literature review of puma

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• v.12(6); 2022 Jul

Dietary patterns of a versatile large carnivore, the puma ( Puma concolor )

Harshad karandikar.

1 Department of Environmental Science, Policy & Management, Mulford Hall, University of California, Berkeley California, USA

Mitchell W. Serota

Wilson c. sherman, jennifer r. green, guadalupe verta, claire kremen.

2 Institute for Resources, Environment and Sustainability, University of British Columbia, Vancouver British Columbia, Canada

3 Department of Zoology, Biodiversity Research Centre, University of British Columbia, Vancouver British Columbia, Canada

Arthur D. Middleton

Associated data.

Manuscripts identified through the literature review process for this analysis are listed in Appendix S1 .

• Large carnivores play critical roles in terrestrial ecosystems but have suffered dramatic range contractions over the past two centuries. Developing an accurate understanding of large carnivore diets is an important first step towards an improved understanding of their ecological roles and addressing the conservation challenges faced by these species.
• The puma is one of seven large felid species in the world and the only one native to the non‐tropical regions of the New World. We conducted a meta‐analysis of puma diets across the species’ range in the Americas and assessed the impact of varying environmental conditions, niche roles, and human activity on puma diets. Pumas displayed remarkable dietary flexibility, consuming at least 232 different prey species, including one Critically Endangered and five Endangered species.
• Our meta‐analysis found clear patterns in puma diets with changing habitat and environmental conditions. Pumas consumed more larger‐bodied prey species with increasing distance from the equator, but consumption of medium‐sized species showed the opposite trend.
• Puma diets varied with their realized niche; however, contrary to our expectations, puma consumption of large species did not change with their trophic position, and pumas consumed more small prey and birds as apex predators. Consumption of domestic species was negatively correlated with consumption of medium‐sized wild species, a finding which underscores the importance of maintaining intact native prey assemblages.
• The tremendous dietary flexibility displayed by pumas represents both an opportunity and a challenge for understanding the puma’s role in ecosystems and for the species’ management and conservation. Future studies should explore the linkages between availability and selection of primary and other wild prey, and consequent impacts on predation of domestic species, in order to guide conservation actions and reduce conflict between pumas and people.

We conducted a meta‐analysis of puma diets across the species’ range in the Americas and assessed the impact of varying environmental conditions, niche roles, and human activity on puma diets. Our meta‐analysis found clear patterns in puma diets with changing habitat and environmental conditions. Puma diets also varied with their realized niche. The tremendous dietary flexibility displayed by pumas represents both an opportunity and a challenge for understanding the puma's role in ecosystems and for the species’ management and conservation.

1. INTRODUCTION

Large carnivores play critical roles in shaping and regulating ecosystems. In addition to the well‐documented trophic cascade impacts on food webs in ecosystems, recent research has highlighted the impacts of these species on a wide range of ecological processes, including limiting the spread of disease, carbon sequestration, and regulating biogeochemical cycles (Estes et al., 2011 ; Pauli et al., 2018 ). Despite this, large carnivores are among the most threatened taxonomic groups across the world (Ripple et al., 2014 ). Most large carnivore species across the world have seen significant population declines and range contractions, with intact carnivore guilds limited to only about a third of the world's land area (Wolf & Ripple, 2017 ). Although most of these species are now legally protected and are the focus of conservation actions across the globe, the severity and widespread nature of the threats faced by these species continues to threaten the persistence of many large wild carnivore populations (Ripple et al., 2014 ). Understanding carnivore ecology and behavior is critical to ensure the success of conservation efforts for these species and maintaining functional large carnivore populations that regulate critical ecological interactions.

Diets are an important component of a species’ ecology and function and offer vital information on important biological parameters including niche breadth, trophic specialization, and prey selection (Monterroso et al., 2019 ). Diets and dietary flexibility, especially in the case of species such as obligate carnivores that depend on specific food categories, may also be the limiting factor in the ability of a species to adapt to changing environmental conditions. Prey depletion is one of the biggest threats to large carnivore populations across the world (Wolf & Ripple, 2016 ), and the reduced availability of large‐sized prey may have played a key role in some of the late Quaternary extinctions (Meachen‐Samuels & Van Valkenburg, 2010 ). Plasticity in large carnivore diets and predation behavior is, however, rarely systematically assessed and understood, especially in the case of ambush predators that attack large prey in complex terrain (Sunquist & Sunquist, 2019 ; Williams et al., 2014 ). Understanding diets and dietary flexibility may also help in understanding indirect and cryptic interactions, as well as highlighting the risk of secondary extinctions (Brodie et al., 2014 ). From an ecological perspective, greater flexibility in a species is likely to increase the context dependency of its ecological impacts, for example, on lower trophic levels. From a conservation point of view, greater flexibility is likely to increase resilience to human disturbance, given that more flexible species are likely to survive in increasingly fragmented landscapes (Devictor et al., 2008 ). Although many large felids display high levels of resilience by adapting to and even thriving in many highly human‐modified environments, including high‐intensity agriculture (Warrier et al., 2020 ) and dense urban areas (Athreya et al., 2013 ; Benson et al., 2020 ), this flexibility also brings them into close contact with humans, resulting in increased negative interactions with people (Athreya et al., 2016 ). This is especially important as carnivores around the world recolonize large parts of their former range after serious declines and population extirpations in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries (Chapron et al., 2014 ; Gompper et al., 2015 ; Miller et al., 2013 ), due to a combination of factors, including changing attitudes, enhanced legal protections, and improved practices that facilitate coexistence. This range expansion and recolonization can thus result in unintended or unexpected consequences (Pauli et al., 2018 ). A systematic understanding of large carnivore diets can thus offer important insights into ecosystem functioning and inform policy, conservation, and wildlife management actions.

The puma ( Puma concolor ) is one of seven large felid species in the world and the only one native to the non‐tropical regions of the New World. Pumas are found in a diverse range of habitats and environments, from mountainous temperate regions to tropical areas, and from wilderness to areas with high levels of human use (Benson et al., 2020 ). Pumas are apex predators in large parts of their natural range, especially in southern South America, but are subordinate to other large predators including gray wolves ( Canis lupus ), grizzly bears ( Ursus arctos ), and jaguars ( Panthera onca ) in North and Central America and the tropical regions of South America (Elbroch & Kusler, 2018 ). The species plays an important ecological role with critical trophic cascade impacts documented or hypothesized in several settings (Leempoel et al., 2019 ; Ripple & Beschta, 2006 ; Wang et al., 2015 ), including on other key functional groups such as scavengers like the Andean condor ( Vultur gryphus ) (Perrig et al., 2017 ), and a multitude of other important biotic relationships (LaBarge et al., 2022 ). Despite being considered as the archetypical ambush hunter, some studies suggest a certain degree of flexibility in puma hunting styles, habitat needs, and diets (Anderson, 1983 ; Hornocker & Negri, 2010 ; Iriarte et al., 1990 ), which may have been instrumental in the species’ recolonization of several parts of its former range despite widespread persecution resulting in precipitous declines in puma numbers and range contractions in the twentieth century (Mazzolli, 2012 ; Walker & Novaro, 2010 ). Despite these range recoveries, puma populations continue to see an overall declining trend (Nielsen et al., 2015 ). A systematic analysis of the dietary patterns and the dietary flexibility displayed by the species can offer additional insights that can inform conservation actions for a species that is considered as a high conservation priority felid despite its wide‐ranging status (Dickman et al., 2015 ).

We conducted a systematic review of literature on puma diets across the species’ geographical range in the Americas, with the primary objective of understanding puma dietary plasticity and its possible ecological and conservation implications. Specifically, we analyzed puma dietary patterns across changing habitats, environmental conditions, trophic dynamics, and human use of the landscape and tested the following hypotheses and predictions:

• Consumption of larger prey species will increase with increasing latitudes (as reported in Iriarte et al., 1990 ), whereas consumption of medium and smaller‐sized prey will be greater in tropical biomes (Blackburn & Hawkins, 2004 )
• Consumption of larger species will be greater in North America, whereas the consumption of small mammals and rodents will be greater in South America (Iriarte et al., 1990 )
• Dietary diversity will be greater in the tropical biomes and in South America due to the greater availability and diversity of small prey species (Iriarte et al., 1990 ; Murphy & Ruth, 2010 )
• The consumption of larger prey species will be greater in ecosystems where the puma is an apex predator (as hypothesized in Iriarte et al., 1990 ) due to the absence of competition with larger predators
• Dietary diversity will be greater in ecosystems where the puma is a subordinate predator due to competition with larger predators for larger prey
• In areas with increased human footprint on the landscape, pumas will consume more domestic species and smaller‐sized prey
• The consumption of domestic species will be greater when the consumption of large wild prey is lower
• Puma diets will change over time to include greater proportions of domestic species due to changes in human impact on landscapes

2.1. Literature review and data collection

We searched the databases Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar for studies on puma diets and food habits, using two search strings: (1) puma OR "mountain lion" OR cougar AND diet, and (2) puma OR "mountain lion" OR cougar AND food. For the first 500 results for each search, we reviewed the study abstract to determine whether the study was focused on or included data on puma diets. A total of 68 studies were identified through this search process. An additional 35 studies were found by reviewing studies cited in the shortlisted studies and by reviewing book chapters and personal bibliographies of the authors. While the primary literature search was conducted between March and April 2020, we also included subsequently published articles that were relevant to the analysis. Studies from this list were subsequently added to the primary dataset if they met all of the following criteria: (1) diet data were stated as frequency of occurrence (FO), defined as the proportion of scats or stomachs that included a particular prey species or prey category, or as percentage of occurrence (PO), defined as the proportion of kills, scats or stomachs that comprised of a particular prey species or prey category; or where FO or PO values could be easily calculated from the data, (2) sample size was at least 5 units (scats, stomachs, or clusters), (3) samples were collected in more than one season, (4) values for most dietary categories (explained below) were clearly stated or could be calculated, and (5) the study unambiguously distinguished puma‐specific samples from those of any sympatric felids. After filtering for these criteria, 73 studies were initially retained for our analysis (Appendix S1 ). If a study reported separate data from multiple locations or time periods, each instance was considered an independent data point unless these locations or time periods were spatially or temporally adjacent. If a study reported data from multiple locations without a clear physical gap between these locations (for example, separately reported data from a protected area and the adjoining working landscape) or from consecutive calendar years or seasons, these data were combined and considered as a single data point.

