@article{snider_helgen_young_agwanda_schuttler_titcomb_branch_dommain_kays_2024, title={Shifting mammal communities and declining species richness along an elevational gradient on Mount Kenya}, volume={14}, ISSN={["2045-7758"]}, url={https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.11151}, DOI={10.1002/ece3.11151}, abstractNote={AbstractConservation areas encompassing elevation gradients are biodiversity hotspots because they contain a wide range of habitat types in a relatively small space. Studies of biodiversity patterns along elevation gradients, mostly on small mammal or bird species, have documented a peak in diversity at mid elevations. Here, we report on a field study of medium and large mammals to examine the impact of elevation, habitat type, and gross primary productivity on community structure. Species richness was observed using a camera trap transect with 219 sites situated across different habitat types from 2329 to 4657 m above the sea level on the western slope of Mt Kenya, the second highest mountain in Africa. We found that the lowest elevation natural habitats had the highest species richness and relative abundance and that both metrics decreased steadily as elevation increased, paralleling changes in gross primary productivity, and supporting the energy richness hypothesis. We found no evidence for the mid‐domain effect on species diversity. The lowest elevation degraded Agro‐Forestry lands adjacent to the National Park had high activity of domestic animals and reduced diversity and abundance of native species. The biggest difference in community structure was between protected and unprotected areas, followed by more subtle stepwise differences between habitats at different elevations. Large carnivore species remained relatively consistent but dominant herbivore species shifted along the elevation gradient. There was some habitat specialization and turnover in species, such that the elevation gradient predicts a high diversity of species, demonstrating the high conservation return for protecting mountain ecosystems for biodiversity conservation.}, number={4}, journal={ECOLOGY AND EVOLUTION}, author={Snider, Matthew H. and Helgen, Kristofer M. and Young, Hillary S. and Agwanda, Bernard and Schuttler, Stephanie and Titcomb, Georgia C. and Branch, Douglas and Dommain, Rene and Kays, Roland}, year={2024}, month={Apr} }
 @article{kays_cove_diaz_todd_bresnan_snider_lee_jasper_douglas_crupi_et al._2022, title={SNAPSHOT USA 2020: A second coordinated national camera trap survey of the United States during the COVID-19 pandemic}, volume={6}, ISSN={["1939-9170"]}, url={https://doi.org/10.1002/ecy.3775}, DOI={10.1002/ecy.3775}, abstractNote={AbstractManaging wildlife populations in the face of global change requires regular data on the abundance and distribution of wild animals, but acquiring these over appropriate spatial scales in a sustainable way has proven challenging. Here we present the data from Snapshot USA 2020, a second annual national mammal survey of the USA. This project involved 152 scientists setting camera traps in a standardized protocol at 1485 locations across 103 arrays in 43 states for a total of 52,710 trap‐nights of survey effort. Most (58) of these arrays were also sampled during the same months (September and October) in 2019, providing a direct comparison of animal populations in 2 years that includes data from both during and before the COVID‐19 pandemic. All data were managed by the eMammal system, with all species identifications checked by at least two reviewers. In total, we recorded 117,415 detections of 78 species of wild mammals, 9236 detections of at least 43 species of birds, 15,851 detections of six domestic animals and 23,825 detections of humans or their vehicles. Spatial differences across arrays explained more variation in the relative abundance than temporal variation across years for all 38 species modeled, although there are examples of significant site‐level differences among years for many species. Temporal results show how species allocate their time and can be used to study species interactions, including between humans and wildlife. These data provide a snapshot of the mammal community of the USA for 2020 and will be useful for exploring the drivers of spatial and temporal changes in relative abundance and distribution, and the impacts of species interactions on daily activity patterns. There are no copyright restrictions, and please cite this paper when using these data, or a subset of these data, for publication.}, journal={ECOLOGY}, publisher={Wiley}, author={Kays, Roland and Cove, Michael V. and Diaz, Jose and Todd, Kimberly and Bresnan, Claire and Snider, Matt and Lee, Thomas E., Jr. and Jasper, Jonathan G. and Douglas, Brianna and Crupi, Anthony P. and et al.}, year={2022}, month={Jul} }
 @article{snider_athreya_balme_bidner_farhadinia_fattebert_gompper_gubbi_hunter_isbell_et al._2021, title={Home range variation in leopards living across the human density gradient}, volume={102}, ISSN={["1545-1542"]}, DOI={10.1093/jmammal/gyab068}, abstractNote={AbstractHome range size is a fundamental measure of animal space use, providing insight into habitat quality, animal density, and social organization. Human impacts increasingly are affecting wildlife, especially among wide-ranging species that encounter anthropogenic disturbance. Leopards (Panthera pardus) provide a useful model for studying this relationship because leopards coexist with people at high and low human densities and are sensitive to human disturbance. To compare leopard home range size across a range of human densities and other environmental conditions, we combined animal tracking data from 74 leopards in multiple studies with new analytical techniques that accommodate different sampling regimes. We predicted that home ranges would be smaller in more productive habitats and areas of higher human population density due to possible linkage with leopard prey subsidies from domestic species. We also predicted that male leopards would have larger home ranges than those of females. Home ranges varied in size from 14.5 km2 in India to 885.6 km2 in Namibia, representing a 60-fold magnitude of variation. Home range stability was evident for 95.2% of nontranslocated individuals and 38.5% of translocated individuals. Leopard home range sizes were negatively correlated with landscape productivity, and males used larger areas than females. Leopards in open habitats had a predicted negative correlation in home range size with human population density, but leopards in closed habitats used larger home ranges in areas with more people.}, number={4}, journal={JOURNAL OF MAMMALOGY}, author={Snider, Matthew H. and Athreya, Vidya R. and Balme, Guy A. and Bidner, Laura R. and Farhadinia, Mohammed S. and Fattebert, Julien and Gompper, Matthew E. and Gubbi, Sanjay and Hunter, Luke T. B. and Isbell, Lynne A. and et al.}, year={2021}, month={Aug}, pages={1138–1148} }