Abstract
Understanding how large carnivores partition dietary resources is essential for assessing intra-guild competition and informing conservation strategies. In this study, we used DNA metabarcoding of scats to quantify and compare the diets of sympatric African lions (Panthera leo) and spotted hyenas (Crocuta crocuta) across wet and dry seasons in the Greater Etosha Landscape of Namibia. Across 98 scat samples (lion = 69; spotted hyena = 29), we identified 19 vertebrate prey species. Overall, large ungulates dominated both carnivores’ diets. For lions, the most frequent prey items included gemsbok (Oryx gazella), common eland (Taurotragus oryx), plains zebra (Equus quagga burchelli), and blue wildebeest (Connochaetus taurinus). For spotted hyenas, the most frequent prey items were plains zebra, gemsbok, springbok (Antidorcas marsupialis), and black rhinoceros (Diceros bicornis bicornis). Dietary niche breadth was not significantly different between species, though lions exhibited the broadest across both seasons, while diet composition was similar between species and seasons. However, the smaller sample size for spotted hyenas may limit full characterization of their diet and influence measures of overlap and niche breadth. These results suggest a moderate diet overlap and limited resource partitioning both within and among these large carnivore species across seasons, likely facilitated by opportunistic scavenging and kleptoparasitism. Both species exhibited broader dietary niche breadths during the wet season, likely reflecting increased prey availability and dispersion. Ongoing monitoring of carnivore diets using molecular tools, which provides a more accurate and comprehensive identification of diet items than manual sorting, will be essential for detecting changes in resource use and interspecific interactions in response to shifting environmental conditions and anthropogenic pressures.
Data availability
The datasets generated and analysed during the current study are available in the NCBI Sequence Read Archive repository at [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sra/PRJNA1357869](https:/www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sra/PRJNA1357869) .
References
del Rio, C. M. et al. The importance of large carnivores to healthy ecosystems. Endanger. Species Update. 18 (5), 202–210 (2001).
Di Marco, M. et al. A retrospective evaluation of the global decline of carnivores and ungulates. Conserv. Biol. 28, 1109–1118 (2014).
Parmesan, C. Ecological and evolutionary responses to recent climate change. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 37, 637–669 (2006).
Ripple, W. J. et al. Status and ecological effects of the world’s largest carnivores. Science 343, 1241484 (2014).
Carbone, C. & Gittleman, J. L. A common rule for the scaling of carnivore density. Science 295, 2273–2276 (2002).
Mills, M. G. & Harvey, M. African Predators (Struik, 2001).
Burgar, J. M., Burton, A. C. & Fisher, J. T. The importance of considering multiple interacting species for conservation of species at risk. Conserv. Biol. 33 (3), 709–715 (2019).
Linnell, J. D. & Strand, O. Interference interactions, co-existence and conservation of mammalian carnivores. Divers. Distrib. 6 (4), 169–176 (2000).
Chase, J. M. et al. The interaction between predation and competition: a review and synthesis. Ecol. Lett. 5 (2), 302–315 (2002).
Chesson, P. & Kuang, J. J. The interaction between predation and competition. Nature 4567219, 235–238 (2008).
Vanak, A. T. et al. Moving to stay in place: behavioral mechanisms for coexistence of African large carnivores. Ecology 94 (11), 2619–2631 (2013).
Hayward, M. W. & Kerley, G. I. Prey preferences and dietary overlap amongst Africa’s large predators. South. Afr. J. Wildl. Res. 38 (2), 93–108 (2008).
Karanth, K. U., Nichols, J. D., Kumar, N. S., Link, W. A. & Hines, J. E. Tigers and their prey: predicting carnivore densities from prey abundance. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 101(14): 4854–4858. (2004).
Schoener, T. W. Field experiments on interspecific competition. Am. Nat. 122 (2), 240–285 (1983).
Duncan, C., Chauvenet, A. L., McRae, L. M. & Pettorelli, N. Predicting the future impact of droughts on ungulate populations in arid and semi-arid environments. PloS one. 7 (12), e51490 (2012).