For each retained study, we determined the location of the study area, study length in months, median study year, study area biome, continent (North, Central or South America, with Central America defined as the region south of Mexico to the southern boundary of Panama), the kind of samples used for diet assessment (scats, stomachs, or clusters), sample size, diet metric(s) used (FO and/or PO), a value for the human footprint index (explained below) (Venter et al., 2016 , 2018 ), a value for dietary diversity and whether pumas were apex predators or sympatric with other large predators in the study area (Elbroch & Kusler, 2018 ). Studies from Central America were subsequently combined with studies from North America for analyses. If the coordinates of the study location were not stated, we used Google maps to visually estimate the centroid for the study area based on the description in the study. The study area biomes were determined using the classification in Olson et al., 2001 , and subsequently pared down to five major biome categories: grasslands, tropical forests, temperate forests, Mediterranean habitats, and deserts. Human impact values were determined by using the human footprint index (Venter et al., 2016 , 2018 ). The human footprint index value was determined by calculating the average value in a 50 km buffer around the study area centroid using the raster package (Hijmans & van Etten, 2016 ) in R (Newsome et al., 2016 ), using the values from Venter et al. ( 2018 ), which offers a high‐resolution index of human impact and influence, calculated using a variety of indicators such as population densities, linear infrastructure, and land use types. Dietary diversity was estimated using the standardized Levin's measure of niche breadth (Hurlbert, 1978 ; Levins, 2020 ).

We classified puma dietary data by assigning each consumed prey species to one of seven food groups, adapted from Newsome et al. ( 2016 ): (1) domestic species, irrespective of body mass or taxonomic class, (2) very large wild prey (>130 kg), (3) large wild prey (23–130 kg), (4) medium wild prey (3–22 kg), (5) small wild prey, including small rodents (0.1–2 kg), (6) birds, irrespective of body mass, and (7) other or unidentified species. We used average body mass values from the Ecological Society of America (ESA) Pantheria database (Jones et al., 2009 ) and rounded values to the closest integer. We calculated group values by summing values for all species for the group. If a study included only FO data, group PO values were calculated from the group FO values by calculating the group FO to total FO ratio (Tirelli et al., 2019 ; Wang, 2002 ). If a study stated separate dietary values for each season or for male, female, and subadult pumas, we used weighted averages to determine overall values.

2.2. Data checks

FO is the most commonly used metric for measuring carnivore diets (Klare et al., 2011 ). A large proportion of the available large carnivore dietary studies are, however, based on identified carnivore kills that can only offer PO data. Although many dietary reviews exclude studies without FO data (Doherty et al., 2015 , 2019 ), this approach eliminates many studies and significantly reduces sample sizes. Previous research contends that both kill‐based and scat‐based methods offer similar results in terms of prey composition (Perilli et al., 2016 ; but see Ackerman et al., 1984 and Klare et al., 2011 ). In addition, studies based on GPS cluster investigations have reported significant numbers and proportions of small prey in large carnivore diets (Allen et al., 2015 ; Pitman et al., 2014 ). To check for the effect of the metric used (FO or PO) on puma diet composition and in order to avoid bias due to small sample sizes, we used the approach of Newsome et al. ( 2016 ). First, using the mean diet category values for each biome, we used a Mantel test (Mantel, 1967 ) with 1000 iterations to compare the full dataset with a subset of the full dataset that only included studies that used FO as a metric. Next, as an additional check, we used a multivariate analysis with 1000 iterations with the mvabund package (Wang et al., 2012 ) to test for the effect of diet metric and sample size on the eight food groups. Sample size values included the number of analyzed scats, stomachs, colons, and investigated kills, including those found at GPS clusters, as reported in the study.

The Mantel test revealed that the two datasets were strongly and significantly correlated ( r  = .9, p  < .001), suggesting that the FO subset mirrors the full dataset. The multivariate analysis of the full dataset, with the diet categories as the response variables, revealed a significant effect of both the diet metric and sample size; therefore, we tested whether the diet metric was still significant after omitting studies with a sample size less than 20. The analysis with a minimum sample size of 20 showed no significant effect of the diet metric at the multivariate or univariate level. This dataset was thus used for all subsequent analyses, consisting of 71 independent data points from 62 unique studies.

2.3. Analyses

We used separate multivariate (i.e., multiple response variables) models with a negative binomial distribution to assess the role of differences in latitudes, biomes, continents, niche roles, human impacts on the landscape, and time on puma diets. To account for the effects of multiple testing, we report adjusted p‐values for univariate tests and use a cutoff value of 0.05 to report significant results. Diagnostic plots and checks outlined in Wang et al. ( 2012 ) were used to confirm compliance with model assumptions. In each model, the PO values of the seven food categories were the response variables and the factors that were hypothesized to impact these variables, including latitudes, biomes, continents, niche roles, and human impacts, were the predictor variables. For example, in the model assessing the relationship between latitudes and puma diets, the seven food category values were the response variables, whereas latitude was the predictor variable. Absolute latitude values were used to understand how diets changed with increasing distance to the equator. To assess the effect of time, the median study year was used. All variables were scaled and centered. All multivariate analyses were done using the mvabund R package (Wang et al., 2012). We used one‐way anova to assess the relationship between dietary diversity and biomes and a Mann‐Whitney U test to understand the relationship between dietary diversity and continents and between dietary diversity and niche role.

Pumas preyed upon at least 232 unique species, including 19 very large and large wild mammals, 67 medium‐sized wild mammals, 92 small wild mammals, 30 birds, and 8 domestic species, including 1 Critically Endangered and 5 Endangered species (Appendix S2 ). Out of the 99 independent data points from the 73 studies in the initial dataset, 50 were from North America, 44 from South America, and 5 from Central America. An important point to note here is the absence of studies from a large part of the puma range in the Amazon (Figure ​ (Figure1). 1 ). Of these 99 independent data points, 68 consisted of diets assessed from an analysis of scats, 22 from cluster studies, 7 from stomach contents, 1 from colon contents, and 1 study that used data from scats and stomachs. The number of species across North and South America was evenly distributed, with 125 species consumed by pumas in North America compared to 117 in South America. The mean sample size for the dataset used for the analyses (excluding studies with sample sizes smaller than 20) was 186.87 ± 25.44 samples (mean ± SE). The mean study duration was 49.99 ± 5.06 months, excluding one study that did not report a study length.

Puma diet composition in North (upper panel) and South America (lower panel). Pumas consumed significantly more large prey in North America compared with South America. Puma diets comprised more large prey at higher latitudes and more medium‐sized prey at lower latitudes

3.1. Differences across latitudes, biomes, and continents

We found evidence to support our hypothesis that puma diets change with latitudes, biomes, and continents. Puma diets changed significantly with changes in latitude (F 1,69  = 42.51, p  < .001). Univariate tests showed a significant effect of latitude on consumption of very large (F = 15.76, p  < .001), large (F = 8.87, p  = .006), and medium (F = 15.26, p  < .001) mammals, but not on domestic species, small mammals, and birds. In line with our first prediction, consumption of very large and large species increased with increasing latitude, while that of medium‐sized species showed a decreasing trend with increasing latitude (Figure ​ (Figure1). 1 ). Puma diets also varied significantly across biomes (F 4,66  = 93.82, p  < .001), and univariate tests indicated significant effects of biomes on very large (F = 17.25, p  = .008), large (F = 21.89, p  = .001), and medium (F = 27.08, p  < .001) mammals and birds (F = 13.15, p  = .036). Medium‐sized species were consumed the most in tropical forests and the least in temperate forest biomes (Figure ​ (Figure2). 2 ). Significant differences were found between puma diets in North and South America (F 1,69  = 39.91, p  < .001), with univariate differences found for large (F = 12.87, p  = .002) and small mammals (F = 8.69, p  = .009) and birds (F = 12.52, p  = .002), but not for any of the other groups. Large mammal consumption was higher in North America, while small mammal consumption was higher in the south, confirming our second prediction. Puma diets in North America were biased toward large wild prey, with medium‐sized wild prey the next most consumed category, as compared to South America, where medium‐sized prey constituted the largest food group, with large‐medium wild prey and small mammals constituting other important groups (Figure ​ (Figure1). 1 ). Dietary diversity did not change across biomes (F 10,60  = 1.07, p  = .402) or between North and South America ( p  = .073).

