Inaccurate methods and erroneous conclusions drawn on human-leopard coexistence in India – Response to Puri et al., 2020 “The balancing act: Maintaining leopard–wild prey equilibrium could offer economic benefits to people in a shared forest landscape of central India”

Abstract

Abstract Scientific research requires selection of accurate research methodology to generate evidence based findings. In a study conducted by Puri et al. (2020) titled “The balancing act: Maintaining leopard–wild prey equilibrium could offer economic benefits to people in a shared forest landscape of central India” the authors have reported occupancy estimate of common leopard without incorporating false positive detections. Such results can be highly inaccurate with an error rate of 50–80%. The authors also identified common leopard scats based on morphological attributes through field surveys which have often been critiqued to be erroneous. Morphological compared with molecular identification of leopard scats can have potential error rates which might range between (7–100%) leading to flawed assessment of leopard diet and implications for conserving large carnivores within human-dominated landscapes of South Asia. Evidence based research provides solutions to adopt strategies and aids conservation of endangered wildlife. Results based on inaccurate methods can mislead decision makers and further exaggerate conclusions drawn. Human-leopard conflicts are a major conservation challenge with implications for human wellbeing, livelihoods and large carnivore coexistence within shared landscapes of South Asia. Studies focused on understanding such human-predator interactions should adhere to correct documentation of facts rather than exaggerating falsified information. We further recommend that research based on proper scientific methods be adopted while providing information on large carnivores within human-dominated landscapes.