Journal of Threatened
Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 May 2026 | 18(5): 28770–28783
ISSN 0974-7907 (Online) | ISSN 0974-7893 (Print)
https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.9987.18.5.28770-28783
#9987 | Received 16 June 2025 | Final received 21 April 2026| Finally
accepted 04 May 2026
Small Wild Cats Special Series
Distribution,
habitat use, and abundance of the Caracal Caracal
caracal (Schreber,
1776) (Mammalia: Carnivora: Felidae) in a semi-arid Indian landscape
Mohammad Mairaj 1
, Dhruv Jain 2 , Ramanand Bhakar 3 & Ayan Sadhu 4
1,3 Rajasthan Forest Department, Aranya Bhawan, Jhalana Dungri, Jaipur, Rajasthan 302004, India.
2,4 Wildlife Institute of India, Chandrabani, Dehradun, Uttarakhand 248001, India.
1 mohammadmairaj1993@gmail.com, 2
dhruvjain4397@gmail.com, 3 ramanand.bhakar@gmail.com,
4 sadhuayan@gmail.com
(corresponding author)
Abstract: We collected Caracal Caracal caracal presence locations using camera traps in the
human-dominated Kailadevi landscape in southeastern Rajasthan, India. Our survey effort of 5,258
camera trap days at 177 camera trap locations in a sampling area of about 600
km² yielded 92 independent photocaptures at 54
locations between January 2020 and March 2022. Relative abundance index values
indicate that the Caracal has been consistently photocaptured
over the three sampling sessions. We used these data to model potential Caracal
habitats at the landscape level using MaxEnt, and we
used generalized linear models to identify the factors influencing Caracal
detection site at the camera trap level. The habitat suitability results
indicate that, out of the entire extent of 109,663 km² spanning the Greater Ranthambhore Ecosystem from eastern Rajasthan to western
Madhya Pradesh, an area of 14,284 km² constitutes suitable habitat for the
Caracal, of which about 26% occurs within the protected area network. Of all
the suitable habitats, about 1,230 km² was classified as highly suitable, with
41% distributed across the protected area network. The Ranthambhore–Kailadevi–Dholpur cluster
harbours the largest contiguous patches. Suitable Caracal habitats showed
positive association with open natural ecosystems, rugged terrain, and
proximity to water, but negative association with human disturbance. At camera
trap level, site use intensity of the Caracal was positively influenced by
rugged terrain, open natural ecosystems, proximity to water, and distance from
human settlements. Based on published estimates for home range size and the
extent of suitable habitat predicted by the MaxEnt
model, Kailadevi can potentially support 8 (4–24)
male and 23 (14–55) female Caracal home ranges, followed by Ranthambhore
with 4 (2–11) male and 10 (6–24) female home ranges, and Dholpur
with 3 (2–8) male and 7 (5–17) female home ranges. In total, the Ranthambhore-Kailadevi-Dholpur landscape can potentially
harbour 55 (33–139) Caracal home ranges, providing a preliminary indication of the
potential population supported by the currently available suitable habitat. Our
findings highlight the importance of conserving the open natural ecosystems,
especially ravines, which provide refuge for the Caracal in this
human-dominated landscape. Conservation strategies should prioritise to
safeguard the potential Caracal habitats and maintain connectivity between
these habitats to secure its long-term persistence.
Keywords: Camera traps, generalised linear model, home ranges, MaxEnt, open forests, population, Rajasthan, Greater Ranthambhore Ecosystem, ravines, small wild cat.
Editor: Angie Appel, Wild Cat Network, Germany. Date
of publication: 26 May 2026 (online & print)
Citation: Mairaj, M., D. Jain, R. Bhakar
& A. Sadhu (2026). Distribution, habitat use, and abundance of
the Caracal Caracal caracal
(Schreber, 1776) (Mammalia: Carnivora: Felidae) in a
semi-arid Indian landscape. Journal of
Threatened Taxa 18(5):
28770–28783. https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.9987.18.5.28770-28783
Copyright: © Mairaj et al. 2026. Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License. JoTT allows unrestricted use,
reproduction, and distribution of this article in any medium by providing
adequate credit to the author(s) and the source of publication.
Funding: The field work was funded by the Rajasthan Forest Department. We did not obtain funds for the analysis presented here.
Competing interests: We declare no competing interests.
Author details: Mohammad Mairaj (MM) and Ramanand Bhakar (RB) are affiliated with the Rajasthan Forest Department, Jaipur. Dhruv Jain (DJ) and Ayan Sadhu (AS) are affiliated with the Tiger Cell at the Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun.
Author contribution: MM and AS conceptualised the study. MM and RB carried out the fieldwork and arranged the logistics. AS and DJ conducted the analyses. AS led the manuscript writing and interpretation of results. All authors reviewed the final draft, provided critical comments, and approved the final version of the manuscript.
Acknowledgements: We express our sincere gratitude to the head of Forest Force and principal chief conservator of forests, the chief wildlife warden and additional principal chief conservator of forests, and the field director of Ranthambhore Tiger Reserve for their logistical support, permissions, and continued encouragement throughout the field work. We are grateful for the efforts of the frontline staff of Ranthambhore Tiger Reserve, who facilitated the surveys. We also thank three reviewers and Angie Appel for their critical comments and constructive suggestions, which substantially improved the quality of our initial manuscript.
The global decline in carnivore populations is largely
attributed to habitat loss, fragmentation, and direct persecution by humans
(Ripple et al. 2014). The ecology and distribution of many carnivore species
remain poorly understood, posing a major challenge to formulating effective
conservation strategies (Glen et al. 2014). The Caracal Caracal
caracal is widely distributed in Africa, western
and central Asia, and western parts of the Indian subcontinent (Avgan et al. 2016). Populations in northern Africa and
parts of Asia are thought to have declined, mainly due to habitat conversion
for human use (Avgan et al. 2016). The Caracal lives
in diverse habitats, including savannas, arid regions, scrublands, and dry
forests (Veals et al. 2020). In the Mediterranean
region of southern Türkiye, it prefers heterogeneous
pine forests with canopy closure below 70% (Ünal et
al. 2020; İlemin et al. 2023). In Iran, it has been
recorded in forest steppes, semi-arid montane woodlands, arid hilly terrain,
well-vegetated foothills, dry riverbeds, and along the semi-desert coast of the
Persian Gulf (Farhadinia et al. 2007; Ghoddousi et al. 2009; Moqanaki
et al. 2016; Jamali et al. 2024).