Consumption of prey across prey categories in the major biome groups. Except tropical forest biomes, where medium‐sized prey dominated puma diets, large species were the dominant prey category

3.2. Impact of niche roles on puma diet

We found partial support for our hypothesis that the niche role played by pumas in the ecosystem impacted puma diets, but did not find support for our prediction that consumption of larger prey species will be greater in ecosystems where the puma was an apex predator. Puma diets changed significantly in regions where the species was an apex predator, compared with regions where they were subordinate to other large predators (F 1,69  = 20.3, p  = .004). At the univariate level, niche role significantly impacted consumption of small prey (F = 6.07, p  = .038) and birds (F = 6.49, p  = .038). Pumas in regions where the species was a subordinate predator consumed fewer small prey than in regions where it was an apex predator. Bird consumption was also higher in systems where the species was an apex predator. Dietary diversity did not change with change in niche role ( p  = .273).

3.3. Role of human impacts and time

Our hypothesis regarding impact of human footprint on puma diets was not supported. Human footprint did not significantly affect puma diets (F 1,69  = 10.36, p  = .126), including consumption of domestic species and small wild prey species. We did not find support for our prediction regarding increased consumption of domestic species with lower consumption of very large and large wild prey; however, a post hoc analysis suggested that consumption of domestic species decreased with the total consumption of medium‐sized prey ( p  = .027, Spearman's ρ = −.26). A large proportion of studies in our analysis ( n  = 32) did not report any consumption of domestic species. Finally, puma diets did not change with time (F 1,69  = 10, p  = .11) and we found no effect of median study year on consumption of very large (F = 0.006, p  = .928) and large (F = 0.184, p  = .848) wild species. Detailed results of the multivariate models, including univariate analyses, are available in Appendix S3 .

4. DISCUSSION

Anthropogenic disturbances have resulted in significant extinctions, local extirpations, and population declines in most taxonomic groups across the world (Ceballos et al., 2015 , 2017 ; IPBES, 2019 ). Extinction threat levels, however, vary considerably across taxa due to a combination of factors including species’ plasticity and environmental stressors (Young et al., 2016 ). Diet specialists, for example, are more susceptible to environmental change compared with diet generalists (Clavel et al., 2011 ; Devictor et al., 2008 ) with one of the hypotheses for the extinction of the saber‐toothed cats (Smilodon spp) , for example, being its dependence on large prey (Meachen‐Samuels & Van Valkenburg, 2010 ). In this study, we found that at the species level, pumas displayed a high degree of dietary plasticity, consuming an incredible diversity of prey species across their range, ranging from large wild ungulates such as the elk ( Cervus canadensis ), which can weigh over 350 kg, to a multitude of small rodent and mammalian species under a kilogram. At least three studies in our analysis reported pumas switching to other prey species after steep declines in large wild prey numbers (Novaro et al., 2000 , Pia, 2013 ; Sweitzer et al., 1997 ), including preying on a combination of medium or small native mammals, supplemented by livestock and other exotic species. This remarkable degree of plasticity has important implications for both ecology and conservation.

Dietary plasticity is one mechanism that allows consumers to persist in wide‐ranging environments with variable amounts of disturbances. A recent analysis of carnivores in the neotropics found that pumas have among the greatest range of prey body mass in their diet (Cruz et al., 2022 ). In comparison, the jaguar, the other large felid in the Americas, is one of the species of felids exhibiting the least amount of variation in prey body mass (Cruz et al., 2022 ). Given the large differences in dietary flexibility, it is perhaps unsurprising that the jaguar has lost nearly 50% of its original range and is of greater conservation concern than the puma (Nielsen et al., 2015 ; Zeller, 2007 ). The ability of pumas to thrive in a wide range of habitats, disperse large distances, fulfill varying roles as an apex or subordinate predator, and survive on a diverse range of prey species is likely to have contributed to its recent resurgence and persistence. Research using dental microwear analysis also suggests that this flexibility may similarly have been critical to the species’ survival through the Late Pleistocene extinction event (DeSantis & Haupt, 2014 ).

Despite the high level of variability in habitats, trophic positions, and human influence across the puma range, we found clear patterns in puma diet across latitudes, continents, and biomes, in line with results from previous analyses (Iriarte et al., 1990 ). The consumption of larger prey increased with increasing latitudes, while the consumption of medium prey increased with proximity to the equator. Within continents, the consumption of large species and birds was higher in North America, whereas small species were consumed more in South America. Finally, across biomes pumas had a higher proportion of large and large‐medium prey species in their diet in the desert, grassland, and temperate biomes compared with tropical biomes, where pumas consumed more medium‐sized prey species. In contrast with previous analyses (Iriarte et al., 1990 ; Murphy & Ruth, 2010 ), however, dietary diversity did not change across biomes, continents or with the trophic position of pumas. While clear patterns exist, we contend that the observed trends across latitudes, continents, and biomes may likely reflect differences in prey availability. According to optimal foraging theory, pumas should select for prey that maximizes both energy intake and fitness (Stephens & Dunlap, 2007 ). Selecting for larger prey tends to be more energy efficient, and mammalian predators larger than 21.5 kg in body mass tend to select for prey that are 45% greater than their own body mass, across predator families (Carbone et al., 1999 ). This behavioral decision is, however, influenced by prey availability and the relative profitability of alternate prey. Predator and prey behavior, morphology, and physiology as well as the landscape in which predation occurs also play a role and may impact the energetic yield (Stephens & Dunlap, 2007 ). According to Bergmann's rule, animal body size increases with increasing latitudes, which would result in greater availability of larger prey for pumas at higher latitudes (Blackburn et al., 1999 ). Our results showing greater proportions of larger prey consumed with increasing latitudes and greater proportions of medium prey consumed in tropical biomes are in line with this general rule. Variation in prey size between continents also likely reflects differences in the availability of prey between continents. Almost half of puma diets comprised medium‐sized species in South America as compared to North America, where over half of puma diets comprised large species, with medium‐sized prey accounting for less than a fifth of the species’ diets (Figure ​ (Figure1), 1 ), although we acknowledge that smaller prey may possibly be overestimated in dietary analyses conducted using frequency‐based methods (Klare et al., 2011 ) and suggest that the exact proportions reported in our analysis be interpreted with caution. These differences in prey composition may likely be due to a combination of factors including lower large wild prey availability in many parts of the Amazon and the Patagonian steppe and steep declines over time in numbers of many medium‐sized prey species, especially rabbits and hares, in many regions in the puma range in the United States (Ripple et al., 2013 ). In the Patagonian steppe in southern South America, guanacos represent the only large‐bodied natural prey species for the puma and are often their most important prey item (Walker & Novaro, 2010 ) and represent a significant proportion of puma diets when abundant (Donadio et al., 2010 ). With guanacos declining and the species being functionally extinct in many parts of the steppe (Travaini et al., 2015 ), pumas are reported to rely increasingly on smaller species. Small mammals, including rodents, were thus reported to comprise over 50% of puma diets in several studies from the area (Donadio et al., 2010 ; Iriarte et al., 1991 ; Yáñez et al., 1986 ), with one study reporting that over 80% of puma diets comprised of small mammalian species (Pia, 2013 ).

Puma diets also varied with their realized niche, with pumas eating more small prey and birds as apex predators. However, puma consumption of larger prey species did not change with their trophic position as apex or subordinate predators. Three possible hypotheses may explain these results. First, the similarities in proportions of larger prey consumed may arise from pumas scavenging on kills made by larger predators, a behavior previously reported from western Canada (Knopff, Knopff, & Boyce, 2010 ), although other research from the same area reported that pumas showed temporal avoidance of areas used by wolves and did not scavenge from wolf kills (Kortello et al., 2007 ). Second, while selecting for larger prey tends to be energetically more efficient, this also increases the chances of injury (Mukherjee & Heithaus, 2013 ). In the absence of larger competing predators, pumas may be opportunistically increasing their intake of smaller prey. Finally, increased consumption of smaller prey and birds may simply reflect increased availability of these species (Iriarte et al., 1990 ; Murphy & Ruth, 2010 ). Across their distribution, pumas overlap with several larger predators, including wolves, jaguars, and both black and grizzly bears. As subordinate predators in ecosystems with these larger predators, pumas are likely to partition space, time, or their diet to coexist with more dominant carnivores. The presence of these sympatric predators likely affects puma behavior in multiple ways, including habitat selection and use, which may also consequently affect prey availability or selection (Elbroch & Kusler, 2018 ). Dietary flexibility may thus be one of several mechanisms by which pumas adapt to changing trophic roles.

