar (Cervus unicolor), gaur (Bos
gaurus), muntjac (Muntiacus muntjac), langur (Presbytis entellus) and Indian crested
porcupine (Hystrix indica). Grey duiker (Sylvicapra grimmia), steenbok (Raphicerus
campestris), impala (Aepyceros melampus), bushbuck (Tragelaphus scriptus) and
reedbuck (Redunca fulvorufula) were reported from leopard diet in Kruger National
Park (Owen-Smith & Mills 2008). Feeding on wild boar was reported from the
rainforests of Malaysia by Kawanishi (2002). Sanei and Zakaria (2011) found that wild
boar is the main factor affecting leopard distribution pattern in a highly fragmented
forest in Malaysia. In the Middle East, Khorozyan et al. (2005) and Khorozyan and
Malkhasyan (2005) reported that in Armenia, leopard feeds upon bezoar goat (Capra
aegagrus), wild boar (Sus scrofa), roe deer (Capreolus capreolus), Indian crested
porcupine (H. indica) and European hare (Lepus europaeus). However, its principal
prey there is the benzoar goat (Capra aegagrus).
Persian leopard prey availability
Asia Life Sciences Suppl. 7, 2011 21
investigate the composition of potential leopard prey species. Null hypothesis
indicating non-significant correlation of presence/absence of each potential prey
species and leopard presence/absence was tested.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Study area. Iran has a total area of 1,623,779 km² and is located in the mid-southern
portion of the Northern Hemisphere, bounded by the Caspian Sea in the north and
the Persian Gulf and Gulf of Oman in the south. Hence, diverse ecological climatic
zones are present in this country. Sanei and Zakaria (2008) found that leopards in Iran
are mostly found in mountainous habitats with less than 20 days of ice-cover per
year. They more often inhabit areas with mean annual temperature of 13 to 18 ºC while
majority of ecological zones they occupy receive a maximum of 200 mm rainfall per
year. However, from 1999 to 2003, the minimum and maximum rainfall per year in the
leopard distribution range were 24.00 and 1,364 mm, respectively. Sanei (2005 &
2007) reported that 43 out of 67 protected areas studied throughout the provinces of
Iran have leopard detections. Parallel studies on the prey present in these sites (i.e.
all 67, Figure 1) were also conducted.
Data collection and analysis. The study was conducted from 2002 to 2006 in
67 protected areas throughout the country and concurrently with leopard distribution
(presence/absence) studies. All prey species greater than 10 kg are accounted for in
this study based on the lower limit reported by Hayward et al. (2006) to be the
preferred weight range by leopards in 41 studied locations in 13 countries. To record
the potential leopard prey species within the study sites, field surveys were conducted
by either the first author or local experts participating in the project and skilled at
recording direct sightings of prey species, leopard kills and indirect signs (e.g. tracks,
scats, scrapes, etc.). Data on Persian wild ass (Equus onager) was excluded from the
results as it had a very limited distribution range within the country.
Interviews with local communities, shepherds and guards of the Department of
Environment (DoE) were conducted to asses their knowledge about the prey species
present in the area. Questionnaires were filled up by guards working in the protected
areas or staff of the Department of Environment, in each province to record new
reports of kills, direct observations and indirect signs of preys. Reports of DoE
regarding traditional annual counting of prey species in protected areas and daily
reports of protected areas about new observations of wildlife species in each habitat,
were collected.
Null hypothesis indicating non-significant correlation between leopard and
recorded prey species across the identified leopard distribution range was tested for
each potential prey species using Spearman’s Correlation Coefficient and SPSS version
17.0. ArcGis version 9.3 was used for mapping the distribution of each prey species in
leopard range within the protected areas.
RESULTS
Table 2 shows the frequency of eight prey species, namely: wild goat, wild
sheep, Persian gazelle, chinkara, wild pig, roe deer, red deer and Indian crested
Persian leopard prey availability
Asia Life Sciences Suppl. 7, 2011 21
investigate the composition of potential leopard prey species. Null hypothesis
indicating non-significant correlation of presence/absence of each potential prey
species and leopard presence/absence was tested.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Study area. Iran has a total area of 1,623,779 km² and is located in the mid-southern
portion of the Northern Hemisphere, bounded by the Caspian Sea in the north and
the Persian Gulf and Gulf of Oman in the south. Hence, diverse ecological climatic
zones are present in this country. Sanei and Zakaria (2008) found that leopards in Iran
are mostly found in mountainous habitats with less than 20 days of ice-cover per
year. They more often inhabit areas with mean annual temperature of 13 to 18 ºC while
majority of ecological zones they occupy receive a maximum of 200 mm rainfall per
year. However, from 1999 to 2003, the minimum and maximum rainfall per year in the
leopard distribution range were 24.00 and 1,364 mm, respectively. Sanei (2005 &
2007) reported that 43 out of 67 protected areas studied throughout the provinces of
Iran have leopard detections. Parallel studies on the prey present in these sites (i.e.
all 67, Figure 1) were also conducted.
