Search for: All records

As keystone species, apex predators play a role in structuring most ecosystems through competition and facilitation, thereby affecting community structure, prey abundance and behavior, vegetation, and abiotic processes. Apex predators are also highly threatened and have been extirpated from much of North America, leading to mesocarnivores, such as coyotes (Canis latrans), becoming de facto apex predators in many ecosystems. However, it is unknown if these mesocarnivores can fill the same functional keystone role as true apex predators. We compared the spatial and temporal habitat use of mesocarnivores in two similar study systems, one with pumas (Puma concolor) and one without, to determine how the role of coyotes in structuring the carnivore community changes in the absence of pumas. We used multispecies occupancy and relative abundance models to examine the spatial avoidance of pumas and coyotes by the smaller mesocarnivores, and temporal overlap and avoidance‐attraction ratios to examine temporal avoidance. We found that coyotes partially fill the functional role of apex predators, but with weaker effects than pumas. Where pumas were absent, site use intensity and relative abundance increased for coyotes (180% and 1250%) and raccoons (Procyon lotor, 308% and 3273%) and decreased for bobcats (Lynx rufus, 36% and 55%), gray foxes (Urocyon cinereoargenteus, 13% and 32%), and striped skunks (Mephitis mephitis, 3% and 12%). Coyotes and raccoons shifted their temporal activity away from pumas, while gray foxes shifted their activity closer to pumas. Detection likelihood decreased for all species after detection of a puma (67%–93%) or coyote (46%–94%) in both sites, but small mesocarnivores avoided pumas more than coyotes in the study area with both. Interactions between carnivores are complex and best understood with multiple measures and in the context of the full community. While coyotes appear to suppress smaller mesocarnivores by some measures (e.g., temporal avoidance), they do not by others (e.g., spatial avoidance) and have overall weaker effects than pumas. Our results suggest that coyotes are not a substitute for apex predators, and conserving true apex predators is likely important for maintaining ecosystem health.

 

Wildlife must adapt to human presence to survive in the Anthropocene, so it is critical to understand species responses to humans in different contexts. We used camera trapping as a lens to view mammal responses to changes in human activity during the COVID-19 pandemic. Across 163 species sampled in 102 projects around the world, changes in the amount and timing of animal activity varied widely. Under higher human activity, mammals were less active in undeveloped areas but unexpectedly more active in developed areas while exhibiting greater nocturnality. Carnivores were most sensitive, showing the strongest decreases in activity and greatest increases in nocturnality. Wildlife managers must consider how habituation and uneven sensitivity across species may cause fundamental differences in human–wildlife interactions along gradients of human influence.

 

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. 

Managing wildlife populations in the face of global change requires regular data on the abundance and distribution of wild animals, but acquiring these over appropriate spatial scales in a sustainable way has proven challenging. Here we present the data from Snapshot USA 2020, a second annual national mammal survey of the USA. This project involved 152 scientists setting camera traps in a standardized protocol at 1485 locations across 103 arrays in 43 states for a total of 52,710 trap‐nights of survey effort. Most (58) of these arrays were also sampled during the same months (September and October) in 2019, providing a direct comparison of animal populations in 2 years that includes data from both during and before the COVID‐19 pandemic. All data were managed by the eMammal system, with all species identifications checked by at least two reviewers. In total, we recorded 117,415 detections of 78 species of wild mammals, 9236 detections of at least 43 species of birds, 15,851 detections of six domestic animals and 23,825 detections of humans or their vehicles. Spatial differences across arrays explained more variation in the relative abundance than temporal variation across years for all 38 species modeled, although there are examples of significant site‐level differences among years for many species. Temporal results show how species allocate their time and can be used to study species interactions, including between humans and wildlife. These data provide a snapshot of the mammal community of the USA for 2020 and will be useful for exploring the drivers of spatial and temporal changes in relative abundance and distribution, and the impacts of species interactions on daily activity patterns. There are no copyright restrictions, and please cite this paper when using these data, or a subset of these data, for publication.