In many ecosystems, humans often effectively act as the apex predator, exerting top‐down pressures, including direct and indirect effects, on large predators and lower trophic levels. Although humans have had wide‐ranging impacts on large parts of the puma range across the Americas, our analysis did not show any significant changes in puma diets through time, at least within the broad diet categories used in this analysis, despite large changes in land use in the Americas in the last century. In addition, human impacts on the environment did not appear to directly affect puma diets across categories, countering the hypothesis put forth in a recent study that suggested that puma consumption of large prey was related to levels of human influence (Cruz et al., 2022 ), although that study was limited to the neotropics. Our result is in line with previous research that reported that pumas continue to take large ungulates even with significant changes in human impacts on the landscape, including urban development (Robins et al., 2019 ), although research from the Santa Cruz Mountains in California found that pumas increased their predation rates and spent less time at kills in areas with a higher human footprint (Smith et al., 2015 , 2017 ), likely resulting in significant energetic costs. Pumas are thus able to survive in areas with high human impact and activity without significant changes to their diets, albeit by exhibiting behavioral flexibility by changing their predation patterns. We also did not find support for our prediction that puma consumption of domestic species would be correlated with a decrease in consumption of large wild prey. Instead, puma consumption of domestic species was correlated with decreased consumption of medium‐sized species. In combination with our previous findings that pumas appear to consume higher levels of smaller prey as apex predators, we contend that the importance of medium‐sized and smaller prey species to pumas might have been underestimated. While previous studies have reported that domestic species’ consumption by large predators increases with a decrease in wild prey biomass (Khorozyan et al., 2015 ), we suggest that this relationship may be more nuanced than previously understood. With management of native prey emphasized as a key element of holistic carnivore conflict mitigation strategies (Miller & Schmitz, 2019 ; Wilkinson et al., 2020 ), our findings also highlight the importance of maintaining intact native prey assemblages.

Although many studies reported that puma diets were dominated by one primary prey species, pumas demonstrated tremendous variability and differences in diet across regions, habitats, and even individuals, with several interesting results reported by individual studies. Pumas in Alberta, Canada, doubled their intake of non‐ungulate prey species in winter (Knopff, Knopff, Kortello, et al., 2010 ), in contrast to other findings from Idaho that reported that puma diets in the winter primarily comprised very large and large wild species (Hornocker, 1970 ). In the Pryor Mountains in Wyoming and Montana in the United States, pumas selected for bighorn sheep ( Ovis canadensis ) (Blake & Gese, 2016 ), in contrast to findings from studies in neighboring Idaho that reported that bighorn sheep contributions to puma diets were negligible (Hornocker, 1970 ). In Lihue Calel National Park in Argentina, the plains vizcacha ( Lagostomus maximus ), a large rodent, was the preferred prey for pumas, with pumas increasing consumption of other larger and smaller species only after a steep decline in vizcacha populations during the study (Branch et al., 1996 ). Pumas in central Argentina preferred large prey over more abundant small rodents, but those in southwestern Argentina preferred European hares ( Lepus europaeus ) even in areas with high guanaco densities (Pia, 2013 ). Pumas showed a similar trend of higher consumption of an alternative medium‐sized prey, the collared peccary ( Pecari tajacu ), over mule deer ( Odocoileus hemionus ) in another study in Texas (Leopold & Krausman, 1986 ). These specific examples provide further evidence and insight into puma dietary flexibility, and we contend that multiple factors, including availability, access, and ease of predation affect puma prey selection. Systematic availability of data regarding the background prey species distributions across all study locations, in particular, may significantly aid our understanding of puma prey selection; however, these data are difficult and expensive to obtain in most study systems. Understanding shifts in puma diets toward smaller species may have important implications in terms of persistence of mesopredators and consequent impacts on lower trophic levels in these ecosystems (Crooks & Soulé, 1999 ).

5. CONCLUSIONS & CONSERVATION IMPLICATIONS

Large carnivores play critical roles in terrestrial ecosystems, and research on trophic cascades and issues such as mesopredator release further underlines the importance of conserving functional large carnivore populations (Ripple et al., 2014 ; Ritchie & Johnson, 2009 ). Although carnivore populations are often regulated by bottom‐up factors in natural ecosystems (Hayward et al., 2007 ), humans also both directly and indirectly exert top‐down and bottom‐up pressures, and carnivore diet selection is fundamental to understanding both of these regulating factors. Our results indicating that pumas are dietary generalists give further insight into the success and wide distribution of pumas in comparison with other carnivores (DeSantis & Haupt, 2014 ; IUCN, 2021 ) This tremendous dietary flexibility displayed by pumas represents both an opportunity and a challenge.

While pumas may be able to easily adapt to declining availability of their primary prey by prey switching, this likely creates three important conservation and management challenges. One, the ability of pumas to switch to small or alternate prey species, including a large variety of small mammals and rodents, might impact trophic dynamics, including suppressing mesopredator and other small predator communities that are dependent on small prey, and impacts on primary producer communities. Two, this ability to switch to smaller or alternate prey may have implications for puma population dynamics, due to the likely higher energetic costs that will translate into impacts on fitness. Three, the widespread availability of human‐supported subsidies in the form of livestock and other domestic species in large parts of the puma range may result in increased conflict, retaliatory killings, and reduced tolerance for the species. We suggest that future studies explore the linkages between availability and selection of primary and other wild prey and consequent impacts on predation of domestic species to further guide conservation actions and reduce negative interactions between pumas and people.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

Harshad Karandikar: Conceptualization (lead); Data curation (equal); Formal analysis (lead); Methodology (equal); Writing – original draft (lead); Writing – review & editing (lead). Mitchell W Serota: Data curation (equal); Formal analysis (equal); Methodology (equal); Writing – original draft (supporting); Writing – review & editing (supporting). Wilson C Sherman: Data curation (equal); Writing – original draft (supporting); Writing – review & editing (supporting). Jennifer R Green: Data curation (equal); Writing – original draft (supporting); Writing – review & editing (supporting). Guadalupe Verta: Data curation (equal); Writing – original draft (supporting); Writing – review & editing (supporting). Claire Kremen: Formal analysis (supporting); Methodology (supporting); Writing – original draft (supporting); Writing – review & editing (supporting). Arthur Middleton: Methodology (supporting); Writing – original draft (supporting); Writing – review & editing (supporting).

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Supporting information

Acknowledgments.

The authors are grateful to the researchers of the manuscripts included in this analysis and the two reviewers who reviewed the manuscript. The first author is grateful for support received from the Berkeley Fellowship for Graduate Studies and for support from the Middleton and Kremen Research Groups at UC Berkeley.

Karandikar, H. , Serota, M. W. , Sherman, W. C. , Green, J. R. , Verta, G. , Kremen, C. , & Middleton, A. D. (2022). Dietary patterns of a versatile large carnivore, the puma ( Puma concolor ) . Ecology and Evolution , 12 , e9002. 10.1002/ece3.9002 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

The first author was supported by the Berkeley Fellowship for Graduate Studies and by the Middleton and Kremen Research Groups at UC Berkeley. Publication made possible in part by support from the Berkeley Research Impact Initiative (BRII) sponsored by the UC Berkeley Library. No separate funding was required for this project.

Puma: Company Analysis Report

Executive summary, introduction, strategic analysis, strategic development, implementation, recommendations, list of references.

Puma SE is one of the leading firms in the sports industry. Started in 1948, this German company has had growth in its market share, making it the second largest firm in the sports industry. Initially a shoe making company, this firm soon started producing all types of sportswear, including balls. The company lost its ground to its arch rival, Addidas and other new entrants.

In its quest to recapture its lost markets, the company has set programs that would ensure that it regains its lead in the market. It has redefined its value proposition, extended its line of production and ventured into new industries. All these are meant to give it a new direction towards success. This effort has seen it capture some new markets in that it had lost to some of its competitors in this industry.

Puma SE is one of the leading companies in the world in the sports industry. Established in 1948 when two brothers, Rudolf Dassler and Adolf Dassler broke up, Puma has grown from a family owned business to a partnership, and currently a public company with its shares listed in the country’s stock market (Woodruff 1997, p. 45).

It has a worldwide coverage, with a brand name that is known by many people across the world. In this sports industry, the company faces very strong competition from its arch rival which is also a sister company, Addidas. The Company has had cordial relationship with this firm, which is currently the market leader in this industry.

In this industry many firms have come into existence from various regions across the world. These new entrants are producing products with similar features as Puma, a fact that has seen competition sore in the world markets. The market share of Puma SE, from a technical view point, has significantly dropped (Payne & Holt 2001, P. 42).

Addidas still occupies the largest portion of home market share, and the world market in general. Presence of other international firms in this industry has further eaten up its market share. The firm is left with a limited market share, a fact that has seen it loose the glory it had in early 1970s.

Despite all these challenges, this firm has developed structures that would ensure that it remains competitive. It has broadened the scope of its products to go beyond shoes and balls. Currently, Puma produces virtually every sportswear. According to the reports given by Barnes and Pinder (2009, P. 45), the firm also plans to open a new line of designer clothes, outside its current sportswear productions.