Walther, G-R. et al. Ecological responses to recent climate change. Nature 416, 389–395 (2002).
Zidon, R., Garti, S., Getz, W. M. & Saltz, D. Zebra migration strategies and anthrax in Etosha National Park. Namibia Ecosphere. 8 (8), e01925 (2017).
Radloff, F. G. T. & du Toit, J. T. Large predators and their prey in a southern African savanna: a predator’s size determines its prey range size. J. Anim. Ecol. 73, 410–423 (2004).
Hatton, I. A. et al. The predator-prey power law: Biomass scaling across terrestrial and aquatic biomes. Science 3496252, aac6284 (2015).
Hayward, M. W. & Hayward, G. J. Activity patterns of reintroduced lion Panthera leo and spotted hyaena Crocuta crocuta in the Addo Elephant National Park, South Africa. Afr. J. Ecol. 45 (2), 135–141 (2007).
Mills, M. G. & Biggs, H. C. Prey apportionment and related ecological relationships between large carnivores in Kruger National Park. In: Dunstone, N. & Gorman, M.L. Zoological Society of London Symposia 65: 253–268 (1993).
Patterson, J. R., Ndlovu, N., Beasley, J. C. & Périquet, S. Effects of human presence on African mammal waterhole attendance and temporal activity patterns. J. Zool. 325 (3), 210–223 (2024).
Périquet, S., Fritz, H. & Revilla, E. The Lion King and the Hyaena Queen: large carnivore interactions and coexistence. Biol. Rev. 90 (4), 1197–1214 (2015).
Swanson, A., Arnold, T., Kosmala, M., Forester, J. & Packer, C. In the absence of a landscape of fear: How lions, hyenas, and cheetahs coexist. Ecol. Evol. 6 (23), 8534–8545 (2016).
Hayward, M. W. & Kerley, G. I. Prey preferences of the lion (Panthera leo). J. Zool. 267 (3), 309–322 (2005).
Stander, P. E. Cooperative hunting in lions: the role of the individual. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 29, 445–454 (1992).
Amorós, M., Gil-Sánchez, J. M., López‐Pastor, B. D. L. N. & Moleón, M. Hyaenas and lions: how the largest African carnivores interact at carcasses. Oikos 129 (12), 1820–1832 (2020).
Moleón, M., Sánchez-Zapata, J. A., Sebastián‐González, E. & Owen‐Smith, N. Carcass size shapes the structure and functioning of an African scavenging assemblage. Oikos 124 (10), 1391–1403 (2015).
Kruuk, H. The Spotted Hyena: A Study of Predation and Social Behavior (University of Chicago Press, 1972).
Mills, M. G. Kalahari Hyaenas: the Comparative Behavioural Ecology of Two Species (Allen & Unwin, 1990).
Watts, H. E. & Holekamp, K. E. Ecological determinants of survival and reproduction in the spotted hyena. J. Mammal. 90, 461–471 (2009).
Holekamp, K. E., Smale, L., Berg, R. & Cooper, S. M. Hunting rates and hunting success in the spotted hyena (Crocuta crocuta). J. Zool. 242 (1), 1–15 (1997).
Salnicki, J., Teichmann, M., Wilson, V. & Murindagomo, F. Spotted hyaenas, Crocuta crocuta, prey on new-born elephant calves in Hwange National Park. Zimbabwe Koedoe. 44 (2), 79–83 (2001).
Trinkel, M. & Kastberger, G. Competitive interactions between spotted hyenas and lions in the Etosha National Park, Namibia. Afr. J. Ecol. 43 (3), 220–224 (2005).
Vissia, S., Virtuoso, F. A., Bouman, A. & van Langevelde, F. Seasonal variation in prey preference, diet partitioning and niche breadth in a rich large carnivore guild. Afr. J. Ecol. 61 (1), 141–152 (2023).
