Capture and Morphometric Data from Ocelots around Laguna Atascosa National Wildlife Refuge from 2011-2021

Sampling event
Latest version published by United States Fish and Wildlife Service on Jun 16, 2025 United States Fish and Wildlife Service

Download the latest version of this resource data as a Darwin Core Archive (DwC-A) or the resource metadata as EML or RTF:

Data as a DwC-A file download 69 records in English (23 KB) - Update frequency: not planned
Metadata as an EML file download in English (34 KB)
Metadata as an RTF file download in English (29 KB)

Description

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) captured endangered ocelots to monitor the local population on Laguna Atascosa National Wildlife Refuge in Texas. This dataset includes data from 69 captures and measurements of 24 male or female ocelots by USFWS staff from 2011-2021. Ocelots were captured in box-traps, and if appropriate for tracking their movements, were sedated, anesthetized, fit with a VHF or GPS collar, and released on USFWS lands following protocols in Sternberg and Swarts (2021) (and https://doi.org/10.7944/wx3d-jd10).

This data package is also available from the USFWS Service Catalog (ServCat) at https://iris.fws.gov/APPS/ServCat/Reference/Profile/179881. The Digital Object Identifier is https://doi.org/10.7944/m32b-ps86.

Please use the Citation and DOI above when citing the associated dataset.

USE CONSTRAINTS

Although these data have been subjected to rigorous review and are substantially complete, the USFWS reserves the right to revise the data pursuant to further analysis and review. These data are released on condition that neither the USFWS nor the U.S. Government shall be held liable for any damages resulting from its authorized or unauthorized use.

Data Records

The data in this sampling event resource has been published as a Darwin Core Archive (DwC-A), which is a standardized format for sharing biodiversity data as a set of one or more data tables. The core data table contains 69 records.

2 extension data tables also exist. An extension record supplies extra information about a core record. The number of records in each extension data table is illustrated below.

Event (core)
69
ExtendedMeasurementOrFact 
897
Occurrence 
69

This IPT archives the data and thus serves as the data repository. The data and resource metadata are available for download in the downloads section. The versions table lists other versions of the resource that have been made publicly available and allows tracking changes made to the resource over time.

Versions

The table below shows only published versions of the resource that are publicly accessible.

How to cite

Researchers should cite this work as follows:

Swarts, H., M. Sternberg, J. Mays, and J. Moczygemba. 2025. Capture and Morphometric Data from Ocelots around Laguna Atascosa National Wildlife Refuge from 2011-2021. Version 1.1. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Los Fresnos, Texas, USA. https://doi.org/10.7944/m32b-ps86.

Rights

Researchers should respect the following rights statement:

The publisher and rights holder of this work is United States Fish and Wildlife Service. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY 4.0) License.

GBIF Registration

This resource has been registered with GBIF, and assigned the following GBIF UUID: ea0c603b-a4b8-4789-9260-14f170f01648.  United States Fish and Wildlife Service publishes this resource, and is itself registered in GBIF as a data publisher endorsed by GBIF-US.

Keywords

capture; Felidae; Leopardus pardalis; mammal; measurement; morphometrics; observation; ocelot; occurrence; Refuge; Sampling event; Texas; USA

Contacts

Mitch Sternberg
  • User
  • Zone Biologist
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
  • Santa Ana NWR, 3325 Green Jay Road
78516 Alamo
TX
US
Hilary Swarts
  • Originator
  • Refuge Manager
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
  • HC 60 Box 860, Ruby Lake National Wildlife Refuge
89833 Ruby Valley
Nevada
US
Jody Mays
  • Originator
  • Supervisory Park Manager
National Park Service
  • 91 Bartlett Park Road, Cumberland Gap National Historical Park
40965 Middlesboro
Kentucky
US
Jonathan Moczygemba
  • Originator
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
78566 Los Fresnos
Texas
US
Mitch Sternberg

Geographic Coverage

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) captured endangered ocelots to monitor the local population on Laguna Atascosa National Wildlife Refuge in Texas. This dataset includes measurements of 24 male or female ocelots captured a total of 69 times by U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service staff from 2011-2021.

Bounding Coordinates South West [26.161, -97.413], North East [26.31, -97.304]

Taxonomic Coverage

No Description available

Kingdom Animalia
Phylum Chordata
Class Mammalia
Order Carnivora
Family Felidae

Temporal Coverage

Start Date / End Date 2011-01-25 / 2021-01-07

Project Data

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) captured endangered ocelots to monitor the local population on Laguna Atascosa National Wildlife Refuge in Texas. This dataset includes measurements of 24 male or female ocelots captured a total of 69 times by U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service staff from 2011-2021.

