Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 596

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Prey preferences of the leopard (Panthera pardus)

Hayward, M. W., Henschel, P., O'Brien, J., Hofmeyr, M., Balme, G., Kerley, G. I. H.·2006·Journal of Zoology

Abstract

Leopards Panthera pardus have a catholic diet and are generally thought to prey on medium‐sized ungulates; however, knowledge on which species are actually preferred and avoided is lacking, along with an understanding of why such preferences arise. Twenty‐nine published and four unpublished studies of leopard diet that had relative prey abundance estimates associated with them were analysed from 13 countries in 41 different spatial locations or temporal periods throughout the distribution of the leopard. A Jacobs' index value was calculated for each prey species in each study and the mean of these was then tested against a mean of 0 using t or sign tests for preference or avoidance. Leopards preferentially prey upon species within a weight range of 10–40 kg. Regression plots suggest that the most preferred mass of leopard prey is 25 kg, whereas the mean body mass of significantly preferred prey is 23 kg. Leopards prefer prey within this body mass range, which occur in small herds, in dense habitat and afford the hunter minimal risk of injury during capture. Consequently, impala, bushbuck and common duiker are significantly preferred, with chital likely to also be preferred with a larger sample size from Asian sites. Species outside the preferred weight range are generally avoided, as are species that are restricted to open vegetation or that have sufficient anti‐predator strategies. The ratio of mean leopard body mass with that of their preferred prey is less than 1 and may be a reflection of their solitary hunting strategy. This model will allow us to predict the diet of leopards in areas where dietary information is lacking, also providing information to assist wildlife managers and conservation bodies on predator carrying capacity and predator–prey interactions.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1469-7998.2006.00139.x

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 6 references

Cited by

See all 596

Metadata

Authors
Hayward, M. W., Henschel, P., O'Brien, J., Hofmeyr, M., Balme, G., & Kerley, G. I. H.
Venue
Journal of Zoology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2006-06
Volume
270
Issue
2
Pages
298-313
ISSN
  • 0952-8369 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-7998
OpenAlex
W2105617237
Cited by
596
References
6
FWCI
11.01
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Prey preferences of the leopard (Panthera pardus). https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1469-7998.2006.00139.x
The paper
Hayward, M. W., Henschel, P., O'Brien, J., Hofmeyr, M., Balme, G., & Kerley, G. I. H. (2006). Prey preferences of the leopard (Panthera pardus). Journal of Zoology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7998.2006.00139.x

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.