6256_Therya

The puma, Puma concolor (Linnaeus, 1771), is one of the most widely distributed terrestrial predators in the world, occupying a latitudinal range of over 100 degrees from northern Canada to the southern tip of Chile and Argentina (Iriarte and Jaksic 1986; Iriarte et al. 1990; Nielsen et al. 2025; IUCN 2025). It is a large, solitary felid characterized by a predominantly uniform tawny coat, a long cylindrical tail typically measuring approximately one third of its total body length, rounded ears without prominent tufts, and the absence of rosettes or stripes in adults. These features distinguish it from other felids present in Chile, such as Leopardus guigna and Leopardus colocolo, as well as from medium-sized canids like Lycalopex culpaeus, which differ in cranial morphology, non-retractile claws, and overall body conformation (Iriarte and Jaksic 2012). Across this vast distribution, the species fulfils a key ecological role as an apex predator, influencing herbivore populations and shaping community dynamics through top-down processes (Franklin et al. 1999; Bank et al. 2002).

Beyond its contemporary ecological relevance, P. concolor has been a component of southern South American ecosystems since at least the Late Pleistocene. Fossil remains attributed to the species have been documented in southern Chile, including deposits from Cueva de los Chingues in Pali Aike National Park, Magallanes (San Román et al. 2000). Paleoecological analyses of the Late Pleistocene carnivore guild in southern South America further support the role of large felids, including pumas, as established predators within these ecosystems prior to the Holocene (Prevosti and Vizcaíno 2006). Although paleontological studies fall outside the primary ecological scope of the present review, acknowledging this deep temporal record situates the puma as a longstanding structural component of Chilean ecosystems.

In Chile, P. concolor occurs along a remarkable environmental gradient—from the xeric highlands of the northern Andes to Mediterranean shrublands, temperate forests, and the Patagonian steppe (Wilson 1984; Muñoz-Pedreros et al. 1995; Guzmán-Marín et al. 2023; Ministerio del Medio Ambiente 2024). This ecological plasticity has enabled the species to persist in landscapes under varying degrees of human transformation, including agricultural basins, forestry-dominated areas, and peri-urban environments (Rodríguez et al. 2019; Ramírez-Álvarez et al. 2021).

Despite its broad presence, scientific knowledge of pumas in Chile has historically been fragmented and geographically uneven. Early research, concentrated primarily in the southern regions, focused on predator–prey dynamics with native ungulates, especially guanacos (Lama guanicoe) (Wilson 1984; Iriarte et al. 1991; Rau et al. 1991; Bank et al. 2002). Although foundational, these studies provided limited insights into the ecological variability of pumas across the country. As a result, extensive biogeographic areas—including the central Andes, Mediterranean ecosystems, and the northern highlands—remained largely absent from the scientific record for decades (Zúñiga et al. 2009; Guarda et al. 2017; Dumont et al. 2022).

In the 2000s, methodological innovations began to reshape carnivore ecology globally, including camera trapping, genetic barcoding, stable isotope analysis, and spatially explicit capture–recapture models. These tools gradually permeated Chilean research efforts, enabling new insights into behavior, movement patterns, population density, and genetic structure (Elbroch and Wittmer 2013a; Elbroch et al. 2024). More recently, studies have begun to integrate socio-ecological dimensions, reflecting the growing importance of human–puma interactions in landscapes increasingly shaped by agriculture, livestock production, and urban expansion (Rodríguez et al. 2019; Ramírez-Álvarez et al. 2021; Iranzo et al. 2025). These conflicts—including livestock depredation and sightings near rural or peri-urban homes—have broadened conservation concerns beyond ecological patterns alone.

Although individual studies have yielded important contributions, national knowledge remains dispersed across decades, regions, and thematic domains (Hidalgo et al. 2013; Landaeta-Aqueveque et al. 2015). No comprehensive synthesis has evaluated how research on P. concolor in Chile has evolved over time, which themes have dominated or emerged, how regional biases have shaped the available evidence, or what methodological transitions have influenced scientific perspectives. This gap limits the ability to identify knowledge deficits, prioritize conservation needs, and align Chilean research with global directions in carnivore ecology (Pullin and Stewart 2006; Grant and Booth 2009; Haddaway et al. 2015; Snyder 2019).

This review addresses this gap by conducting the first systematic synthesis of peer-reviewed studies on P. concolor in Chile spanning 45 years (1980–2025). Specifically, we examine (1) the spatial distribution of research effort across administrative regions, (2) thematic patterns and their temporal evolution, (3) changes in publication frequency over time, (4) statistical associations between research topics and historical periods, and (5) major methodological and conceptual transitions. By integrating these dimensions, we provide a comprehensive assessment of the intellectual development of puma research in Chile and propose future directions to strengthen national capacity for conservation and human–puma coexistence.

Material and methods

We conducted a systematic review of peer-reviewed scientific literature on P. concolor in Chile published between 1980 and 2025. This period encompasses the earliest contemporary ecological research on the species within the country and captures 45 years of scientific development, including major methodological and conceptual advances in carnivore ecology.

Although several studies and published accounts referring to P. concolor in Chile predate 1980, these earlier contributions were predominantly descriptive, embedded within broader natural history syntheses, or lacking a specific ecological focus on the species. Peer-reviewed research explicitly addressing ecological questions—such as diet, spatial ecology, population dynamics, or human–wildlife interactions—began to consolidate more consistently from the early 1980s onward. In addition, pre-1980 publications are often inconsistently indexed in major scientific databases, limiting traceability and reproducibility under standardized search protocols. Establishing 1980 as the starting point therefore acknowledges the existence of earlier contributions while defining a temporal boundary aligned with the emergence of contemporary ecological research and standardized scientific publishing in Chile.

Literature search and eligibility criteria. Searches were performed in Scopus, Web of Science, SciELO, Google Scholar, and institutional repositories using combinations of English and Spanish keywords, including Puma concolor, puma, león de montaña, mountain lion, Chile, ecology, diet, behavior, genetics, conflict, coexistence, and conservation. Additional studies were identified through backward and forward citation tracking.

