Summary1. Reliable assessment of animal populations is a long-standing challenge in wildlife ecology. Technological advances have led to widespread adoption of camera traps (CTs) to survey wildlife distribution, abundance and behaviour. As for any wildlife survey method, camera trapping must contend with sources of sampling error such as imperfect detection. Early applications focused on density estimation of naturally marked species, but there is growing interest in broad-scale CT surveys of unmarked populations and communities. Nevertheless, inferences based on detection indices are controversial, and the suitability of alternatives such as occupancy estimation is debatable. 2. We reviewed 266 CT studies published between 2008 and 2013. We recorded study objectives and methodologies, evaluating the consistency of CT protocols and sampling designs, the extent to which CT surveys considered sampling error, and the linkages between analytical assumptions and species ecology. 3. Nearly two-thirds of studies surveyed more than one species, and a majority used response variables that ignored imperfect detection (e.g. presence-absence, relative abundance). Many studies used opportunistic sampling and did not explicitly report details of sampling design and camera deployment that could affect conclusions. 4. Most studies estimating density used capture-recapture methods on marked species, with spatially explicit methods becoming more prominent. Few studies estimated density for unmarked species, focusing instead on occupancy modelling or measures of relative abundance. While occupancy studies estimated detectability, most did not explicitly define key components of the modelling framework (e.g. a site) or discuss potential violations of model assumptions (e.g. site closure). Studies using relative abundance relied on assumptions of equal detectability, and most did not explicitly define expected relationships between measured responses and underlying ecological processes (e.g. animal abundance and movement). 5. Synthesis and applications. The rapid adoption of camera traps represents an exciting transition in wildlife survey methodology. We remain optimistic about the technology's promise, but call for more explicit consideration of underlying processes of animal abundance, movement and detection by cameras, including more thorough reporting of methodological details and assumptions. Such transparency will facilitate efforts to evaluate and improve the reliability of camera trap surveys, ultimately leading to stronger inferences and helping to meet modern needs for effective ecological inquiry and biodiversity monitoring.

Abstract. Occupancy models are increasingly applied to data from wildlife camera-trap (CT) surveys to estimate distribution, habitat use, or relative abundance of unmarked animals. Fundamental to the occupancy modeling framework is the temporal pattern of detections at camera stations, which is influenced by animal population density and the speed and scale of animal movement. How these factors interact with CT sampling designs to affect the interpretation of occupancy parameter estimates is unclear. We developed a simple yet ecologically relevant animal movement simulation to create CT detections for animal populations varying in movement rate, home range area, and population density. We also varied CT sampling design by the duration of sampling and the density of CTs in our simulated domain. A single-species occupancy model was fitted to simulated detection histories, and model-estimated probabilities of occupancy were compared to the asymptotic proportion of area occupied (PAO), calculated as the union of all simulated home ranges. Occupancy model parameter estimates were sensitive to simulated movement and sampling scenarios. Occupancy models overestimated asymptotic PAO when a low population density of simulated animals moved quickly over large home ranges and this positive bias was insensitive to sampling duration. Conversely, asymptotic PAO was underestimated when simulated animals moved slowly in large-or intermediately sized home ranges. This negative bias decreased with increasing sampling duration and a lower density of CTs. Our results emphasize that the interpretation of occupancy models depends on the underlying processes driving CT detections, specifically animal movement and population density, and that model estimates may not reliably reflect variation in these processes. We recommend carefully defining occupancy if it is applied to CT data in order to better match sampling and analytical frameworks to the ecology of sampled wildlife species.

Aim The influence of humans on large carnivores, including wolves, is a worldwide conservation concern. In addition, human‐caused changes in carnivore density and distribution might have impacts on prey and, indirectly, on vegetation. We therefore tested wolf responses to infrastructure related to natural resource development (i.e., human footprint). Location Our study provides one of the most extensive assessments of how predators like wolves select habitat in response to various degrees of footprint across boreal ecosystems encompassing over a million square kilometers of Canada. Methods We deployed GPS‐collars on 172 wolves, monitored movements and used a generalized functional response (GFR) model of resource selection. A functional response in habitat selection occurs when selection varies as a function of the availability of that habitat. GFRs can clarify how human‐induced habitat changes are influencing wildlife across large, diverse landscapes. Results Wolves displayed a functional response to footprint. Wolves were more likely to select forest harvest cutblocks in regions with higher cutblock density (i.e., a positive functional response to high‐quality habitats for ungulate prey) and to select for higher road density in regions where road density was high (i.e., a positive functional response to human‐created travel routes). Wolves were more likely to use cutblocks in habitats with low road densities, and more likely to use roads in habitats with low cutblock densities, except in winter when wolves were more likely to use roads regardless of cutblock density. Main conclusions These interactions suggest that wolves trade‐off among human‐impacted habitats, and adaptively switch from using roads to facilitate movement (while also risking encounters with humans), to using cutblocks that may have higher ungulate densities. We recommend that conservation managers consider the contextual and interacting effects of footprints when assessing impacts on carnivores. These effects likely have indirect impacts on ecosystems too, including on prey species.