Data collection and analysis. The study was conducted from 2002 to 2006 in
67 protected areas throughout the country and concurrently with leopard distribution
(presence/absence) studies. All prey species greater than 10 kg are accounted for in
this study based on the lower limit reported by Hayward et al. (2006) to be the
preferred weight range by leopards in 41 studied locations in 13 countries. To record
the potential leopard prey species within the study sites, field surveys were conducted
by either the first author or local experts participating in the project and skilled at
recording direct sightings of prey species, leopard kills and indirect signs (e.g. tracks,
scats, scrapes, etc.). Data on Persian wild ass (Equus onager) was excluded from the
results as it had a very limited distribution range within the country.
Interviews with local communities, shepherds and guards of the Department of
Environment (DoE) were conducted to asses their knowledge about the prey species
present in the area. Questionnaires were filled up by guards working in the protected
areas or staff of the Department of Environment, in each province to record new
reports of kills, direct observations and indirect signs of preys. Reports of DoE
regarding traditional annual counting of prey species in protected areas and daily
reports of protected areas about new observations of wildlife species in each habitat,
were collected.
Null hypothesis indicating non-significant correlation between leopard and
recorded prey species across the identified leopard distribution range was tested for
each potential prey species using Spearman’s Correlation Coefficient and SPSS version
17.0. ArcGis version 9.3 was used for mapping the distribution of each prey species in
leopard range within the protected areas.
RESULTS
Table 2 shows the frequency of eight prey species, namely: wild goat, wild
sheep, Persian gazelle, chinkara, wild pig, roe deer, red deer and Indian crested
Study area. Iran has a total area of 1,623,779 km² and is located in the mid-southern
portion of the Northern Hemisphere, bounded by the Caspian Sea in the north and
the Persian Gulf and Gulf of Oman in the south. Hence, diverse ecological climatic
zones are present in this country. Sanei and Zakaria (2008) found that leopards in
Iran are mostly found in mountainous habitats with less than 20 days of ice-cover
per year. They more often inhabit areas with mean annual temperature of 13 to 18
ºC while majority of ecological zones they occupy receive a maximum of 200 mm
rainfall per year. However, from 1999 to 2003, the minimum and maximum rainfall
per year in the leopard distribution range were 24.00 and 1,364 mm, respectively.
Sanei (2005 & 2007) reported that 43 out of 67 protected areas studied throughout
the provinces of Iran have leopard detections. We conducted parallel studies to
investigate presence of prey in these sites (i.e. all 67, Figure 1).
Sanei, Zakaria & Hermidas 2011
22 Asia Life Sciences Suppl. 7, 2011
Table 1. Location of study sites in Iran and their protection category.
N
o. Site Name Protection status1Province Area (ha)
1 Kiamaki WR East Azarbaijan 95,742
2 Arasbaran PA East Azarbaijan 80,255
3 Marakan PA West Azarbaijan 102,966
4 Agh Dagh PA Ardebil 4,767
5 Kolah Qazi NP/WR Isfahan 50,957
6 Muteh WR Isfahan 200,879
7 Qamishlou WR Isfahan 90,207
8 Manesht & Ghalarang PA Ilam 29,146
9 Khojir NP Tehran 10,013
10 Sorkheh Hesar NP Tehran 9,168
11 Lar NP Tehran 29,778
12 Jajrood PA Tehran 55,077
13 Varjin PA Tehran 26,861
14 Kavir NP/PA Semnan 693,908
15 Central Alborz PA Tehran & Mazandaran 410,790
16 Tang-e-Sayyad NP/PA Chahar Mahal & Bakhtiari 50,096
17 Sabz Kouh PA Chahar Mahal & Bakhtiari 54,291
18 Tandooreh NP/PA
N
orth Khorasan & Razavi Khorasan 37,948
19 Ghorkho
d
PA
N
orth Khorasan & Razavi Khorasan 43,778
20 Sarani PA
N
orth, Razavi & South Khorasan 15,895
21 Sarigol NP/PA
N
orth, Razavi & South Khorasan 28,288
22 Salook NP/PA
N
orth, Razavi & South Khorasan 19,802
23 Sorkhabad PA Zanjan 120,010
24 Parvar PA Semnan 66,626
25 Turan NP/WR Semnan 362,912
26 Khosh Yeilagh WR Semnan 138,118
27 Hormod PA Fars 207,961
28 Bamoo NP Fars 48,678
29 Mian Jangal PA Fars 56,528
30 Rochun WR Kerman 28,171
31 Khabr NP Kerman 149,934
32 Bisotoon PA/WR Kermanshah 95,601
33 Boozin & Markhil PA Kermanshah 23,554
34 Varmanjeh* WR Kermanshah 28,720
35 Dena PA Kohgiluyeh & Boyer Ahmad 92,966
36 Eastern Dena PA Kohgiluyeh & Boyer Ahmad 28,202
37 Mount Khiz-o-Sorkh PA Kohgiluyeh & Boyer Ahmad 36,234
38 Golestan NP Golestan 87,242
39 Jahan Nama PA Golestan 38,403
40 Oshtorankouh PA Lorestan 98,250
41 Sefidkouh PA Lorestan 71,477
42 Haftad Gholeh PA Markazi 97,407
43
N
aiybandan WR Yazd 1,516,994
1NP = National Park; PA = Protected Area; WR = Wildlife Refuge.