To ensure methodological consistency, we applied strict inclusion criteria. Studies were included if they (1) were published in peer-reviewed journals; (2) focused wholly or partially on pumas within Chile; (3) presented empirical, descriptive, or synthetic contributions related to ecology, behavior, genetics, distribution, health, or human–puma interactions; and (4) provided sufficient information to allow thematic classification. Theses, unpublished reports, government documents, conference abstracts, and other sources of grey literature were excluded because they do not correspond to peer-reviewed scientific literature (Donthu et al. 2021; Moher et al. 2009).

Data extraction and thematic classification. For each publication, we extracted the year of publication, administrative region(s) of study, main research theme, methodology, sample type, analytical approaches, and principal findings. Publications were classified into the following thematic categories: trophic ecology; distribution and density; behavior; health; genetics; human–puma interaction; and historical conservation. A synthesis of all reviewed studies is presented in Table 1.

Temporal and thematic analyses. To evaluate long-term patterns in scientific output, we analyzed (1) annual publication counts, (2) the frequency of research themes, and (3) the temporal distribution of thematic categories across the study period. To examine changes in research focus, studies were grouped into three publication periods reflecting major methodological transitions: 1980–2000, 2001–2015, and 2016–2025. The second categorical variable corresponded to research theme, classified into seven mutually exclusive categories: trophic ecology; distribution and density; behavior; health; genetics; human–puma interaction; and historical conservation. Although some categories had relatively low frequencies, thematic classifications were retained separately to preserve conceptual resolution and accurately reflect the diversification of research topics over time.

To assess whether thematic composition varied across publication periods, we constructed a 3 × 7 contingency table crossing publication period (three levels) with research theme (seven levels). We then applied a chi-square test of independence to evaluate whether thematic distribution was statistically associated with historical period. Expected frequencies were calculated under the null hypothesis that research theme and publication period were independent. Prior to interpretation, we verified that the assumptions of the chi-square test were satisfied. Given the relatively small sample size (n = 34), results were interpreted cautiously and complemented with Correspondence Analysis (CA), which provides a multivariate visualization of associations among categorical variables. To characterize longitudinal thematic trajectories, we also generated temporal trend plots showing annual changes in study themes.

Spatial analysis: Spatial patterns of research effort were assessed by linking each publication to the administrative region(s) addressed in the study. Regional boundaries were obtained from the Natural Earth dataset (level-1 subdivisions), and publication counts were mapped to illustrate the geographic distribution of research effort and identify spatial biases in study representation across Chile. No standardization by regional area, habitat extent, or puma distribution range was applied, as the objective was to describe relative research effort rather than infer proportional sampling intensity.

Statistical environment and reproducibility: All analyses were conducted in R 4.3.1 (R Core Team 2024), using the packages ggplot2 (Wickham 2016), igraph (Csardi and Nepusz 2006), and the tidyverse collection (Wickham et al. 2019). Scripts for data processing, visualization, and statistical analysis are available upon request to ensure full reproducibility (Aria and Cuccurullo 2017).

Limitations and scope of literature inclusion: Because this review aimed to provide a standardized and reproducible synthesis of scientific knowledge, only peer-reviewed publications were included. Grey literature—such as theses, technical reports, environmental impact assessments, governmental documents, monitoring program reports, and non-indexed institutional publications—was deliberately excluded. Although these sources may contain valuable ecological information, their methodological heterogeneity, variable accessibility, and lack of standardized peer-review processes can limit comparability across studies.

Restricting the analysis to peer-reviewed literature ensured consistency in quality control, traceability of sources, bibliographic verification, and analytical standardization. This decision also enhances reproducibility, allowing future researchers to replicate search strategies, update the dataset, and reassess temporal trends under equivalent criteria. Consequently, the knowledge gaps identified in this review reflect gaps within the indexed scientific literature rather than the totality of information that may exist in technical or unpublished formats.

Results

We identified 34 peer-reviewed publications addressing pumas in Chile between 1980 and 2025. The resulting synthesis reveals substantial spatial concentration, thematic evolution, and temporal shifts in research priorities.

Spatial distribution: Research effort was unevenly distributed across Chile. The highest proportion of studies was conducted in central Chile (38%), particularly during the last decade, followed by the Magallanes Region (32%). Studies conducted at a national scale represented 20%, whereas northern ecosystems accounted for only 10% of publications. Despite this recent increase in central Chile, extensive areas of northern and south-central regions remain poorly documented.

Temporal patterns: Publication output remained relatively low and stable during the first two decades (1980–2000), typically averaging one article per year or less. From the mid-2000s onward, publication frequency became more consistent, generally fluctuating between one and two articles annually. Although no abrupt surge is observed, the cumulative growth curve indicates a gradual acceleration in scientific production after 2010, culminating in the highest annual output recorded in 2025 (Figure 1). This pattern reflects progressive consolidation rather than a sudden expansion of research activity.

Thematic patterns: Trophic ecology dominated the literature (13 publications), reflecting Chilean ecology’s early focus on predator–prey interactions. Distribution and density (6), behavior (5), genetics (3), health (3), and human–puma interaction (3) constituted the remaining themes (Figure 2). These patterns show that, while feeding ecology played a foundational role in national puma research, more diverse and multidisciplinary approaches have emerged in the last decade.

Temporal structure of themes: The temporal distribution of thematic categories showed that trophic ecology remains the only theme consistently represented across all decades. Distribution and density studies first appeared in 1995 but remained sporadic during the following decade and became more frequent and methodologically consolidated after 2010. Behavior studies intensified after 2005 and again after 2020, whereas genetics and human–puma interaction emerged almost exclusively in the last decade. Trend analyses further indicated a marked decline in the relative dominance of trophic ecology and a progressive increase in behavioral, spatial, and socio-ecological research (Figure 3).

Period comparison: To evaluate whether the distribution of research themes differed among historical periods, we applied a chi-square test of independence using a 3 × 7 contingency table crossing publication period (1980–2000, 2001–2015, 2016–2025) and research theme (trophic ecology; distribution and density; behavior; health; genetics; human–puma interaction; historical conservation). The test did not detect a statistically significant association between period and research theme (χ² = 20.43, df = 12, p = 0.059). Although the association did not reach the conventional threshold for statistical significance, descriptive patterns indicated temporal clustering in thematic composition. Early studies (1980–2000) were predominantly focused on trophic ecology; the 2001–2015 period incorporated behavioral and health-related perspectives; and the most recent period (2016–2025) showed greater representation of genetics and socio-ecological research themes.