Hayward, M. W. Prey preferences of spotted hyena (Crocuta crocuta) and degree of dietary overlap with the lion (Panthera leo). J. Zool. 270, 666–614 (2006).
Stein, E. D., Martinez, M. C., Stiles, S., Miller, P. E. & Zakharov, E. V. Is DNA barcoding actually cheaper and faster than traditional morphological methods: Results from a survey of freshwater bioassessment efforts in the United States? PLoS One, 9(4), e95525 (2014).
Galan, M. et al. Metabarcoding for the parallel identification of several hundred predators and their prey: Application to bat species diet analysis. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 18 (3), 474–489 (2018).
Turner, W. C. et al. Africa’s drylands in a changing world: Challenges for wildlife conservation under climate and land-use changes in the Greater Etosha Landscape. Global Ecol. Conserv. 38, e02221 (2022).
Melton, M. H. Drivers of movement and resource selection of wildlife living in a protected area in sub-Saharan Africa. Master’s thesis. Athens, GA: University of Georgia. (2024).
Naha, D. et al. Fencing affects movement patterns of two large carnivores in Southern Africa. Front. Ecol. Evol. 11, 1031321 (2023).
Nakanyala, J., Heita, J., Lewis, E., Siyambango, N. & Lendelvo, S. Local farmers’ perceptions of human-wildlife conflicts in the King Nehale Conservancy, Namibia. J. Stud. Humanit. Social Sci. 11 (1&2), 99–116 (2022).
De Beer, Y., Kilian, W., Versfeld, W. & Van Aarde, R. J. Elephants and low rainfall alter woody vegetation in Etosha National Park, Namibia. J. Arid Environ. 64 (3), 412–421 (2006).
Atlas of Namibia Team. Atlas of Namibia: its land, water and life (Namibia Nature Foundation, 2022).
Le Roux, C. J. G., Grunow, J. O., Bredenkamp, G. J., Morris, J. W. & Scheepers, J. C. A classification of the vegetation of the Etosha National Park. South. Afr. J. Bot. 54 (1), 1–10 (1988).
Berry, C. & Loutit, B. Trees and Shrubs of the Etosha National Park 3rd edn (Namibia Scientific Society, 2002).
Berezin, J. L., Odom, A. J., Hayssen, V. & O’Connell-Rodwell, C. E. A snapshot into the lives of elephants: camera traps and conservation in Etosha National Park. Namibia Divers. 15 (11), 1146 (2023).
Engert, S. Spatial variability and temporal periodicity of rainfall in the Etosha National Park and surrounding areas in northern Namibia. Madoqua 1997(1), 115–120 (1997).
Kilian, W. & Kolberg, H. Aerial survey of Etosha National Park (Internal Report of Ministry of Environment and Tourism, 2015).
Trinkel, M. Prey selection and prey preferences of spotted hyenas Crocuta crocuta in the Etosha National Park, Namibia. Ecol. Res. 25 (2), 413–417 (2010).
Trinkel, M. A keystone predator at risk? Density and distribution of the spotted hyena (Crocuta crocuta) in the Etosha National Park, Namibia. Can. J. Zool. 87 (10), 941–947 (2009).
Pompanon, F. et al. Who is eating what: Diet assessment using next generation sequencing. Mol. Ecol. 21 (8), 1931–1950 (2012).
Xiong, M. et al. 2107. Molecular dietary analysis of two sympatric felids in the Mountains of Southwest China biodiversity hotspot and conservation implications. Sci. Rep., 7: 41909 (2017).
Evans, N. T. et al. Quantification of mesocosm fish and amphibian species diversity via environmental DNA metabarcoding. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 16 (1), 29–41 (2016).
Edgar, R. C. UNOISE2: improved error-correction for Illumina 16S and ITS amplicon sequencing 081257 (BioRxiv, 2016a).
Benson, D. A., Karsch-Mizrachi, I., Lipman, D. J., Ostell, J. & Wheeler, D. L. GenBank Nucleic Acids Res., 1(33): 34–38. (2005).