*Protection status during the conduct of research study; status was changed thereafter.
[Source: The study sites were identified by Sanei (2005, 2007) as the leopard distribution range in
protected areas in Iran.]
Persian leopard prey availability
Asia Life Sciences Suppl. 7, 2011 23
Figure 1. Distribution of prey species within 43 leopard distribution protected
sites in Iran.
Sanei, Zakaria & Hermidas 2011
24 Asia Life Sciences Suppl. 7, 2011
Sanei, Zakaria & Hermidas 2011
24 Asia Life Sciences Suppl. 7, 2011
Table 2. Presence of each prey species in total study sites (i.e. 67 sites) and in the leopard
distribution range (i.e.43 sites) and their corresponding Spearman’s Correlation Coefficient.
Prey Species1 WG WS PG CH WP RO.D RE.D ICP
Parameter n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n %
Total study sites 55 82 53 79 23 34 14 21 39 58 5 7 4 6 39 58
Sites within leopard
distribution
43 100 41 95 15 35 8 19 28 65 5 12 4 9 28 65
p value 0.000 0.001 0.806 0.369 0.341 0.104 0.149 0.341
Spearman’s Correlation
Coefficient
0.456 0.300 0.238 0.157 0.086 0.562 0.307 0.112
1WG – wild goat (Capra aegagrus); WS – wild sheep (Ovis orientalis); PG – Persian gazelle (Gazella subgutturosa);
CH – chinkara (Gazella bennettii); WP – wild pig (Sus scrofa); RO.D – roe deer (Capreolus capreolus); RE.D – red deer (Cervus
elaphus); ICP – Indian crested porcupine (Hystrix indica); n = number of sites.
Persian leopard prey availability
Asia Life Sciences Suppl. 7, 2011 25
porcupine in the total study sites and those of leopard distribution range. Wild goat
and wild sheep were the most common prey species in all sites and in the sites with
leopard distribution. The wild pig and Indian crested porcupine were the next most
widely distributed species within the leopard distribution sites. Distribution of Persian
gazelle and chinkara was limited to 15 and 8 sites, respectively while roe deer and red
deer were only available in 5 and 4 sites with leopard presence. Consequently,
Spearman’s Correlation Coefficient showed a highly significant correlation between
leopard presence and presence of wild goat and wild sheep (wild goat: p = 0.000,
r = 0.456; wild sheep: p=0.001, r = 0.300) while this correlation for the rest of the
species was not significant (Table 2). Figure 1 shows the distribution of each species
within leopard distribution range in the protected areas. Therefore, null hypothesis
indicating non-significant correlation of leopard presence with presence of wild goat
and wild sheep was rejected while this hypothesis for other species was accepted.
Eleven sites, namely: Golestan, Jahan Nama, Parvar, Touran, Khosh Yeilagh, Sorkheh
Hesar, Kavir, Sarigol, Salook, Mianjangal and Khabr were found to have the most
diverse potential leopard prey communities (Figure 2). Five or more potential leopard
prey species were found to exist in these habitats. This selection was based
Figure 2. The most valuable sites within the leopard distribution range as far as prey
diversity in each area is concerned.
p=0.001,
Sanei, Zakaria & Hermidas 2011
26 Asia Life Sciences Suppl. 7, 2011
on the idea that four species of wild goat, wild sheep, wild pig and Indian crested
porcupine have a wide distribution in the country (Table 1), while the rest of the
selected potential prey species have been restricted to some habitats.
Attack on an Indian crested porcupine was reported from Touran in Semnan
Province in 2002. In addition, a dead leopard was found in Khuzestan Province in
2002 while it had a porcupine thorn on the front leg. Kills of wild sheep, wild goat,
Persian wild ass and Persian gazelle were found while (1) leopard indirect signs were
available near the kills; (2) leopard was found when it was feeding on its prey (e.g.