Profile of the Business

Puma SE operates in the sports industry. It sells among other items, sports shoes, sports clothing, and balls. Although the firm has specialized in various sportswear and designer clothes, the company basically started out as a shoe making company (Andreson & Rossum 2006, p. 45). Although it makes profit from other lines of products, its leading revenue earner still remains shoe making.

According to Cunningham (2000), Puma SE comes second in the world in production of sportswear. The sports shoes have proven to be the best income earner for the company that has diversified its products to various industries. In Germany, which is the home country, the firm has had a huge market for its shoes in various disciplines in sports.

Although the brother company, Addidas has maintained the lead in this sector, the company has had huge profits from the sale of shoes. According to Eggert and Ulaga (2002, p. 78), football shoes accounts for the largest income earner for the firm. Its market share within the home country in production of sports shoes is 26 percent.

Although this local market is controlled largely by Addidas, Puma has maintained a close pursuit of the firm. Puma also comes second to the sister company Addidas in supply of sportswear.

Its sports products have widely gained acceptance in the world market because of its associated quality. Dubois, Jolibert, and Muhlbacher (2007, P. 75) observe that this company positioned itself as a company that has the interest of customers at heart.

This firm started out as a small shoe manufacturing company following the fallout between Adolf and Rudolf who were managing the parent company. They agreed to split the parent company, a move that saw the inception of the two world’s leading sportswear companies: Addidas and Puma in 1948 (Cohen & Morrison 2000, p. 39).

This company experienced consistent growth since its inception to early 1990s. The external environment was conducive for growth. The main competitor within the local market was the sister company, Addidas.

The two companies avoided direct competition, always operating as a unit. Through this, they were able to exercise full control of the market. They could set the prices they felt preferable to them. Because they had full control of the industry, they could easily control the suppliers. Due to this monopoly kind of operation, the company was able to amass a large capital base.

Through this, it was able to expand its market share to cover the entire country of Germany after operating for only four years (Kotler, Keller, Brady, Goodman, & Hansen 2009, p. 63). It would later venture into other European markets. It started by selling its products in Russia, France, and the Great Britain. Milroy (1983, p. 46) reports that this firm grew rapidly in the European markets.

Having realized the potential that existed in the American markets, this firm opened a number of shops in the two American continents. In the north, it identified a number of exclusive distributers within United States of America. It would later open other shops in Canada.

In the south, it opened exclusive shops in Brazil. It would later open other shops in Uruguay, Paraguay, and Chile. Business was doing well and by 1992, this German firm had exerted its presence in the entire Europe, the American continents, Asia and most parts of Africa.

According to Piercy (2009, p. 73), this company currently ranks second in the world in production of sportswear, after the sister company, Addidas. Although Addidas has dominated over 50 percent of the world’s market in this industry at the expense of Puma SE, there is still a room for the firm’s expansion.

Best (2009, p. 36) reports that according to the current economic condition of the firm, Puma SE stands out as a very strong company in this.

A statement issued by the chairman, Mr. Jochen Zeitz, and the Chief Executive Officer, Mr. Franz Koch, in the last annual conference shows that the company has laid down proper strategies that would enable it recapture most of the markets it lost to its sister company, Addidas and other new entrants into this industry from various countries in the world (Atkinson 1990, p. 124).

This scholar reports that the chairperson was very categorical in his statement on the firm’s opinion about their arch rival company: Addidas. The chairman is reported to have said that Addidas was and would remain a sister company to Puma SE. This was a strong indication that the firm was not considering any direct confrontational competition with Addidas in its quest to recapture the markets it had lost to it.

However, the firm’s Chief Executive Officer gave a very strong pointer that the firm would engage in fierce battles in the world markets against new entrants that were threatening its existence in various world markets.

Currently, Puma SE has more than 9350 employees located in different regions across the world. These are individuals who are directly employed by this firm as full time employees. However, the firm employs over half a million individuals across the world indirectly. Most of these individuals are people who work as the exclusive shop owners who stock the products of Puma, or their employees.

Others are employed in the logistics of this company while down the ladder are the cobblers who would repair the shoes in case they are in bad shape.

By the close of 2010 financial year, the firm had a strong financial base which was an indication that it was doing well in this industry (Andreson, Narus, & Rossum 2011, P. 98). This was an indication that it was still competitive despite the new entrants that have heightened the rate of competition.

The company’s balance sheet as at the end of this period was very strong. It showed that the company was in a position to finance most of its planned activities. It also showed that the company was able to settle all the debts, both long term and short-term, and still be in a position to run all its operations normally.

This supports the chairman and the chief executive officers’ statements that Puma is determined to ensure that it remained competitive in the world market. Its financial statements, in the appendix below show that the firm is in a position to manage competition.

Company Purpose

Puma’s vision is based on four values: fairness, honesty, positivity and creativeness. In their profile, Puma envisions a world that is peaceful, safer, and more creative than what we have today (Ahmed & Rafiq 2002, p. 83). In achieving this, the company sets to play its part by ensuring that it is fair to its customers and honest in all its dealings. It strives to achieve positivity in all its activities and creativity in its products.

The Business Environment

According to Adam & Healy (2000, p. 30), business environment plays a very important role in a firm’s success or failure. No business operates in a vacuum. Every business has various environmental factors that affect its operations in one way or the other.

As such, businesses around the world has been keen to monitor the environment and manipulate those that can be manipulated to its advantage, and conform to those forces that cannot be manipulated. As Holbrook (2003, p. 74) says, environmental factors can be grouped into three broad categories.

The first category is the internal environment, which can be analyzed through SWOT analysis, the external environment that can be done using PESTEL analysis and the competitive environment.

The Internal Environment: SWOT Analysis

Puma SE can be analyzed through the above-mentioned tool to ensure that its internal environment is completely understood.

Strength of this company arises from a number of factors. The main source of strength of Puma SE in this industry is its many years of experience (Weiss 1994, p. 82). This firm has been in operation for a considerably long period and currently understands exact needs of the market.

This gives it an edge over other firms in this industry. Moreover, its huge financial base, committed employees and dominance in the world markets have seen it edge out other competitors in the market.

However, as Gilbert (2001, 65) notes, one main weakness of Puma SE has been its slow adoption to the emerging technologies. The technology is changing very fast and with it comes various changes that every firm should get adapted to. Puma, although currently uses the modern means of production, took too long to embrace technological changes. This saw its competitors like Addidas overtake it as the market leader. Its financial base is also comparative less, taking into account the economic strength of its main competitor, Addidas.

Opportunities arise in the market that has seen this firm prosper. The Olympics, World Cups and such other major sporting events offer this company opportunity to market its products.

This company manufactures balls and other sports gear. Major world sports events offer it a huge opportunity to sell its products in mass. Within the local market, the firm also sells its products to local teams and organization found in this country.

The environment is marred with a number of threats. One main threat to Puma SE is the ease with which new entrants come into this industry.

Many firms producing the same products as Puma have eaten into its market share, threatening to drive it out of the market (Ward 1999, p. 43). Governments’ policies in various countries have also hindered its growth as some are restrictive. Volatile fuel prices also increases cost of production, lowering the profits of the firm.

External Environment PESTEL Analysis

Puma SE also experiences external environmental forces that have very strong influence in its operations. The external forces can best be analyzed through PESTEL analysis.

The political environment within its home country, Germany has been very stable. Germany has had a long period of political stability, a fact that has seen Puma grow to other regions of the world. The government has also been supportive to this firm, always ready to offer financial support (Ulaga & Chacour 2001, p. 41). It has also created a conducive environment where firms can access funds for development with ease.

However the political environment in other world regions has not been very conducive. Other governments have been hostile, while in other regions like Afghanistan, there lacks political stability that can sustain normal running of business.

The economic environment of this firm has had mixed fortunes. Germany is the only European country that never experienced the 2008/2009 world economic recession (Andreson, Narus, & Rossum 2010, 45). This means that Puma SE’s local market was not affected by the recession.

However, the firm operates in various other regions across the world, including the US, which was greatly affected by the recession. As the local market remained conducive, the international market was volatile, and to an extent, very weak.

Sports is a recreational activity, hence it enhances the social welfare of mankind. The social environment of Puma SE is much dictated by the industry in which it plays. Sports are loved across the world.

Being one of the facilitator of various sports popular in various regions, Puma has gained popularity in various regions. Having sponsored renowned sportsmen like Pele, Etoo and Maradona, many people have come to identify with its products, especially the football shoes (Lindgreen & Finn 2005, p. 16).

Technological environment plays a major role in the firm’s development in this industry. Technological changes have seen new methods of production come into existence. Technology brings with it mixed blessings. If a firm adapts technology at the right time and in the right manner, it would reap positively from it.

However, if it is slow to its adaption or adopts wrong technologies, the effect can be adverse. Puma learnt this and has adopted the new technologies. This has seen it prosper within this industry.

Environmental concerns like pollution have been a major issue within this industry. This firm, alongside the sister company, Addidas and their suppliers have been accused by an environmentalist group called Greenpeace of playing a major role in pollution of the environment (Frankfort-Nachmias & Nachmias 1992, p. 91).

In response to this, Puma has promised to reinvent its methods of production to minimize its levels of pollution. This was an attempt to ensure that it builds its public image.

