Estimates of population size have been essential for ecological theory
and wildlife management, but they depend on spatial scales of observa
tion. Reported aspects of study and interpretive design were tested to
see if they could explain variation in puma (Puma conc color) density
. Comparison of puma studies revealed information shortfalls and possi
ble confounding effects in research trends. Vegetation descriptions an
d other biological and physical aspects of the study site explained no
ne of the 30-fold range of variation in puma density, nor did sampling
and estimation methods and other aspects of study and interpretive de
sign. Most (78%) of the variation in puma density estimates can be exp
lained by the spatial extent of study area. Given the effect of scale,
puma density estimates have been inappropriately extrapolated to larg
er geographic areas for management purposes. Due to spatial shifting o
f local population clusters, conventional density estimates cannot con
tribute to assessments of puma population trend without study at multi
ple sites over longer periods of time. Field studies would contribute
more to knowledge of puma by spanning larger areas, a greater variety
of land uses and habitats, and more of puma's range of distribution.