6230_Therya

The diet of carnivorous species is not only influenced by the abundance, composition, assemblage, energy requirements, and type of prey available, but also by environmental factors (Krebs et al. 1995; Carbone et al. 1999; Sinclair, 2003; Haswell et al. 2017), interspecific competition (Litvaitis and Harrison 1989; Hass 2009), and the hunting strategies of each species (Hernández 2015; Husseman et al. 2003). Dietary overlap between species is useful for assessing interactions by measuring the share or competition for food components (Elbroch and Kusler 2018).

The puma (Puma concolor) and the bobcat (Lynx rufus) coexist in North America from southwest Canada, in the region bordering the United States southward through the central part to the west coast and reaching northern and central Mexico (Koehler and Hornocker 1991; Hass 2009), with a 96 % geographical overlap in Mexico (Sánchez-Cordero et al. 2008). Both carnivores share prey, but differences in dietary preferences based on prey size, energy intake, and abundance influence the feeding patterns of each feline species (Hass, 2009).

Laundré et al. (2009) evaluated potential factors influencing puma abundance in the Chihuahuan Desert by comparing Sierra Rica and El Cuervo in Chihuahua. Sierra El Cuervo, with more inhabitants and easier access, showed a higher incidence of poaching, which could reduce prey abundance and, consequently, impact the puma population. Fischer et al. (2012) suggest that urbanization has altered trophic dynamics in McCormick County, South Carolina, by reducing top-down control (ecological control exercised by predators over lower trophic levels, regulating energy distribution) and increasing bottom-up control (control generated by energy and nutrient flow over the number of primary consumers and predators that the system can sustain) due to increased availability of food produced by man.

In the desert region of northern Chihuahua, pumas and bobcats interact despite increased productive activities and land-use changes associated with urban growth, as observed in other regions (Lewis et al. 2015; Parsons et al. 2019). Large-scale spatio-temporal analyses have revealed that in carnivores, habitat preference exerts a greater influence than interactions among them (Jensen et al. 2024; Suraci et al. 2025). In contrast, at local scales, evasion patterns are evident, as in the case of bobcats that avoid coyotes (Canis latrans), which in turn avoid bobcats and pumas (Jensen et al. 2024). The co-occurrence of bobcats with dominant carnivores such as pumas and wolves (Canis lupus) is negatively affected by factors associated with human activities; in contrast, its coexistence with two subordinate carnivores, the red fox (Vulpes vulpes) and the gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus), depends mostly on environmental factors such as precipitation and gross primary production (Hubbard et al. 2022).

Studies on the puma diet report ungulates as the primary prey (Prude and Cain III 2021; Iacono et al. 2024; Bender et al. 2025); on the other hand, bobcats mainly prey on lagomorphs and rodents, with variable preference (Romero and Cervantes 2014; Sánchez-González et al. 2018; Draper et al. 2022). The diet overlap of bobcats and pumas ranges between 0.22 and 0.56 according to the Pianka index (Luna-Soria and López-González 2005; Hass 2009); between puma and jaguar, it ranges from 0.46 (Flores-Turdera et al. 2021) to 0.77 (Ávila-Nájera et al. 2018) and is greater than 90 % between bobcat and coyote (Martínez-García 2014; Witczuk et al. 2015). This raises the question of whether there are differences in the degree of diet overlap of two feline species in disturbed (P) versus undisturbed (NP) environments. The degree of overlap in disturbed environments is expected to be greater. Therefore, the objective of this study was to analyze the degree of diet overlap of two feline species in disturbed and undisturbed environments in northern Chihuahua.

Materials and methods

The study was conducted at eight locations in the municipalities of Ascension and Juárez, in northern Chihuahua. Disturbed environments (P) were defined as sites with human activities, such as agriculture, materials extraction, peri-urban areas, and the presence of garbage dumps, while undisturbed sites (NP) lacked these characteristics. P localities were West Sierra Juárez (WSJ), UACJ campus (CU), Rancho Arantxa (RA), and Sierra Presidio (SP); NPs were Rancho Blanco (RB) and Microondas Las Dunas Microwave Antennas (MWD), in Ascension; Rancho El Lobo (REL), and Southern Sierra Samalayuca (SSS; Figure 1). The dominant landscapes in all of them are microphyllous desert scrub and sandy deserts with stabilized dunes (INEGI 2021; León-Pesqueira et al. 2024).

Several field trips were carried out between May 2022 and July 2024. Cross-country transects measuring 2 to 4 km were established for scat collection, accounting for dirt roads, cattle and wildlife trails, latrines, and paths between hills. Scats were photographed in situ, placing a vernier caliper on one side. These were identified based on the criteria of Halfpenny and Biesiot (1986) and Aranda (2012). The characteristics used to identify puma scats were large size (20 to 30 cm long by 2 to 3.5 cm wide), cylindrical shape, presence of constrictions, and characteristic odor. The associated footprints measure 7 cm by 10 cm long, with round, teardrop-shaped toe pads, absence of claws, and metacarpal pads straight or concave on the front and with three lobes on the back. In the case of bobcats, scats are cylindrical, between 10 and 15 cm long and 1.5 to 2.5 cm wide, with marked constrictions and a characteristic odor that differentiates them from canid scat. The associated footprints measured between 4.5 and 5 cm long by 4 to 5 cm wide. Although scats were determined using the traditional approach, it should be noted that, ideally, genetic determination of predators is the most convenient method, as in the work of Torres-Romero et al. (2019). Scats were transferred to the Laboratory of Ecology and Animal Biodiversity (LEBA) of the UACJ, under the collection permits SGPA/DGVS/02524/22 and SPARN/DGVS/05498/23.

Scats were processed according to Ackerman et al. (1984). Vertebrate remains and hair were identified by comparison with voucher specimens deposited in the Scientific Collection of Vertebrates (CCV) of the UACJ (CHI-VER 189-0806). Arthropods were identified using the key of Eaton and Kaufman (2007), and plants were identified with expert assistance.

The percentage of occurrence (PO) of each food type for each predator was calculated in general and by locality (Sperry 1933; Alanis-Hernández et al. 2023). Only localities with scat data for both feline species were compared. The degree of overlap between environments and localities was determined using Pianka’s index (Pianka, 1973), where values close to 0 indicate no overlap and 1 indicates total overlap of the diet (Krebs, 1999). Finally, the difference in diet composition between the two felines in both P and NP localities was evaluated using Chi-square contingency tables (Siegel and Castellan, 1988).