Touranl, Semnan Province in 2002) or (3) it was observed while it was on the stalk (e.g.
Bamoo, Fars Province in 2004). Attack on domestic horses was reported from Razavi
Khorasan where subsequently, the responsible leopard was removed from the habitat
by DoE staff. Attacks on dog (Mazandaran Province in 2003; Touran in 2002), jackal
(Tange Sayad, Chahar Mahal and Bakhtiari Province), livestock (e.g. Mianjangal,
Fars Province in 2005; Khaeez, Kohgiluyeh & Boyer Ahmad; Tarome-sofla, Zanjan
Province in 2003), cow (Gilan Province in 2003 & 2004) and camel (Ariz, Yazd Province
in 2002 and 2003) were recorded.
DISCUSSION
The most diverse potential leopard prey communities were found in the northern
parts of the country (Figure 2). Previous studies indicated that compared to the
southern area, this region supports a considerable leopard population (Kiabi et al.
2002) and leopard presence sites (Sanei & Zakaria 2011). Among the eleven selected
sites with the most diverse prey communities, Golestan National Park and Jahan
Nama Protected Area with a total area of more than 126,000 ha are partially covered
with Hyrcanian forests. All the leopard presence sites were found in the mountainous
areas (Sanei & Zakaria 2008) and wild goat has been recorded across the entire
leopard distribution range in the country. It is suggested that these two factors (i.e.
mountainous feature and presence of wild goat) could be considered as the main
requirements for a potential leopard habitat in Iran. The importance of wild goat in the
leopard diet in Iran is supported by previous studies (Chalani, unpublished data)
concerning leopard diet in Tandoureh National Park located in the northeast of Iran.
However, the species is known as a flexible species in terms of habitat and prey
(Hayward et al. 2006, Mills & Harvey 2001, Grassman 1997, Lekagul & McNeely
1977). Therefore, its survival may not be restricted to the presence of these factors
only.
After the wild goat and wild sheep, wild pig and Indian crested porcupine were
found to be the most available prey species in the leopard distribution sites. However,
distribution of roe deer, red deer and chinkara is restricted to a few sites (Table 1).
Although, it was reported by Hayward et al. (2006) that leopards mostly prefer
preys within 10-40 kg weight range, the possibility that leopards in Iran mostly rely
on preys much heavier than this range was suggested. There was a highly significant
correlation between presence of leopards with availability of wild goat (up to 120 kg;
Ziaie 2008) and wild sheep (up to 85 kg; Ziaie 2008). Even though feedings upon
Persian leopard prey availability
Asia Life Sciences Suppl. 7, 2011 27
kids and lambs were also found, attack on adult wild goat and wild
sheep was frequently observed and documented in various habitats. In addition,
attack of a leopard on an adult Persian wild ass (normally more than 150 kg; Ziaie
2008) was recorded near Shourab spring in Touran (Semnan Province in 2002) while
leopard had moved to the flat area which is a long distance from neighbouring moun-
tains. Feeding on wild pigs (up to 300 kg; Ziaie 2008) is also common in the several
places where the prey species is available as wild pig fur was found in more than 70%
of collected leopard feces in Golestan National Park, north of Iran in 2006 (Sanei &
Zakaria, unpublished data). Average of leopard total body size in 25
individuals (including both male and female) of leopards reported by Sanei (2007)
and Etemad (1985) from various parts of the country was calculated as 259 cm. In
addition, body mass of a young male individual of leopard from the northern part of
the country was obtained as 64 kg. Therefore, it was suggested that the ability to
attack on larger preys is possible due to the bigger body size of Persian leopards
particularly in the northern parts of the country compared to some other leopard
subspecies (e.g. total body size of an adult Indochinese male leopard = 211 cm,
weight = 40 kg, Grassman 1999; an adult male Indian leopard body size = 223 cm, body
weight = 58 kg, Odden & Wegge 2005; an adult male African leopard total body
size = 216 cm, Sanei 2007; an adult Malaysian male leopard body size = 202 cm, weight
= 52 kg, unpublished data).
Feeding upon larger preys is supported by Karanth and Sunquit (1995) as they
found that leopards in Nagarahole National Park, India feed on preys within
30-175 kg. They also suggested that leopard selective predation is a mechanism
which helps it to coexist with other carnivores in the area. However, leopards in Iran
are considered as the largest carnivore in their distribution range in the country while
they coexist with wolves in some habitats. Studies are required to investigate
overlapping feeding range of these two carnivores in the habitats which they coexist.
Wild goat inhabits the mountains particularly where there is a mixture of rocky
outcrops and vegetation (Genov et al. 2009). In addition, it is widely found in the
leopard distribution range (i.e. 100% of the leopard distribution sites, Figure 1). On
the other hand, wild sheep mostly inhabit less slopy mountains and hills (Firuz 2000)
and they were found in 95% of leopard distribution range in the protected areas.
