Abstract: Declining prey populations are widely recognized as a primary threat to snow leopard (Panthera
uncia) populations throughout their range. Effective snow leopard conservation will depend upon reliable
knowledge of food habits. Unfortunately, past food-habit studies may be biased by inclusion of nontarget
species in fecal analysis, potentially misinforming managers about snow leopard prey requirements.
Differentiation between snow leopard and sympatric carnivore scat is now cost-effective and reliable using
genetics. We used fecal mitochondrial DNA sequencing to identify scat depositors and assessment bias in
snow leopard food-habit studies. We compared presumed, via field identification, and genetically confirmed
snow leopard scats collected during 2005 and 2012 from 4 sites in Central Asia, using standard forensic
microscopy to identify prey species. Field identification success varied across study sites, ranging from 21% to
64% genetically confirmed snow leopard scats. Our results confirm the importance of large ungulate prey for
snow leopards. Studies that fail to account for potentially commonplace misidentification of snow leopard
scat may mistakenly include a large percentage of scats originating from other carnivores and report
inaccurate dietary assessments. Relying on field identification of scats led to overestimation of percent
occurrence, biomass, and number of small mammals consumed, but underestimated values of these measures for large ungulates in snow leopard diet. This clarification suggests that the conservation value of secondary prey, such as marmots (Marmota spp.) and other small mammals, may be overstated in the literature; stable snow leopard populations are perhaps more reliant upon large ungulate prey than previously understood.

Abstract: Applied ecology lies at the intersection of human societies and natural systems. Consequently, applied ecologists are constantly challenged as to how best to use ecological knowledge to influence the management of ecosystems (Habel et al. 2013). As Hulme (2011) has pointed out, to do so effectively we must leave our ivory towers and engage with stakeholders. This engagement is especially important and challenging in areas of the world where poverty, weak institutions and poor governance structures conspire to limit the ability of local communities to contribute to biodiversity conservation. These communities often bear disproportionate costs in the form of curtailed access to natural resources, ecosystem services, and developmental
programmes, and also suffer wildlife-caused damage, including injuries or loss of human life, and economic
and psychological impacts (Madhusudan & Mishra 2003). It is well-recognized that conservation efforts in large parts of the world historically have been perceived to be discriminatory by local people (Mishra 2016). The need for engagement with local communities is therefore embedded in the 2020 Aichi biodiversity targets and is widely thought to be critical to the success of conservation efforts. However, although the need for engagement is clear, as ecologists and practitioners we often have little formal training in how we should engage with local communities and how we can recognize the pitfalls and opportunities provided by developing genuine partnerships. The practical challenges of achieving effective engagement are considerable (Agrawal & Gibson 1999; Waylen et al. 2010, 2013), and such forays are fraught with difficulties and ethical considerations (Chan et al. 2007). When they are done badly, conservation interventions
can damage relationships and trust, and lead to serious injustice to local people and setbacks for ecological
outcomes (Duffy 2010). Much has been written on knowledge exchange and participatory research approaches (e.g. Reed et al. 2014 and references therein). This Practitioner’s Perspective
seeks to focus on the next logical step: the elements that practitioners and researchers need to consider when
engaging with communities to effect conservation. Engagement around the management of protected areas
has been discussed and formalized (e.g. Dudley 2008). Considerable literature has also emerged, particularly
from Africa, on the use and co-management of natural resources, commonly referred to as community-based natural resource management or CBNRM (e.g. Fabricius 2004; Roe, Nelson & Sandbrook 2009; Child & Barnes
2010). There have been attempts to draw general principles for CBNRM (e.g. Thakadu 2005; Gruber 2010). In
the related field of community-based conservation, however, while there have been efforts to draw lessons (e.g. Berkes 2004), little exists in terms of frameworks or guidelines for effectively working with local communities to effect biodiversity conservation in multi-use landscapes
(Mishra 2016). The eight principles for community-based conservation outlined here (Fig. 1) build on ideas developed in fields as diverse as applied ecology, conservation and natural
resource management, community health, social psychology, rural development, negotiation theory, and ethics
(see Mishra 2016). They have been developed, challenged and tested through 20 years of community experience andour own research on the endangered snow leopard Panthera uncia and its mountain ecosystems, in South and Central Asia. We suspect that with contextual adaptations, their relevance for applied ecologists and practitioners may be universal.