Results

A total of 23 scats of Puma concolor and 70 of Lynx rufus from eight sites were analyzed. Pumas living in P environments (n = 9) consumed 24 food items in five categories, with an average of 4.9 ± 2.0 per scat (Table 1). In NP environments (n = 14), they consumed 30 food items in three categories, with an average of 4.9 ± 1.9. Rodents had the highest PO (50 %) in both environments (P and NP), followed by lagomorphs (18.18 % and 19.10 %, respectively). Bobcats in P environments (n = 51) consumed 54 food items in six categories, with an average of 4.2 ± 1.5 per scat; mammals recorded the highest PO (73.14 %), mainly composed of rodents (55 %) and plant matter (14.36 %) (Figure 2). In NP environments (n = 19), they consumed 41 food items in five categories, with an average of 4.5 ± 2.0 (Figure 3). Mammals accounted for 79.8 % of the diet, with rodents being the most frequently consumed prey (60.7 %), followed by lagomorphs (13.5 %). This study documented puma consumption of wild ungulates in both environments. In NP, we reported consumption of pronghorn (Antilocapra americana) at one locality (MWD) and mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) at two localities (SSS and REL). In P environments, mule deer consumption was recorded at one locality (CU); also, livestock consumption was higher in P localities. Equine consumption by pumas was documented at WSJ; in NP localities, cattle consumption by pumas was recorded in SSS. Bobcats fed on cattle, pigs, goats, and horses in WSJ, and pigs were consumed in CU. In NP localities, bobcats fed on cattle in MWD.

Both feline species preyed upon mesocarnivores. In P localities, pumas preyed on northern fox (Vulpes macrotis); in NP environments, they consumed northern fox, raccoon (Procyon lotor), and skunk (Conepatus leuconotus and Mephithis mephitis). For its part, bobcats inhabiting P environments consumed foxes (Urocyon cinereoargenteus and V. macrotis) and skunks (M. macroura and C. leuconotus); in NP, they preyed on northern fox and skunks (M. mephitis and M. macroura). Consumption of dog (Canis lupus familiaris) by puma in P environments was recorded in CU.

The consumption of uncommon food items was also documented in P environments, where the puma (RA and WSJ) and the bobcat (CU and RA) preyed on bats; pumas also preyed on them in an NP location (REL). Arthropods recorded a higher PO in bobcats than in pumas in both environments, with insects yielding the highest PO values. The consumption of birds and reptiles was low. As for plants, pumas and bobcats consumed grasses, mesquite, and cactus fruits and seeds in P environments; in NP, both consumed grass, mesquite, and walnut fruits and seeds of the genus Carya. Bobcats consumed unidentified plant materials in both environments. Garbage consumption was recorded in two P localities: CU (puma) and WSJ (bobcat). Garbage materials consumed included food packaging (aluminum and plastic) in both species and animal leather (shoe and bag remains) in bobcats.

In general, Pianka’s index between P and NP environments showed high overlap values (0.71). As for the localities, P exhibited partial overlap (0.50) in OSJ and complete overlap (1.00) in CU and RA. NP localities showed partial overlap in REL (0.57) and SSS (0.61), and low overlap in MWD (0.03). Regarding the difference in diet composition between puma and bobcat by locality using the Chi square method, P environments showed a significant difference between the diets of both felines (X2 = 8.18, d.f. = 1, p = 0.004), but not in NP localities (X2 = 1.13, d. f = 1, p = 0.288). In these environments, significant differences were observed in WSJ (X2 = 12.19, d.f. = 1, p = 0.0005), but not in RA (X2 = 0.37, d.f. = 1, p = 0.542) and CU (X2 = 2.28, d.f. = 1, p = 0.132). In NP environments, no differences were observed in MWD (X2 = 1.22, d.f. = 1, p. = 0.269) and SSS (X2 = 0.79, d.f. = 1, p = 0.3751), and a moderate difference was recorded in REL (X2 = 3.67, d.f. = 1, p = 0.055).

Discussion

In both environments (P and NP), bobcats mainly preyed on rodents, while pumas mainly consumed rodents and lagomorphs. It is known that bobcats prefer lagomorphs and rodents (Leopold and Krausman 1986; Delibes and Hiraldo, 1987; Hass, 2009; López-Vidal et al. 2014; Romero and Cervantes 2014; Sánchez-González et al. 2018; Draper et al. 2022). On the other hand, it has been documented that pumas consume more ungulates in North America (Iriarte et al. 1990; Pierce et al. 2000; De la Torre and De la Riva 2009; Hass, 2009). Mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) is the most consumed prey type by pumas in desert areas (Leopold and Krausman, 1986; Koehler and Hornocker, 1991; Cunningham et al. 1999; Logan and Sweanor, 2001; Prude and Cain III, 2021), although when its availability is low, the consumption of smaller prey increases by up to 50 %, consistent with the results of the present study. This finding confirms the plasticity of the puma diet and reaffirms its ability to persist in environments where its main prey decreases or is harder to capture, so its consumption becomes energetically non-profitable, as the cost and risk associated with its search and capture outweigh the benefits obtained (Leopold and Krausman 1986; Yañez et al. 1986; Iriarte et al. 1991; Donadio et al. 2010; Villepique et al. 2011; Pia 2013; Bender et al. 2025).

Regarding pronghorn consumption, there are no records of this species in the MWD area, so it is necessary to determine whether there are nearby populations. Distribution areas have been documented in the southwestern part of the municipality of Ascensión (Carreón-Hernández and Lafón-Terrazas 2014), 100 km from MWD. It has been reported that seasonal puma activity areas can be greater than 100 km2 (Dellinger et al. 2018), so pumas may consume pronghorn in that area and leave evidence in MWD. Bernard et al. (2023) reported pronghorn consumption in northern New Mexico, which they considered infrequent. As for the consumption of cattle and domestic animals, we found evidence of puma having low consumption of horses in P environments and cattle in NP localities, as previously reported for the species (Ackerman et al. 1984; Luna-Soria and López-González, 2005; Rosas-Rosas et al. 2008; De la Torre and De la Riva 2009; Amador-Alcalá et al. 2013; Peña-Mondragón and Castillo 2013; Palmeira et al. 2015; Cassaigne et al. 2016; Prude and Cain III 2021; Guerisoli et al. 2021; Mesler and Jones 2022; Iacono et al. 2024; Racero-Casarrubia et al. 2024). Cattle, pig, goat, and horse consumption by bobcats is similar to that previously reported, being low relative to other food components (Aranda et al. 2002; Peña-Mondragón and Castillo 2013; Prude and Cain III 2021).