Title Capture and Morphometric Data from Ocelots around Laguna Atascosa National Wildlife Refuge from 2011-2021
Identifier https://doi.org/10.7944/m32b-ps86
Funding Major funding was provided by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Friends of Laguna Atascosa National Wildlife Refuge.
Study Area Description The data was collected on Laguna Atascosa National Wildlife Refuge which is in Cameron County, Texas, USA.
Design Description Ocelots were captured on or near the Refuge in box-traps, sedated, anesthetized, fit with a GPS collar if suitable for monitoring, or released from following protocols in Sternberg and Swarts (2021). Morphometrics of ocelots were taken and recorded using standard techniques over time and across users.

The personnel involved in the project:

Sampling Methods

Camera-surveillance and knowledge of previous territories of ocelots was used to prioritize locations for trapping effort. Trapped ocelots were observed to identify the individuals and then determine whether there was a need to sedate and anesthetize and handle the trapped ocelot as per protocols listed in Sternberg and Swarts (2021). Ocelots suitable for monitoring were weighed and given a general health examination then body measurements were taken. Once all measurement and procedures were completed, and a tracking collar was fitted on them if appropriate, reversal chemicals were injected into the hind quarter of the ocelot as needed to counteract any chemicals from the initial injection. Once the ocelot was considered lucid, coordinated, recovered from medication, and capable of defending itself, it was released at or near the point of capture. On rare occasions, due to the speed with which ocelots run from the recovery cage or kennel and may not be fully cognizant and wary of passing vehicles, at times, ocelots were moved to more interior, yet nearby locations on the Refuge to assist them in seeking cover away from people and roads.

Study Extent Measurements were collected from ocelots captured on and around Laguna Atascosa National Wildlife Refuge, located in Cameron County, Texas, USA, from 2011-2021.
Quality Control The dataset has gone through a review process to ensure all recorded information is accurate. Coordinates were recorded in Universal Transverse Mercator and converted to decimal degree in ArcGIS Pro, version 3.1.7, and should be considered accurate to within 10 m. Locations in this dataset occur on Laguna Atascosa National Wildlife Refuge. Morphometric data are in the same units over time. In some instances, these were adjusted for consistency. As a singular example, before 2013, most measures of canine length were recorded in cm. We converted these values to mm for this dataset. From 2013 onward, canine length was measured in mm. In all other cases, measurements were kept as originally recorded even if it appeared there was an error from one measurement event to another. These were most likely due to differences in experience of those taking the measurements for how to take such standard measurements, instead of such significant changes between measurement events. Rating of teeth wear was not necessarily standardized across all staff and years; staff rated the wear on a 4-tiered score: none, minimal, moderate, heavy (was changed to “severe”). See Additional Metadata for more descriptions of terms. It appears that in some cases staff were not including the tail as part of the total body length. Users might want to consider adding the tail length to the “total body length” measure unless they have reason to exclude the tail from total body length. In many cases, even for large individuals we believe the total measure did not include the tail (e.g., OM283 on 2016 0412). There appears to be some inconsistency in these measures. Overall, users should use caution if thinking to make broad interpretations about changes in measurements over time for the same individual across years.

Method step description:

  1. 1. Strategize where to trap based on knowledge of existing ocelots, or areas that have or have not been trapped/assessed for some time. 2. Trap an ocelot. 3. Identify the trapped individual. 4. Assess whether there is a need to sedate, anesthetize and handle the ocelot, a. if so, continue, b. if not, release the ocelot by opening the front of the live-trap and waiting until it escapes, before closing and or securing the door of the trap 5. If the trapped ocelot is to be handled, the Lead Biologist will attempt to guess its weight, dose chemicals according to that weight, and provide a pole injection in the hind quarters and wait until the animal is safe to be removed and handled. 6. Weigh the ocelot. 7. Compare the amount of chemicals used for sedation and anesthesia based on the guess and the ideal ratio based on actual weight of the ocelot. If additional chemicals are needed, provide the proper dose via hand-inject in the hind quarters. 8. Conduct a general health examination. 9. Record body measurements. 10. If the ocelot is to receive a collar, fit and adjust the collar around the neck of the ocelot and activate the collar. 11. Check the datasheet and ensure all measures and notes are properly recorded. 12. Assess if reversal chemicals are needed to counteract the initial injection, provide the proper dose, if needed. 13. Place the ocelot in the recovery kennel or cage and observe its recovery. 14. If the trap location is too close to a roadway, move the ocelot while in the recovery kennel or cage to a safer location for recovery and eventual release. 15. Once the ocelot is lucid and safe for release, stage staff away from the entrance and open the gate until they leave the trap. 16. If needed, tilt the cage towards the door so the ocelot slides to the front of the kennel or cage and sees an opportunity to escape and leaves the site.