Across much of its African range, the Caracal is more
frequently associated with wooded grasslands and riparian zones within savannas
than with contiguous forests, reflecting a preference for ecotonal and open
habitats with sufficient cover and prey availability (Hanekom
& Randall 2015; Ramesh et al. 2017; Mwampeta et
al. 2020). These habitat associations highlight its reliance on structural complexity
in vegetation and terrain to facilitate ambush predation and refuge from larger
carnivores (Davis et al. 2023). Its low density makes it challenging to
monitor, and the paucity of dedicated studies results in a lack of
comprehensive data on its distribution and ecological requirements (Avgan et al. 2016).
Globally, the Caracal is classified as Least Concern on
the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (Avgan et al.
2016). In India, it is legally protected under Schedule I of the Wild Life
(Protection) Amendment Act, 2022 (Ministry of Law and Justice 2022).
Photographic records are limited to protected areas in southeastern Rajasthan
(Singh et al. 2014; Khandal et al. 2020; Jhala et al. 2021; Thakar et al.
2025), desert landscapes of western Rajasthan (TNN 2026), and outside protected
areas in northwestern Gujarat (Khandal et al. 2020; Jhala et al. 2021; Ganguly 2022;
Mukherjee & Nandini 2024). Previous studies in India indicate that the
Caracal prefers open forests with abundant rodent and ground-dwelling birds
(Mukherjee et al. 2004; Jhala et al. 2021).
Understanding the habitat use of the Caracal is crucial
for developing effective conservation strategies. Therefore, we aimed to
identify key environmental factors influencing Caracal distribution in the Kailadevi landscape by addressing the following research
questions:
1. Which ecological and anthropogenic factors influence
the distribution of the Caracal?
2.
How do anthropogenic pressures affect Caracal occurrence in the region?
The study was conducted in Kailadevi
Wildlife Sanctuary and its adjoining areas, which form the northern extension
of the Ranthambhore Tiger Reserve (Figure 1). This
protected area is situated in a semi-arid transition zone between the Thar
Desert and peninsular India (Rodgers & Panwar 1988). It is bounded by the
Banas River to the southwest and the Chambal River to the east (Yadav 2022).
Its rugged terrain features rocky slopes, ravines, cave-like depressions and
scrub forests, with scattered water sources and villages (Yadav 2022). The
vegetation of this landscape is dominated by northern tropical dry deciduous
forests and scrubland, with Anogeissus
pendula covering 80% of the area, followed by Acacia catechu, Butea
monosperma, and Ziziphus
species (Yadav 2022). Moist valleys support species like Ficus
glomerata, Syzygium
cumini, and Mitragyna
parviflora, while the undergrowth includes Flacourtia indica, Grewia, and Barleria
species. Grass diversity varies with terrain and grazing pressure from Apluda mutica on
slopes to Aristida in heavily grazed areas,
and Vetiveria species along the streams (Ayan Sadhu, pers. obs.).
Pastoral communities living in villages graze their
livestock in forest areas inside the sanctuary; this, coupled with the
extraction of timber, fuelwood, and fodder leads to considerable degradation of
wildlife habitat (Yadav 2022). However, the traditional lifestyle of the people
allows space for wildlife that can tolerate low to medium human disturbances (Jhala 2013). Despite the anthropogenic pressure, Kailadevi Wildlife Sanctuary supports a low-density
population of the Tiger Panthera tigris (Sadhu et al. 2017). It also harbours
the Leopard P. pardus, Indian Wolf Canis lupus, Golden Jackal C. aureus, Striped
Hyena Hyaena hyaena, Sloth Bear Melursus ursinus, Jungle
Cat Felis chaus,
Afro-Asiatic Wildcat F. lybica, and Honey
Badger Mellivora capensis
(Jhala et al. 2020). Ungulates like Nilgai Boselaphus tragocamelus,
Chital Axis axis, and Chinkara Gazella bennettii
occur at low densities (Jhala et al. 2020), making Kailadevi Wildlife Sanctuary crucial for wildlife
conservation.
While camera trapping was conducted in Kailadevi Wildlife Sanctuary, the potential distribution of
the Caracal was predicted across the Greater Ranthambhore
ecosystem comprising Ranthambhore National Park, Kailadevi Wildlife Sanctuary, Kuno
National Park, Ramgarh Vishdhari Tiger Reserve, Mukundara Hills Tiger Reserve, Dholpur
Karauli Tiger Reserve and adjoining areas (Qureshi et
al. 2023), and Sariska Tiger Reserve (Figure 1).
We used camera traps to record Caracal presence in the Kailadevi landscape and modelled potential Caracal habitats
in the larger landscape to direct future conservation investments. Furthermore,
we sought to identify the most impactful factors influencing Caracal
distribution in this landscape.
As a part of the routine Tiger and co-predators
monitoring surveys in the Kailadevi landscape, we
conducted surveys between 2020 and 2022 using Cuddeback
X–Change™ camera trap models. We programmed the camera traps to take one
photograph per trigger with a time and date stamp on every photograph. We set
the delay between two consecutive photographs to ‘Fast As
Possible’ mode and turned off video mode. Each camera trap was assigned a
unique ID.
We surveyed the entire area by foot to record the
presence of carnivores from direct and indirect evidence like pugmarks and
scat, and placed camera traps on the basis of the intensity of carnivore sign
encounters. We also considered the knowledge of forest guards and local people
acquainted with the area to find suitable areas for camera trap deployment. No
bait was used. The coordinates of camera trap locations were determined using
handheld Garmin 72™ and Garmin Etrex® 10 GPS devices
set to WGS 84 geodetic datum.
