1. 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.2. 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.3. 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, | 701Methods in Ecology and Evoluঞon KAYS et Al.

SummaryWildlife is an essential component of all ecosystems. Most places in the globe do not have local, timely information on which species are present or how their populations are changing. With the arrival of new technologies, camera traps have become a popular way to collect wildlife data. However, data collection has increased at a much faster rate than the development of tools to manage, process and analyse these data. Without these tools, wildlife managers and other stakeholders have little information to effectively manage, understand and monitor wildlife populations. We identify four barriers that are hindering the widespread use of camera trap data for conservation. We propose specific solutions to remove these barriers integrated in a modern technology platform called Wildlife Insights. We present an architecture for this platform and describe its main components. We recognize and discuss the potential risks of publishing shared biodiversity data and a framework to mitigate those risks. Finally, we discuss a strategy to ensure platforms like Wildlife Insights are sustainable and have an enduring impact on the conservation of wildlife.

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.

Opportunities for people to interact with nature have declined over the past century, as many now live in urban areas and spend much of their time indoors. Conservation attitudes and behaviors largely depend on experiences with nature, and this “extinction of experience” (EOE) is a threat to biodiversity conservation. In this paper, we propose that citizen science, an increasingly popular way to integrate public outreach with data collection, can potentially mitigate EOE. Our review of the literature on volunteers’ motivations and/or outcomes indicates that nature‐based citizen science (NBCS) fosters cognitive and emotional aspects of experiences in nature. Although these experiences can change participants’ behaviors and attitudes toward the natural world, this field remains largely unstudied. As such, even though NBCS can complement efforts to increase opportunities for people to interact with nature, further research on the mechanisms that drive this relationship is needed to strengthen our understanding of various outcomes of citizen science.

The establishment of protected areas is a key strategy for preserving biodiversity. However, human use of protected areas can cause disturbance to wildlife, especially in areas that allow hunting and if humans are accompanied by dogs (Canis familiaris). We used citizen-science run camera traps to investigate how humans, dogs and coyotes (Canis latrans) used 33 protected areas and analyzed behavioral responses by three prey species: white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), eastern gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis) and northern raccoon (Procyon lotor). We obtained 52 863 detections of native wildlife, 162 418 detections of humans and 23 332 detections of dogs over 42 874 camera nights. Most (99%) dogs were on the trail, and 89% offtrail dogs were accompanied by humans. Prey avoided dogs, humans and coyotes temporally, but did not avoid them spatially, or greatly increase vigilance. Our results indicate that humans are perceived as a greater risk than coyotes, and this increases when dogs accompany their owners. The concentration of dogs on the trail with their owners, and relatively minor behavioral impacts on prey, contrasts the strong negative ecological effects found in studies of free-ranging dogs. We found dog management to be effective: prohibiting dogs in protected areas reduced their use of an area by a factor of 10 and leash laws increased leashing rates by 21%. Although millions of dogs use natural areas in North America each year, regulations