Additional Metadata

This data package includes the original Excel spreadsheet, including the original terms (all rows and columns) as used by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as well as some additions that are required to meet the standards to be able to upload the data to Global Biodiversity Infrastructure Facility (GBIF.org) in the near future. This was done to improve useability of the dataset from ServCat while balancing the inclusion of terms that are standardized by Darwin Core Archive and the GBIF Internet Publishing Toolkit. Therefore, there may also be differences in the metadata found in the Service Catalog (ServCat) than in those of GBIF. In the future once the file is uploaded to GBIF, users experienced in the use of GBIF datasets may not have a use for the Excel file but instead find sufficient use for the GBIF (*.zip) data package. It may not appear identical to what is found at GBIF, as the upload and adjustments done through the process of uploading data to GBIF change how the data is organized and, in some cases, the original data is broken into associated files in the processes of GBIF. Making these data available to GBIF reaches a much broader audience of the global public than would uploads to ServCat alone. Data files from the GBIF process would be added to this reference in the future but the core data as presented in ServCat is not expected to change unless users find and point out errors. Darwin Core is a suite of standards terms, labels, and definitions that assist the scientific community in the sharing of biodiversity informatics. Terms in the dataset are mostly those in accordance with the Darwin Core (DwC) Standard (Darwin Core Task Group 2021) (http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/index.htm), but also include those of other standardized sources: the Phenotype And Trait Ontology (https://ontobee.org/ontology/PATO), the Vertebrate Trait Ontology (https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ols4/ontologies/vt/), and FuTRES Ontology of Vertebrate Traits (https://futres.org/how_it_works/). The Phenotype And Trait Ontology is a suite of standard term of phenotypic qualities (e.g., properties, attributes or characteristics). The Vertebrate Trait Ontology is a controlled vocabulary for the description of traits (measurable or observable characteristics) pertaining to the morphology, physiology, or development of vertebrate organisms. The FuTRES Ontology of Vertebrate Traits (FOVT) is a group of terms and definitions created by the FuTRES project to map measurable vertebrate traits for standardization across datasets regarding vertebrate morphology, physiology, and development. Users of the dataset should refer to those sources if more clarity is needed about a given field, or how it might relate to information from other databases. For any of those terms that we felt needed further explanation, or for those terms for which we could not find a common standard (the latter being identified below as “USFWS terms”), details are provided below. Terms The term occurrenceID includes the oranism name, the date of capture, and whether the ocelot was sedated, anesthetized for further monitoring (labelled as “Monitored”), or released without handling (labelled as “Released”. For the term organismName, “OF” signifies ocelot female, “OM” signifies ocelot male, and “OU” signifies ocelot of unknown sex. The three-digit code following the alpha-code was a unique number assigned to each individual ocelot and bobcat uniquely identified as part of the cat monitoring program at the Refuge; a system that was accurate and consistent since approximately 2007. The term lifeStage was a rough estimate of age (i.e., juvenile or adult) based in part on the study of ocelots in Texas, wherein the weight of ocelots appeared to be correlated with age in the kitten to subadult and even early adult stages (see chart below). Age estimated based on measured mass/weight 0 - 5 months = 3.4 kg or less 6 - 11 months = 3.4 - 6 kg 12 - 17 months = 5.1 - 6.6 kg 18 - 23 months = 6.2 - 7.2 kg Age estimates may have also been influenced based on teeth eruption, tooth wear (conditions recorded under the term “teethWear”) and any obvious adult reproductive characteristics. Age estimates may have also reflected staff knowledge based on photographs from remote cameras (and confidence in identification based on fur pattern from such animals). A frequently updated document was used by USFWS staff since ca. 2009 to track the history or “biography” of each ocelot known from the Refuge and this document also informed ageing estimates. The USFWS terms ageEstimateYearsMinimum, ageEstimateYearsMaximum, ageEstimateMonths were to assist the user in understanding the range of values USFWS staff placed on the individual at the time of capture and are relatively self-explanatory by name. In the field, during handling of a trapped ocelot, staff made notes on the estimated age in months for younger ocelots on occasion. To record these data for these younger ocelots, the term ageEstimateMonths was used. For all ocelots estimated to be of an age of 2 years or more, there was no value (i.e., “0”) given for the ageEstimateMonths field. For some individuals that were recorded with an estimate of, for example, “4.5 to 5.5 years old”, we found no record for such precision, and their age was rounded up to the next year, e.g., 5 to 6 years old, in the case of the example given. Following this example, the field for ageEstimateYearsMinimum would have been 5, and the field for ageEstimateYearsMaximum would have been 6. For any such individual that either age was not recorded later, we simply increased the minimum and maximums through time. For any individual (e.g., OM301) not caught enough to provide more information and was quite heavy at first capture and staff recorded age as, for example, “2+” [years], these individuals were assigned (in this example) a minimum age of 3, and a maximum of 5, intending to skip a year for the maximum as a notification