Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 365

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 66 of the 66 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Leopard (Panthera pardus) status, distribution, and the research efforts across its range

Open access
Jacobson, Andrew P., Gerngross, Peter, Lemeris Jr., Joseph R., Schoonover, Rebecca F., Anco, Corey, Breitenmoser-Würsten, Christine, Durant, Sarah M., Farhadinia, Mohammad S., Henschel, Philipp, Kamler, Jan F., Laguardia, Alice, Rostro-García, Susana, Stein, Andrew B., Dollar, Luke·2016·PeerJ

Abstract

The leopard’s (Panthera pardus) broad geographic range, remarkable adaptability, and secretive nature have contributed to a misconception that this species might not be severely threatened across its range. We find that not only are several subspecies and regional populations critically endangered but also the overall range loss is greater than the average for terrestrial large carnivores. To assess the leopard’s status, we compile 6,000 records at 2,500 locations from over 1,300 sources on its historic (post 1750) and current distribution. We map the species across Africa and Asia, delineating areas where the species is confirmed present, is possibly present, is possibly extinct or is almost certainly extinct. The leopard now occupies 25–37% of its historic range, but this obscures important differences between subspecies. Of the nine recognized subspecies, three (P. p. pardus, fusca,and saxicolor) account for 97% of the leopard’s extant range while another three (P. p. orientalis, nimr,and japonensis) have each lost as much as 98% of their historic range. Isolation, small patch sizes, and few remaining patches further threaten the six subspecies that each have less than 100,000 km 2 of extant range. Approximately 17% of extant leopard range is protected, although some endangered subspecies have far less. We found that while leopard research was increasing, research effort was primarily on the subspecies with the most remaining range whereas subspecies that are most in need of urgent attention were neglected.

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 · 10.7717/peerj.1974

Cites

66 of 66 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 66 references

Cited by

See all 365

Metadata

Authors
Jacobson, A. P., Gerngross, P., Lemeris Jr., J. R., Schoonover, R. F., Anco, C., Breitenmoser-Würsten, C., Durant, S. M., Farhadinia, M. S., Henschel, P., Kamler, J. F., Laguardia, A., Rostro-García, S., Stein, A. B., & Dollar, L.
Venue
PeerJ
Publisher
PeerJ
Published
2016-05-04
Volume
4
Pages
e1974
ISSN
2167-8359 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2346164724
Cited by
365
References
66
FWCI
21.58
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

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: Leopard (Panthera pardus) status, distribution, and the research efforts across its range. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.7717/peerj.1974
The paper
Jacobson, A. P., Gerngross, P., Lemeris Jr., J. R., Schoonover, R. F., Anco, C., Breitenmoser-Würsten, C., Durant, S. M., Farhadinia, M. S., Henschel, P., Kamler, J. F., Laguardia, A., Rostro-García, S., Stein, A. B., & Dollar, L. (2016). Leopard (Panthera pardus) status, distribution, and the research efforts across its range. PeerJ. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.1974

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.