Shively, K. A. et al. Metabarcoding reveals striking dietary variation in a reintroduced mesocarnivore (Journal of Mammalogy, 2025).
Forin-Wiart, M. A. et al. Evaluating metabarcoding to analyse diet composition of species foraging in anthropogenic landscapes using Ion Torrent and Illumina sequencing. Sci. Rep. 8 (1), 17091 (2018).
R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing (Version 4.4.0) [Computer software]. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. (2024). https://www.R-project.org/
Pianka, E. R. The structure of lizard communities. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 4, 53–74 (1973).
Oksanen, J. et al. (2025). _vegan: Community Ecology Package_. R package version 2.6–10.
Zhang, J. spaa: Species Association Analysis. R package version 0.2.2. (2016). https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=spaa
Hurlbert, S. H. The measurement of niche overlap and somerelatives. Ecology 59 (1), 67–77 (1978).
Smith, E. P. Niche breadth, resource availability, and inference. Ecology 63 (6), 1675–1681 (1982).
Chao, A. Nonparametric estimation of the number of classes in a population. Scandinavian J. Stat., 265–270 (1984).
Clarke, K. R. Non-parametric multivariate analyses of changes in community structure. Aust. J. Ecol. 18 (1), 117–143 (1993).
Carvalho, J. C. & Cardoso, P. Decomposing the causes for niche differentiation between species using hypervolumes. Front. Ecol. Evol. 8, 243 (2020).
Pereira, L. M., Owen-Smith, N. & Moleón, M. Facultative predation and scavenging by mammalian carnivores: seasonal, regional and intra-guild comparisons. Mammal Rev. 44 (1), 44–55 (2014).
Trinkel, M. Climate variability, human wildlife conflict and population dynamics of lions Panthera leo. Naturwissenschaften 100 (4), 345–353 (2013).
Evers, E. E. et al. Varying degrees of spatio-temporal partitioning among large carnivores in a fenced reserve, South Africa. Wildl. Res. 49 (5), 477–490 (2022).
Patterson, J. R. et al. Effects of tourism on seasonal movements and fine-scale habitat selection of African lions and spotted hyenas in Etosha National Park, Namibia (Global Ecology and Conservation, 2025). e03681.
Gasaway, W. C., Mossestad, K. T. & Standers, P. E. Food acquisition by spotted hyaenas in Etosha National Park, Namibia: predation versus scavenging. Afr. J. Ecol. 29 (1), 64–75 (1991).
Berry, H. H. Abnormal levels of disease and predation as limiting factors for wildebeest in the Etosha National Park. Madoqua, 1981(4): 241–253. (1981).
Fester, K. S. M., Hockings, G., van Vuuren, R. J. & van Vuuren, M. Spotted hyaena Crocuta crocuta feeding ecology and selectivity of large herbivorous prey in the Namib desert. Ecol. Evol. 11 (9), 3672–3678 (2021).
Kingdon, J. The Kingdon field guide to African mammals (Bloomsbury Publishing, 2015).
Lehmann, D. et al. Spatiotemporal responses of a desert dwelling ungulate to increasing aridity in North-eastern Namibia. J. Arid Environ. 179, 104193 (2020).
Sponheimer, M. et al. Diets of southern African Bovidae: stable isotope evidence. J. Mammal. 84 (2), 471–479 (2003).
Barnardo, T. et al. Opportunistic feeding by lions: non-preferred prey comprise an important part of lion diets in a habitat where preferred prey are abundant. Mammal Res. 65 (2), 235–243 (2020).
Davidson, Z. et al. Seasonal diet and prey preference of the African lion in a waterhole-driven semi-arid savanna. PloS One. 8 (2), e55182 (2013).
Krebs, J. R. Optimal foraging: decision rules for predators. In Behavioural ecology: an evolutionary approach: 23–63 (eds Krebs, J. R. & Davies, N. B.) (Blackwell Scientific, 1978).