The camera traps were deployed singly and active for 24
hours per day, henceforth called camera trap day. At 3–5 locations close to
human settlements, we removed camera traps during the daytime to avoid theft or
damage. People and livestock frequently visited these locations in the daytime,
whereas wildlife was mostly active during the twilight and night hours. The
camera traps were operational for about 30 days with a range of 8–44 days and
were inspected every 2–3 days to ensure proper functionality and data
retrieval. The photographs obtained were archived camera trap ID-wise and
segregated to the species level.
When the interval between two or more consecutive
photographs of the Caracal at the same camera trap location was more than 30
minutes, we considered them as independent photocaptures
(O’Brien et al. 2003).
Relative abundance index (RAI) is widely used to monitor
the trend of wildlife abundance, especially when individual identification is
not possible (O’Brien et al. 2003). We defined the RAI of the Caracal as the
number of independent photocaptures at each location
per 100 camera trap days at this location (O’Brien et al. 2003). We averaged
the RAI values obtained for all the locations with and without independent photocaptures in each sampling year to estimate the trend
in Caracal abundance over three years of sampling.
Independent photocapture of E camera trap i
RAI Caracal = Average
(––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– x 100)
Ecologically meaningful variables like distance
from waterbodies, distance from grasslands-scrubland ecosystems, human
footprint index, terrain ruggedness were selected
(Appendix 1). All covariates were extracted at a 1 km² spatial resolution and
projected using the WGS 1984 Lambert Conformal Conic (LCC) projection system.
Variables were tested for collinearity, and only non-correlated variables (r ≤
|0.7|) (Appendix 2) were used in the same model.
We used Maximum Entropy Species Distribution
Modelling (MaxEnt; Phillips & Dudík
2008) to predict suitable Caracal habitat within the study area. MaxEnt uses known presence locations and environmental
variables to estimate species distribution ranging from ‘0’ for unsuitable to
‘1’ for highly suitable (Phillips et al. 2017). We used 80% of the presence
points for model training and reserved 20% for testing. We performed 100 bootstrap
runs to assess model uncertainty and kept 10,000 background points. The model
was configured using linear and quadratic functions to analyse
relationships between species presence and environmental factors. The output
format was set to ‘logistic’, which provides a theoretically stronger
interpretation than the logistic transform, particularly in modelling
moderately high suitability areas (Phillips et al. 2017). The regularisation multiplier was optimised
at 1.0 through incremental testing with a range of 0.7–1.5 in 0.1 intervals,
and the highest area under the curve (AUC) value determines the best
combination. Habitat suitability was categorised
based on the average ‘maximum test sensitivity plus specificity logistic
threshold’. Model selection was guided by the AUC of the receiver operating
characteristic (ROC) plot, comparing five ecologically relevant models. The
final model with the highest AUC value was considered the best representation
of Caracal habitat suitability. Variable selection and model evaluation were
based on mean AUC values and the contribution of individual and combined
variables (Appendix 3).
To assess the factors influencing Caracal habitat
use, we employed generalized linear models (GLMs), a flexible statistical
framework that extends linear regression to accommodate non-normal response
variables by specifying an appropriate error distribution and link function (Guisan et al. 2002; Fox 2003). Given our binary response
data (presence = 1, absence = 0), we used logistic regression, a GLM with a
binomial error distribution and a logit link function (Agresti
2013). This approach allowed us to model the probability of Caracal presence as
a function of key habitat variables, while addressing the bounded nature (0, 1)
of binary outcomes (Zuur et al. 2009).
We extracted covariates at each camera trap
presence point within a 500-m radius to discern the factors governing the
habitat use of the Caracal in our study area. Model selection was conducted
using a backward elimination process where the model with lowest Akaike’s
information criterion (AIC) value indicated the best fit model (Burnham et al.
2011, Appendix 4). We initially included all ecologically plausible predictor
variables and iteratively removed non–significant terms (p > 0.05).
Predictor significance was evaluated at a 95% confidence level of its
coefficient.
We used the extent of suitable habitat predicted by
the MaxEnt model above the cumulative threshold to
approximate the potential Caracal population. We recognise
that habitat suitability does not equate to species occupancy. Therefore, we
restricted the extrapolation of home range based
estimates exclusively to areas with consistent evidence of Caracal presence,
i.e., Kailadevi, Ranthambhore,
Dholpur, and adjoining areas (Singh et al. 2014; Khandal et al. 2020; Jhala et al.
2021). To estimate the number of potential male and female home ranges in this
landscape, we divided the suitable Caracal habitat by the mean home range size
derived from studies in semi-arid South African habitats (Appendix 5). As male
and female home ranges vary substantially in size, with males typically
occupying larger home ranges than females (Appendix 5), we performed these
calculations separately for each sex. We estimated the mean home range and its
associated uncertainty using non-parametric bootstrapping (10,000 resamples),
and quantified uncertainty using percentile-based 95% confidence intervals
derived from the bootstrap distribution of means.
Between January 2020 and March 2022, we deployed camera
traps at 177 locations with a total survey effort of 5,258 camera trap days
(Table 1). Our total study area encompassed ~600 km2, of which ~450
km2 was located inside Kailadevi Wildlife
Sanctuary. We obtained a total of 92 independent photocaptures
of the Caracal in 54 locations (Images 1–4).
The relative abundance index (RAI) of Caracal was
highest in 2021 with a value of 2.113 (±0.626) and lowest in 2022 with a value
of 1.838 (±0.541). There was no significant difference in RAI estimates between
sessions (Kruskal–Wallis test: H = 2.79, p = 0.247, Table 1). In
addition, we sighted Caracals on three occasions in 2020, on 12 occasions in
2021, and on seven occasions in 2022.
The habitat suitability results indicated that out of the
entire area of 109,663 km² spanning from eastern Rajasthan to western Madhya
Pradesh, an area of 14,284 km² is suitable for the Caracal, of which about 26%
lies within the protected area network (Table 2). About 1,230 km² of habitat
was classified as highly suitable for the Caracal, of which 41% is distributed
across the protected area network, with the Ranthambhore–Kailadevi–Dholpur cluster harbouring the largest contiguous patches (Figure 1).