Correspondence Analysis: The Correspondence Analysis revealed clear temporal structuring in thematic composition. The first dimension explained 84.3% of the total inertia, indicating that most variation in research themes across periods is captured along a single dominant axis. The second dimension accounted for 15.7% of the inertia.

The earliest period (1980–2000) was positioned toward the side of the ordination space associated with trophic ecology and historical conservation. The intermediate period (2001–2015) was located closer to behavioral and health-related research themes, reflecting diversification beyond purely ecological approaches. In contrast, the most recent period (2016–2025) was situated near genetics, human–puma interaction, and distribution and density, indicating a shift toward socio-ecological and population-oriented research perspectives.

Overall, the ordination supports a progressive temporal reorganization of research themes, with early ecological emphasis transitioning toward greater thematic diversity and increasing incorporation of human dimensions in recent years (Figure 4).

Discussion

This review reveals a structured and progressive evolution of puma research in Chile over the past four decades, reflecting broader global patterns in large carnivore science. Worldwide, research on apex predators has transitioned from descriptive ecological studies toward increasingly integrative frameworks incorporating spatial modelling, genetics, disease ecology, and human dimensions (Treves and Karanth 2003; Ripple et al. 2014). A similar trajectory is evident in Chile. Although annual publication rates remained relatively modest throughout much of the study period, the thematic breadth of research expanded markedly after 2010, suggesting qualitative diversification rather than purely quantitative growth. This pattern aligns with global shifts in carnivore research, where methodological innovation and conservation urgency have reshaped research priorities (Crooks 2002; Chapron et al. 2014). In addition, increasing human expansion into formerly natural landscapes has intensified interactions between people and large carnivores, generating new research agendas focused on coexistence, conflict mitigation, and human dimensions of conservation (Randa and Yunger 2006; Bombieri et al. 2018).

In addition to broader global trends, the historical concentration of Chilean puma studies in southern regions likely reflects structural and institutional drivers. Ecological research effort commonly clusters around areas with long-term field programs, consolidated protected areas, and sustained logistical support, generating spatially uneven knowledge production (Haddaway et al. 2015; Gusenbauer and Haddaway 2020). In Chile, Patagonia has historically hosted internationally connected conservation initiatives and well-established research networks focused on large mammals, which may have facilitated repeated sampling and multi-year data continuity (Franklin et al. 1999; Bank et al. 2002; Elbroch et al. 2009). Thus, the regional concentration observed in early decades likely reflects research infrastructure and funding continuity rather than intrinsic ecological priority.

Shifts in thematic and methodological focus: The early predominance of trophic ecology in Chilean puma research reflects a combination of logistical feasibility, methodological accessibility, and regional research infrastructure rather than ecological exclusivity of any particular biome. During the 1980s and 1990s, many studies were conducted in southern Chile, particularly in Patagonian landscapes, where open habitats and abundant ungulate prey facilitated diet assessments through scat analysis and carcass inspection. Similar reliance on dietary studies characterized early phases of large carnivore research globally, as predator–prey interactions were more readily quantified than demographic, genetic, or movement parameters (Treves and Karanth 2003). These foundational studies generated important insights into prey selection, seasonal mortality, and predator–prey dynamics. However, their geographic concentration in southern ecosystems inherently constrained the ability to extrapolate findings across Chile’s highly heterogeneous environmental gradient, which includes Mediterranean shrublands, temperate forests, high-Andean plateaus, and arid northern systems.

Importantly, the historical prominence of Patagonian systems in the literature should not be interpreted as ecological centrality of these landscapes for P. concolor in Chile. Most studies relied on indirect methodologies—including camera trapping, scat analysis, carcass inspection, and genetic sampling—rather than direct visual observation. In open southern environments, ecological evidence such as kills, tracks, and scats may have been more detectable, facilitating early research implementation. This pattern reflects detectability and logistical continuity of long-term field programs rather than greater biological importance of southern populations. Given the pronounced biogeographic diversity of Chile, extrapolating ecological patterns derived primarily from Patagonian systems may obscure region-specific dynamics operating in central and northern ecosystems, including variation in prey assemblages, habitat use, population density, movement ecology, and the intensity and form of human–puma interactions.

Beginning in the 2000s, Chilean puma research under-went a methodological transition consistent with broader developments in carnivore ecology. The incorporation of camera trapping, telemetry, and spatially explicit analytical frameworks expanded the scope of inquiry beyond diet-based studies. Advances in spatial capture–recapture models and individual tracking transformed large carnivore monitoring worldwide, enabling robust density estimation and movement analyses (Kelly et al. 2012; Royle et al. 2014). In Chile, these approaches produced the first standardized density estimates for both central and southern regions and documented dispersal movements and spatial behavior under varying degrees of anthropogenic influence. More recently, genetic analyses have begun to clarify patterns of population structure and connectivity, aligning with global recognition that molecular tools are essential for evaluating fragmentation and long-term demographic viability (Crooks 2002; Frankham 2005).

The emergence of health-related and socio-ecological studies during the last decade further reflects a shift toward interdisciplinary conservation science. As pumas increasingly overlap with livestock systems, forestry landscapes, and peri-urban environments, research attention has expanded to include pathogen transmission, livestock depredation, human perception, and coexistence dynamics (Treves et al. 2006; Ripple et al. 2014). In Chile, documented cases of zoonotic parasites and spatial concentration of conflicts illustrate this diversification of thematic focus. Nevertheless, despite increasing breadth, several methodological and geographic gaps persist.

Telemetry remains comparatively limited relative to its demonstrated value for understanding movement ecology, habitat selection, survival, and behavioral responses to anthropogenic disturbance (Logan and Sweanor 2001; Elbroch and Wittmer 2013b). The scarcity of long-term monitoring frameworks similarly constrains robust demographic inference. Globally, sustained multi-year telemetry programs have been central to evaluating carnivore recovery, dispersal dynamics, survival rates, and population viability (Chapron et al. 2014). In Chile, however, comparable longitudinal datasets remain rare, limiting the ability to assess population trajectories, climate-related responses, and functional connectivity across heterogeneous landscapes—an approach that has proven critical for understanding large carnivore population dynamics elsewhere (Chapron et al. 2014).

