Mammal communities are larger and more diverse in moderately developed areas

Developed areas are thought to have low species diversity, low animal abundance, few native predators, and thus low resilience and ecological function. Working with citizen scientist volunteers to survey mammals at 1427 sites across two development gradients (wild-rural-exurban- suburban-urban) and four plot types (large forests, small forest fragments, open areas and residential yards) in the eastern US, we show that developed areas actually had significantly higher or statistically similar mammalian occupancy, relative abundance, richness and diversity compared to wild areas. However, although some animals can thrive in suburbia, conservation of wild areas and preservation of green space within cities are needed to protect sensitive species and to give all species the chance to adapt and persist in the Anthropocene. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.38012.00

Identifying conservation priorities for an understudied species in decline: Golden cats (Catopuma temminckii) in mainland Tropical Asia

Abstract Identifying conservation priorities for an understudied species can be challenging, as the amount and type of data available to work with are often limited. Here, we demonstrate a flexible workflow for identifying priorities for such data-limited species, focusing on the little-studied Asian golden cat (Catopuma temminckii) in mainland Tropical Asia. Using recent occurrence records, we modeled the golden cat's expected area of occurrence and identified remaining habitat strongholds (i.e., large intact areas with moderate-to-high expected occurrence). We then classified these strongholds by recent camera-trap survey status (from a literature review) and near-future threat status (based on publicly available forest loss projections and Bayesian Belief Network derived estimates of hunting-induced extirpation risk) to identify conservation priorities. Finally, we projected the species' expected area of occurrence in the year 2000, approximately three generations prior to today, to define past declines and better evaluate the species' current conservation status. Lower levels of hunting-induced extirpation risk and higher levels of closed-canopy forest cover were the strongest predictors of recent camera-trap records. Our projections suggest a 68% decline in area with moderate-to-high expected occurrence between 2000 and 2020, with a further 18% decline predicted over the next 20 years. Past and near-future declines were primarily driven by cumulatively increasing levels of hunting-induced extirpation risk, suggesting assessments of conservation status based solely on declines in habitat may underestimate actual population declines. Of the 40 remaining habitat strongholds, 77.5% were seriously threatened by forest loss and hunting. Only 52% of threatened strongholds had at least one site surveyed, compared to 100% of low-to-moderate threat strongholds, thus highlighting an important knowledge gap concerning the species' current distribution and population status. Our results suggest the golden cat has experienced, and will likely continue to experience, considerable population declines and should be considered for up-listing to a threatened category (i.e., VU/EN) under criteria A2c of the IUCN Red List

An empirical evaluation of camera trap study design: How many, how long and when?

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 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

Data from: Mammal communities are larger and more diverse in moderately developed areas

Developed areas are thought to have low species diversity, low animal abundance, few native predators, and thus low resilience and ecological function. Working with citizen scientist volunteers to survey mammals at 1427 sites across two development gradients (wild-rural-exurban-suburban-urban) and four plot types (large forests, small forest fragments, open areas and residential yards) in the eastern US, we show that developed areas actually had significantly higher or statistically similar mammalian occupancy, relative abundance, richness and diversity compared to wild areas. However, although some animals can thrive in suburbia, conservation of wild areas and preservation of green space within cities are needed to protect sensitive species and to give all species the chance to adapt and persist in the Anthropocene