Predation of mesocarnivores by both felines was common. The species consumed were similar to those reported by Hass (2009) and Prude and Cain III (2021), who recorded seven and 11 carnivores in the puma diet, respectively. Bobcat is known to have consumed gray fox and skunks (Hamilton and Hunter 1939; Litvaitis et al. 1981; Story et al. 1982; Trevor et al. 1989; Fedriani et al. 2000; Farias et al. 2005; Hass 2009; Draper et al. 2022; Landry et al. 2022). We found no studies reporting bobcat consumption of northern foxes or tlalcoyotes (Taxidea taxus). In addition, puma consumption of dogs (Canis lupus familiaris) in a P environment was recorded in CU. It has been reported that pumas commonly hunt dogs (Mazzolli, 2009; Buttler et al. 2014) and occasionally consume them (Farrell et al. 2000; Leberg et al. 2004; Villepique et al. 2011; Prude and Cain III 2021, Racero-Casarrubia et al. 2024). In Arizona, Wroe and Wroe (1982) reported bats preyed upon by bobcats. As for puma, only the presence of a non-identified bat has been reported in puma scats collected at Manu National Park, Peru (Emmons 1987). We found no reports of pumas hunting bats in North America, which is notable given the rarity of this prey, characterized by low energy value and great difficulty of capture due to its size and behavior. This occasional consumption suggests a high degree of opportunism and trophic plasticity in pumas, particularly in disturbed or ecologically changing environments, where traditional resources may be limited. Regarding plant materials, several authors mention that felines do not consume plants because they are obligate carnivores (Morris et al. 2002; Sanquist and Sanquist 2002; Verbrugghe and Hesta 2017), since, despite their being present, they are not considered typical components in the diet of this group, so they have not been described or quantified. However, the opposite has been the subject of recent discussions (Yoshimura et al. 2020; Yoshimura et al. 2021). For example, Yoshimura et al. (2021) mention that in 361 studies of feline diet, only 37 % mention the frequency of occurrence of plant materials, and 7.3 % simply report plant material. Few studies include plant materials in the diet composition (Ackerman et al. 1986; Rocha-Mendes et al. 2010; Montalvo et al. 2020), and grasses (Ackerman et al. 1986; Gómez-Ortiz et al. 2011; Villepique et al. 2011; Franck and Farid 2020) consumed by pumas. For bobcat, several authors report the use of plant material, mainly grasses, mesquite fruits, Yucca, and cacti in desert environments (Litvaitis and Harrison 1989; Mckinney and Smith 2007; López-Vidal et al. 2014). The presence of pecan nuts (Carya illinoinensis) in feline scat in NP environments is associated with nearby farms cultivating this crop, a growing agricultural activity that is transforming the Chihuahuan desert. It is suspected that fiber-rich plant materials (unidentified plant material and grasses) were consumed seeking to improve digestion or excrete parasites (Yoshimura et al. 2021), while the consumption of fruits (cactus seeds, mesquite Neltuma sp., Yucca sp., and Carya) was due to diploendozoochory, a phenomenon that has been observed in both bobcats (Rubalcava-Castillo et al. 2021) and pumas (Sarasola et al. 2016).

Insects, reptiles, and birds have been documented in the bobcat diet in Mapimí (López-Vidal et al., 2014), with insects at a lower percentage than that recorded in the present study. The puma consumed birds in NP environments, as previously documented (Prude and Cain III 2021). The presence of garbage in feline scat has been documented in P environments. In these areas, where the natural habitat of wild felines is altered by urban expansion, felines may lose their territories and be forced to adapt to anthropic environments (Bateman and Fleming 2012; Robins et al. 2019; Bartolucci et al. 2020; Riley et al. 2021), such as clandestine or unregulated garbage dumps, which are common in these areas. Under such conditions, these felines may resort to alternative food sources, including food scraps, garbage, and other anthropogenic wastes (Baruch-Moro et al. 2014; Plaza and Lambertucci 2017; Handler et al. 2020; Larson et al. 2020). Although garbage and anthropogenic organic waste are not commonly consumed by wild felines (Riley et al. 2021), human pressures and environmental pollution can increase the probability of felines encountering these wastes. Plastic consumption by puma is similar to that reported by Bartolucci et al. (2020), who identified two types of polyethylene. The consumption of garbage and human waste could harm the health of wild species, as it has been shown to affect domestic animals (Jensen and Nolte 2008; Prabhakar et al. 2012; Paraš et al. 2017).

A high dietary overlap was observed between bobcats and pumas in both environments, according to the Pianka index, indicating that both species share a large number of prey species. In P localities (CU and RA), both felines occupy nearly identical food niches, indicating high competition in these environments. In contrast, food overlap in NP localities was either low (MWD) or moderate (REL and SSS), suggesting that the species occupy very different niches, possibly due to differences in available resources or ecological strategies, which could indicate greater specialization or ecological segregation. This finding is similar to that observed by Hass (2009) in Tucson, Arizona, where an intermediate level of diet overlap between pumas and lynxes was reported. The observations in both studies are consistent with the idea that competition between species varies with regional ecological conditions and resource availability, which favors less competition between the two species and results in less overlap in their diets. The compositional difference analysis revealed that the diets of puma and bobcat are similar in P environments, possibly because environmental disturbances affect prey availability and force both feline species to consume resources not commonly observed in studies of diets in undisturbed environments. In contrast, in NP localities, the diets of puma and bobcat were different. It is likely that, in NP environments, each species has access to more varied and specific food resources, leading to differences in their feeding habits (Foster et al. 2010; Khorozyan et al. 2015; Ferretti et al. 2020). Therefore, studies examining predator and prey diets and abundances are necessary to evaluate the importance and interactions among the mechanisms that may be shaping trophic dynamics in urban and suburban areas (Fischer et al., 2012).