Long-term telemetry has been extensively developed in North American puma populations, where multi-decadal collaring programs have generated comprehensive demographic and behavioral datasets (Logan and Sweanor 2001). These programs have provided foundational insights into survival, dispersal, habitat selection, and landscape-scale ecological processes.

The limited implementation of telemetry in Chile should therefore be interpreted within a broader continental context rather than as an isolated national shortcoming. Across much of Latin America, capture-based monitoring of large carnivores remains comparatively limited and often project-dependent. Telemetry requires specialized capture teams, veterinary supervision, long-term permits, and sustained financial support—conditions that are frequently difficult to maintain in South American research systems. As a result, non-invasive approaches such as camera trapping and genetic sampling have become more accessible and scalable alternatives (Kelly et al. 2012; Royle et al. 2014). Consequently, the relatively low representation of telemetry-based studies in Chile reflects broader structural constraints in regional research capacity. Expanding long-term telemetry programs would nonetheless substantially strengthen national capacity to evaluate demographic trends, ecological connectivity, and adaptive responses to ongoing landscape transformation.

Spatial bias and its implications: Research effort on P. concolor in Chile remains unevenly distributed across regions. Although central Chile currently accounts for the largest proportion of peer-reviewed studies, the Austral region—particularly Patagonia—historically concentrated research activity during the early decades. Geographic bias is not unique to Chile; systematic reviews in ecology consistently reveal clustering of research in accessible or institutionally supported regions (Haddaway et al. 2015; Gusenbauer and Haddaway 2020). In the Chilean context, long-standing research programs within protected Patagonian landscapes, together with sustained international collaborations, likely facilitated multi-year field continuity and repeated sampling.

Importantly, this historical concentration should not be interpreted as reflecting greater biological centrality or direct visibility of pumas in southern ecosystems. Most Chilean studies have relied on indirect methodologies—including scat analysis for dietary reconstruction, genetic identification from fecal samples (barcoding), carcass inspection, and camera trapping for detection and density estimation—rather than direct visual encounters. In open southern landscapes, early research feasibility was likely enhanced by greater detectability of ecological evidence (e.g., prey remains, tracks, and scats) and improved camera-trap performance in structurally simple habitats. Thus, the spatial pattern observed reflects detectability and institutional continuity rather than intrinsic ecological priority.

Northern Chile, by contrast, remains comparatively underrepresented despite its distinctive high-Andean and arid ecological conditions. Differences in prey assemblages, pastoral systems, climatic variability, and habitat structure suggest that puma ecology in these environments may differ substantially from patterns described in southern systems. However, the limited research effort in northern regions cannot be attributed solely to ecological variation. High-Andean and desert landscapes impose substantial logistical constraints, including seasonal inaccessibility, extreme environmental conditions, elevated field costs, and low infrastructure density, all of which can restrict sustained monitoring. Furthermore, pastoralist land-use systems and dispersed property regimes may complicate research access relative to regions characterized by large, consolidated protected areas.

Such structural conditions likely contributed to the delayed emergence of systematic research in northern ecosystems. Spatially biased research coverage can obscure national-scale patterns of connectivity, demographic resilience, and adaptive responses, particularly for wide-ranging carnivores whose conservation depends on landscape-level processes (Crooks 2002; Ripple et al. 2014). Extrapolating ecological patterns derived primarily from southern populations may therefore mask important regional dynamics. Future comparative analyses explicitly evaluating research effort relative to accessibility, institutional presence, or estimated regional densities would help disentangle ecological from structural drivers of spatial research bias and strengthen geographically representative conservation planning.

Knowledge gaps and future directions: The synthesis identifies several priority areas for future research. First, expanded geographic sampling is necessary to address uneven coverage and to evaluate ecological variation across Chile’s diverse biomes. Second, greater integration of telemetry and spatial modelling would strengthen understanding of dispersal, habitat connectivity, and behavioral plasticity under fragmentation pressures (Logan and Sweanor 2001; Royle et al. 2014). Third, broader genetic monitoring is required to assess population structure and potential isolation, particularly in regions experiencing rapid land-use change (Frankham 2005).

Disease ecology represents another critical frontier. Increasing interaction between domestic animals and wildlife elevates opportunities for cross-species pathogen transmission, a phenomenon widely documented in carnivore systems worldwide (Bevins et al. 2012; Foley et al. 2013; Escobar et al. 2022). In Chile, confirmed records of Trichinella infection highlight the relevance of integrating epidemiological surveillance into carnivore research. Beyond these cases, evidence from other regions demonstrates exposure of pumas to pathogens commonly associated with domestic carnivores, including feline retroviruses such as Feline Leukemia Virus and Feline Immunodeficiency Virus (Biek et al. 2006; Brown et al. 2008), as well as associations between domestic animal proximity and pathogen exposure risk (Foley et al. 2013). Multi-host parasites such as Toxoplasma gondii represent additional ecological and public health concerns in felid systems (Hatam-Nahavandi et al. 2021), and emerging panzootics such as sarcoptic mange further illustrate the permeability of wildlife–domestic interfaces (Escobar et al. 2022). Although systematic epidemiological monitoring of Chilean puma populations remains limited, increasing overlap among wildlife, livestock, and free-ranging domestic carnivores underscores the need to integrate disease ecology into national research agendas under a One Health framework.

Finally, socio-ecological research must continue to expand. Perception-driven conflict can persist independently of ecological indicators, as demonstrated in multiple carnivore systems (Treves et al. 2006). Understanding how fear, economic vulnerability, and cultural narratives shape coexistence outcomes is essential for designing effective management interventions.

Broader conservation implications: Taken together, these findings indicate that Chile’s puma populations exhibit ecological adaptability across diverse habitats yet remain insufficiently studied to support a fully integrated and spatially representative national conservation strategy. Apex predators exert disproportionate influences on ecosystem structure and trophic regulation (Ripple et al. 2014), and incomplete understanding of their spatial ecology, demographic processes, and landscape connectivity may limit effective long-term management. Although the diversification of research themes since 2010 reflects substantial scientific progress, persistent gaps remain in long-term monitoring, northern geographic representation, telemetry-based studies, and interdisciplinary integration.