As Bailey (1996, p. 72) states, no firm can operate in a lawless environment. Law is very important in ensuring that as an individual or entity enjoys his or her freedom, he or she does not interfere with others.

This way, business environments would have peace that it requires. Puma has always strove to ensure that its entire operations are within the confines of the law. This is to ensure that it does not face litigation in case it can be avoided.

The competitive environment has been tough for Puma. Once a flourishing firm with only Addidas as the main competitor, Puma currently operates in a very competitive market. New firms have emerged in various regions challenging the position of Puma in the world market.

Although Puma is still considered the second largest company in this industry, its market share has been significantly reduced in the world market (Flint, Woodruff, & Fisher 2002, p. 124). Back at home, Addidas takes a larger part of the market share, straining this firm even further. However, the firm has managed to keep afloat the competition through devising competitive strategies that has seen it increase its profitability.

Stakeholder Theory

Stakeholder theory helps in understanding the company’s in entirety in regard to individuals and corporate bodies that play part in its running. By conducting stakeholder analysis on Puma, it would be possible to determine the main decision makers, and how their decisions affect other members and the firm in general.

Puma has its shares traded publicly, and therefore its board of directors would have the final say in decision making. As such, it is important to understand factors that influence their decision-making.

Markowitz Portfolio Theory

Puma operates as a public company. The shareholders of this company expect returns from their investment. Markowitz Portfolio theory holds that shareholders’ return can be evaluated from two fronts, which are current dividend yield and capital gains yields. When investors buy shares of this company, their hope is that their shares would appreciate and they would be able to get profits after some time.

This can only be realized if the company is recording gains in its operations. Puma has registered some growth over the last three years as can be seen in its financial statements shown in the appendix below. For this reason, shareholders capital gains yield is positive.

Puma has had a slow growth over the last part of the twentieth century. The firm was doing well in the early seventies when it was threatening to floor its arch rival, Addidas. Briggs (1986, P. 37) reports of an incident during the1972 World Cup when Puma used Pele to market its football boots even after an agreement between Puma and Addidas that the two competitors would avoid using Pele in that tournament.

Since then, the trust between the two firms has dropped, a fact that has seen both of them treat each other with some elements of suspicion, though they have maintained cordial relationships, always avoiding scenarios that could lead to direct confrontation. Puma SE has developed strategic plans that would enable it prosper in the highly competitive market.

Basis of Competition

As stated above, completion in this industry is very rife. Bryman (2001, p. 73) laments that most of the new firms that come into existence are merely copy cuts. He asserts that most of them lack creativity that would see to it that they prosper in this competitive market.

As such, competition has become so stiff because items taken to the market are identical. In the sports industry, Puma faces the same problem. Many of the new firms that have come into existence are producing products that are exactly similar to Pumas’ products. It forces the company to devise methods that would ensure that it is able to manage this stiff competition.

Puma has ensured that it attracts customers to its products. To help in doing this, the firm has differentiated its products by its company logo for ease of identification from an array of similar products. The company has then positioned its products as user defined. Every product has its specific use as per the customer’s needs, and Puma is available to provide this.

It has developed value proposition that makes the brand be associated with quality for every single product they avail to the market. Always avoiding pricing as a market strategy, Puma has focused on providing quality to enhance its competitiveness (Fifield 2007, p. 63).

Its products have therefore acquired a special niche in the market, making them stand out among the rest as the preferred quality provider. As such, many customers have come to like the products and are making purchase of the products at the peril of other compotators.

Existing Strategy

Puma has reinvented its strategies to match the competitive environment. Competition in the market is so stiff and it would be very easy for a firm to fall if care is not taken. Many firms in many countries across the world have started producing similar products as Puma in markets that were previously dominated by Puma. What is worse is the fact that these firms receive their government’s protections (Edkins & Maja 2009, p. 79).

With the current rising nationalisms in various countries and the need to ensure that local firms prosper, governments have formulated policies that would ensure that local firms are protected from external aggression. The policies are meant to bar firms like Puma and other related foreign firms from operating in such countries.

Having realized this, Puma has decided to embrace collaboration with local firms to facilitate national acceptance. Local firms are permitted by Puma to operate under the brand name Puma, but with full independence from the parent Puma.

The firms would in turn be expected to stock Puma products, besides other products that such local firms may wish to stock, provided the products are not direct competitors of Puma’s products. The firm has also aggressively gotten into massive development of new products to ensure that it remains relevant in the market (Cukor-Avila 2000, p. 46).

Some products like the Puma sports shoes are currently considered cash cows for the firm because of their constant income generation over the years. Some designs of shoes and clothing that were considered out of fashion (dogs) were eliminated. The firm plans to venture into clothing industry other than sportswear. This strategy is to ensure that the firm increases its revenue base.

Generation of Strategic Options

Puma SE has designed programs that would help it capture new market. As mentioned above, the company currently produces other lines of products besides the sportswear. It produces designer clothes. The firm has also made concerted effort to recapture its lost market share, by creating patents in various locations around the world (Balnaves & Caputi 2001, p. 79).

With its impressive balance sheet, this company is in a position to finance most of its expansion plans. Its adoption of new technologies is meant to ensure that it reduces cost of production as it increase profits.

Evaluation and Ranking Options

The strategies that this firm has plans to adopt or has adopted already comes at a cost. Installing technological equipments have huge financial consequences. However, it is cost effective in the long run. Starting new lines of production may mean putting more on investment.

However, it would help the firm venture into new markets. The most important point is that the firm has to be in a position to withstand the financial consequences of the move it makes.

Choice of Strategies

Based on the above analysis, the best option for this firm would be to open new lines of production. Because most of its products have reached their full life circle, new products would ensure continuity and increased profitability. It would also ensure that as the cash cows bring in money, there are other fall back options.

Puma should devise a plan on how it would implement its planned strategies. The chart below would help summaries the process this firm should take in the implementation.

There should be a team within research and development department part that should be responsible for idea screening. The idea should undergo a full process of scanning to determine its viability. If viable, market research should be done to ensure that the product would receive expected acceptance.

The management should allocate enough finance to this department to ensure that all the stages are carried out successfully. The next stage would involve production of sample which would then be taken to the market for testing. If the product passes this stage, it can then be commercialized.

Because of the heightened competition that exists in this industry, Puma should consider getting an edge over other competitors in this industry. The following recommendations should be considered by this company when implementing the new strategies:

• The management should consider adopting emerging technologies of production as a way of ensuring that their production method meets the market standards.
• The top management should actively involve all the employees in idea generation because it is the employees who are always in touch with the customers.
• Research on new products, improvement of existing products or new technologies should always be in line with the market requirements.
• In launching new products in the market, the research and development team and the marketing department should ensure that they create a special niche for the product in the market.
• Puma should consider having a collaborative relationship with its arch rival, Addidas in order to face other emerging competitors as a unit. This would help the two companies have stronger bargaining power both with the suppliers and the market.

Adam, F & Healy, M 2000, A Practical Guide to Postgraduate Research . Blackhall Publishing, Dublin.

Ahmed, K & Rafiq, M 2002, Internal Marketing tools and concepts for customer-focused management, Butterworth Heinemann Elsevier, Oxford.

Andreson, JC, Narus, AJ & Rossum, W 2010, “Customer Value Propositions in Business Markets”, Harvard Business Review , Vol. 1, no. 3, pp 91-99.

Atkinson, P 1990, The Ethnographic Imagination: Textual Constructions of Reality Routledge, London.

Bailey, A 1996, A Guide to Field Research, California, Forge Press, Pine.

Balnaves, M & Caputi, P 2001, Introduction to Quantitative Research Methods: An Investigative Approach, Sage Publications, London.

Barnes, C, Blake, H & Pinder, D 2009, Creating & Delivering your Value Proposition, Kogan Page, London.

Best, RJ 2009, Market-Based Management Strategies for Growing Customer value and Profitability, New Jersey, Pearson.

Briggs, C 1986, Learning How to Ask: A Sociolinguistic Appraisal of the Role of the Interview in Social Science Research, CUP, Cambridge.

Bryman, A 2001, Social Research Methods , OUP, Oxford.

Cohen, L Minion, L & Morrison, K 2000, Research Methods in Education (5 th Edition) GB, Routledge, Falmer.

Cukor-Avila, P 2000, Rethinking the Observer’s Paradox, American Speech , 75/3, 253-4.

Cunningham, B 2000, The stress management sourcebook, Free Press, Los Angeles.

Dubois, P, Jolibert, A & Muhlbacher, H, 2007, Marketing Management A Value-Creation Process, Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan.

Edkins, J & Maja, Z 2009, Global Politics: a New Introduction Routledge London.

Eggert, A & Ulaga, W 2002, “Customer-perceived value: a substitute for satisfaction in business markets?” Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing , Vol. 17, no. 2, pp 107-125.

Fifield, P 2007, Marketing Strategy: The Difference between Marketing and Markets, Elsevier Butterworth Heinemann, Oxford.

Flint, DJ, Woodruff, RB & Fisher, GS, 2002, “Exploring the phenomenon of customers’ desired value change in a business-to-business context”, Journal of Marketing , Vol. 66 no. 4, pp 102-117.