In conclusion, prey consumption by bobcats and pumas differs between undisturbed and disturbed environments. There is substantial overlap in the diets of puma and bobcat in disturbed environments of northern Chihuahua, with greater consumption of common prey such as lagomorphs and rodents, highlighting competition between these felines. Competition for resources in areas near human settlements forces these felines to resort to unconventional food sources, such as garbage and plant materials. The findings in the present study underscore the importance of considering ecological interactions and the impact of habitat alteration on the diet and behavior of felines in desert environments.

Acknowledgments

To SEMARNAT for the collection permit SGPA/DGVS/٠٢٥٢٤/٢٢. To the individuals who granted access for sample collection. To C. Muñoz Rivas, S. Ramos Guerra, D. Chávez, and E. Carrejo for their support during fieldwork, and to A. Zapata, P. Osorio, S. Vásquez, and K. Esparza for their assistance with sample processing. To Laura de León Pesqueira and Juan Rolando Rueda for their botanical support. We also thank the reviewers of this manuscript for their corrections and comments.

Literature cited

Ackerman BB, Lindzey FG, and Hemker TP. 1984. Food habits in southern Utah. The Journal of Wildlife Management 48:147–155.

Ackerman BB, Lindzey FG, and Hemker TP. 1986. Predictive energetics model for cougars. In: Mondolfi E, Hoogesteijn R, Miller SD, and Everett DD, editors. Cats of the world: biology, conservation, and management. Washington, DC (USA): National Wildfire Federation; p. 333–352.

Amador-Alcalá S, Naranjo EJ, and Jiménez-Ferrer G. 2013. Wildlife predation on livestock and poultry: implications for predator conservation in the rainforest of south-east Mexico. Oryx 47:243–250. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605311001359

Alanis-Hernández L, Sánchez-Rojas G, and Ramírez-Bravo OE. 2023. Entre hábitos y excretas: un vistazo a las dietas de los mamíferos carnívoros. Revista Digital Universitaria 25. https://doi.org/10.22201/cuaieed.16076079e.2024.25.2.6

Aranda M, Rosas O, Ríos JJ, and García N. 2002. Análisis comparativo de la alimentación del gato montés (Lynx rufus) en dos diferentes ambientes de México. Acta Zoológica Mexicana 87:99–109. https://doi.org/10.21829/azm.2002.87871803

Aranda Sánchez JM. 2012. Manual para el rastreo de mamíferos silvestres de México. Mexico City (MEX): Comisión Nacional para el Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad.

Ávila-Nájera DM, Palomares F, Chávez C, Tigar B, and Mendoza GD. ٢٠١٨. Jaguar (Panthera onca) and puma (Puma concolor) diets in Quintana Roo, Mexico. Animal Biodiversity and Conservation 41:257–266. https://doi.org/10.32800/abc.2018.41.0257

Bartolucci C, Guerisoli MM, and Martin GM. 2020. Primer registro de basura en heces de puma (Puma concolor) en el Parque Nacional Los Glaciares, Provincia de Santa Cruz, República Argentina. Notas sobre Mamíferos Sudamericanos 2:1–8. http://dx.doi.org/10.31687/saremNMS.20.0.29

Baruch-Mordo S, Wilson KR, Lewis DL, Broderick J, Mao JS, and Breck SW. 2014. Stochasticity in natural forage production affects use of urban areas by black bears: implications to management of human-bear conflicts. PLoS ONE 9:e85122. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0085122

Bateman PW, and Fleming PA. 2012. Big city life: carnivores in urban environments. Journal of Zoology 287:1–23. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7998.2011.00887.x

Bender LC, Weisenberger ME, and Torres-Romero EJ. 2025. Diets of pumas during significant changes in ungulate prey availability in the San Andres Mountains, south-central New Mexico, USA. Mammal Research 70:435–443. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13364-025-00802-4

Bernard KMT, Perry TW, and Mgqatsa N. 2023. Puma (Puma concolor) sex influences diet in southwest New Mexico. Western North American Naturalist 83:153–164. https://doi.org/10.3398/064.083.0201

Butler JRA, Linnell JDC, Morrant D, Athreya V, Lescureux N, and McKeown A. 2014. Dog eat dog, cat eat dog: social-ecological dimensions of dog predation by wild carnivores. In: Gompper ME, editor. Free-ranging dogs and wildlife conservation. New York (USA): Oxford University Press; p. 117–143.

Carbone C, Mace GM, Roberts SC, and Macdonald DW. 1999. Energetic constraints on the diet of terrestrial carnivores. Nature 402:286–288. https://doi.org/10.1038/46266

Carreón-Hernández E, and Lafón-Terrazas A. 2014. Programa de manejo de berrendo (Antilocapra americana mexicana) en Chihuahua, México. Agro Productividad 7:57–63.

Cassaigne I, Medellín RA, Thompson RW, Culver M, Ochoa A, Vargas K, et al. 2016. Diet of pumas (Puma concolor) in Sonora, Mexico, as determined by GPS kill sites and molecular identified scat, with comments on jaguar (Panthera onca) diet. The Southwestern Naturalist 61:125–132. https://doi.org/10.1894/0038-4909-61.2.125

Cunningham SC, Gustavson CR, and Ballard WB. 1999. Diet selection of mountain lions in southeastern Arizona. Journal of Range Management 52:202–207. https://doi.org/10.2307/4003681

De la Torre JA, and De la Riva G. 2009. Food habits of pumas (Puma concolor) in a semiarid region of central Mexico. Mastozoología Neotropical 16:211–216.

Delibes M, and Hiraldo F. 1987. Food habits of the bobcat in two habitats of the southern Chihuahuan desert. The Southwestern Naturalist 32:457–461. https://doi.org/10.2307/3671478

Dellinger JA, Loft ER, Bertram RC, Neal DL, Kenyon MW, and Torres SG. 2018. Seasonal spatial ecology of mountain lions (Puma concolor) in the Central Sierra Nevada. Western North American Naturalist 78:143–156. https://doi.org/10.3398/064.078.0205

Draper J, Rodgers T, and Young JK. 2022. Beating the heat: ecology of desert bobcats. BMC Ecology and Evolution 22:25. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12862-022-01973-3

Donadio E, Novaro AJ, Buskirk SW, Wurstten A, Vitali MS, and Monteverde MJ. 2010. Evaluating a potentially strong trophic interaction: pumas and wild camelids in protected areas of Argentina. Journal of Zoology 280:33–40. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7998.2009.00638.x

Eaton ER, and Kaufman K. 2007. Kaufman field guide to insects of North America. New York (USA): Hillstar Editions.