Goelst, C. E. Assessing patterns of spatial occurrence and human-carnivore conflict for African lions (Panthera leo) in and around Etosha National Park, Namibia. Master’s thesis. New York City, NY: Columbia University. (2018).
Naha, D., Kilian, J. W., Goelst, C., Cloete, C. & Beasley, J. C. Anthropogenic mortality risk of lions depends on a combination of environmental, climatic, and cultural factors within a Sub-Saharan African ecosystem. Global Ecol. Conserv. 59, e03514 (2025).
Stander, P. E. An analysis of the spatial, temporal, and demographic patterns of lions destroyed along the borders of Etosha National Park over a 20-year period. In Unpublished Internal Report (Ministry of Environment and Tourism, 2004).
Lendelvo, S. M., Angula, M. N. & Mfune, J. K. E. Indigenous knowledge used in the management of human–wildlife conflict along the borders of the Etosha National Park. Indigenous Knowl. Namibia. 16, 219–240 (2019).
Trinkel, M., Fleischmann, P. H. & Slotow, R. Electrifying the fence or living with consequences? Problem animal control threatens the long-term viability of a free-ranging lion population. J. Zool. 301, 41–50 (2016).
Shi, Y., Hoareau, Y., Reese, E. M. & Wasser, S. K. Prey partitioning between sympatric wild carnivores revealed by DNA metabarcoding: a case study on wolf (Canis lupus) and coyote (Canis latrans) in northeastern Washington. Conserv. Genet. 22 (2), 293–305 (2021).
Oehm, J., Juen, A., Nagiller, K., Neuhauser, S. & Traugott, M. Molecular scatology: how to improve prey DNA detection success in avian faeces? Mol. Ecol. Resour. 11, 620–628 (2011).
Thuo, D. et al. Food from faeces: Evaluating the efficacy of scat DNA metabarcoding in dietary analyses. PLoS One. 14 (12), e0225805 (2019).
Cuff, J. P. et al. The predator problem and PCR primers in molecular dietary analysis: swamped or silenced; depth or breadth? Mol. Ecol. Resour. 23 (1), 41–51 (2023).
Edgar, R. C. UCHIME2: improved chimera prediction for amplicon sequencing. BioRxiv, 12, 074252. (2016b).
Martin, M. Cutadapt removes adapter sequences from high-throughput sequencing reads. EMBnet 17 (1), 10–12 (2011).
Oxford Nanopore Technologies. Dorado basecalling software (Version 0.7.1). GitHub. (2024). https://github.com/nanoporetech/dorado
Smuts, G. L., Whyte, I. J. & Dearlove, T. W. A mass capture technique for lions. Afr. J. Ecol. 15 (1), 81–87 (1977).
Rognes, T., Flouri, T., Nichols, B., Quince, C. & Mahé, F. VSEARCH: a versatile open source tool for metagenomics. PeerJ 4, e2584 (2016).
Acknowledgements
We thank the Ongava Game Reserve for providing some equipment and staff assistance. We thank the field technicians for their work in helping to collect and process scat/fecal samples. Thank you to the University of Georgia and the US Department of Energy Office of Environmental Management for funding assistance.
Funding
This work was supported by University of Georgia and the US Department of Energy Office of Environmental Management Award Number DE-EM0005228 to the University of Georgia Research Foundation. Disclaimer: This manuscript was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information disclosed, or represents that its use not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of the authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Jessica Patterson, James Beasley, and Stephanie Periquet-Pearce contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation and data collection were performed by all authors. Date analyses, the first draft, and revisions of the manuscript were completed by Jessica Patterson. All authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript and approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Patterson, J.R., Périquet-Pearce, S., Melton, M.H. et al. Revealing seasonal dietary niche overlap among sympatric large carnivores using DNA metabarcoding. Sci Rep (2026). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-026-43423-w
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-026-43423-w