At the same time, four decades of research have generated a substantial foundation of knowledge. Chilean studies have elucidated key aspects of trophic ecology, produced regional density estimates, documented movement patterns and dispersal events, identified emerging health risks, and increasingly incorporated socio-ecological dimensions of human–puma interactions. This cumulative body of work demonstrates a clear maturation of puma research in Chile, evolving from predominantly localized ecological descriptions toward more integrative, conservation-oriented and multidisciplinary frameworks.

Strengthening national conservation capacity will require coordinated efforts that link ecological monitoring, genetic surveillance, epidemiology, and social science within a coherent long-term strategy. As Chile continues to experience rapid land-use transformation, infrastructure expansion, and intensifying human–wildlife interfaces, maintaining functional connectivity across heterogeneous landscapes will become progressively more critical (Crooks 2002). By synthesizing four and a half decades of research, this review provides both a retrospective evaluation of scientific development and a forward-looking framework to guide future research and management. Consolidating methodological advances while addressing remaining spatial and thematic gaps will be essential for advancing robust, evidence-based conservation of P. concolor in Chile.

Acknowledgements

We thank colleagues and field researchers who contributed valuable insights into the history of puma research in Chile. We also acknowledge constructive discussions with conservation practitioners and wildlife managers who helped contextualize the findings of this review. JL acknowledges institutional support from Universidad Bernardo O’Higgins. This study received no external funding.

Declaration of artificial intelligence use

This manuscript used artificial intelligence tools (ChatGPT) exclusively to assist with linguistic editing, text refinement, and verification of internal coherence. All ideas, study design, analyses, interpretations, and conclusions are solely the responsibility of the authors.
The authors thoroughly reviewed and corrected all content generated or suggested by AI to prevent errors, biases, or inaccuracies. No data, results, or scientific evidence were created using AI, in full compliance with the ethical standards of Therya.

Author contributions

Jorge Leichtle conceived the study, designed the review protocol, compiled and classified the literature, conducted the statistical analyses, generated the figures, and led the writing of the manuscript. Cristián Larraguibel-González contributed to study design, validated thematic classifications, supported interpretation of temporal and spatial patterns, and performed critical revisions that substantially improved the structure and clarity of the manuscript.
Both authors approved the final submitted version and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work.

Data availability

All data matrices and R scripts used to perform classification, statistical analyses, and figure generation are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request. The dataset includes study metadata, thematic categories, regional assignments, temporal classifications, and analysis scripts (R 4.3.1).

Literature cited

Aria M, and Cuccurullo C. 2017. Bibliometrix: an R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis. Journal of Informetrics 11:959–975. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2017.08.007

Bank MS, Sarno RJ, Campbell NK, and Franklin WL. 2002. Predation of guanacos (Lama guanicoe) by southernmost mountain lions (Puma concolor) during a historically severe winter in Torres del Paine National Park, Chile. Journal of Zoology 258:215–222. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0952836902001334

Bevins SN, Carver S, Boydston EE, Lyren LM, Alldredge M, Logan KA, et al. 2012. Three pathogens in sympatric populations of pumas, bobcats, and domestic cats: implications for infectious disease transmission. PLOS One 7:e31403. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0031403

Biek R, Ruth TK, Murphy KM, Anderson CR Jr, Johnson M, DeSimone R, et al. 2006. Factors associated with pathogen seroprevalence and infection in Rocky Mountain cougars. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 42:606–615. https://doi.org/10.7589/0090-3558-42.3.606

Bombieri G, Delgado MM, Russo LF, Garrote PJ, López-Bao JV, and Fedriani JM, et al. 2018. Patterns of wild carnivore attacks on humans in urban areas. Scientific Reports 8:17728. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-36034-7

Borrero LA, Martín FM, and Vargas J. 2005. Tafonomía de la interacción entre pumas y guanacos en el Parque Nacional Torres del Paine, Chile. Magallania 33:95–114. http://dx.doi.org/10.4067/S0718-22442005000100007

Brown MA, Cunningham MW, Roca AL, Troyer JL, Johnson WE, and O’Brien SJ. 2008. Genetic characterization of feline leukemia virus from Florida panthers. Emerging Infectious Diseases 14:252–259. https://doi.org/10.3201/eid1402.070981

Calvo J, and Skewes O. 2025. Diversidad y abundancia de mesomamíferos en un bosque de araucaria (Araucaria araucana) en el Parque Nacional Villarrica, Región de la Araucanía, Chile. Boletín del Museo Nacional de Historia Natural 74:5–19. https://doi.org/10.54830/bmnhn.v74.n2.2025.963

Chapron G, Kaczensky P, Linnell JDC, von Arx M, Huber D, Andrén H, et al. 2014. Recovery of large carnivores in Europe’s modern human-dominated landscapes. Science 346:1517–1519. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1257553

Crooks KR. 2002. Relative sensitivities of mammalian carnivores to habitat fragmentation. Conservation Biology 16:488–502. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.2002.00386.x

Csardi G, and Nepusz T. 2006. The igraph software package for complex network research. InterJournal, Complex Systems 1695. https://igraph.org

Donthu N, Kumar S, Mukherjee D, Pandey N, and Lim WM. 2021. How to conduct a bibliometric analysis: an overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research 133:285–296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.04.070

Dumont A, de Aguilera-Díaz NO, Politis VZ, Urrutia ÍG, and Guzmán-Marín BC. 2022. Primer registro de puma (Puma concolor) en la comuna de Putaendo, Región de Valparaíso, Chile. Revista Mexicana de Mastozoología (Nueva Época) 12:55–62. https://doi.org/10.22201/ie.20074484e.2022.12.1.345

Echeverry DM, Santodomingo AMS, Thomas RS, González-Ugás J, Oyarzún-Ruiz P, and Landaeta-Aqueveque C. 2021. Trichinella spiralis in a cougar (Puma concolor) hunted by poachers in Chile. Brazilian Journal of Veterinary Parasitology 30:e002821. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1984-29612021033

