Are we telling the same story? Comparing inferences made from camera trap and telemetry data for wildlife monitoring

When and where? Day-night alterations in wild boar space use captured by a generalized additive mixed model

Wild boar (Sus scrofa), an abundant species across Europe, is often subjected to management in agro-ecosystems in order to control population size, or to scare them away from agricultural fields to safeguard crop yields. Wild boar management can benefit from a better understanding on changes in its space use across the diel cycle (i.e., diel space use) in relation to variable hunting pressures or other factors. Here, we estimate wild boar diel space use in an agro-ecosystem in central Belgium during four consecutive "growing seasons" (i.e., April-September). To achieve this, we fit generalized additive mixed models (GAMMs) to camera trap data of wild boar aggregated over 1-h periods. Our results reveal that wild boar are predominantly nocturnal in all of the hunting management zones in Meerdaal, with activity peaks around sunrise and sunset. Hunting events in our study area tend to take place around sunrise and sunset, while non-lethal human activities occur during sunlight hours. Our GAMM reveals that wild boar use different areas throughout the diel cycle. During the day, wild boar utilized areas in the centre of the forest, possibly to avoid human activities during daytime. During the night, they foraged near (or in) agricultural fields. A post hoc comparison of space use maps of wild boar in Meerdaal revealed that their diurnal and nocturnal space use were uncorrelated. We did not find sufficient evidence to prove that wild boar spatiotemporally avoid hunters. Finally, our work reveals the potential of GAMMs to model variation in space across 24-h periods from camera trap data, an application that will be useful to address a range of ecological questions. However, to test the robustness of this approach we advise that it should be compared against telemetry-based methods to derive diel space use.

Implications of the scale of detection for inferring co-occurrence patterns from paired camera traps and acoustic recorders

Multifunctional landscapes that support economic activities and conservation of biological diversity (e.g., cattle ranches with native forest) are becoming increasingly important because small remnants of native forest may comprise the only habitat left for some wildlife species. Understanding the co-occurrence between wildlife and disturbance factors, such as poaching activity and domesticated ungulates, is key to successful management of multifunctional landscapes. Tools to measure co-occurrence between wildlife and disturbance factors include camera traps and autonomous acoustic recording units. We paired 52 camera-trap stations with acoustic recorders to investigate the association between 2 measures of disturbance (poaching and cattle) and wild ungulates present in multifunctional landscapes of the Colombian Orinoquía. We used joint species distribution models to investigate species-habitat associations and species-disturbance correlations. One model was fitted using camera-trap data to detect wild ungulates and disturbance factors, and a second model was fitted after replacing camera-trap detections of disturbance factors with their corresponding acoustic detections. The direction, significance, and precision of the effect of covariates depended on the sampling method used for disturbance factors. Acoustic monitoring typically resulted in more precise estimates of the effects of covariates and of species-disturbance correlations. Association patterns between wildlife and disturbance factors were found only when disturbance was detected by acoustic recorders. Camera traps allowed us to detect nonvocalizing species, whereas audio recording devices increased detection of disturbance factors leading to more precise estimates of co-occurrence patterns. The collared peccary (Pecari tajacu), lowland tapir (Tapirus terrestris), and white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) co-occurred with disturbance factors and are conservation priorities due to the greater risk of poaching or disease transmission from cattle.

Cougars, wolves, and humans drive a dynamic landscape of fear for elk

To manage predation risk, prey navigate a dynamic landscape of fear, or spatiotemporal variation in risk perception, reflecting predator distributions, traits, and activity cycles. Prey may seek to reduce risk across this landscape using habitat at times and in places when predators are less active. In multipredator landscapes, avoiding one predator could increase vulnerability to another, making the landscape of fear difficult to predict and navigate. Additionally, humans may shape interactions between predators and prey, and induce new sources of risk. Humans can function as a shield, providing a refuge for prey from human-averse carnivores, and as a predator, causing mortality through hunting and vehicle collisions and eliciting a fear response that can exceed that of carnivores. We used telemetry data collected between 2017 and 2021 from 63 Global Positioning System-collared elk (Cervus canadensis), 42 cougars (Puma concolor), and 16 wolves (Canis lupus) to examine how elk habitat selection changed in relation to carnivores and humans in northeastern Washington, USA. Using step selection functions, we evaluated elk habitat use in relation to cougars, wolves, and humans, diel period (daytime vs. nighttime), season (summer calving season vs. fall hunting season), and habitat structure (open vs. closed habitat). The diel cycle was critical to understanding elk movement, allowing elk to reduce encounters with predators where and when they would be the largest threat. Elk strongly avoided cougars at night but had a near-neutral response to cougars during the day, whereas elk avoided wolves at all times of day. Elk generally used more open habitats where cougars and wolves were most active, rather than altering the use of habitat structure depending on the predator species. Elk avoided humans during the day and ~80% of adult female mortality was human caused, suggesting that humans functioned as a "super predator" in this system. Simultaneously, elk leveraged the human shield against wolves but not cougars at night, and no elk were confirmed to have been killed by wolves. Our results add to the mounting evidence that humans profoundly affect predator-prey interactions, highlighting the importance of studying these dynamics in anthropogenic areas.

