Abstract: Summary 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. 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. 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. 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). 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: Despite numerous attempts to define animal tool use over the past four decades, the definition remains elusive and the behaviour classification somewhat subjective. Here, we provide a brief review of the definitions of animal tool use and show how those definitions have been modified over time. While some aspects have remained constant (i.e., the distinction between 'true' and 'borderline' tool use), others have been added (i.e., the distinction between 'dynamic' and 'static' behaviours). We present an updated, comprehensive catalog of documented animal tool use that indicates whether the behaviours observed included any 'true' tool use, whether the observations were limited to captive animals, whether tool manufacture has been observed, and whether the observed tool use was limited to only one individual and, thus, 'anecdotal' (i.e., N = 1). Such a catalog has not been attempted since Beck (1980). In addition to being a useful reference for behaviourists, this catalog demonstrates broad tool use and manufacture trends that may be of interest to phylogenists, evolutionary ecologists, and cognitive evolutionists. Tool use and tool manufacture are shown to be widespread across three phyla and seven classes of the animal kingdom. Moreover, there is complete overlap between the Aves and Mammalia orders in terms of the tool use categories (e.g., food extraction, food capture, agonism) arguing against any special abilities of mammals. The majority of tool users, almost 85% of the entries, use tools in only one of the tool use categories. Only members of the Passeriformes and Primates orders have been observed to use tools in four or more of the ten categories. Thus, observed tool use by some members of these two orders (e.g., Corvus, Papio) is qualitatively different from that of all other animal taxa. Finally, although there are similarities between Aves and Mammalia, and Primates and Passeriformes, primate tool use is qualitatively different. Approximately 35% of the entries for this order demonstrate a breadth of tool use (i.e., three or more categories by any one species) compared to other mammals (0%), Aves (2.4%), and the Passeriformes (3.1%). This greater breadth in tool use by some organisms may involve phylogenetic or cognitive differences � or may simply reflect differences in length and intensity of observations. The impact that tool usage may have had on groups' respective ecological niches and, through niche-construction, on their respective evolutionary trajectories remains a subject for future study.