Frankfort-Nachmias, C & Nachmias, D 1992, Research Methods in the Social Sciences, Edward Arnold, London.

Gilbert, N 2001, Researching Social Life , Sage, London.

Holbrook, MB 2003, Customer value and auto ethnography: subjective personal introspection and the meanings of a photograph collection, Journal of Business Research , Vol. 58, no. 1, pp 45 – 61.

Kotler, P, Keller, KL, Brady, M, Goodman, M & Hansen, T 2009, Marketing Management, Prentice Hall, Harlow.

Lindgreen, A & Finn, W 2005, “Value in business markets: What do we know? Where are we going? Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 34, no. 2, pp 732- 748.

Milroy, L 1983, Observing and Analyzing Natural Language , Blackwell, Oxford.

Payne, A & Holt, S 2001, “Diagnosing Customer Value: Integrating the Value Process and Relationship Marketing”, British Journal of Management, Vol. 12, no. 2, pp 159 – 182.

Piercy, NF 2009, Market-Led Strategic Change, Butterworth Heinemann, Oxford.

Ulaga, W & Chacour, S 2001, “Measuring customer-perceived value in business markets: a prerequisite for marketing strategy development and implementation”, Industrial Marketing Management , Vol. 30, no. 6, pp 525 – 540.

Ward, K 1999, Cyber-ethnography, and the emergence of the virtually new community, Journal of Information Technology 14: 95-105.

Weiss, R 1994, Learning from Strangers: The Art and Method of Qualitative Interview Studies, The Free Press, New York.

Woodruff, RB 1997, “Customer Value: The Next Source for Competitive Advantage”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Sciences, Vol. 25, no. 2, pp 139-154.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2023, December 11). Puma: Company Analysis. https://ivypanda.com/essays/puma-company-analysis/

"Puma: Company Analysis." IvyPanda , 11 Dec. 2023, ivypanda.com/essays/puma-company-analysis/.

IvyPanda . (2023) 'Puma: Company Analysis'. 11 December.

IvyPanda . 2023. "Puma: Company Analysis." December 11, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/puma-company-analysis/.

1. IvyPanda . "Puma: Company Analysis." December 11, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/puma-company-analysis/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Puma: Company Analysis." December 11, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/puma-company-analysis/.

• Puma SE Company: Strategic Management Analysis
• PUMA SE Company Analysis
• Puma: Mobile System Adoption
• Puma Company's Business Conduct and Ethics
• Marketing: Adidas Advertising Campaign
• The German Sportswear and Sports Footwear Industry
• Nike Shoes Product Marketing and Perceptual Map
• Positive Social Business Transformation Examples
• Nike Corporation's History and Management
• Daisy Roots Children Shoes Market Strategy into the global markets
• Apple Computer, Inc.: Maintaining the Music Business
• McDonald's: Human Rights and Environmental Sustainability
• Microsoft Corporation: Prioritizing Course of Action
• Michael Eisner's Disney
• Ford Motor Company Case Study

• About / Contact
• Privacy Policy
• Alphabetical List of Companies
• Business Analysis Topics

Puma SWOT Analysis

This SWOT analysis of Puma shows strategic fit that supports competitive advantages in the market for sporting goods and related products. Puma maintains global success while addressing the internal and external strategic factors relevant to its business, as discussed in this SWOT analysis. The SWOT analysis framework determines the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats involving the business, providing insights for strategic management decisions in the sporting goods industry. These factors affect the formulation of Puma’s generic competitive strategy and intensive growth strategies . Thus, the SWOT analysis informs the company’s leaders in strategic decisions for the market’s competitive environment. Puma’s success depends on solving the issues linked to these external and internal strategic factors. This SWOT analysis shows that appropriate strategies can facilitate success in the sporting goods industry environment.

This SWOT analysis of Puma illustrates the importance of aligning business strategies with the results of an internal analysis (strengths and weaknesses) and an external analysis (opportunities and threats) of the business. The sporting goods company’s strategies and corporate image are manifestations of such an alignment. Based on its profitability and business development, Puma effectively accounts for and strategically addresses the issues raised in this SWOT analysis.

Puma’s Strengths (Internal Factors)

In the SWOT analysis framework, strengths are internal factors that enable Puma’s competitive advantages to grow the business and improve its potential and performance. In this case, such internal strategic factors contribute to the corporation’s ability to directly compete with other firms, especially large multinational sporting goods companies. Based on these considerations and the nature of the business and its industry environment, the following factors are the strengths of Puma:

• Strong sporting goods brand
• High product innovation
• Significant control of its global supply chain
• Large-scale access to a global distribution and sales network

Puma’s strong sporting goods brand is a major strength that provides the ability to attract customers to products, including entirely new product lines. In this SWOT analysis, the brand is a competitive advantage and an internal factor that helps achieve growth by increasing the company’s share of the global market for athletic shoes, apparel, accessories, and equipment. On the other hand, high product innovation is among Puma’s strengths, considering product development efforts. For example, the corporation continuously seeks new ways to improve its footwear, such as through computing technology in design and production. This internal factor is supported through Puma’s organizational structure (corporate structure) , which involves teams dedicated to innovation for product design and development. Control of the global supply chain is another strengthening internal strategic factor in this SWOT analysis of the sporting goods business. Moreover, the company’s large-scale access to its global distribution and sales network is a strength that enables extensive access to the international market. These two internal factors are a result of the company’s strategic efforts to build its business network for a globally competitive enterprise that exploits regional economic benefits, such as low labor and material costs in some regions and high selling prices in others. The strengths in this SWOT analysis are competitive advantages that drive the business toward reaching the goals of  Puma’s mission statement and vision statement .

Puma’s Weaknesses (Internal Factors)

The SWOT analysis model includes weaknesses, which limit, hinder, or decrease Puma’s business development. These internal factors are usually linked to problems in the sporting goods business, such as in strategic planning, product design, and business process operations management. Puma has the following weaknesses:

• Imitability of some products
• Low level of business diversification

The imitability of product design is a weakness that Puma has in competing in the global market. In this SWOT analysis, such an internal strategic factor is significant because of the problem of counterfeiting of sporting goods. For example, counterfeits of Puma-branded shoes and apparel are sold in countries with weak regulatory enforcement against counterfeiting. This internal factor is a strategic issue because it reduces the company’s potential revenues and damages the sporting goods brand image. On the other hand, Puma’s focus on sporting goods corresponds to a low level of business diversification. This weakness makes the company vulnerable to sporting goods industry-specific downturns and risks. Overall, the weaknesses in this SWOT analysis of Puma indicate the need for strategies to improve the uniqueness and inimitability of products, and to reduce vulnerability to market-specific risks.

Opportunities (External Factors)

The SWOT analysis framework identifies external factors that facilitate or support Puma’s growth and improvement. These factors are opportunities that depend on external variables, such as governmental policies, as well as the growth rate of the sporting goods market. In this regard, the following opportunities are available to Puma:

• Growth through strategic partnerships with other firms
• Growth based on higher sporting goods market penetration in developing economies
• Growth in other markets or industries via business diversification

Puma has the opportunity to forge new partnerships with other firms, such as sports car designers and manufacturers. This external strategic factor can help the company improve its product design through new ideas, especially those from firms that are not in the sporting goods industry. Growth in developing economies is another opportunity in this SWOT analysis of Puma. This external factor points to potentially high revenues in developing countries, if the company successfully implements a higher rate of market penetration to sell its athletic shoes, apparel, and accessories. Higher market penetration may require adjustments in Puma’s operations management strategies and tactics. Also, there is the opportunity to grow by diversifying the business, although the company currently continues to focus on its operations in the sporting goods industry. The opportunities in this SWOT analysis present an industry environment where Puma can continue to thrive and expect continuous growth.

Threats (External Factors)

In the SWOT analysis model, threats are external strategic factors that make business growth more difficult, such as through strategic barriers against Puma’s multinational market penetration. These threats present obstacles to growing market share and expanding the company’s operations in the global sporting goods industry. The following threats are relevant to Puma’s operations:

• Competition
• Imitation of athletic shoes, apparel, and accessories

Competition is among the main threats in this SWOT analysis of Puma. For example, the company is under competitive pressure from large and popular firms, like Nike , Adidas, ASICS, and Under Armour. These competitors can reduce Puma’s revenues through aggressive marketing strategies and product development. On the other hand, imitation of sporting goods is another threat relevant to this company analysis case, pertaining to counterfeiting and its damaging effects on business. This SWOT analysis shows that Puma faces threats that can reduce business performance, especially when considering strong competition. The company’s strategic management must include measures that accurately match the sporting goods industry environment. A Five Forces analysis of Puma can provide more information about the degree of competition and other variables involved in the industry’s competitive landscape.