to data users that the ocelot may indeed be much older than the age estimate. In the case of individuals that staff estimated to be for example 15 months old, ageEstimateYearsMinimum was recorded as 1 (year), ageEstimateYearsMaximum was recorded as 1 (year), and ageEstimateMonths was recorded as 3 (months). In the singular case of an individual (i.e., OM283) that staff estimated as 9-12 months, ageEstimateYearsMinimum was recorded as 0 (year), ageEstimateYearsMaximum was recorded as 1 (year), and ageEstimateMonths was recorded as 9 (months); that estimates not be confused to suggest that staff believed the individual was estimated to be 21 months old. If age was left unrecorded in the digital database that was being curated for public release, we used age estimates from previous capture data and used the dynamic “biographies” documents USFWS staff maintained until 2021 to corroborate the age estimate assignment in this dataset. In this dataset all ocelots estimated as 2 years old were classified as adults due to their weight. But from the standpoint of their physiological development, their independence from their dam, or as having an independent territory, etc, those items were not assessed in the assignment of an age estimate. Therefore, users should use the data for these relatively young ocelots with precaution if ranking them as adults, possibly considering other evidence such as measured weight, etc, to assess whether they consider the lifeStage value is accurate and appropriate for subsequent analyses. The USFWS term estBirthdate was based upon expert knowledge of individual ocelots and in some cases was recorded on the field datasheet and subsequent dataset. To provide a standard date format, we added/assigned the first day of the month from their birthdate estimate. In summary, measurements are presented here in kg for mass (weight) of the ocelot, and mm for canine length, and all other measures in cm. The term mass is based on the definition of the Phenotype And Trait Ontology source and is measured in kg in this dataset. Mass is preferred to the term weight by this standard. The term neckCircumference_cm was recorded in values of cm in this dataset. The VTO defined this term as “Any measurable or observable characteristic related to the shape, structure, color or pattern of the portion of the body that extends from the head to the pectoral girdle, encompassing the cervical vertebral column”. The neck was measured using a flexible tape wrapped around the longest axis of the neck. The term headCircumference_cm was recorded in values of cm in this dataset. It is a term defined by the Vertebrate Trait Ontology as “the distance around the widest part of the portion of the body containing the brain and organs of sight, hearing, taste, and smell”. The head was measured using a flexible tape wrapped around the longest axis of the cranium as described. The term bodyLength comes from FuTRES Ontology of Vertebrate Traits (FOVT) source and was recorded in values of cm in this dataset. The measurement was intended to include the length of the head, neck, torso, and tail. The FOVT defines it as the “length of a body that includes the tail”, which includes from the point of the nose to the longest point of the tail. The term bodyLength might have been more appropriately labelled in this dataset as a longer descriptor “body length with tail”. The term tailLength_cm was recorded in values of cm in this dataset. The VTO defines this term as the “distance from point to point along the longest axis of the appendage at the caudal end of the vertebral column”. It appears that in some cases staff were not including the tail measurement as part of the total bodyLength value. Users might want to consider adding the recorded tailLength_cm value to the bodyLength value if the bodyLength seems considerably shorter (e.g., compared to previous measures, or in comparison to ocelots of similar mass) such that an error in recording is suspected. In many cases we believe the (total) bodyLength value did not include the tail (e.g., OM283 on 2016 0412). Overall, users should use caution in making broad interpretations about differences in measurements for the same individual across years. The term rightHindFootLength_cm was a term from the FuTRES Ontology of Vertebrate Traits source and this measure was recorded in values of cm in this dataset. In our application the right hindfoot was the standard appendage measured. The right hindfoot was measured from the tip of the nail to the furthest end of the calcaneum. The term rightHindFootLength_cm is synonymous with “pes length with nail” by some other sources for standard terms. The USFWS terms leftCanine_mm and rightCanineLength_mm were recorded in values of mm in this dataset. This term was not found explicitly as a standard term among the available ontology standards although we reference the definition from VTO as “Any measurable or observable characteristic related to the shape, structure, color or pattern of the bone-like structures embedded in the jaw and used for mastication”. The top canines were measured from the gumline to the tip of the canine and recorded in mm, or in cm and converted to mm, for this dataset. The USFWS term teethWear was not found as a standard term among the available ontology standards. Rating of teeth wear was not necessarily standardized across all staff and years; staff rated the wear and condition of the teeth visually and on a 4-tiered score: none, minimal, moderate, severe. The classification of “heavy” was used by staff and changed in this dataset to be more qualitative as opposed to appearing as if it were a measure of mass; the value of “heavy” was replaced with the value “severe”. There were also remarks made about the teeth such as chipped teeth, apparent tartar or build-up on teeth, and missing teeth on some occasions, but we felt these values may have been inconsistently assessed or recorded and did not include them. For any measures that were not recorded the value entered was “NR”.