Comparing wildlife habitat suitability models based on expert opinion with camera trap detections

Expert knowledge is used in the development of wildlife habitat suitability models (HSMs) for management and conservation decisions. However, the consistency of such models has been questioned. Focusing on 1 method for elicitation, the analytic hierarchy process, we generated expert-based HSMs for 4 felid species: 2 forest specialists (ocelot [Leopardus pardalis] and margay [Leopardus wiedii]) and 2 habitat generalist species (Pampas cat [Leopardus colocola] and puma [Puma concolor]). Using these HSMs, species detections from camera-trap surveys, and generalized linear models, we assessed the effect of study species and expert attributes on the correspondence between expert models and camera-trap detections. We also examined whether aggregation of participant responses and iterative feedback improved model performance. We ran 160 HSMs and found that models for specialist species showed higher correspondence with camera-trap detections (AUC [area under the receiver operating characteristic curve] >0.7) than those for generalists (AUC < 0.7). Model correspondence increased as participant years of experience in the study area increased, but only for the understudied generalist species, Pampas cat (β = 0.024 [SE 0.007]). No other participant attribute was associated with model correspondence. Feedback and revision of models improved model correspondence, and aggregating judgments across multiple participants improved correspondence only for specialist species. The average correspondence of aggregated judgments increased as group size increased but leveled off after 5 experts for all species. Our results suggest that correspondence between expert models and empirical surveys increases as habitat specialization increases. We encourage inclusion of participants knowledgeable of the study area and model validation for expert-based modeling of understudied and generalist species.

Density-dependent habitat selection alters drivers of population distribution in northern Yellowstone elk

Although it is well established that density dependence drives changes in organismal abundance over time, relatively little is known about how density dependence affects variation in abundance over space. We tested the hypothesis that spatial trade-offs between food and safety can change the drivers of population distribution, caused by opposing patterns of density-dependent habitat selection (DDHS) that are predicted by the multidimensional ideal free distribution. We addressed this using winter aerial survey data of northern Yellowstone elk (Cervus canadensis) spanning four decades. Supporting our hypothesis, we found positive DDHS for food (herbaceous biomass) and negative DDHS for safety (openness and roughness), such that the primary driver of habitat selection switched from food to safety as elk density decreased from 9.3 to 2.0 elk/km² . Our results demonstrate how population density can drive landscape-level shifts in population distribution, confounding habitat selection inference and prediction and potentially affecting community-level interactions.

Are we telling the same story? Comparing inferences made from camera trap and telemetry data for wildlife monitoring

Estimating habitat and spatial associations for wildlife is common across ecological studies and it is well known that individual traits can drive population dynamics and vice versa. Thus, it is commonly assumed that individual- and population-level data should represent the same underlying processes, but few studies have directly compared contemporaneous data representing these different perspectives. We evaluated the circumstances under which data collected from Lagrangian (individual-level) and Eulerian (population-level) perspectives could yield comparable inference to understand how scalable information is from the individual to the population. We used Global Positioning System (GPS) collar (Lagrangian) and camera trap (Eulerian) data for seven species collected simultaneously in eastern Washington (2018-2020) to compare inferences made from different survey perspectives. We fit the respective data streams to resource selection functions (RSFs) and occupancy models and compared estimated habitat- and space-use patterns for each species. Although previous studies have considered whether individual- and population-level data generated comparable information, ours is the first to make this comparison for multiple species simultaneously and to specifically ask whether inferences from the two perspectives differed depending on the focal species. We found general agreement between the predicted spatial distributions for most paired analyses, although specific habitat relationships differed. We hypothesize the discrepancies arose due to differences in statistical power associated with camera and GPS-collar sampling, as well as spatial mismatches in the data. Our research suggests data collected from individual-based sampling methods can capture coarse population-wide patterns for a diversity of species, but results differ when interpreting specific wildlife-habitat relationships.