Elbroch LM, and Kusler A. 2018. Are pumas subordinate carnivores, and does it matter? PeerJ 6:e4293. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.4293

Emmons LH. 1987. Comparative feeding ecology of felids in a neotropical rainforest. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 20:271–283. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00292180

Farias V, Fuller TK, Wayne RK, and Sauvajot RM. 2005. Survival and cause-specific mortality of gray foxes (Urocyon cinereoargenteus) in southern California. Journal of Zoology 266:249–254. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0952836905006850

Farrell LE, Roman J, and Sunquist ME. 2000. Dietary separation of sympatric carnivores identified by molecular analysis of scats. Molecular Ecology 9:1583–1590. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-294x.2000.01037.x

Fedriani JM, Fuller TK, Sauvajot RM, and York EC. 2000. Competition and intraguild predation among three sympatric carnivores. Oecologia 125:258–270. https://doi.org/10.1007/s004420000448

Ferretti F, Lovari S, Lucherini M, Hayward M, and Stephens PA. 2020. Only the largest terrestrial carnivores increase their dietary breadth with increasing prey richness. Mammal Review 50:291–303. https://doi.org/10.1111/mam.12197

Fischer JD, Cleeton SH, Lyons TP, and Miller JR. 2012. Urbanization and the predation paradox: the role of trophic dynamics in structuring vertebrate communities. BioScience 62:809–818. https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2012.62.9.6

Flores-Turdera C, Ayala G, Viscarra M, and Wallace R. 2021. Comparison of big cat food habits in the Amazon piedmont forest in two Bolivian protected areas. Therya 12:75–83.

Foster RJ, Harmsen BJ, Valdes B, Pomilla C, and Doncaster CP. 2010. Food habits of sympatric jaguars and pumas across a gradient of human disturbance. Journal of Zoology 280:309–318. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7998.2009.00663.x

Franck AR, and Farid A. 2020. Many species of the Carnivora consume grass and other fibrous plant tissues. Belgian Journal of Zoology 150:1–70. https://doi.org/10.26496/bjz.2020.73

Gómez-Ortiz Y, Monroy-Vilchis O, Fajardo V, Mendoza GD, and Urios V. 2011. Is food quality important for carnivores? The case of Puma concolor. Animal Biology 61:277–288. https://doi.org/10.1163/157075511X584227

Guerisoli MM, Gallo O, Martínez S, Luengos Vidal EM, and Lucherini M. 2021. Native, exotic, and livestock prey: assessment of puma Puma concolor diet in South American temperate region. Mammal Research 66:33–43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13364-020-00549-0

Handler AM, Lonsdorf EV, and Ardia DR. 2020. Evidence for red fox (Vulpes vulpes) exploitation of anthropogenic food sources along an urbanization gradient using stable isotope analysis. Canadian Journal of Zoology 98:79–87. https://doi.org/10.1139/cjz-2019-0004

Halfpenny JC. 1986. A field guide to mammal tracking in North America. Colorado (USA): Big Earth Publishing.

Hamilton WJ, and Hunter RP. 1939. Fall and winter food habits of Vermont bobcats. The Journal of Wildlife Management 3:99–103. https://doi.org/10.2307/3796351

Hass CC. 2009. Competition and coexistence in sympatric bobcats and pumas. Journal of Zoology 278:174–180. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7998.2009.00565.x

Haswell PM, Kusak J, and Hayward MW. 2017. Large carnivore impacts are context-dependent. Food Webs 12:3–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fooweb.2016.02.005

Hernández Hernández JC. 2015. Factores de coexistencia entre mamíferos carnívoros: ¿segregarse o competir? Elementos 100:47–52.

Hubbard T, Cove MV, Green AM, Iannarilli F, Allen ML, LaRose SH, et al. 2022. Human presence drives bobcat interactions among the U.S. carnivore guild. Biodiversity and Conservation 31:2607–2624. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-022-02445-2

Husseman JS, Murray DL, Power G, Mack C, Wenger CR, and Quigley H. 2003. Assessing differential prey selection patterns between two sympatric large carnivores. Oikos 101:591–601. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0706.2003.12230.x

Iacono PC, Schoenecker KA, Manlove KR, Jackson PJ, and Stoner DC. 2024. Evaluating mountain lion diet before and after a removal of feral horses in a semiarid environment. Ecosphere 15:e4919. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.4919

Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografia. 2021. Conjunto de datos vectoriales de uso del suelo y vegetación. Escala 1:250 000. Serie VII. Conjunto Nacional. Aguascalientes (MEX): Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía (INEGI). https://www.inegi.org.mx/app/biblioteca/ficha.html?upc=889463842781

Iriarte JA, Franklin WL, Johnson WE, and Redford KH. 1990. Biogeographic variation of food habits and body size of the America puma. Oecologia 85:185–190. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00319400

Iriarte JA, Johnson WE, and Franklin WL. 1991. Feeding ecology of the Patagonia puma in southernmost Chile. Revista Chilena De Historia Natural 64:145–156.

Jensen J, and Nolte I. 2008. Intoxications caused by ingestion of garbage in dogs (“garbage intoxication”). Tierärztliche Praxis Ausgabe K: Kleintiere Heimtiere 36:67–72.

Jensen AJ, Muthersbaugh M, Ruth CR, Butfiloski JW, Cantrell J, Adams J, et al. 2024. Resource pulses shape seasonal and individual variation in the diet of an omnivorous carnivore. Ecology and Evolution 14:e11632. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.11632

Khorozyan I, Ghoddousi A, Soofi M, and Waltert M. 2015. Big cats kill more livestock when wild prey reaches a minimum threshold. Biological Conservation 192:268–275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2015.09.031

Koehler GM, and Hornocker MG. 1991. Seasonal resource use among mountain lions, bobcats, and coyotes. Journal of Mammalogy 72:391–396. https://doi.org/10.2307/1382112

Krebs CJ. 1999. Ecological methodology. New York (USA): Harper & Row Publishers.