Abstract: The snow leopard Panthera uncia coexists with the wolf Canis lupus throughout most of its distribution range.
We analysed the food habits of snow leopards and wolves in their sympatric range in the Karakoram mountains of Pakistan. A total of 131 genotyped scats (N = 74, snow leopard; N = 57, Tibetan wolf) were collected during the cold periods (i.e. winter and spring) of 2011 and 2012 in the Hushey valley. Large mammals, i.e. livestock and ibex, accounted for 84.8 and 83.1% of the diet (relative frequency) of the snow leopard and the wolf, respectively. Domestic prey was the staple of the diet of both snow leopards (66.6%) and wolves (75.1%). Ibex Capra ibex, the only wild ungulate in our study area, contributed 18.2 and 16.9%of relative frequencies in the
diets of the snow leopard and the wolf, respectively. In winter, the snowleopard heavily relied on domestic sheep (43.3%) for food, whereas the wolf preyed mainly on domestic goats (43.4%). Differently from other study areas, both snow leopards and wolves showed no apparent prey preference (Jacobs
index: snow leopard min. − 0.098, max. 0.102; Tibetan wolf min. − 0.120, max. 0.03). In human depauperate areas, with livestock and only a few wild prey, should competitive interactions arise, two main scenarios could be expected, with either predator as a winner. In both cases, the best solution
could primarily impinge on habitat restoration, so that a balance could be found between these predators, who have already coexisted for thousands of years.

Abstract: Territory size is often larger for males than for females in species without biparental care. For large solitary carnivores, this is explained by males encompassing a set of female territories to monopolize their reproduction during mating (area maximization). However, males are expected to behave more like females outside of breeding, with their area utilization being dependent on the range required to secure food resources (area minimization). To examine how male and female solitary carnivores adjust their spatial organization during the year as key resources (mates and prey) change, we radio‐collared 17 pumas (Puma concolor; nine males and eight females) and 14 snow leopards (Panthera uncia; seven males and seven females) and estimated home range size and overlap on two temporal scales (annual vs. monthly). Contrary to expectation, we found no evidence that males monopolized females (the mean territory overlap between females and the focal male during the mating season was 0.28 and 0.64 in pumas and snow leopards, respectively). Although male�male overlap of annual home ranges was comparatively high (snow leopards [0.21] vs. pumas [0.11]), monthly home range overlaps were small (snow leopards [0.02] vs. pumas [0.08]) suggesting strong territoriality. In pumas, both males and females reduced their monthly home ranges in winter, and at the same time, prey distribution was clumped and mating activity increased. In snow leopards, females showed little variation in seasonal home range size, following the seasonal stability in their primary prey. However, male snow leopards reduced their monthly home range utilization in the mating season. In line with other studies, our results suggest that female seasonal home range variation is largely explained by changes in food resource distribution. However, contrary to expectations, male territories did not generally encompass those of females, and males reduced their home ranges during mating. Our results show that male and female territorial boundaries tend to intersect in these species, and hint at the operation of female choice and male mate guarding within these mating systems.

Abstract: Wildlife tourism is increasingly important for the conservation of
threatened species such as snow leopards. However, what tourists
know or value about snow leopards, and to what extent they support
the conservation of this species, has received limited empirical attention.
This paper investigates tourist knowledge about snow leopards,
beliefs and values toward the species, and support for its conservation
in the Annapurna Conservation Area of Nepal. Survey data were
collected from 406 foreign tourists between March and May 2014.
Although knowledge about snow leopards varied among respondents,
there was widespread support for their conservation.
Knowledge about snow leopards was best explained by education
level and environmental organization membership. Improved knowledge
about the species, and a variety of intrinsic conservation values,
were found to increase tourist support for snow leopard conservation.
These results provide important insights to help tailor tourism
initiatives to support the conservation of snow leopards.