These habitat types are reported to be the main habitats of the leopards in their
distribution range in the country (Sanei & Zakaria 2008). Therefore, a highly significant
correlation of leopard presence with presence of wild sheep and wild goat could be
due to the wide distribution of these species in the country and the same habitat use.
Persian gazelle and chinkara are mostly found in steppes and plains (Nowzari et al.
2007). These habitats provide less ambushes to stalk the preys (see also Jenny &
Zuberbuhler 2005, Hart et al. 1996, Hes 1991) and therefore, possibly it can not be the
preferred leopard prey. However, considering the leopard flexible diet (Mills & Harvey
2001) and our records of occasional hunting of gazelles in Bamoo National Park
(2004), they still remain as a potential prey for the species, particularly when they
move near hills and corridors for the water resources. Feeding upon smaller
Persian leopard prey availability
Asia Life Sciences Suppl. 7, 2011 27
kids and lambs were also found, attack on adult wild goat and wild
sheep was frequently observed and documented in various habitats. In addition,
attack of a leopard on an adult Persian wild ass (normally more than 150 kg; Ziaie
2008) was recorded near Shourab spring in Touran (Semnan Province in 2002) while
leopard had moved to the flat area which is a long distance from neighbouring moun-
tains. Feeding on wild pigs (up to 300 kg; Ziaie 2008) is also common in the several
places where the prey species is available as wild pig fur was found in more than 70%
of collected leopard feces in Golestan National Park, north of Iran in 2006 (Sanei &
Zakaria, unpublished data). Average of leopard total body size in 25
individuals (including both male and female) of leopards reported by Sanei (2007)
and Etemad (1985) from various parts of the country was calculated as 259 cm. In
addition, body mass of a young male individual of leopard from the northern part of
the country was obtained as 64 kg. Therefore, it was suggested that the ability to
attack on larger preys is possible due to the bigger body size of Persian leopards
particularly in the northern parts of the country compared to some other leopard
subspecies (e.g. total body size of an adult Indochinese male leopard = 211 cm,
weight = 40 kg, Grassman 1999; an adult male Indian leopard body size = 223 cm, body
weight = 58 kg, Odden & Wegge 2005; an adult male African leopard total body
size = 216 cm, Sanei 2007; an adult Malaysian male leopard body size = 202 cm, weight
= 52 kg, unpublished data).
Feeding upon larger preys is supported by Karanth and Sunquit (1995) as they
found that leopards in Nagarahole National Park, India feed on preys within
30-175 kg. They also suggested that leopard selective predation is a mechanism
which helps it to coexist with other carnivores in the area. However, leopards in Iran
are considered as the largest carnivore in their distribution range in the country while
they coexist with wolves in some habitats. Studies are required to investigate
overlapping feeding range of these two carnivores in the habitats which they coexist.
Wild goat inhabits the mountains particularly where there is a mixture of rocky
outcrops and vegetation (Genov et al. 2009). In addition, it is widely found in the
leopard distribution range (i.e. 100% of the leopard distribution sites, Figure 1). On
the other hand, wild sheep mostly inhabit less slopy mountains and hills (Firuz 2000)
and they were found in 95% of leopard distribution range in the protected areas.
These habitat types are reported to be the main habitats of the leopards in their
distribution range in the country (Sanei & Zakaria 2008). Therefore, a highly significant
correlation of leopard presence with presence of wild sheep and wild goat could be
due to the wide distribution of these species in the country and the same habitat use.
Persian gazelle and chinkara are mostly found in steppes and plains (Nowzari et al.
2007). These habitats provide less ambushes to stalk the preys (see also Jenny &
Zuberbuhler 2005, Hart et al. 1996, Hes 1991) and therefore, possibly it can not be the
preferred leopard prey. However, considering the leopard flexible diet (Mills & Harvey
2001) and our records of occasional hunting of gazelles in Bamoo National Park
(2004), they still remain as a potential prey for the species, particularly when they
move near hills and corridors for the water resources. Feeding upon smaller
kids and lambs were also found, attack on adult wild goat and wild sheep was
frequently observed and documented in various habitats. In addition, attack of a
leopard on an adult Persian wild ass (normally more than 150 kg; Ziaie 2008) was
recorded near Shourab spring in Touran (Semnan Province in 2002) while leopard
had moved to the at area which is a long distance from neighbouring mountains.