Human footprint index and the presence of open natural
ecosystems comprising open forests, grasslands, scrublands, and ravines
contributed the most in predicting suitable Caracal habitat, followed by
terrain ruggedness, distance from water, and distance from open natural
ecosystem (ONE) (Figure 2). Open natural ecosystems influenced the probability
of Caracal presence positively while increasing distance from open natural
ecosystem reduced the probability, depicting the importance of these habitats
for Caracal presence. The human footprint showed some tolerance towards human
disturbance by Caracal. Terrain ruggedness index showed Caracal’s positive
response towards moderately rugged areas, however, highly rugged areas were not
preferred by the species. Distance from water depicted the Caracal’s positive
response to proximity to water sources. The habitat suitability map also showed
that a substantial amount of Caracal habitat was present outside the existing
protected area network (Figure 1).
The GLM indicates that Caracal habitat use in the Kailadevi landscape increased in areas with greater ONE
cover and higher terrain ruggedness, closer proximity to water, and greater
distance from built-up areas, underscoring a preference for open, rugged, and
less human-disturbed habitats (Table 3). The area under ONE and ruggedness
positively affected Caracal habitat use at the site level (Figure 3). Caracal
used habitats closer to water bodies, with the probability of habitat use
decreasing with increasing distance from water (Figure 3). Similarly, the
probability of Caracal habitat use increased with greater distance from
built-up areas (Figure 3), indicating higher use of areas with minimal human
disturbance.
Our extrapolation indicates that the Ranthambhore–Kailadevi–Dholpur landscape can
potentially accommodate 55 Caracal home ranges (CI95% 33–139),
including 15 male (CI95% 8–43) and 40 female home ranges (CI95%
25–96) (Table 4).
Our study in the Kailadevi
landscape provides important insights into the distribution, abundance, and
habitat use of the Caracal in a semi-arid ecosystem. The Caracal remains one of
the least studied felids in India, and empirical information on its ecology,
population status, and habitat associations remains limited. Using camera trap
detections collected in the Kailadevi landscape, our
study provides baseline ecological information on the Caracal and identifies
key environmental and anthropogenic factors influencing its habitat use. These
findings can help inform conservation planning to safeguard suitable habitats.
The RAI of Caracal recorded in the present study remained
broadly consistent across the three sampling seasons. Although the mean RAI was
lowest in the third year despite higher sampling effort, the confidence
intervals overlapped across years, indicating no significant decline in the
population trend. Similar inter-annual variation in relative abundance has also
been reported in Ranthambhore National Park area,
where Caracal RAI ranged 0.02–0.34 (Singh et al. 2014).
Obtaining reliable population estimates for low-density,
wide-ranging species such as the Caracal is challenging; traditional population
estimation methods, such as capture-recapture, distance sampling, occupancy
modelling (mixture models), and total counts, are difficult to apply because of
poor detectability and the lack of individually identifiable markings (Bookhout 1994). Information on abundance is often required
by management authorities to guide conservation planning (Nichols &
Williams 2006). Our estimates indicate that Ranthambhore
National Park could potentially harbour a smaller
Caracal population than Kailadevi. Camera trap
surveys in Ranthambhore National Park yielded a
relatively low RAI for Caracal (Singh et al. 2014; Latafat
et al. 2023) compared with Kailadevi Wildlife
Sanctuary (Table 1). While Ranthambhore National Park
is largely characterized by Anogeissus-dominated
woodlands with some mesic savanna patches, the Kailadevi
landscape represents a more heterogeneous ecosystem, ranging from dense forest
in narrow valleys to treeless scrublands and grasslands on plateau tops, often
degraded due to prolonged anthropogenic pressure (Yadav 2022). Furthermore, Ranthambhore National Park supports high Tiger and Leopard
population densities (Sadhu et al. 2017; Qureshi et al. 2024), which may
influence Caracal abundance and detection through intraguild interactions or
spatial avoidance (Davis et al. 2023). Our relative abundance estimates fall
within the range reported in other parts of the Caracal’s distribution,
although considerable variation exists across landscapes. Studies in parts of the
Arabian Peninsula and western Asia yielded higher encounter rates (Khorozyan et al. 2014; İlemin et
al. 2023) than our estimates. The Caracal’s low-density occurrence in our study
area may be attributable to the circumstance that this area lies on the eastern
edge of the global distribution of the Caracal, which may contribute to its
inherently low-density occurrence in this region (McGill & Collins 2003).
The home range based population
approximation presented here should be viewed primarily as a baseline for
understanding the potential conservation significance of the Kailadevi–Ranthambhore–Dholpur landscape. This approach assumes uniform habitat
quality across the landscape and non-overlapping home ranges within the
identified suitable areas, which is rarely true in natural ecosystems. In
addition, due to the lack of empirical home range estimates in Indian semi-arid
ecosystems, we relied on values reported in semi-arid South African study
areas. However, we omitted mean home range estimates for Caracals generated in
arid savanna and steppe desert ecosystems, as these are larger than in
semi-arid habitats (Bothma & Le Riche 1994; Van Heezik & Seddon 1998; Marker & Dickman 2005).
Although derived from suitable habitat extent and published home range estimates,
such approximations provide a useful starting point for guiding conservation
planning and prioritising areas for monitoring and
habitat management.
The habitat suitability modelling indicates that
potentially suitable habitat for the Caracal occurs in and around the Greater Ranthambhore ecosystem and Sariska
landscape (Figure 1). These areas occur as relatively restricted pockets within
the landscape. About 26% of this suitable habitat falls within the existing
protected area network. Hence, a substantial proportion of potential Caracal
habitat lies in multiple-use landscapes outside formally protected areas. This
pattern highlights the importance of non-protected landscapes in sustaining a
Caracal population and underscores the potential role of habitat connectivity
across the broader landscape.