Acknowledgements Many U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service staff and Student Conservation Association interns and volunteers contributed to this project, including Boyd Blihovde, Karen Ceballos, Gaby Chio, Kelly Crandall, Christopher Hickling, Grant Harris, Chloe Horton, Nina Kappel, Andreas Liang, Tori Locke, Elliot Lustig, Kelly McDowell, Katrina Marklevits, Sara Miller, Andee Naccarato, Sonny Perez, Molly Picillo, Bruce Radabaugh, Elizabeth Saldo, Greta Schmidt, Bob Severson, Kathryn Shupe, Becca Thomas-Kuzilik, John Wallace, and Nate Berg (Tetlin NWR). Dr. Thomas deMaar, Gladys Porter Zoo, provided technical guidance and assistance in the sedation, anesthesia, and care for live-trapped animals. Funding for one intern was provided by the Houston Zoo. Major funding was provided by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Friends of Laguna Atascosa National Wildlife Refuge.
Introduction USFWS staff deployed large, single-door, traps with attached bait cages containing live pigeons to trap and collar bobcats. Trapping and handling protocols followed those of Sternberg & Swarts (2021). Staff prioritized the capture of certain individuals that had been observed from photographs of automated cameras and areas in which new and/or unmonitored ocelots were suspected.
Getting Started

The dataset contains information gathered the captures and measurements from 24 ocelots around Laguna Atascosa National Wildlife Refuge in Texas, USA, from 2011-2021. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) captured endangered ocelots to monitor the local population. Ocelots were captured in box-traps, and if appropriate for tracking their movements, were sedated, anesthetized, fit with a VHF or GPS collar, and released on USFWS lands following protocols in Sternberg and Swarts (2021).

Some ocelots were captured multiple times. For those capture events when there was no need to sedate, anesthetize the ocelot (e.g., collection of blood sample(s), attachment of VHF or GPS collar), or if they had recently been collared, the ocelot was released. Events for which ocelots were sedated, etc, were classified as a “Capture” and others were classified as a “Release”. Any ocelots captured that were estimated to be <6 months old were released without any handling.

Data are provided in TXT format. These data contain locations of these uniquely identified ocelots, when possible, as well as sex, life stage, estimated birth year and month, weight, a measures of body length and other standard morphometrics.

Purpose The purpose of these data from captured ocelots was to assist the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in monitoring the populations of this federally endangered species at the Laguna Atascosa National Wildlife Refuge in Texas. The publication of these data will hopefully encourage further contributions of similar data to the public from other groups, and along with these data, assist the broader scientific community to inform the management and recovery of ocelots.
Maintenance Description No additional data are planned to be added to this dataset.
Alternative Identifiers https://ipt.gbif.us/resource?r=ocelot_captures_and_morphometrics_2011-2021-usfws