Clouded Leopard

The continued expansion of camera-trapping (including a number of studies targeted on Mainland Clouded Leopard) across the species’ range means that we have a better understanding of Mainland Clouded Leopard population and densities than in the previous assessment in 2016. At least six studies have published density estimates for Mainland Clouded Leopards with estimates varying between 0.3 individuals per 100 km² (across large areas of Southern Bhutan: Penjor et al.2018) to 5.14 individuals per 100 km² Dampa Tiger Reserve, India (Singh and MacDonald 2017). However, in the majority of locations across the species’ range there are too few camera-trap detections to estimate density and in other, apparently suitable sites (see Geographic Range) there have been no recent records. Camera-trap detection rates and naïve /modelled camera-trap occupancy vary extensively across the species’ range. This variation is likely linked to both sampling design and ecological conditions (e.g. lower intrinsic carrying capacity for Mainland Clouded Leopard in high elevation areas in the northern and western extremes of the range; Can et al. 2020) and anthropogenic pressures particularly poaching. In their range-wide camera-trap analysis MacDonald et al. (2019) reported naïve occupancy (from the 39 of 45 studies which detected the species) of between 0.02 and 0.44.

In Peninsular Malaysia, documented declines in tiger abundance during the assessment period (WWF Tigers Alive Initiative, in litt. 2020) and evidence of targeted poaching of large cats, particularly using cable snares, suggests Mainland Clouded Leopard populations will have declined in the past 21 years. On at least two recent occasions (in 2017 and 2018) organized Vietnamese poaching gangs in Malaysia have been apprehended with body parts of at least two Mainland Clouded Leopards, as well as tiger, bear and wild boar body parts (TRAFFIC 2019). Forested landscapes supporting Mainland Clouded Leopard in Malaysia receive less targeted protection than in some other range countries (e.g. Thailand, Nepal, India) and all occupied habitat is under, at least some, poaching pressure. In Manas Tiger Reserve in India the encounter rate of Mainland Clouded Leopard from camera-trapping has declined in recent years (J. Borah, in litt. 2020) though the extent to which this is due to behavioural changes following tiger recovery is unclear. In Thailand there are recent records from at least 14 protected areas in seven forest complexes (Petersen et al. 2020a) but evidence that densities are lower in more accessible and heavily hunted areas (Petersen et al. 2020b).

Camera-trap density estimates of Mainland Clouded Leopard exclude cubs (e.g. Petersen et al.2020b) thus we assume that published density estimates refer to mature individuals. Extrapolating published densities across the 558,000 km² of ‘good quality’ Mainland Clouded Leopard habitat modelled by MacDonald et al. (2019) would give a global population of between 1,600 and 29,000 adult individuals. Though a number of the areas identified as high-quality habitat in this paper (e.g. in parts of Viet Nam and Lao PDR) are unlikely to support the species due to hunting and habitat loss (Petersen et al.2020a). Nevertheless, the global Mainland Clouded Leopard population is probably incorporated within these bounds (e.g. 1,600–29,000) but is likely much more towards the lower end (see also Assessment Rationale) with range-wide average densities of ~1.0 individual per 100 km² more realistic. This would give a population of between ~5,580 (based on MacDonald et al. 2019 available habitat) and ~3,700 (based on Petersen et al. 2020a available habitat) mature individuals. Given continued habitat loss, fragmentation, and hunting across the range the population is inferred to be continuing to decline. Long-term monitoring of Mainland Clouded Leopard abundance within sites are recommended in order to more accurately observe or estimate rates of population change and this, potentially, trigger criterion C1 (i.e. <10,000 mature individuals and observed, estimated, or projected decline of >10% in three generations) in future assessments.