The habitat suitability model indicates that the presence
of open natural ecosystems, distance from human settlements, and terrain
ruggedness significantly influence Caracal habitat use in the landscape. The
positive association with open natural ecosystems and terrain ruggedness in our
model parallels patterns reported from arid and semi-arid systems in Iran and
the Arabian Peninsula (Khosravi et al. 2018; Dunford
et al. 2024; Jamali et al. 2024). Conversely, as the distance from ONE habitat
increases, the probability of detecting Caracal declines, indicating decreasing
habitat suitability. Similar observations of Caracal preferring open habitats
over dense vegetation cover have also been reported in Sub-Saharan Africa and
parts of western Asia (Hanekom & Randall 2015;
Davis et al. 2023; İlemin et al. 2023).
Terrain ruggedness also emerged as a key factor
influencing the distribution of Caracal. In our study area, rugged open natural
ecosystems largely correspond to the ravines of the Chambal River and its
tributaries, which form an intricate network of gullies across the landscape.
These ravines function as important refuge habitats for several wildlife
species, including Caracal (Sadhu 2020). The structural complexity and relative
inaccessibility of these ravine systems may provide suitable hunting grounds as
well as protection from human disturbance. Consequently, these findings suggest
that conservation strategies should prioritise
safeguarding the ravine habitats that may offer optimal ecological conditions
for the persistence of Caracal populations.
The bell-shaped response curve for distance from human
settlements highlights the Caracal’s moderate tolerance to human activities. Caracals
inhabiting multi-use landscapes often coexist with human presence but tend to
prefer habitats that minimize direct encounters with people (Ünal et al. 2020). Our results indicate that while Caracals
may adapt to low to moderate levels of human presence, densely populated areas
could pose significant threats. Such patterns are consistent with findings on
other medium-sized felids. For example, the Jungle Cat also persists within
fragmented but suitable habitat mosaics in human-modified landscapes (Mukherjee
& Nandini 2024, Ganguly et al. 2026).
Distance from water sources emerged as a notable factor
influencing habitat suitability in the study area, although its relative
contribution was lower compared to other predictors. Caracals were more likely
to occur closer to water sources, a pattern consistent with observations of
carnivores in arid ecosystems where water scarcity can strongly shape habitat
use (Ramesh et al. 2017; Hadad et al. 2025). Although
the Caracal is adapted to dry conditions, the presence of small water bodies
such as seasonal streams or lakes can be important for sustaining both the
species and its prey base (Dunford et al. 2024).
The Generalized Linear Model identified availability of
open natural ecosystems, terrain ruggedness, distance from built-up areas, and
proximity to water sources as significant predictors of Caracal detections at
camera trap sites within the Kailadevi landscape. The
positive association with open natural ecosystems highlights the importance of
structurally open habitats that support key prey such as hares, rodents, and
ground-dwelling birds (Mukherjee et al. 2004; Ramesh et al. 2017). Terrain
ruggedness also emerged as a strong determinant of site use; in Kailadevi, such conditions are largely represented by the
ravine systems of the Chambal River and its tributaries (Yadav 2022) and may
provide denning opportunities, concealment cover, and refuge from predators or
human disturbance (Ayan Sadhu, pers. obs.). Caracal detections increased
with greater distance from built-up areas, indicating avoidance of human
settlements, and suggesting that the species persists in human-dominated
landscapes by preferentially using relatively undisturbed habitats. Distance
from water sources also significantly influenced detections, with higher
probabilities of occurrence closer to water bodies; although the Caracal is
adapted to semi-arid environments, water availability can indirectly shape
carnivore distribution by sustaining prey populations in dry landscapes (Ramesh
et al. 2017).
Collectively, these results indicate that Caracal habitat
use at the camera trap scale in Kailadevi is governed
by a combination of habitat structure and anthropogenic pressures, underscoring
the need to safeguard open natural ecosystems and ravine habitats that function
as key refugia for the species within this human-dominated landscape.
A caveat of our study is that Caracal photocaptures
were obtained as by-catch from camera traps deployed primarily for monitoring
the Tiger. Therefore, camera trap placement was optimised
for large carnivores rather than small cats, which may introduce sampling bias.
However, our analysis is limited to broad habitat associations based on
detection locations and does not attempt to estimate population density or
detection-corrected occupancy. Our findings highlight the importance of open
natural ecosystems and structurally complex habitats within the Kailadevi landscape for the Caracal.
Given the limited ecological information currently available
for the Caracal in India, systematic and dedicated surveys across its potential
range are necessary to improve understanding of its distribution and to
identify areas that may support viable population units. Such efforts would
help refine current knowledge on habitat associations and inform
landscape-level conservation planning. As a considerable proportion of suitable
habitats occurs outside legally designated protected areas, conservation
strategies should also focus on safeguarding these ecologically significant but
administratively unprotected landscapes. Rather than expanding conventional
protected area frameworks, efforts should aim to maintain the ecological
character of these open natural ecosystems while supporting sustainable
land-use practices. Promoting livelihood options compatible with biodiversity
conservation, such as sustainable grazing, low-intensity agriculture, and
community-based monitoring initiatives, may help maintain habitat quality while
supporting the needs of local communities (Sircely et
al. 2022). At the same time, preventing the conversion of these habitats into
intensive land uses such as large-scale mining, industrial development, or
other forms of high-impact land transformation will be important for retaining
suitable habitats for the Caracal. Finally, while the camera trap-based results
presented here provide valuable baseline information, further research,
particularly fine-scale resource selection, would improve understanding of
Caracal movement patterns, resource selection, and seasonal space use in
human-dominated semi-arid landscapes.