Elbroch LM, Weckworth BV, Pilgrim K, Ohrens O, Lagos N, Arroyo-Arce S, et al. 2024. An initial genetic assessment of the emblematic pumas of the Torres del Paine UNESCO Biosphere Reserve. Diversity 16:581. https://doi.org/10.3390/d16090581

Elbroch LM, and Wittmer HU. 2013a. Nuisance ecology: do scavenging condors exact foraging costs on pumas in Patagonia? PLOS One 8:e53595. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0053595

Elbroch LM, and Wittmer HU. 2013b. The effects of puma prey selection and specialization on less abundant prey in Patagonia. Journal of Mammalogy 94:259–268. https://doi.org/10.1644/12-MAMM-A-041.1

Elbroch LM, Wittmer HU, Saucedo C, and Corti P. 2009. Long-distance dispersal of a male puma (Puma concolor puma) in Patagonia. Revista Chilena de Historia Natural 82:459–461. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0716-078X2009000300011

Escobar LE, Carver S, Cross PC, Rossi L, Almberg ES, Yabsley MJ, et al. 2022. Sarcoptic mange: an emerging panzootic in wildlife. Transboundary and Emerging Diseases 69:927–942. https://doi.org/10.1111/tbed.14082

Foley JE, Swift P, Fleer KA, Torres S, Girard YA, and Johnson CK. 2013. Risk factors for exposure to feline pathogens in California mountain lions (Puma concolor). Journal of Wildlife Diseases 49:279–293. https://doi.org/10.7589/2012-08-205

Frankham R. 2005. Genetics and extinction. Biological Conservation 126:131–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2005.05.002

Franklin WL, Johnson WE, Sarno RJ, and Iriarte JA. 1999. Ecology of the Patagonia puma (Felis concolor patagonica) in southern Chile. Biological Conservation 90:33–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0006-3207(99)00008-7

Grant MJ, and Booth A. 2009. A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information and Libraries Journal 26:91–108. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x

Guarda N, Gálvez N, Leichtle J, Osorio C, and Bonacic C. 2017. Puma (Puma concolor) density estimation in the Mediterranean Andes of Chile. Oryx 51:263–267. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605315001301

Gusenbauer M, and Haddaway NR. 2020. Which academic search systems are suitable for systematic reviews or meta-analyses? Evaluating retrieval qualities of Google Scholar, PubMed, and 26 other resources. Research Synthesis Methods 11:181–217. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1378

Guzmán-Aguayo L, Silva JP, and Muñoz AA. 2025. Temporal activity patterns of tourists and pumas (Puma concolor) in public areas in the Patagonia National Park, Chile. Wildlife Biology 2025:e01396. https://doi.org/10.1002/wlb3.01396

Guzmán-Marín BC, Hernández-Hernández JC, Silva-Henríquez C, Garrido-Hernández JA, Olmos de Aguilera NS, and Dumont A. 2023. Registros de puma (Puma concolor) y gato andino (Leopardus jacobita) en la zona central de Chile. Revista Mexicana de Mastozoología (Nueva Época) 13:77–90. https://doi.org/10.22201/ie.20074484e.2023.13.1.378

Haddaway NR, Woodcock P, Macura B, and Collins A. 2015. Making literature reviews more reliable through application of lessons from systematic reviews. Conservation Biology 29:1596–1605. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12541

Hatam-Nahavandi K, Calero-Bernal R, Rahimi MT, Pagheh AS, Zarean M, Dezhkam A, et al. 2021. Toxoplasma gondii infection in domestic and wild felids as public health concerns: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Scientific Reports 11:9509. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-89031-8

Hidalgo A, Oberg D, Fonseca-Salamanca CA, and Vidal MF. 2013. Report of the first finding of puma (Puma concolor puma) infected with Trichinella sp. in Chile. Archivos de Medicina Veterinaria 45:203–206. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0301-732X2013000200013

Iranzo EC, Ohrens O, Mata C, Traba J, Acebes P, González BA, et al. 2025. More pumas (Puma concolor) does not change perceptions: the mismatched response of ranchers to the presence of a top carnivore. People and Nature 7:611–630. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.70018

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

Iriarte JA, and Jaksic FM. 1986. The fur trade in Chile: an overview of seventy-five years of export data (1910–1984). Biological Conservation 38:243–253. https://doi.org/10.1016/0006-3207(86)90124-2

Iriarte JA, and Jaksic FM. 2012. Los carnívoros de Chile. Santiago (CHL): Ediciones Flora and Fauna Chile.

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.

IUCN. 2025. Puma concolor. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. [Accessed November 15th, 2025]. https://www.iucnredlist.org

Jaksic FM, and Simonetti JA. 1987. Predator/prey relationships among terrestrial vertebrates: an exhaustive review of studies conducted in southern South America. Revista Chilena de Historia Natural 60:221–244.

Kelly MJ, Betsch JL, Wultsch C, and Harmsen BJ. 2012. Noninvasive sampling for carnivores. In: Boitani L, and Powell RA, editors. Carnivore ecology and conservation: a handbook of techniques. New York (EEUU): Oxford University Press; p. 47–69.

Landaeta-Aqueveque C, Krivokapich S, Gatti GM, Prous CG, Rivera-Bückle V, Martin N, et al. 2015. Trichinella spiralis parasitizing Puma concolor: first record in wildlife in Chile. Helminthologia 52:360. https://doi.org/10.1515/helmin-2015-0057

Leichtle J, and Bonacic C. 2025a. Unraveling the ecological interactions: exploring prey selection and human–wildlife conflicts in the diet of pumas (Puma concolor) in the highlands of the Tarapacá Region, Chile. Caldasia 47:e115971. https://doi.org/10.15446/caldasia.v47.115971

Leichtle J, and Bonacic C. 2025b. Density, activity patterns, and habitat selection of pumas (Puma concolor) in the high Andean plateau of the Tarapacá Region, northern Chile. Therya Notes 6:163–167. https://doi.org/10.12933/therya_notes-25-215

Leichtle J, Osorio C, and Valenzuela J. 2016. Revisión de las subespecies de Puma concolor presentes en Chile en base a información proveniente de áreas silvestres protegidas del país. Biodiversidata 4:61–66.