Summary & Recommendations – Puma SWOT Analysis

Puma is in a strong strategic position, as shown in this SWOT analysis. Despite its weaknesses, the company has the strengths to support overall competitive advantages, especially against large players, like Nike and Adidas. Also, the opportunities and threats relevant to Puma are indicative of a business environment where the enterprise can continue growing. However, innovative strategic solutions are critical in ensuring the sporting goods company’s success. In all these external and internal strategic factors, Puma’s company culture (organizational culture) bolsters organizational capabilities through appropriate human resource management strategies for developing employees’ knowledge, skills, and abilities. This SWOT analysis emphasizes the need to develop protective measures against competitors, as well as strategies for creating new opportunities in the sporting goods industry and beyond. A way of addressing the threat of imitation is to ensure that Puma’s marketing mix or 4P includes strategies and tactics that highlight the originality of the company’s products. This recommendation relates to building the sporting goods corporation’s brand and popularity among target customers. For strategic management throughout the organization, aside from the results of this SWOT analysis, additional information about the external strategic factors can be obtained through other business analysis tools, such as a PESTLE/PESTEL analysis of Puma.

• Benzaghta, M. A., Elwalda, A., Mousa, M. M., Erkan, I., & Rahman, M. (2021). SWOT analysis applications: An integrative literature review. Journal of Global Business Insights, 6 (1), 55-73.
• Puma SE (2023). Puma Well on Track to Achieve Full-year Outlook After Q3 .
• Puma SE Annual Report 2022 Overview .
• Puma SE – Innovation – Culture of Firsts .
• Puma’s E-commerce Website .
• U.S. Department of Commerce – International Trade Administration – Consumer Goods Industry .
• U.S. Department of Commerce – International Trade Administration – Textiles Industry .
• Vlados, C. (2019). On a correlative and evolutionary SWOT analysis. Journal of Strategy and Management, 12 (3), 347-363.
• Copyright by Panmore Institute - All rights reserved.
• This article may not be reproduced, distributed, or mirrored without written permission from Panmore Institute and its author/s.
• Educators, Researchers, and Students: You are permitted to quote or paraphrase parts of this article (not the entire article) for educational or research purposes, as long as the article is properly cited and referenced together with its URL/link.

(Stanford users can avoid this Captcha by logging in.)

• Send to text email RefWorks EndNote printer

A critical review of literature on puma (Felis concolor)

Available online, at the library.

SAL3 (off-campus storage)

More options.

• Find it at other libraries via WorldCat
• Contributors

A critical review of literature on puma (Felis concolor)

By allen e. anderson.

• 2 Want to read
• 0 Currently reading
• 0 Have read

My Reading Lists:

Use this Work

Create a new list

My book notes.

My private notes about this edition:

Buy this book

This edition doesn't have a description yet. Can you add one ?

Showing 1 featured edition. View all 1 editions?

Add another edition?

Book Details

Published in.

[Ft. Collins, Colo.]

Edition Notes

Bibliography: p. 69-78. "February 1983." "State publication code R-S-54-'83."

Classifications

The physical object, community reviews (0).

• Created April 1, 2008
• 3 revisions

Wikipedia citation

Copy and paste this code into your Wikipedia page. Need help?

Purdue Online Writing Lab Purdue OWL® College of Liberal Arts

Writing a Literature Review

Welcome to the Purdue OWL

This page is brought to you by the OWL at Purdue University. When printing this page, you must include the entire legal notice.

Copyright ©1995-2018 by The Writing Lab & The OWL at Purdue and Purdue University. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, reproduced, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without permission. Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our terms and conditions of fair use.

A literature review is a document or section of a document that collects key sources on a topic and discusses those sources in conversation with each other (also called synthesis ). The lit review is an important genre in many disciplines, not just literature (i.e., the study of works of literature such as novels and plays). When we say “literature review” or refer to “the literature,” we are talking about the research ( scholarship ) in a given field. You will often see the terms “the research,” “the scholarship,” and “the literature” used mostly interchangeably.

Where, when, and why would I write a lit review?

There are a number of different situations where you might write a literature review, each with slightly different expectations; different disciplines, too, have field-specific expectations for what a literature review is and does. For instance, in the humanities, authors might include more overt argumentation and interpretation of source material in their literature reviews, whereas in the sciences, authors are more likely to report study designs and results in their literature reviews; these differences reflect these disciplines’ purposes and conventions in scholarship. You should always look at examples from your own discipline and talk to professors or mentors in your field to be sure you understand your discipline’s conventions, for literature reviews as well as for any other genre.

A literature review can be a part of a research paper or scholarly article, usually falling after the introduction and before the research methods sections. In these cases, the lit review just needs to cover scholarship that is important to the issue you are writing about; sometimes it will also cover key sources that informed your research methodology.

Lit reviews can also be standalone pieces, either as assignments in a class or as publications. In a class, a lit review may be assigned to help students familiarize themselves with a topic and with scholarship in their field, get an idea of the other researchers working on the topic they’re interested in, find gaps in existing research in order to propose new projects, and/or develop a theoretical framework and methodology for later research. As a publication, a lit review usually is meant to help make other scholars’ lives easier by collecting and summarizing, synthesizing, and analyzing existing research on a topic. This can be especially helpful for students or scholars getting into a new research area, or for directing an entire community of scholars toward questions that have not yet been answered.

What are the parts of a lit review?

Most lit reviews use a basic introduction-body-conclusion structure; if your lit review is part of a larger paper, the introduction and conclusion pieces may be just a few sentences while you focus most of your attention on the body. If your lit review is a standalone piece, the introduction and conclusion take up more space and give you a place to discuss your goals, research methods, and conclusions separately from where you discuss the literature itself.

Introduction:

• An introductory paragraph that explains what your working topic and thesis is
• A forecast of key topics or texts that will appear in the review
• Potentially, a description of how you found sources and how you analyzed them for inclusion and discussion in the review (more often found in published, standalone literature reviews than in lit review sections in an article or research paper)
• Summarize and synthesize: Give an overview of the main points of each source and combine them into a coherent whole
• Analyze and interpret: Don’t just paraphrase other researchers – add your own interpretations where possible, discussing the significance of findings in relation to the literature as a whole
• Critically Evaluate: Mention the strengths and weaknesses of your sources
• Write in well-structured paragraphs: Use transition words and topic sentence to draw connections, comparisons, and contrasts.

Conclusion:

• Summarize the key findings you have taken from the literature and emphasize their significance
• Connect it back to your primary research question

How should I organize my lit review?

Lit reviews can take many different organizational patterns depending on what you are trying to accomplish with the review. Here are some examples:

• Chronological : The simplest approach is to trace the development of the topic over time, which helps familiarize the audience with the topic (for instance if you are introducing something that is not commonly known in your field). If you choose this strategy, be careful to avoid simply listing and summarizing sources in order. Try to analyze the patterns, turning points, and key debates that have shaped the direction of the field. Give your interpretation of how and why certain developments occurred (as mentioned previously, this may not be appropriate in your discipline — check with a teacher or mentor if you’re unsure).
• Thematic : If you have found some recurring central themes that you will continue working with throughout your piece, you can organize your literature review into subsections that address different aspects of the topic. For example, if you are reviewing literature about women and religion, key themes can include the role of women in churches and the religious attitude towards women.
• Qualitative versus quantitative research
• Empirical versus theoretical scholarship
• Divide the research by sociological, historical, or cultural sources
• Theoretical : In many humanities articles, the literature review is the foundation for the theoretical framework. You can use it to discuss various theories, models, and definitions of key concepts. You can argue for the relevance of a specific theoretical approach or combine various theorical concepts to create a framework for your research.

What are some strategies or tips I can use while writing my lit review?

Any lit review is only as good as the research it discusses; make sure your sources are well-chosen and your research is thorough. Don’t be afraid to do more research if you discover a new thread as you’re writing. More info on the research process is available in our "Conducting Research" resources .

As you’re doing your research, create an annotated bibliography ( see our page on the this type of document ). Much of the information used in an annotated bibliography can be used also in a literature review, so you’ll be not only partially drafting your lit review as you research, but also developing your sense of the larger conversation going on among scholars, professionals, and any other stakeholders in your topic.

Usually you will need to synthesize research rather than just summarizing it. This means drawing connections between sources to create a picture of the scholarly conversation on a topic over time. Many student writers struggle to synthesize because they feel they don’t have anything to add to the scholars they are citing; here are some strategies to help you:

• It often helps to remember that the point of these kinds of syntheses is to show your readers how you understand your research, to help them read the rest of your paper.
• Writing teachers often say synthesis is like hosting a dinner party: imagine all your sources are together in a room, discussing your topic. What are they saying to each other?
• Look at the in-text citations in each paragraph. Are you citing just one source for each paragraph? This usually indicates summary only. When you have multiple sources cited in a paragraph, you are more likely to be synthesizing them (not always, but often
• Read more about synthesis here.

The most interesting literature reviews are often written as arguments (again, as mentioned at the beginning of the page, this is discipline-specific and doesn’t work for all situations). Often, the literature review is where you can establish your research as filling a particular gap or as relevant in a particular way. You have some chance to do this in your introduction in an article, but the literature review section gives a more extended opportunity to establish the conversation in the way you would like your readers to see it. You can choose the intellectual lineage you would like to be part of and whose definitions matter most to your thinking (mostly humanities-specific, but this goes for sciences as well). In addressing these points, you argue for your place in the conversation, which tends to make the lit review more compelling than a simple reporting of other sources.