Search for: All records

Abstract Reliable maps of species distributions are fundamental for biodiversity research and conservation. The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) range maps are widely recognized as authoritative representations of species’ geographic limits, yet they might not always align with actual occurrence data. In recent area of habitat (AOH) maps, areas that are not habitat have been removed from IUCN ranges to reduce commission errors, but their concordance with actual species occurrence also remains untested. We tested concordance between occurrences recorded in camera trap surveys and predicted occurrences from the IUCN and AOH maps for 510 medium‐ to large‐bodied mammalian species in 80 camera trap sampling areas. Across all areas, cameras detected only 39% of species expected to occur based on IUCN ranges and AOH maps; 85% of the IUCN only mismatches occurred within 200 km of range edges. Only 4% of species occurrences were detected by cameras outside IUCN ranges. The probability of mismatches between cameras and the IUCN range was significantly higher for smaller‐bodied mammals and habitat specialists in the Neotropics and Indomalaya and in areas with shorter canopy forests. Our findings suggest that range and AOH maps rarely underrepresent areas where species occur, but they may more often overrepresent ranges by including areas where a species may be absent, particularly at range edges. We suggest that combining range maps with data from ground‐based biodiversity sensors, such as camera traps, provides a richer knowledge base for conservation mapping and planning. 

Abstract AimThe assembly of species into communities and ecoregions is the result of interacting factors that affect plant and animal distribution and abundance at biogeographic scales. Here, we empirically derive ecoregions for mammals to test whether human disturbance has become more important than climate and habitat resources in structuring communities. LocationConterminous United States. Time Period2010–2021. Major Taxa StudiedTwenty‐five species of mammals. MethodsWe analysed data from 25 mammal species recorded by camera traps at 6645 locations across the conterminous United States in a joint modelling framework to estimate relative abundance of each species. We then used a clustering analysis to describe 8 broad and 16 narrow mammal communities. ResultsClimate was the most important predictor of mammal abundance overall, while human population density and agriculture were less important, with mixed effects across species. Seed production by forests also predicted mammal abundance, especially hard‐mast tree species. The mammal community maps are similar to those of plants, with an east–west split driven by different dominant species of deer and squirrels. Communities vary along gradients of temperature in the east and precipitation in the west. Most fine‐scale mammal community boundaries aligned with established plant ecoregions and were distinguished by the presence of regional specialists or shifts in relative abundance of widespread species. Maps of potential ecosystem services provided by these communities suggest high herbivory in the Rocky Mountains and eastern forests, high invertebrate predation in the subtropical south and greater predation pressure on large vertebrates in the west. Main ConclusionsOur results highlight the importance of climate to modern mammals and suggest that climate change will have strong impacts on these communities. Our new empirical approach to recognizing ecoregions has potential to be applied to expanded communities of mammals or other taxa. 

Human activity and land use change impact every landscape on Earth, driving declines in many animal species while benefiting others. Species ecological and life history traits may predict success in human-dominated landscapes such that only species with “winning” combinations of traits will persist in disturbed environments. However, this link between species traits and successful coexistence with humans remains obscured by the complexity of anthropogenic disturbances and variability among study systems. We compiled detection data for 24 mammal species from 61 populations across North America to quantify the effects of (1) the direct presence of people and (2) the human footprint (landscape modification) on mammal occurrence and activity levels. Thirty-three percent of mammal species exhibited a net negative response (i.e., reduced occurrence or activity) to increasing human presence and/or footprint across populations, whereas 58% of species were positively associated with increasing disturbance. However, apparent benefits of human presence and footprint tended to decrease or disappear at higher disturbance levels, indicative of thresholds in mammal species’ capacity to tolerate disturbance or exploit human-dominated landscapes. Species ecological and life history traits were strong predictors of their responses to human footprint, with increasing footprint favoring smaller, less carnivorous, faster-reproducing species. The positive and negative effects of human presence were distributed more randomly with respect to species trait values, with apparent winners and losers across a range of body sizes and dietary guilds. Differential responses by some species to human presence and human footprint highlight the importance of considering these two forms of human disturbance separately when estimating anthropogenic impacts on wildlife. Our approach provides insights into the complex mechanisms through which human activities shape mammal communities globally, revealing the drivers of the loss of larger predators in human-modified landscapes.