Linnaeus C. 1771. Mantissa plantarum altera. Stockholm (SWE): Laurentii Salvii.

Logan KA, and Sweanor LL. 2001. Desert puma: evolutionary ecology and conservation of an enduring carnivore. Washington (EEUU): Island Press.

Mac Allister ME, Figueroa C, Mazzei R, Tintorelli R, Acosta D, Gallo O, et al. 2024. Genetic diversity and diversification patterns of puma (Puma concolor) populations in the southern end of the species distribution. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution 12:1436320. https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2024.1436320

Ministerio del Medio Ambiente. 2024. Listado de especies clasificadas desde el 1º al 19º proceso de clasificación RCE. Santiago (CHL): Gobierno de Chile.

Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, and Altman DG. 2009. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLOS Medicine 6:e1000097. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097

Muñoz-Pedreros A, Rau JR, and Yáñez J. 1995. Densidad relativa de pumas (Felis concolor) en un agroecosistema forestal del sur de Chile. Revista Chilena de Historia Natural 68:501–507.

Nielsen C, Thompson D, and Kelly M. 2015. Puma concolor. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2015:eT18868A97216466. https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/18868/97216466. Accessed 27 November 2025.

Osorio C, Muñoz A, Guarda N, Bonacic C, and Kelly MJ. 2020. Exotic prey facilitate coexistence between pumas and culpeo foxes in the Andes of central Chile. Diversity 12:317. https://doi.org/10.3390/d12090317

Prevosti FJ, and Vizcaíno SF. 2006. Paleoecology of the large carnivore guild from the Late Pleistocene of Argentina. Acta Palaeontologica Polonica 51:407–422.

Pullin AS, and Stewart GB. 2006. Guidelines for systematic review in conservation and environmental management. Conservation Biology 20:1647–1656. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00485.x

R Core Team. 2024. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.r-project.org/

Ramírez-Álvarez D, Napolitano C, and Salgado I. 2021. Puma (Puma concolor) in the neighborhood? Records near human settlements and insights into human–carnivore coexistence in central Chile. Animals 11:965. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11040965

Randa LA, and Yunger JA. 2006. Carnivore occurrence along an urban–rural gradient: a landscape-level analysis. Journal of Mammalogy 87:1154–1164. https://doi.org/10.1644/05-MAMM-A-224R2.1

Rau JR, and Jiménez JE. 2002. Diet of puma (Puma concolor, Carnivora: Felidae) in coastal and Andean ranges of southern Chile. Studies on Neotropical Fauna and Environment 37:201–205. https://doi.org/10.1076/snfe.37.3.201.8567

Rau JR, Tilleria MS, and Martínez DR. 1991. Dieta de Felis concolor (Carnivora: Felidae) en áreas silvestres protegidas del sur de Chile. Revista Chilena de Historia Natural 64:139–144.

Ripple WJ, Estes JA, Beschta RL, Wilmers CC, Ritchie EG, Hebblewhite M, et al. 2014. Status and ecological effects of the world’s largest carnivores. Science 343:1241484. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1241484

Rodríguez V, Poo-Muñoz DA, Escobar LE, Astorga F, and Medina-Vogel G. 2019. Carnivore–livestock conflicts in Chile. Human–Wildlife Interactions 13:50–62.

Rodríguez-Arancibia J, and Escobar MA. 2023. Registro de puma (Puma concolor) en sitio prioritario de conservación de la biodiversidad Los Molles–Pichidangui, región de Valparaíso. Gayana (Concepción) 87:205–209. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0717-65382023000200205

Royle JA, Chandler RB, Sollmann R, and Gardner B. 2014. Spatial capture–recapture. Academic Press, London, UK.

San Román M, Morello F, and Prieto A. 2000. Cueva de los Chingues (Parque Nacional Pali Aike), Magallanes, Chile: historia natural y cultural I. Anales del Instituto de la Patagonia 28:125–146.

Skewes O, Moraga CA, Arriagada P, and Rau JR. 2012. El jabalí europeo (Sus scrofa): un invasor biológico como presa reciente del puma (Puma concolor) en el sur de Chile. Revista Chilena de Historia Natural 85:227–232. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0716-078X2012000200009

Snyder H. 2019. Literature review as a research methodology: an overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research 104:333–339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.07.039

Treves A, and Karanth KU. 2003. Human–carnivore conflict and perspectives on carnivore management worldwide. Conservation Biology 17:1491–1499. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2003.00059.x

Treves A, Wallace RB, Naughton-Treves S, and Morales A. 2006. Co-managing human–wildlife conflicts: a review. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 11:383–396. https://doi.org/10.1080/10871200600984265

Wickham H. 2016. ggplot2: elegant graphics for data analysis. Springer-Verlag, New York, USA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24277-4

Wickham H, Averick M, Bryan J, Chang W, D’Agostino McGowan L, et al. 2019. Welcome to the tidyverse. Journal of Open Source Software 4:1686. https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01686

Wilson P. 1984. Puma predation on guanacos in Torres del Paine National Park, Chile. Mammalia 48:515–522. https://doi.org/10.1515/mamm.1984.48.4.515

Zúñiga AH, Muñoz-Pedreros A, and Fierro A. 2009. Uso de hábitat de cuatro carnívoros terrestres en el sur de Chile. Gayana 73:200–208. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0717-65382009000200004

Zúñiga AH, and Muñoz-Pedreros A. 2014. Hábitos alimentarios de Puma concolor (Carnivora: Felidae) en bosques fragmentados del sur de Chile. Mastozoología Neotropical 21:157–161.

Associated editor: Cintya Segura Trujillo

Submitted: December 8, 2025

Reviewed: February 24, 2026

Accepted: March 10, 2026

Published online: March 24, 2026

Table 1. Peer-reviewed studies on Puma concolor conducted in Chile between 1984 and 2025. For each study, we summarize the primary research topic, methodological approach, the specific knowledge gap addressed regarding puma ecology, population dynamics, health, genetics, behavior, or human interaction, and the principal findings directly related to the species. The column “Knowledge gap addressed by the study” refers explicitly to the research question or informational deficiency concerning Puma concolor that motivated the study at the time of publication, rather than to general limitations in wildlife research or other taxa. “Main findings” summarize the key results as they pertain specifically to puma biology, conservation, or management within the Chilean context. This structure allows direct correspondence between the research gap identified and the contribution made by each study to advancing knowledge of the species.

