Camera-trap studies of maned wolf density in the Cerrado and the Pantanal of Brazil

  • Mogens Trolle
  • Andrew J. Noss
  • Edson S. De Lima
  • Julio C. Dalponte
Original Paper


The maned wolf (Chrysocyon brachyurus) is threatened by large-scale habitat loss, in particular due to conversion to agricultural land. This is the first published study on maned wolf density and the first test of individual identification from camera-trap photographs. We present results from two Brazilian regions: the Cerrado and the Pantanal. Using capture–recapture analysis of camera-trap data, we estimated densities per 100 square kilometers of 3.64 ± 0.77 individuals at the Cerrado site and 1.56 ± 0.77 individuals at the Pantanal site. Parallel radio-telemetry studies at the Pantanal site showed that maned wolves occupied home ranges of 39–58 km2 (mean = 50.3 ± 7.67 km2). Our study in the Cerrado took place in a private farm with a mixture of agricultural land and native habitats, representative of the majority of the present-day Cerrado. Whereas many other mammalian species have suffered in the region, our results show that the maned wolf may cope better with this highly fragmented landscape than one might have feared. Finally, the paper briefly compares maned wolf density with density of puma (Puma concolor) in the Pantanal site.


Brazil Camera trapping Cerrado Chrysocyon Density Maned wolf Pantanal Puma 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Brina AE (1998) Aspectos da dinâmica da vegetação associada a afloramentos calcários na APA Carste de Lagoa Santa, MG. Master Thesis, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, BrazilGoogle Scholar
  2. Carvalho CT, Vasconcellos LEM (1995) Disease, food and reproduction of the maned wolf – Chrysocyon brachyurus (Illiger) (Carnivora, Canidae) in southeast Brazil. Rev Bras Zool 12:627–640Google Scholar
  3. Dietz JM (1984) Ecology and social organization of the maned wolf (Chrysocyon brachyurus). Smithsonian Contrib Zool 392:1–51Google Scholar
  4. Fonseca GAB, Rylands AB, Costa CMR, Machado RB, Leite YR (eds) (1994) Livro Vermelho dos Mamíferos Ameaçados de Extinção. Fundação Biodiversitas, Belo Horizonte BrazilGoogle Scholar
  5. Karanth KU (1995) Estimating tiger Panthera tigris populations from camera trap data using capture–recapture models. Biol Conserv 71:333–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Karanth KU, Nichols JD (1998) Estimation of tiger densities in India using photographic captures and recaptures. Ecology 79:2852–2862CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Kelly MJ, Noss AJ, Camblos HB, Rumiz DI (2004) Sympatric pumas and jaguars: data from camera trapping in Bolivia and Belize. 18th Annual Meeting of the Society for Conservation Biology, July 30-August 2, 2004, New York, USAGoogle Scholar
  8. Maffei L, Cuéllar E, Noss A (2004) One thousand jaguars (Panthera onca) in Bolivia’s Chaco? Camera trapping in the Kaa-Iya National Park. J Zool 262:295–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Mohr CO (1947) Table of equivalent populations of North American mammals. Am Midl Nat 37:223–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Myers N, Mittermeier RA, Mittermeier CG, Fonseca GAB, Kent J (2000) Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 403:853–858PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Noss AJ, Maffei L (2005) How small is too small? Camera trap survey areas and density estimates for ocelot in the Bolivian Chaco. Society for Conservation Biology Annual Meeting 2005, 15–19 July, 2005, Brasilia, BrazilGoogle Scholar
  12. Noss AJ, Peña R, Rumiz DI (2004) Camera trapping Priodontes maximus in the dry forests of Santa Cruz, Bolivia. Endangered Spec Update 21:43–52Google Scholar
  13. Noss AJ, Cuéllar RL, Barrientos J, Maffei L, Cuéllar E, Arispe R, Rumiz DI, Rivero K (2003) A camera trapping and radio telemetry study of Tapirus terrestris in Bolivian dry forests. Tapir Conserv 12:24–32Google Scholar
  14. Parmenter RR, Yates TL, Anderson DR, Burnham KP, Dunnum JL, Franklin AB, Friggens MT, Lubow BC, Miller M, Olson GS, Parmenter CA, Pollard J, Rexstad E, Shenk TM, Stanley TR, White GC (2003) Small-mammal density estimation: a field comparison of grid-based vs. web-based density estimators. Ecol Monogr 73:1–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ratter JA, Riveiro JF, Bridgewater S (1997) The Brazilian cerrado vegetation and threats to its biodiversity. Ann Bot 80:223–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Rexstad E, Burnham KP (1991) Users Guide for Interactive Program CAPTURE. Colorado Cooperative Fish & Wildlife Research Unit, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado.Google Scholar
  17. Rodden M, Rodrigues F, Bestelmeyer S (2004) Maned wolf. In: Sillero-Zubiri C, Hoffmann M, Macdonald DW (eds), Canids: foxes, wolves, jackals and dogs – 2004 Status Survey and Conservation Action Plan. IUCN/SSC Canid Specialist Group, Gland Switzerland, pp 38–43Google Scholar
  18. Rodrigues FHG (2002) Biologia e conservação do lobo-guará na Estação Ecológica de Águas Emendadas, DF. Ph.D. Thesis, Universidade Estadual de Campinas, BrazilGoogle Scholar
  19. Sanderson JG, Trolle M (2005) Monitoring elusive mammals. Am Sci 93:148–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Silveira L (1999) Ecologia e conservação dos mamíferos carnívoros do Parque Nacional das Emas, Goiás. Master thesis, Universidade Federal de Goiás, BrazilGoogle Scholar
  21. Silver CS, Ostro LET, Marsh LK, Maffei L, Noss AJ, Kelly M, Wallace RB, Gomez H, Ayala G (2004) The use of camera traps for estimating jaguar Panthera onca abundance and density using capture/recapture analysis. Oryx 38:148–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Trolle M (2003) Mammal survey in the southeastern Pantanal, Brazil. Biodivers Conserv 12:823–836CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Trolle M, Kéry M (2003) Ocelot density estimation in the Pantanal using capture–recapture analysis of camera-trapping data. J Mammal 84:607–614CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Trolle M, Kéry M (2005) Camera-trap study of ocelot and other secretive mammals in the northern Pantanal. Mammalia 69:405–412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. White GC, Burnham KP, Otis DL, Anderson DR (1978) User’s Manual for Program CAPTURE. Utah State University Press, Logan Utah USAGoogle Scholar
  26. Wilson KR, Anderson DR (1985) Evaluation of two density estimators of small mammal population size. J Mammal 66:13–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mogens Trolle
    • 1
    • 4
  • Andrew J. Noss
    • 2
  • Edson S. De Lima
    • 3
  • Julio C. Dalponte
    • 3
  1. 1.Mammal Department, Zoological MuseumUniversity of CopenhagenCopenhagenDenmark
  2. 2.Wildlife Conservation SocietyGainesvilleUSA
  3. 3.Departamento de Ciências Biológicas - UNEMATCampus de Nova XavantinaMato Grosso, Nova XavantinaBrazil
  4. 4.FrederiksbergDenmark

Personalised recommendations