Feeding on wild pigs (up to 300 kg; Ziaie 2008) is also common in the several
places where the prey species is available as wild pig fur was found in more than
70% of collected leopard feces in Golestan National Park, north of Iran in 2006
(Sanei & Zakaria, unpublished data). Average of leopard total body size in 25
individuals (including both male and female) of leopards reported by Sanei (2007)
and Etemad (1985) from various parts of the country was calculated as 259 cm. In
addition, body mass of a young male individual of leopard from the northern part
of the country was obtained as 64 kg. Therefore, it was suggested that the ability
to attack on larger preys is possible due to the bigger body size of Persian leopards
particularly in the northern parts of the country compared to some other leopard
subspecies (e.g. total body size of an adult Indochinese male leopard = 211 cm,
weight = 40 kg, Grassman 1999; an adult male Indian leopard body size = 223 cm,
body weight = 58 kg, Odden & Wegge 2005; an adult male African leopard total
body size = 216 cm, Sanei 2007; an adult Malaysian male leopard body size = 202
cm, weight = 52 kg, unpublished data).
Sanei, Zakaria & Hermidas 2011
28 Asia Life Sciences Suppl. 7, 2011
species such as rodents and birds were found in the feces collected from Tandoureh
National Park, Razavi Khorasan Province (Chalani, unpublished data).
There is no specific study on possible leopard seasonal migrations in the country
following the movements of preys due to seasonal changes in vegetation sufficiency
in each habitat. However, evidences of leopard seasonal migrations were found in
Marakan in Western Azerbaijan Province and Mirza Arab Mountain in the boundary
of Iran and Afghanistan. Further studies are required to investigate the movement
behavior of leopards in these areas. We suggest that it is essential to design and
conduct a national leopard conservation plan particularly as an umbrella species in
its currently identified distribution range as reported by Sanei (2005, 2007). However,
high priorities should be given to the sites that were identified in this study to have
the most diverse prey communities, particularly those located in the northern part of
the country (i.e. Golestan, Jahan Nama, Parvar, Touran, Khosh Yeilagh, Sorkheh
Hesar, Kavir, Sarigol and Salook). It is worth mentioning that the non-detection of a
species in a habitat does not mean that the species is certainly absent there (MacKenzie
et al. 2002). In addition, the presence of various prey species in the study sites does
not imply that existing prey biomass is sufficient to supply a viable leopard population
in each area. Consequently, further detailed studies are required to investigate the
abundance of the prey species and the carrying capacity of each habitat in the
leopard distribution range in the country.
CONCLUSION
Nine species, namely: wild goat, wild sheep, wild pig, Persian gazelle, chinkara,
roe deer, red deer, Indian crested porcupine and Persian wild ass were selected as the
potential leopard prey species in Iran. Wild goat and wild sheep were found to be the
most available prey species in the leopard distribution range. Furthermore, there was
a high correlation between the presence of the leopard and occurrence of these prey
species. The most diverse community of potential leopard prey species was found in
the northern part of the country. Eleven localities, namely: Golestan, Jahan Nama,
Parvar, Touran, Khosh Yeilagh, Sorkheh Hesar, Kavir, Sarigol, Salook, Mianjangal
and Khabr are considered as the most diverse sites in terms of prey species.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors acknowledge the generous assistance of residents of the local settlements,
the guards and staff of the Iran Department of Environment present in all the study sites.
Grateful appreciation is extended to the late Dr. H. Asadi, Mr. H. Ziaie and Dr. B.H. Kiabi for
invaluable information provided during separate consultations. Finally, thanks are due to Gh.
Sanei, Behshahr Kar Company for providing generous financial assistance to the research
study and to Dr. Jan Janecka and Dr. Igor Khorozyan for their valuable comments on the
manuscript.
LITERATURE CITED
Bailey, T.N. 1993. The African Leopard: Ecology and Behavior of a Solitary Felid. Columbia
University Press, New York, USA, 429 p.
Sanei, Zakaria & Hermidas 2011
28 Asia Life Sciences Suppl. 7, 2011
species such as rodents and birds were found in the feces collected from Tandoureh
National Park, Razavi Khorasan Province (Chalani, unpublished data).
There is no specific study on possible leopard seasonal migrations in the country
following the movements of preys due to seasonal changes in vegetation sufficiency
in each habitat. However, evidences of leopard seasonal migrations were found in
Marakan in Western Azerbaijan Province and Mirza Arab Mountain in the boundary
of Iran and Afghanistan. Further studies are required to investigate the movement
behavior of leopards in these areas. We suggest that it is essential to design and
conduct a national leopard conservation plan particularly as an umbrella species in
its currently identified distribution range as reported by Sanei (2005, 2007). However,
high priorities should be given to the sites that were identified in this study to have
the most diverse prey communities, particularly those located in the northern part of
the country (i.e. Golestan, Jahan Nama, Parvar, Touran, Khosh Yeilagh, Sorkheh
Hesar, Kavir, Sarigol and Salook). It is worth mentioning that the non-detection of a
species in a habitat does not mean that the species is certainly absent there (MacKenzie
et al. 2002). In addition, the presence of various prey species in the study sites does
not imply that existing prey biomass is sufficient to supply a viable leopard population
in each area. Consequently, further detailed studies are required to investigate the
abundance of the prey species and the carrying capacity of each habitat in the
leopard distribution range in the country.