Table 1. Details of the
survey effort, independent photocapture of the Caracal
and relative abundance index in three sampling sessions in Kailadevi Wildlife Sanctuary, Rajasthan.
|
Year |
Number of camera traps deployed |
Total camera trap days |
Average survey duration (range) |
Number of camera trap locations
where the Caracal was detected |
Independent photo captures |
Relative abundance index (SE) |
|
January–March 2020 |
61 |
1,831 |
29.53 days (9–56 days) |
22 |
35 |
2.025 (±0.382) |
|
January–March 2021 |
50 |
1,294 |
25.37 days (8–31 days) |
14 |
20 |
2.113 (±0.626) |
|
December 2021–March 2022 |
66 |
2,133 |
32.21 days (11–44 days) |
18 |
37 |
1.838 (±0.541) |
|
|
177 |
5,258 |
|
54 |
92 |
|
Table 2. Details of habitat suitability classes modelled using the MaxEnt
framework and their relative proportion within the protected
area network.
|
Suitability category (Habitat
suitability value) |
Total area |
Area inside protected areas |
Area outside protected areas |
|
Low (≤ 0.46) |
8,571 km2 |
1,969 km2 (22.97%) |
6,602 km2 (77.03%) |
|
Moderate (≤ 0.68) |
4,486 km2 |
1,224 km2 (27.28%) |
3,262 km2 (72.72%) |
|
High (≤ 0.91) |
1,227 km2 |
510 km2 (41.56%) |
717 km2 (58.44%) |
|
Total (>0.2–≤0.91) |
14,284 km2 |
3,703 km2 (25.92%) |
10,581 km2 (74.08%) |
Table 3. Details of the
best fit model along with
the contribution of each covariate
and their level of significance
used in the generalised linear model
framework to determine site-specific
influencing factors.
|
|
Estimate |
Standard error |
z value |
P(>|z|) |
|
(Intercept) |
–7.93 |
1.29 |
–6.171 |
6.77E–10 |
|
Availability of open natural
ecosystems |
2.86 |
0.862 |
3.319 |
0.000904 |
|
Distance from built-up area
(remoteness) |
0.000372 |
0.0000903 |
4.117 |
3.83E–05 |
|
Distance from water |
–0.000164 |
0.0000794 |
–2.069 |
0.038515 |
|
Terrain ruggedness Index (TRI) |
0.0225 |
0.00401 |
5.608 |
2.04E–08 |
Table 4. Details of the
site-wise estimates of potential number
of Caracal home ranges derived from suitable
habitat areas.
|
Site name |
Suitable area |
Number of male home ranges (range) |
Number of female home ranges
(range) |
Total number of home ranges
(range) |
|
Ranthambhore |
276.5 km² |
4 (2–11) |
10 (6–24) |
14 (8–35) |
|
Kailadevi |
639.18 km² |
8 (4–24) |
23 (14–55) |
31 (18–79) |
|
Dholpur |
192.69 km² |
3 (2–8) |
7 (5–17) |
10 (7–25) |
|
Total |
1108.37 km² |
15 (8–43) |
40 (25–96) |
55 (33–139) |
For figure, images &
appendix - - click here for full PDF
Agresti, A. (2013). Introduction to Generalized Linear
Models, pp. 115–164. In: Categorical Data Analysis. John Wiley &
Sons, Hoboken, USA, 721 pp.
Avenant, N.L. & J.A.J. Nel (1998). Home-range use, activity, and density of Caracal in relation to prey
density. African Journal of Ecology 36(4): 347–359. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2028.1998.00152.x
Avgan, B., P. Henschel & A. Ghoddousi (2016). Caracal caracal (errata version
published in 2016). The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2016:
e.T3847A102424310. https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016-2.RLTS.T3847A50650230.en
. Downloaded on 6.vi.2025.
Bookhout, T.A. (ed.) (1994). Research and Management Techniques
for Wildlife and Habitats. 5th Edition. The Wildlife
Society, Bethesda, USA, 740 pp.
Bothma, J.D.P. & E.A.N. Le Riche
(1994). Range use by an adult male Caracal
in the southern Kalahari. Koedoe 37(2):
105–108.
Burnham, K.P., D.R. Anderson &
K.P. Huyvaert (2011). AIC model selection and multimodel inference in behavioral
ecology: some background, observations, and comparisons. Behavioral
Ecology and Sociobiology 65: 23–35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-010-1029-6
Davis, R.S., L.K. Gentle, W.O. Mgoola, E.L. Stone, A. Uzal &
R.W. Yarnell (2023). Habitat
structure and the presence of large carnivores shape the site use of an
understudied small carnivore: Caracal ecology in a miombo woodland. Mammal
Research 68(1): 113–120. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13364-022-00655-1
Dunford, C.E., A. Botha, J.P.B.
Faure, M. Drouilly, I.A. Stirnemann,
G. Mann, L. Serieys, A. Soultan,
E. Gallacher & D. Mills (2024). Factors affecting Asiatic Caracal
occupancy and activity in an arid landscape; vegetation, prey and predator
presence are key. Global Ecology and Conservation 53: e03002. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2024.e03002
Farhadinia, M.S., H. Akbari, M. Beheshti & A. Sadeghi (2007). Ecology and status of the Caracal, Caracal
caracal, in the Abbasabad
Naein Reserve, Iran. Zoology in the Middle East
41(1): 5–10. https://doi.org/10.1080/09397140.2007.10638221
Farr, T.G., P.A. Rosen, E. Caro, R.
Crippen, R. Duren, S. Hensley, M. Kobrick, M. Paller, E. Rodriguez, L. Roth, D. Seal, S. Shaffer, J.
Shimada, J. Umland, M. Werner, M. Oskin, D. Burbank & D.E. Alsdorf (2007). The shuttle radar topography mission: Reviews of Geophysics
45(2): RG2004. https://doi.org/10.1029/2005RG000183
Fox, J. (2003). Effect displays in R for
generalised linear models. Journal of Statistical Software 8(15): 1–27. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v008.i15
Ganguly, D. (2022). Responses of a meso-carnivore
community to ecological and anthropogenic factors in a semi-arid landscape of
north-western India. Master of Science dissertation. National Centre for
Biological Sciences, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Bangalore, India,
91 pp.
Ganguly, D., A. Srivathsa,
D. Vasudev & U. Ramakrishnan (2026). Three’s Company: Human infrastructure and diminishing
savannas accentuate meso-carnivore interactions in a
shared landscape of western India. Biological Conservation 313: 111618. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2025.111618
Glen, A.S., C.R. Dickman & M. Letnic (2014). Carnivore communities: Challenges and opportunities for conservation,
pp. 405–415. In: Glen, A.S. & C.R. Dickman (eds.). Carnivores of
Australia: Past, Present and Future. CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood,
Australia, 437 pp.