Krebs CJ, Boutin S, Boonstra R, Sinclair ARE, Smith JNM, Dale MRT, et al. 1995. Impact of food and predation on the snowshoe hare cycle. Science 269:1112–1115. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.269.5227.1112

Larson RN, Brown JL, Karels T, and Riley SPD. 2020. Effects of urbanization on resource use and individual specialization in coyotes (Canis latrans) in southern California. PLoS ONE 15:e0228881. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0228881

Laundré JW, Loredo Salazar J, Hernández L, and Nuñez López D. 2009. Evaluating potential factors affecting puma Puma concolor abundance in the Mexican Chihuahuan Desert. Wildlife Biology 15:207–212. https://doi.org/10.2981/07-077

Landry SM, Roof JE, Rogers RE, Welsh AB, Ryan CW, and Anderson JT. 2022. Dietary patterns suggest West Virginia bobcats are generalist carnivores. Journal of Fish and Wildlife Management 13:447–459. https://doi.org/10.3996/JFWM-22-001

Leberg PL, Carloss MR, Dugas LJ, Pilgrim KL, Mills LS, Green MC, et al. 2004. Recent record of a Cougar (Puma concolor) in Louisiana, with notes on diet, based on analysis of fecal materials. Southeastern Naturalist 3:653–658. https://doi.org/10.1656/1528-7092(2004)003[0653:RROACP]2.0.CO;2

León-Pesqueira L, Gatica-Colima AB, and González-Elizondo MS. 2024. Vascular plants of the Médanos de Samalayuca natural protected area, Chihuahua, Mexico. Botanical Sciences 102:256–272. https://doi.org/10.17129/botsci.3369

Leopold BD, and Krausman PR. 1986. Diets of 3 predators in Big Bend National Park, Texas. The Journal of Wildlife Manage-ment 50:290–295. https://doi.org/10.2307/3801915

Lewis JS, Bailey LL, VandeWoude S, and Crooks KR. 2015. Interspecific interactions between wild felids vary across scales and levels of urbanization. Ecology and Evolution 5:5946–5961. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.1812

Litvaitis JA. 1981. A comparison of coyote and bobcat food habits in the Wichita Mountains, Oklahoma. Proceedings of Oklahoma Academy of Science 61:81–82.

Litvaitis JA, and Harrison DJ. 1989. Bobcat–coyote niche relationships during a period of coyote population increase. Canadian Journal of Zoology 67:1180–1188. https://doi.org/10.1139/z89-170

Logan KA, and Sweanor LL. 2001. Desert Puma: Evolutionary ecology and conservation of an enduring carnivore. California (USA): Island Press.

López-Vidal JC, Elizalde-Arellano C, Hernández L, Laundré JW, González-Romero A, and Cervantes FA. 2014. Foraging of the bobcat (Lynx rufus) in the Chihuahuan Desert: generalist or specialist? The Southwestern Naturalist 59:157–166. https://doi.org/10.1894/F01-CLG-59.1

Luna Soria H, and López González CA. 2005. Abundance and food habits of cougars and bobcats in the Sierra San Luis, Sonora, Mexico. In: Gottfried GJ, Gebow BS, Eskew LG, Edminster CB, compilators. Connecting mountain islands and desert seas: biodiversity and management of the Madrean Archipelago II. Colorado (USA): Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; p. 416–420.

Martínez García JA, Mendoza Martínez GD, Plata FXP, Rosas-Rosas OC, Tarango Arámbula LA, and Bender LC. 2014. Use of prey by sympatric bobcat (Lynx rufus) and coyote (Canis latrans) in the Izta-Popo National Park, Mexico. The Southwestern Naturalist 59:157–162. https://doi.org/10.1894/F02-TAL-56.1

Mazzolli M. 2009. Mountain lion Puma concolor attacks on a maned wolf Chrysocyon brachyurus and a domestic dog in a forestry system. Mastozoología Neotropical 16:465–470.

Mesler JI, and Jones AS. 2022. Feral burros as a mountain lion prey item in west central Arizona. The Southwestern Naturalist 66:338–342. https://doi.org/10.1894/0038-4909-66.4.338

Mckinney T, and Smith TW. 2007. Diets of sympatric bobcats and coyotes during years of varying rainfall in central Arizona. Western North American Naturalist 67:8–15. https://doi.org/10.3398/1527-0904(2007)67[8:DOSBAC]2.0.CO;2

Montalvo V, Sáenz-Bolaños C, Cruz JC, Hagnauer I, and Carrillo E. 2020. Consumption of wild rice (Oryza latifolia) by free-ranging jaguars, pumas, and ocelots (Carnivora-Felidae) in northwestern Costa Rica. Food Webs 22:e00138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fooweb.2019.e00138

Morris JG. 2002. Idiosyncratic nutrient requirements of cats appear to be diet-induced evolutionary adaptations. Nutrition Research Reviews 15:153–168. https://doi.org/10.1079/NRR200238

Palmeira FBL, Trinca CT, and Haddad CM. 2015. Livestock predation by puma (Puma concolor) in the highlands of a southeastern Brazilian Atlantic Forest. Environmental Management 56:903–915. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-015-0562-5

Paraš G, Paraš S, Lukač B, Vitković O, and Čegar I. 2017. Foreign bodies of the body as causes of health disorders in dogs - case report. Veterinarski Žurnal Republike Srpske 17:234–246.

Parsons AW, Rota CT, Forrester T, Baker-Whatton MC, McShea WJ, Schuttler SG, et al. 2019. Urbanization focuses carnivore activity on remaining natural habitats, increasing species interactions. Journal of Applied Ecology 56:1894–1904. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.13385

Pia MV. 2013. Trophic interactions between puma and endemic culpeo fox after livestock removal in the high mountains of central Argentina. Mammalia 77:273–283. https://doi.org/10.1515/mammalia-2012-0096

Pianka ER. 1973. The structure of lizard communities. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 4:53–74.

Pierce BM, Bleich VC, and Bowyer RT. 2000. Selection of mule deer by mountain lions and coyotes: effects of hunting style, body size, and reproductive status. Journal of Mammalogy 81:462–472. https://doi.org/10.1644/1545-1542(2000)081%3C0462:SOMDBM%3E2.0.CO;2

Peña-Mondragón JL, and Castillo A. 2013. Depredación de ganado por jaguar y otros carnívoros en el noreste de México. Therya 4:431–446.

Plaza PI, and Lambertucci SA. 2017. How are garbage dumps impacting vertebrate demography, health, and conservation? Global Ecology and Conservation 12:9–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2017.08.002

Prabhakar S, Singh AK, and Pooni DS. 2012. Effect of environmental pollution on animal and human health: a review. Indian Journal of Animal Sciences 82:244–255.