ID	Year	Authors	Region	Main topic	Methodology	Knowledge gap addressed by the study	Main findings
1	1984	Wilson	Austral	Community ecology	Telemetry	Lack of quantitative data on puma predation patterns and seasonal effects on guanaco populations	Puma predation increased winter mortality of female guanacos
2	1986	Iriarte and Jaksic	National	Historical conservation	Secondary data	Lack of historical assessment of human exploitation affecting puma populations	Fur trade records revealed strong historical hunting pressure on pumas
3	1987	Jaksic and Simonetti	Southern Cone	Community ecology	Literature review	Lack of synthesis of predator–prey interactions involving pumas in southern South America	Puma research primarily focused on mammalian prey; taxonomic bias identified
4	1990	Iriarte et al.	Americas	Community ecology	Comparative analysis	Lack of standardized dietary comparisons across regions for pumas	Significant regional variation in puma diet
5	1991	Rau et al.	South	Community ecology	Fecal analysis	Limited dietary data for pumas in southern Chile	Diet dominated by guanacos and European hares
6	1991	Iriarte et al.	Austral	Community ecology	Fecal analysis	Lack of interannual dietary studies for pumas	Hare (50%) and guanaco (32%) dominated diet
7	1995	Muñoz-Pedreros et al.	South	Distribution and density	Camera trapping	Lack of puma occurrence data in temperate forest habitats	Low densities detected in forested areas
8	1999	Franklin et al.	Austral	Community ecology	Telemetry	Lack of demographic and density estimates for Neotropical puma populations	Estimated density: 1 puma per 17 km²
9	2002	Rau and Jiménez	South	Community ecology	Fecal analysis	Lack of temporal dietary comparisons between ranges	Dietary differences observed across study areas
10	2002	Bank et al.	Austral	Community ecology	Carcass analysis	Limited understanding of puma predation impact under extreme climatic conditions	74% of guanaco deaths attributed to pumas
11	2005	Borrero et al.	Austral	Behavioral ecology	Carcass analysis	Lack of understanding of carcass use and abandonment patterns	Pumas partially abandoned carcasses, influencing scavenger dynamics
12	2009	Zúñiga et al.	South	Behavior	Camera trapping	Limited knowledge of puma response to habitat fragmentation	Forest plantations used as habitat
13	2009	Elbroch et al.	Austral	Behavior	Telemetry	Lack of dispersal and long-distance movement data	Movements exceeding 100 km documented
14	2012	Skewes et al.	South	Community ecology	Fecal analysis	Lack of information on invasive prey incorporation into puma diet	First record of wild boar in diet
15	2013b	Elbroch and Wittmer	Austral	Distribution and density	Telemetry	Lack of density estimates in open Patagonian habitats	Density estimated at 3.4 ind / 100 km²
16	2013	Hidalgo et al.	National	Health	Fecal analysis	Lack of sanitary data for Chilean pumas	First record of Trichinella infection
17	2014	Zúñiga and Muñoz-Pedreros	South	Community ecology	Fecal analysis	Limited data on dietary adaptation to altered habitats	Diet included pudú, rabbit, coypu
18	2015	Landaeta-Aqueveque et al.	National	Health	Comparative study	Limited understanding of zoonotic parasite transmission involving pumas	Domestic mammals identified as potential transmission vectors
19	2016	Leichtle et al.	National	Genetics	Morphogenetic review	Lack of taxonomic clarity within Chilean puma populations	Proposed north–south subspecific differentiation
20	2016	Guarda et al.	Central	Distribution and density	Camera trapping	Lack of density data in central Chile	Density estimated at 0.74–0.83 ind / 100 km²
21	2019	Rodríguez et al.	National	Human–puma interaction	Literature review	Lack of spatial evaluation of conflict distribution	91% of conflicts concentrated in 18 municipalities
22	2020	Osorio et al.	Central	Community ecology	Comparative study	Limited understanding of interspecific interactions in altered ecosystems	Puma–culpeo coexistence documented
23	2021	Echeverry et al.	National	Health	DNA analysis	Lack of updated zoonotic parasite confirmation in pumas	Confirmed T. spiralis in poached puma
24	2021	Ramírez-Álvarez et al.	Central	Human–puma interaction	Telemetry	Lack of data on puma movement near urban settlements	Low densities recorded near human settlements
25	2022	Dumont et al.	Central	Distribution and density	Camera trapping	Lack of coastal occurrence records	First documented record in Putaendo
26	2023	Guzmán-Marín et al.	Central	Distribution and density	Camera trapping	Limited understanding of connectivity under fragmentation	Range extension of 170 km documented
27	2023	Rodríguez-Arancibia and Escobar	Central	Distribution and density	Camera trapping	Lack of coastal-edge occurrence data	First record at coastal edge
28	2024	Elbroch et al.	Austral	Genetics	DNA analysis	Lack of genetic monitoring in southern populations	Low evidence of inbreeding detected
29	2024	Mac Allister et al.	Austral	Genetics	DNA analysis	Limited knowledge of population structure in southern extreme	Unique genetic diversification documented
30	2025a	Leichtle and Bonacic	Northern	Population ecology	Camera trapping; modeling	Lack of ecological data for northern Andean pumas	Lowest densities; nocturnal activity; preference for high-Andean shrublands
31	2025b	Leichtle and Bonacic	Northern	Trophic ecology	Fecal analysis	Lack of trophic studies for northern Andes	Diet dominated by wild artiodactyls; conflict linked to pastoral change
32	2025	Guzmán-Aguayo et al.	Austral	Behavior	Camera trapping	Limited data on behavioral responses to tourism	Temporal avoidance of high-use trails
33	2025	Iranzo et al.	Austral	Human–puma interaction	Interviews; modeling	Lack of integration between ecological data and human perception	Fear persisted despite stable ecological indicators
34	2025	Calvo and Skewes	South-central	Community ecology	Camera trapping	Scarce data in Araucaria forest ecosystems	Puma detected at low frequency