Ghoddousi, A., T. Ghadirian
& H. Fahimi (2009). Status of Caracal in Bahram’gur protected area, Iran. Cat News 50: 10–13.
Guisan, A., T.C. Edwards Jr. & T.
Hastie (2002). Generalized
linear and generalized additive models in studies of species distributions:
setting the scene. Ecological Modelling 157(2–3): 89–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3800(02)00204-1
Hadad, E., J.Z. Kosicki
& R. Yosef (2025). The return of
the Caracal Caracal caracal:
56 Years of population changes in Israel. Ecological Modelling 508:
111197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2025.111197
Hanekom, N. & R.M. Randall (2015). Assessments of occurrence and
distribution of mammals in forests of the Garden Route National Park based on
camera trapping. Koedoe 57(1): 1257. https://doi.org/10.4102/koedoe.v57i1.1257
İlemin, Y., H. Koç
& B.Y. Kaynaş (2023). Ecological characteristics of
Caracal (Caracal caracal) in Türkiye: An
isolated feline population. Journal of Wildlife and Biodiversity 7(4):
199–213. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8225067
Jamali, F., S.M. Amininasab,
H. Taleshi & H. Madadi
(2024). Using an ensemble modelling to
predict the potential distribution and habitat suitability of Caracal (Caracal
caracal) in southwestern Iran. Global Ecology and Conservation 52:
e02968. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2024.e02968
Jhala, Y.V. (2013). Indian Wolf (Canis
lupus pallipes), pp. 377–391. In: Johnsingh, A.J.T. & N. Manjrekar (eds.). Mammals of
South Asia. Volume 1. Universities Press, Hyderabad, India, 615 pp.
Jhala, Y.V., Q. Qureshi & R. Gopal
(2020). Status of Tigers, Co–predators
and Prey in India, 2018. National Tiger Conservation Authority, Wildlife
Institute of India, Government of India, 650 pp.
Jhala, Y.V., Q. Qureshi & S.P. Yadav
(2021). Caracal (Caracal caracal),
pp. 79–84 in: Status of Leopards, Co–predators and Megaherbivores in India 2018.
National Tiger Conservation Authority, New Delhi, and Wildlife Institute of
India, Dehradun, India, 304 pp.
Karra, K., C. Kontgis,
Z. Statman-Weil, J.C. Mazzariello, M. Mathis & S.
Brumby (2021). Global land
use/land cover with Sentinel–2 and deep learning, pp. 4704–4707. In: IEEE
International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium IGARSS. Institute of
Electrical and Electronic Engineers, Brussels, Belgium. https://doi.org/10.1109/IGARSS47720.2021.9553499
Khandal, D., I. Dhar & G.V. Reddy
(2020). Historical and current extent of
occurrence of the Caracal Caracal caracal (Schreber, 1776)
(Mammalia: Carnivora: Felidae) in India. Journal of Threatened Taxa
12(16): 17173–17193. https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.6477.12.16.17173-17193
Khosravi, R., M.R. Hemami
& S.A. Cushman (2018). Multispecies
assessment of core areas and connectivity of desert carnivores in central Iran.
Diversity and Distribution 24: 193–207. https://doi.org/10.1111/ddi.12672
Khorozyan, I., D. Stanton, M. Mohammed, W.
Al-Ra’il & M. Pittet
(2014). Patterns of co-existence between
humans and mammals in Yemen: some species thrive while others are nearly
extinct. Biodiversity and Conservation 23: 1995–2013. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-014-0700-z
Latafat, K., A. Sadhu, Q. Qureshi &
Y.V. Jhala (2023). Abundance and activity of carnivores in two protected
areas of semi–arid western India with varying top predator density and human
impacts. European Journal of Wildlife Research 69(1): 15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10344-023-01643-9
Madhusudan, M.D. & A.T. Vanak (2023). Mapping the distribution and extent of India’s semi-arid open natural
ecosystems. Journal of Biogeography 50(8): 1377–1387. https://doi.org/10.1111/jbi.14471
Marker, L. & A. Dickman (2005). Notes on the spatial ecology of
Caracals (Felis caracal), with
particular reference to Namibian farmlands. African Journal of Ecology
43: 73–76.
McGill, B. & C. Collins (2003). A unified theory for macroecology
based on spatial patterns of abundance. Evolutionary Ecology Research
5(4): 469–492.
Ministry of Law and Justice (2022). The Wild Life (Protection)
Amendment Act, 2022. The Gazette of India Extraordinary, Part II, Section 1,
New Delhi.
Moqanaki, E.M., M.S. Farhadinia,
M. Tourani & H. Akbari (2016). The Caracal in Iran - current state
of knowledge and priorities for conservation. Cat News Special Issue 10:
27–32.
Mu, H., X. Li, Y. Wen, J. Huang, P.
Du, W. Su, S. Miao & M. Geng (2022). A global record of annual
terrestrial Human Footprint dataset from 2000 to 2018. Scientific Data 9:
176. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-022-01284-8
Mukherjee, S., S.P. Goyal, A.J.T. Johnsingh & M.R.P.L. Pitman (2004). The importance of rodents in the
diet of Jungle Cat (Felis chaus), Caracal (Caracal caracal) and Golden Jackal
(Canis aureus) in Sariska
Tiger Reserve, Rajasthan, India. Journal of Zoology 262: 405–411. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0952836903004783
Mukherjee, S. & R. Nandini
(2024). Mechanisms of Coexistence in a
Species-rich Carnivore Assemblage from a Human-dominated Landscape in Kachchh,
Gujarat, India. Technical Report No. PR-280. Sálim
Ali Centre for Ornithology and Natural History, South India Centre of the
Wildlife Institute of India, Coimbatore, India, 54 pp.