CONCLUSION
Nine species, namely: wild goat, wild sheep, wild pig, Persian gazelle, chinkara,
roe deer, red deer, Indian crested porcupine and Persian wild ass were selected as the
potential leopard prey species in Iran. Wild goat and wild sheep were found to be the
most available prey species in the leopard distribution range. Furthermore, there was
a high correlation between the presence of the leopard and occurrence of these prey
species. The most diverse community of potential leopard prey species was found in
the northern part of the country. Eleven localities, namely: Golestan, Jahan Nama,
Parvar, Touran, Khosh Yeilagh, Sorkheh Hesar, Kavir, Sarigol, Salook, Mianjangal
and Khabr are considered as the most diverse sites in terms of prey species.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors acknowledge the generous assistance of residents of the local settlements,
the guards and staff of the Iran Department of Environment present in all the study sites.
Grateful appreciation is extended to the late Dr. H. Asadi, Mr. H. Ziaie and Dr. B.H. Kiabi for
invaluable information provided during separate consultations. Finally, thanks are due to Gh.
Sanei, Behshahr Kar Company for providing generous financial assistance to the research
study and to Dr. Jan Janecka and Dr. Igor Khorozyan for their valuable comments on the
manuscript.
LITERATURE CITED
Bailey, T.N. 1993. The African Leopard: Ecology and Behavior of a Solitary Felid. Columbia
University Press, New York, USA, 429 p.
There is no specic study on possible leopard seasonal migrations in the
country following the movements of preys due to seasonal changes in vegetation
sufciency in each habitat. However, evidences of leopard seasonal migrations were
found in Marakan in Western Azerbaijan Province and Mirza Arab Mountain in the
boundary of Iran and Afghanistan. Further studies are required to investigate the
movement behavior of leopards in these areas. We suggest that it is essential to
design and conduct a national leopard conservation plan particularly as an umbrella
species in its currently identied distribution range as reported by Sanei (2005,
2007). However, high priorities should be given to the sites that were identied in
this study to have the most diverse prey communities, particularly those located in
the northern part of the country (i.e. Golestan, Jahan Nama, Parvar, Touran, Khosh
Yeilagh, Sorkheh Hesar, Kavir, Sarigol and Salook). It is worth mentioning that the
non-detection of a species in a habitat does not mean that the species is certainly
absent there (MacKenzie et al. 2002). In addition, presence of various prey species
in the study sites does not imply that existing prey biomass is sufcient to supply
a viable leopard population in each area. Consequently, further detailed studies are
required to investigate the abundance of the prey species and the carrying capacity
of each habitat in the leopard distribution range in the country.
Persian leopard prey availability
Asia Life Sciences Suppl. 7, 2011 29
Etemad, I. 1985. Mammals of Iran. Volume 2, Department of Environment of Iran, Tehran.
Firuz, E. 2000. Wildlife of Iran (Vertebrates). University Publication Center, Tehran, Iran.
Genov, P., G. Georgiev and V. Georgiev. 2009. Persian wild goat (Capra aegagrus Erxleben) –
Biology, ecology and possibilities for its re-introduction in Bulgaria. Biotechnology and
Biotechnological Equipment Special Edition (on-line), pp. 341-342.
Grassman, M.L.I. Jr. 1997. Ecology and behavior of four sympatric carnivores (Mammalia:
Carnivora) in Kaeng Krachan National Park, Thailand. M.Sc.Thesis, Kasetsart University,
Yanisa, Thailand. (unpublished)
Hart, J.A., M. Katembo and K. Punga. 1996. Diet, prey selection and ecological relations of
leopard and golden cat in the Ituri Forest, Zaire. African Journal of Ecology 34: 364-379.
Hes, L. 1991. The Leopards of Londolozi. Struik Winchester, Cape Town, South Africa,
168 p.
Hayward, M.W., P. Henschel, J. O’Brien, M. Hofmeyr, G. Balme and G.I.H. Kerley. 2006.
Prey preferences of the leopard (Panthera pardus). Journal of Zoology 270: 298-313.
Karanth, K.U. and M.E. Sunquist. 1995. Prey selection by tiger, leopard and dhole in tropical
forests. Journal of Animal Ecology 64: 439-450.
Karanth, K.U. and M.E. Sunquist. 2000. Behavioural correlates of predation by tiger (Panthera
tigris), leopard (Panthera pardus) and dhole (Cuon alpinus) in Nagarahole, India. Journal of
Zoology 250: 255-265.
