McManus, Jeannine S.Faraut, LaurianeCouldridge, VanessaVan Deventer, JacoSamuels, IgshaanCilliers, DeonDevens, Carolyn H.Vorster, PaulSmuts, Bool2023-07-052023-07-052022-07-29McManus, J., Faraut, L., Couldridge, V., Van Deventer, J., Samuels, I., Cilliers, D., Devens, C., Vorster, P. & Smuts, B. (2022) Assessment of leopard translocations in South Africa. Frontiers in Conservation Science 3:943078. DOI: 10.3389/fcosc.2022.9430782673-611X (online)10.3389/fcosc.2022.943078http://hdl.handle.net/2263/91270DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT : The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/supplementary material. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.Translocations are commonly employed to mitigate human–carnivore conflict but rarely evaluated, resulting in conflicting reports of success, particularly for leopards (Panthera pardus). We evaluate the status of available leopard translocation data, the factors driving the intentional removal of leopards, and the potential causal factors associated with successful and failed translocation events. We obtained data on 60 leopard translocation events across five provinces in South Africa between 1994 and 2021. We considered a successful translocation outcome when (1) the animal was moved outside of its original home range, (2) the animal established a newhome range away fromthe capture site, (3) no substantive livestock losses were linked to the translocated animal in the post-releasemonitoring period, and (4) the animal survived at least 6months post-translocation. Ifmortality occurred due to factors that were equally likely to impact resident individuals and were unrelated to the translocation event (e.g., poaching), the event was not considered a failed effort. Most translocations were the result of human–carnivore conflict (HCC; 82%, n = 49), stressing the high prevalence of HCC and the importance of advocating preventative conflict mitigation efforts to conserve leopards. The leopards were moved distances from 2.5 to 196.3 km (63.3 ± 51.7km). Forty (67%) translocation events had unknown outcomes, indicating the limited data available on translocation outcomes. This also indicates the disparity in the objectives of translocations by various entities involved with translocations and suggests that monitoring be a prerequisite for future translocations. Twenty events offered reliable outcomes by means of post-event monitoring, with seven (12%) considered successful, with three (5%) as failures, and with four (7%) not moved beyond their original home ranges, while six (8%) ended in unrelated deaths. The failed events were attributed to inter/intra-specific competition, and one animal returned to its original home range after a translocation distance of 68 km. Translocation success was strongly explained by translocation distance. We found that damage-causing leopards were successfully translocated under specific conditions, and longer translocation distances increase success. Translocations are commonly employed but are still poorlymonitored.We discuss basic standardized protocols to improve future leopard translocations (including pre- and post-monitoring) while advocating alternative non-lethal practices to reduce the prevalence of human–carnivore conflict.en© 2022 McManus, Faraut, Couldridge, van Deventer, Samuels, Cilliers, Devens, Vorster and Smuts. This is an openaccess article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY).Carnivore conservationDamage-causing animalHuman–carnivore conflictPanthera pardusTranslocationConservation managementLeopard (Panthera pardus)SDG-15: Life on landArticle