The collapsing populations of large herbivores will have extensive ecological and social consequences.

Leopards Panthera pardus have a catholic diet and are generally thought to prey on medium‐sized ungulates; however, knowledge on which species are actually preferred and avoided is lacking, along with an understanding of why such preferences arise. Twenty‐nine published and four unpublished studies of leopard diet that had relative prey abundance estimates associated with them were analysed from 13 countries in 41 different spatial locations or temporal periods throughout the distribution of the leopard. A Jacobs' index value was calculated for each prey species in each study and the mean of these was then tested against a mean of 0 using t or sign tests for preference or avoidance. Leopards preferentially prey upon species within a weight range of 10–40 kg. Regression plots suggest that the most preferred mass of leopard prey is 25 kg, whereas the mean body mass of significantly preferred prey is 23 kg. Leopards prefer prey within this body mass range, which occur in small herds, in dense habitat and afford the hunter minimal risk of injury during capture. Consequently, impala, bushbuck and common duiker are significantly preferred, with chital likely to also be preferred with a larger sample size from Asian sites. Species outside the preferred weight range are generally avoided, as are species that are restricted to open vegetation or that have sufficient anti‐predator strategies. The ratio of mean leopard body mass with that of their preferred prey is less than 1 and may be a reflection of their solitary hunting strategy. This model will allow us to predict the diet of leopards in areas where dietary information is lacking, also providing information to assist wildlife managers and conservation bodies on predator carrying capacity and predator–prey interactions.

LionsPanthera leoare generally thought to prey on medium to large ungulates. Knowledge of which species are actually preferred and which are avoided is lacking, however, as is an understanding of why such preference or avoidance may arise. An analysis of 32 studies over 48 different spatial locations or temporal periods throughout the distribution of the lion shows that it preferentially preys upon species within a weight range of 190–550 kg. The most preferred weight of lion prey is 350 kg. The mean mass of significantly preferred prey species is 290 kg and of all preferred species is 201 kg. Gemsbok, buffalo, wildebeest, giraffe and zebra are significantly preferred. Species outside the preferred weight range are generally avoided. Species within the preferred weight range that are not significantly preferred (such as roan, sable and eland) generally have features that reduce predation either morphologically (e.g. sable horns), ecologically (e.g. roan and sable occurring at low density), or behaviourally (e.g. the large herd size and increased vigilance of eland). Warthog are below the preferred weight range yet are taken in accordance with their availability and this is probably due to their sympatry with lion, their relatively slow evasion speed and their lower level of vigilance. Plots of prey preference against prey body mass follows a bell curve with a right skew that, we argue, is caused by collective hunting by lions of larger‐bodied prey. Our methods can be used on all large predators and are likely to be useful in assessing competition in sympatric communities of predators, cooperative hunting and predicting predator diets. This will allow us to move beyond descriptive dietary studies to improve our predictive understanding of the mechanisms underlying predator–prey interactions.

An understanding of animal behaviour is important if conservation initiatives are to be effective. However, quantifying the behaviour of wild animals presents significant challenges. Remote‐sensing camera traps are becoming increasingly popular survey instruments that have been used to non‐invasively study a variety of animal behaviours, yielding key insights into behavioural repertoires. They are well suited to ethological studies and provide considerable opportunities for generating conservation‐relevant behavioural data if novel and robust methodological and analytical solutions can be developed. This paper reviews the current state of camera‐trap‐based ethological studies, describes new and emerging directions in camera‐based conservation behaviour, and highlights a number of limitations and considerations of particular relevance for camera‐based studies. Three promising areas of study are discussed: (1) documenting anthropogenic impacts on behaviour; (2) incorporating behavioural responses into management planning and (3) using behavioural indicators such as giving up densities and daily activity patterns. We emphasize the importance of reporting methodological details, utilizing emerging camera trap metadata standards and central data repositories for facilitating reproducibility, comparison and synthesis across studies. Behavioural studies using camera traps are in their infancy; the full potential of the technology is as yet unrealized. Researchers are encouraged to embrace conservation‐driven hypotheses in order to meet future challenges and improve the efficacy of conservation and management processes.

Failure to act quickly on evidence of rapid population decline has led to the first mammal extinction in Australia in the last 50 years, the Christmas Island Pipistrelle ( Pipistrellus murrayi ). The fate of another iconic species, the migratory Orange‐bellied Parrot ( Neophema chrysogaster ), monitored intensively for over 20 years, hangs in the balance. To inform future conservation management and decision making, we investigate the decision process that has led to the plight of both species. Our analysis suggests three globally relevant recommendations for minimizing species extinction worldwide: (1) informed, empowered, and responsive governance and leadership is essential; (2) processes that ensure institutional accountability must be in place, and; (3) decisions must be made whilst there is an opportunity to act. The bottom line is that, unless responsive and accountable institutional processes are in place, decisions will be delayed and extinction will occur.