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. 

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. 

Abstract Camera traps deployed in grids or stratified random designs are a well‐established survey tool for wildlife but there has been little evaluation of study design parameters.We used an empirical subsampling approach involving 2,225 camera deployments run at 41 study areas around the world to evaluate three aspects of camera trap study design (number of sites, duration and season of sampling) and their influence on the estimation of three ecological metrics (species richness, occupancy and detection rate) for mammals.We found that 25–35 camera sites were needed for precise estimates of species richness, depending on scale of the study. The precision of species‐level estimates of occupancy (ψ) was highly sensitive to occupancy level, with <20 camera sites needed for precise estimates of common (ψ > 0.75) species, but more than 150 camera sites likely needed for rare (ψ < 0.25) species. Species detection rates were more difficult to estimate precisely at the grid level due to spatial heterogeneity, presumably driven by unaccounted habitat variability factors within the study area. Running a camera at a site for 2 weeks was most efficient for detecting new species, but 3–4 weeks were needed for precise estimates of local detection rate, with no gains in precision observed after 1 month. Metrics for all mammal communities were sensitive to seasonality, with 37%–50% of the species at the sites we examined fluctuating significantly in their occupancy or detection rates over the year. This effect was more pronounced in temperate sites, where seasonally sensitive species varied in relative abundance by an average factor of 4–5, and some species were completely absent in one season due to hibernation or migration.We recommend the following guidelines to efficiently obtain precise estimates of species richness, occupancy and detection rates with camera trap arrays: run each camera for 3–5 weeks across 40–60 sites per array. We recommend comparisons of detection rates be model based and include local covariates to help account for small‐scale variation. Furthermore, comparisons across study areas or times must account for seasonality, which could have strong impacts on mammal communities in both tropical and temperate sites.