Kawanishi, K. 2002. Population status of tigers (Panthera tigris) in a primary rainforest of
Peninsular Malaysia. Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Wildlife Ecology and Conservation,
University of Florida, USA. (unpublished)
Khorozyan, I. and A. Malkhasyan. 2005. Persian leopard photographed in Armenia. Cat
News 43: 13.
Khorozyan, I., A. Malkhasyan and S. Asmaryan. 2005. The Persian leopard prowls its way
to survival. Endangered Species Update 22: 51-60.
Kiabi, B.H., B.F. Dareshouri, R.A. Ghaemi and M. Jahanshahi. 2002. Population status of
the Persian leopard (Panthera pardus saxicolor Pocock 1927) in Iran. Zoology in the
Middle East 26: 41-47.
Lekagul, B.M.D. and J.A. McNeely. 1977. Mammals of Thailand. Association for the
Conservation of Wildlife, Bangkok, Thailand, 758 p.
MacKenzie, D.I., J.D. Nichols, G.B. Lachman, S. Droege, A. Royle and C.A. Langtimm,
2002. Estimating site occupancy rates when detection probabilities are less than one.
Ecology 83: 2248-2255.
Mills, M.G.L. and M. Harvey. 2001. African Predators. Struik Publisher, Cape Town, South
Africa, 160 p.
Nowzari, H., B. Behrouzi Rad and M. Hemami. 2007. Habitat use by Persian Gazelle (Gazelle
subgutturosa subgutturusa) in Bamoo National Park during autumn and winter. Acta Zoological
Mexicana 23: 109-121.
Ott, T. 2004. Dietary ecology of leopard Panthera pardus in the Baviaanskloof wilderness
area. Honours thesis, University of Port Elizabeth, South Africa.
Owen-Smith, N. and Mills, M. G. L. 2008. Predator-prey size relationships in an African
large-mammal food web. Journal of Animal Ecology 77: 173-183.
Sanei, A. 2005. Analysis of Leopard (Panthera pardus) Status in Iran (No.1). Tabalvor (In
Persian), Tehran, Iran, 293 p.
Sanei, A. 2007. Analysis of Leopard (Panthera pardus) Status in Iran (No.1). Sepehr
Publication Center, Tehran, Iran, 298 p.
Sanei, A. and M. Zakaria. 2011. Distribution pattern of the Persian leopard (Panthera pardus
saxicolor) in Iran. Asia Life Sciences Supplement 7: 7-18. (this issue)
Sanei, Zakaria & Hermidas 2011
30 Asia Life Sciences Suppl. 7, 2011
Sanei, A. and M. Zakaria. 2008. Distribution of Panthera pardus in Iran in relation to its
habitat and climate type, p. 54. In: Saiful, A., M.O.Norhayati, A.K. Shuhaimi, Ahmad and
A.R. Zulfahmi (Eds.). Third Regional Symposium on Environment and Natural Resources,
Universiti Kebangsan Malaysia, Malaysia.
Stevenson-Hamilton, J. 1947. Wildlife in South Africa. Cassell, London, U.K., 364 p.
Stuart, C.T. and T. Stuart. 2000. Field Guide to the Larger Mammals of Africa. Struik
Publishers, Cape Town, South Africa, 320 p.
Ziaie, H. 2008. A Field Guide to the Mammals of Iran. Iran Wildlife Center, Tehran, Iran,
432 p.
Beyond Excellence Beyond Excellence
Beyond Excellence Beyond Excellence
Beyond Excellence© ASIA LIFE SCIENCES
The Asian International Journal of Life Sciences
ISSN 0117-3375
81 Governor F.T. San Luis Avenue,
Masaya, Bay 4033, Laguna, Philippines.
Cellular phone no. (63) 0915-360-4660
Telephone no. (63)(49) 501-2957
e-mail: asialifesciences@yahoo.com
http://journals.uplb.edu.ph/index.php/ALS
©Rushing Water Publishers Ltd., Philippines 2011
The papers published in Asia Life Sciences are indexed in the
Biological Abstracts, CAB Abstracts, CAB Global Health
Zoological Record, SciSearch®/Science Citation Index
Expanded, Journal Citation Reports/Science Edition, BIOSIS
Previews, ISI Web of Science®, ISI Web of Knowledge®
and are covered by the
Thomson Reuters-Institute for Scientific Information (ISI), USA
and CABI, Wallingford, OXON, UK.
Asia Life Sciences has an Impact Factor of 0.259.
Asia Life Sciences is a recipient of the Journal Accreditation Award
from the Commission on Higher Education (CHED),
Republic of the Philippines (2010-2011).
Printed on acid-free papers.
