SNAPSHOT USA 2021: A third coordinated national camera trap survey of the United States.

SNAPSHOT USA is a multicontributor, long-term camera trap survey designed to survey mammals across the United States. Participants are recruited through community networks and directly through a website application (https://www.snapshot-usa.org/). The growing Snapshot dataset is useful, for example, for tracking wildlife population responses to land use, land cover, and climate changes across spatial and temporal scales. Here we present the SNAPSHOT USA 2021 dataset, the third national camera trap survey across the US. Data were collected across 109 camera trap arrays and included 1711 camera sites. The total effort equaled 71,519 camera trap nights and resulted in 172,507 sequences of animal observations. Sampling effort varied among camera trap arrays, with a minimum of 126 camera trap nights, a maximum of 3355 nights, a median 546 nights, and a mean 656 ± 431 nights. This third dataset comprises 51 camera trap arrays that were surveyed during 2019, 2020, and 2021, along with 71 camera trap arrays that were surveyed in 2020 and 2021. All raw data and accompanying metadata are stored on Wildlife Insights (https://www.wildlifeinsights.org/), and are publicly available upon acceptance of the data papers. SNAPSHOT USA aims to sample multiple ecoregions in the United States with adequate representation of each ecoregion according to its relative size. Currently, the relative density of camera trap arrays varies by an order of magnitude for the various ecoregions (0.22-5.9 arrays per 100,000 km2), emphasizing the need to increase sampling effort by further recruiting and retaining contributors. There are no copyright restrictions on these data. We request that authors cite this paper when using these data, or a subset of these data, for publication. Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the US Government.

Mammal responses to global changes in human activity vary by trophic group and landscape.

Wildlife must adapt to human presence to survive in the Anthropocene, so it is critical to understand species responses to humans in different contexts. We used camera trapping as a lens to view mammal responses to changes in human activity during the COVID-19 pandemic. Across 163 species sampled in 102 projects around the world, changes in the amount and timing of animal activity varied widely. Under higher human activity, mammals were less active in undeveloped areas but unexpectedly more active in developed areas while exhibiting greater nocturnality. Carnivores were most sensitive, showing the strongest decreases in activity and greatest increases in nocturnality. Wildlife managers must consider how habituation and uneven sensitivity across species may cause fundamental differences in human-wildlife interactions along gradients of human influence.

Relative effects of nocturnal vs diurnal pollinators and distance on gene flow in small Silene alba populations.

Silene alba exists in natural metapopulations throughout its range and is visited by a suite of both diurnal and nocturnal pollinators. Pollen-mediated gene flow may help reduce genetic isolation of subpopulations. Here, we compared the relative effects of nocturnal vs diurnal pollinators on pollen-mediated gene flow in subpopulations separated by two distance treatments. We established populations consisting of genetically marked individuals in an old field in Tennessee (USA). Electrophoretic examination of seedlings produced by plants exposed to nocturnal, diurnal and control pollinator treatments and separated by either 20 or 80 m allowed us to directly measure pollen-mediated gene flow. Gene flow was more common between populations separated by only 20 m. Nocturnal pollinators were responsible for most gene flow between populations, regardless of distance. Diurnal pollinators played only a small role in pollen-mediated gene flow. The results suggest that nocturnal pollinators are better than diurnal pollinators at moving pollen between small S. alba subpopulations. However, their effectiveness declines as the distance between subpopulations increases, making them relatively ineffective at moving genes between isolated subpopulations.