Prude CH, and Cain III JW. 2021. Habitat diversity influences puma Puma concolor diet in the Chihuahuan Desert. Wildlife Biology 2021:wlb-00875. https://doi.org/10.2981/wlb.00875

Racero-Casarrubia J, Ortiz-Hoyos RD, Hyde M, Argel-Fernández A, and Figel JF. 2024. Predación de jaguares y pumas sobre animales domésticos en el sur del departamento de Córdoba, Colombia. Biota Colombiana 25:e1205. https://doi.org/10.21068/2539200X.1205

Riley SPD, Sikich JA, and Benson JF. 2021. Big cats in the big city: Spatial ecology of mountain lions in greater Los Angeles. The Journal of Wildlife Management 85:1527–1542. https://doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.22127

Robins CW, Kertson BN, Faulkner JR, and Wirsing AJ. 2019. Effects of urbanization on cougar foraging ecology along the wildland-urban gradient of western Washington. Ecosphere 10:e02605. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.2605

Rocha-Mendes F, Mikich SB, Quadros J, and Pedro WA. 2010. Feeding ecology of carnivores (Mammalia, Carnivora) in Atlantic Forest remnants, Southern Brazil. Biota Neotropica 10:21–30. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1676-06032010000400001

Rosas-Rosas OC, Bender LC, and Valdez R. 2008. Jaguar and puma predation on cattle calves in northeastern Sonora, Mexico. Rangeland Ecology Management 61:554–560. https://doi.org/10.2111/08-038.1

Rubalcava‐Castillo FA, Sosa-Ramírez J, Luna-Ruíz JJ, Valdivia-Flores AG, and Íñiguez-Dávalos LI. 2021 Seed dispersal by carnivores in temperate and tropical dry forests. Ecology and Evolution ١١:٣٧٩٤–3807. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.7201

Sánchez‐Cordero V, Stockwell D, Sarkar S, Liu H, Stephens CR, and Giménez J. 2008. Competitive interactions between felid species may limit the southern distribution of bobcats Lynx rufus. Ecography ٣١:٧٥٧–764. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0587.2008.05327.x

Sánchez-González R, Hernández-Saint Martin AD, Rosas-Rosas OC, and García-Chávez J. 2018. Diet and abundance of bobcat (Lynx rufus) in the Potosino-Zacatecano Plateau, Mexico. Therya 9:107–112.

Sanquist M, and Sanquist F. 2002. Wild cats of the world. Chicago (USA): University of Chicago Press.

Sarasola JH, Zanón-Martínez JI, Costán AS, and Ripple WJ. 2016. Hypercarnivorous apex predator could provide ecosystem services by dispersing seeds. Scientific Reports 6:9647. https://doi.org/ 10.1038/srep19647

Siegel S, and Castellan NJ. 1988. Nonparametric statistics for the behavioral sciences. New York (USA): McGraw-Hill.

Sinclair ARE. 2003. Mammal population regulation, keystone processes and ecosystem dynamics. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 358:1729–1740. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2003.1359

Sperry CC. 1933. Autumn food habits of coyotes, a report of progress, 1932. Journal of Mammalogy 14:216–220. https://doi.org/10.2307/1373820

Story JD, Galbraith WJ, and Kitchings JT. 1982. Food habits of bobcats in eastern Tennessee. Journal of the Tennessee Academy of Science 57:29–35.

Suraci JP, Lacey LM, Freeman PT, Stratton A, Kupar C, Sager-Fradkin K, et al. 2025. Puma habitat preferences when moving and feeding predict the potential for human–carnivore conflict in shared landscapes. Ecological Applications 35:e70101. https://doi.org/10.1002/eap.70101

Trevor JT, Seabloom RW, and Allen SH. 1989. Food habits in relation to sex and age of bobcats from southwestern North Dakota. Prairie Naturalist 21:163–168.

Torres-Romero EJ, Espinoza-Medinilla E, and López-Bao JV. 2019. Análisis de ADN fecal para identificar especies de felinos en los Ocotones Chiapas, México. Ecosistemas y Recursos Agropecuarios 6:167–173. https://doi.org/10.19136/era.a6n16.1846

Verbrugghe A, and Hesta M. 2017. Cats and carbohydrates: the carnivore fantasy? Veterinary Sciences 4:55. https://doi.org/10.3390/vetsci4040055

Villepique JT, Pierce BM, Bleich VC, and Bowyer RT. 2011. Diet of cougars (Puma concolor) following a decline in a population of mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus): lack of evidence for switching prey. The Southwestern Naturalist 56:187–192. https://doi.org/10.1894/F07-TAL.1

Witczuk J, Pagacz S, Gliwicz J, and Mills LS. 2015. Niche overlap between sympatric coyotes and bobcats in highlands zones of Olympic Mountains, Washington. Journal of Zoology 297:176–183. https://doi.org/10.1111/jzo.12270

Wroe DM, and Wroe S. 1982. Observation of bobcat predation on bats. Journal of Mammalogy 63:682–683. https://doi.org/10.2307/1380282

Yáñez JL, Cárdenas JC, Gezelle P, and Jaksić M. 1986. Food habits of the southernmost mountain lions (Felis concolor) in South America: natural versus livestocked ranges. Journal of Mammalogy 67:604–606. https://doi.org/10.2307/1381301

Yoshimura H, Qi H, Kikuchi DM, Matsui Y, Fukushima K, Kudo S, et al. 2020. The relationship between plant-eating and hair evacuation in snow leopards (Panthera uncia). PLoS ONE 15:e0236635. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0236635

Yoshimura H, Hirata S, and Kinoshita K. 2021. Plant‐eating carnivores: Multispecies analysis on factors influencing the frequency of plant occurrence in obligate carnivores. Ecology and Evolution 11:10968–10983. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.7885

Associated editor: Alina Gabriela Monroy-Gamboa

Submitted: September ٤, ٢٠٢٥

Reviewed: December ١٥, ٢٠٢٥

Accepted: January ٩, ٢٠٢٦

Published on line: January ٣٠, ٢٠٢٦

Table 1. Frequency of occurrence (FO) and percentage of occurrence (PO) of the diet of puma (Puma concolor) and bobcat (Lynx rufus) in northern Chihuahua, in disturbed (P) and undisturbed environments (NP).