Mwampeta, S.B., F.J. Magige
& J.L. Belant (2020). Spatial and temporal overlap of
Caracal and Serval in Serengeti National Park, Tanzania. African Journal of
Ecology 58(3): 361–370. https://doi.org/10.1111/aje.12764
Nichols, J.D. & B.K. Williams
(2006). Monitoring for conservation. Trends
in Ecology & Evolution 21(12): 668–673. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2006.08.007
Norton, P.M. & A.B. Lawson
(1985). Radio tracking of Leopards and
Caracals in the Stellenbosch area, Cape Province. South African Journal of
Wildlife Research 15(1): 17–24. https://doi.org/10.10520/AJA03794369_3542
O’Brien, T.G., M.F. Kinnaird &
H.T. Wibisono (2003). Crouching Tigers, hidden prey:
Sumatran Tiger and prey populations in a tropical forest landscape. Animal
Conservation 6(2): 131–139. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1367943003003172
Pekel, J.-F., C. Andrew, N. Gorelick
& A.S. Belward (2016). High–resolution mapping of global
surface water and its long–term changes. Nature 540: 418–422. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature20584
Phillips, S.J. & M. Dudík (2008). Modeling of species distributions with
Maxent: new extensions and a comprehensive evaluation. Ecography
31(2): 161–175. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0906-7590.2008.5203.x
Phillips, S.J., R.P. Anderson & R.E.
Schapire (2017). Maximum entropy modeling of
species geographic distributions. Ecological Modelling 190(3–4):
231–259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2005.03.026
Qureshi, Q., Y.V. Jhala, S.P. Yadav & A. Mallick (eds.) (2023). Status of Tigers, co-predators
and prey in India, 2022. National Tiger Conservation Authority, Government
of India, New Delhi & Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun, India, 484 pp.
Qureshi, Q., Y.V. Jhala, S.P. Yadav, V.R. Tiwari, R. Garawad
& A. Mallick (2024). Status of Leopards
in India, 2022. National Tiger Conservation Authority, Government of India,
New Delhi, and Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun, 94 pp.
Ramesh, T., R. Kalle
& C.T. Downs (2017). Space use in a
South African agriculture landscape by the Caracal (Caracal caracal). European
Journal of Wildlife Research 63(1): 11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10344-016-1072-3
Ripple, W.J., J.A. Estes, R.L. Beschta, C.C. Wilmers, E.G.
Ritchie, M. Hebblewhite, J. Berger, B. Elmhagen, M. Letnic, M.P. Nelson
& O.J. Schmitz (2014). Status and
ecological effects of the world’s largest carnivores. Science 343(6167):
1241484. http://doi.org/10.1126/science.1241484
Rodgers, W.A. & H.S. Panwar
(1988). Planning a wildlife protected
area network in India. Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun, 339 pp.
Sadhu, A. (2020). Distribution and Demography of
Carnivores in Some Parts of Semi-Arid Landscape of Western India. Ph.D. Thesis,
Wildlife Institute of India, Saurashtra University, Gujarat, India, 124 pp.
Sadhu, A., P.P.C. Jayam, Q. Qureshi, R.S. Shekhawat,
S. Sharma & Y.V. Jhala (2017). Demography of a small, isolated
Tiger (Panthera tigris
tigris) population in a semi–arid region of
western India. BMC Zoology 2: 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40850-017-0025-y
Singh, R., Q. Qureshi, K. Sankar, P.R. Krausman & S.P.
Goyal (2014). Population and
habitat characteristics of Caracal in semi-arid landscape, western India. Journal
of Arid Environments 103: 92–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaridenv.2014.01.004
Sircely, J., B.O. Abdisemet,
J. Kamango, A. Kuseyo, M.W.
Markos, I.N. Nganga, S. Russell, J.M. Somare, T. Tolessa, A. Workneh & E. Zerfu (2022). Deriving scalable measures for
restoration of communal grazing lands. Ecology and Society 27(1): 10. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-12848-270110
Thakar, R., M.K. Patra, D. Verma, A. Sadhu, S. Sharma, S. Muthu, R. Khairwa K., S.R. Jat, L. Kawlni, V. Kolipakam, Q. Qureshi
& B. Habib (2025). Caracal’s
comeback – First photographic record of Caracal in the Ramgarh Visdhari and Mukundara Hills
Tiger Reserve, India. Journal of Wildlife Science 2(3): 100–103. https://doi.org/10.63033/JWLS.IFNA7720
TNN (2026). Camera
traps confirm three Caracals in Jaisalmer border belt. The
Times of India, 24 March 2026. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/jaipur/camera-traps-confirm-three-caracals-in-jaisalmer-border-belt/articleshow/129761663.cms
. Accessed on 3.iv. 2026.
Ünal, Y., B.K. Pekin, İ. Oğurlu, H. Süel & A. Koca (2020). Human, domestic animal, Caracal (Caracal caracal), and other
wildlife species interactions in a Mediterranean forest landscape. European
Journal of Wildlife Research 66: 5. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10344-019-1343-x
Van Heezik,
Y.M. & P.J. Seddon (1998). Range size and habitat use of an adult male Caracal in northern Saudi
Arabia. Journal of Arid Environments 40: 109–112.
Veals, A.M., A.D. Burnett, M. Morandini, M. Drouilly & J.L.
Koprowski (2020). Caracal caracal
(Carnivore: Felidae). Mammalian Species 52(993): 71–85. https://doi.org/10.1093/mspecies/seaa006
Yadav, S.R. (2022). Tiger conservation Plan, Ranthambhore Tiger Reserve, Part I Critical Tiger Habitat
(2022–23 to 2031–32). Rajasthan Forest Department, Government of Rajasthan,
Jaipur, India, 675 pp. https://forest.rajasthan.gov.in/content/dam/raj/forest/ForestDepartment/PDFs/Department%20Wing/Wildlife/tigerconservationplan/TCP%20RTR
. Accessed on 7.iii.2026.
Zuur, A.F., E.N. Ieno,
N.J. Walker, A.A. Saveliev & G.M. Smith (2009). Mixed effects models and
extensions in ecology with R. Springer, New York, USA, 574 pp.