	Puma concolor (n = 23)				Lynx rufus (n = 70)
	P		NP		P		NP
Category/Components	FO	PO	FO	PO	FO	PO	FO	PO
Phylum Arthropoda
Insects	0	0	0	0	1.96	0.46	5.26	1.12
Coleoptera	0	0	0	0	17.65	4.17	10.53	2.25
Cerambycidae	11.11	2.27	0	0	0	0	0.00	0.00
Orthopthera	0	0	0	0	5.88	1.39	0.00	0.00
Solifugae	0	0	0	0	0	0	5.26	1.12
Class Reptilia
Unidentified reptiles	0	0	7.14	1.47	11.76	2.78	10.53	2.25
Sauria	0	0	0	0	1.96	0.46	5.26	1.12
Colubridae	0	0	0	0	0	0	5.26	1.12
Crotalus sp.	0	0	0	0	1.96	0.46	0.00	0.00
Class Aves
Unidentified birds	11.11	2.27	0	0	3.92	0.93	10.53	2.25
Class Mammalia
Antrozous pallidus	0	0	14.29	2.94	0	0	0.00	0.00
Tadarida brasiliensis	0	0	0	0	1.96	0.46	0.00	0.00
Myotis yumanensis	11.11	2.27	0	0	1.96	0.46	0.00	0.00
Eptesicus fuscus	11.11	2.27	7.14	1.47	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00
Notiosorex crawfordii	0	0	0	0	1.96	0.46	0.00	0.00
Canis lupus familiaris	11.11	2.27	0	0	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00
Urocyon cinereoargenteus	0	0	0	0	1.96	0.46	0.00	0.00
Vulpes macrotis	22.22	4.55	7.14	1.47	5.88	1.39	5.26	1.12
Procyon lotor	0	0	7.14	1.47	0.00	0.00	5.26	1.12
Taxidea taxus	0	0	0	0	1.96	0.46	0.00	0.00
Mephitis macroura	0	0	0	0	5.88	1.39	5.26	1.12
Mephitis mephitis	0	0	7.14	1.47	0.00	0.00	5.26	1.12
Conephatus leuconotus	0	0	7.14	1.47	1.96	0.46	0.00	0.00
Antilocapra americana	0	0	7.14	1.47	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00
Odocoileus hemionus	11.11	2.27	28.58	5.89	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00
Sus scrofa	0	0	0	0	7.84	1.85	0.00	0.00
Bos taurus	0	0	14.29	2.94	3.92	0.93	5.26	1.12
Capra aegagrus hircus	0	0	0	0	3.92	0.93	0.00	0.00
Equus caballus	33.33	6.82	0	0	5.88	1.39	0.00	0.00
Cratogeomys castanops	0	0	0	0	1.96	0.46	0.00	0.00
Geomys arenarius	0	0	7.14	1.47	1.96	0.46	0.00	0.00
Dipodomys merriami	33.33	6.82	28.58	5.89	31.37	7.41	52.63	11.24
Dipodomys ordii	33.33	6.82	14.29	2.94	17.65	4.17	15.79	3.37
Dipodomys spectabilis	0	0	0	0	7.84	1.85	5.26	1.12
Chaetodipus baileyi	0	0	0	0	1.96	0.46	5.26	1.12
Chaetodipus eremicus	33.33	6.82	35.71	7.35	9.80	2.31	10.53	2.25
Chaetodipus hispidus	0	0	0	0	5.88	1.39	5.26	1.12
Chaetodipus intermedius	0	0	14.29	2.94	15.69	3.70	15.79	3.37
Perognathus flavescens	0	0	0	0	0.00	0.00	5.26	1.12
Perognathus flavus	0	0	0	0	1.96	0.46	10.53	2.25
Perognathus merriami	0	0	7.14	1.47	1.96	0.46	5.26	1.12
Neotoma albigula	55.56	11.36	50	10.29	43.14	10.18	31.58	6.74
Neotoma mexicana	0	0	0	0	1.96	0.46	0.00	0.00
Neotoma micropus	0	0	0	0	7.84	1.85	5.26	1.12
Onychomys arenicola	0	0	0	0	3.92	0.93	5.26	1.12
Onychomys leucogaster	0	0	0	0	1.96	0.46	10.53	2.25
Peromyscus difficilis	0	0	0	0	3.92	0.93	0.00	0.00
Peromyscus eremicus	33.33	6.82	21.43	4.41	9.8	2.31	10.53	2.25
Peromyscus leucopus	0	0	0	0	3.92	0.93	0.00	0.00
Peromyscus maniculatus	11.11	2.27	28.58	5.89	27.45	6.48	26.32	5.62
Peromyscus truei	0	0	0	0	1.96	0.46	5.26	1.12
Reithrodontomys fulvescens	0	0	7.14	1.47	7.84	1.85	15.79	3.37
Reithrodontomys megalotis	11.11	2.27	7.14	1.47	1.96	0.46	0.00	0.00
Reithrodontomys montanus	0	0	0	0	0	0	5.26	1.12
Sigmodon fulviventer	0	0	0	0	1.96	0.46	5.26	1.12
Sigmodon hispidus	0	0	0	0	3.92	0.93	10.53	2.25
Sigmodon ochrognathus	0	0	0	0	1.96	0.46	0	0
Ammospermophilus interpres	11.11	2.27	7.14	1.47	0	0	0	0
Otospermophilus variegatus	11.11	2.27	7.14	1.47	3.92	0.93	10.53	2.25
Xerospermophilus spilosoma	11.11	2.27	7.14	1.47	7.84	1.85	10.53	2.25
Lepus californicus	44.44	9.09	57.14	11.77	11.76	2.78	36.84	7.87
Sylvilagus audubonii	44.44	9.09	35.71	7.35	19.61	4.63	26.32	5.62
Plant materials
Unidentified plant material	0	0	0	0	23.53	5.56	10.53	2.25
Neltuma glandulosa	11.11	2.27	14.29	2.94	23.53	5.56	21.05	4.49
Poaceae	11.11	2.27	14.29	2.94	9.8	2.31	5.26	1.12
Cactaceae	0.93	0.03	0	0	3.92	0.93	0	0
Carya illinoinensis	0	0	7.14	1.47	0	0	5.26	1.12
Yucca sp.	0	0	7.14	1.47	0	0	0	0
Garbage
Garbage	11.11	2.27	0	0	7.84	1.85	0	0
Total	489.78	100	485.71	100	423.49	100	468.42	100