Explore the vast range of titles available.

Monitoring is a prerequisite for evidence‐based wildlife management and conservation planning, yet conventional monitoring approaches are often ineffective for species occurring at low densities. However, some species such as large mammals are often observed by lay people and this information can be leveraged through citizen science monitoring schemes. To ensure that such wildlife monitoring efforts provide robust inferences, assessing the quantity, quality, and potential biases of citizen science data is crucial. For Eurasian moose (Alces alces), a species currently recolonizing north‐eastern Germany and occurring in very low numbers, we applied three citizen science tools: a mail/email report system, a smartphone application, and a webpage. Among these monitoring tools, the mail/email report system yielded the greatest number of moose reports in absolute and in standardized (corrected for time effort) terms. The reported moose were predominantly identified as single, adult, male individuals, and reports occurred mostly during late summer. Overlaying citizen science data with independently generated habitat suitability and connectivity maps showed that members of the public detected moose in suitable habitats but not necessarily in movement corridors. Also, moose detections were often recorded near roads, suggestive of spatial bias in the sampling effort. Our results suggest that citizen science‐based data collection can be facilitated by brief, intuitive digital reporting systems. However, inference from the resulting data can be limited due to unquantified and possibly biased sampling effort. To overcome these challenges, we offer specific recommendations such as more structured monitoring efforts involving the public in areas likely to be roamed by moose for improving quantity, quality, and analysis of citizen science‐based data for making robust inferences. Citizen science‐based monitoring approaches for moose (Alces alces) in northeast Germany have been analyzed and their characteristics and limitations have been assessed. We provide concrete technical and structural changes to overcome data collection biases and improve the quantity and quality of citizen science data.

Gray wolves (Canis lupus) are recolonizing many parts of central Europe and are a key part of international conservation directives. However, roads may hinder the reestablishment of gray wolves throughout their historic range by reducing landscape connectivity and increasing mortality from wildlife‐vehicle collisions. The impact of roads on wolves might be mitigated by the construction of green bridges (i.e., large vegetated overpasses, designed to accommodate the movement of wildlife over transportation corridors). In this study, we investigated the seasonal and diurnal use of a green bridge by wolves and three of their main prey species: red deer (Cervus elaphus), roe deer (Capreolus capreolus), and wild boar (Sus scrofa). We found that all four species used the green bridge. Wolves were most active in winter, whereas prey species were most active in spring and summer. All species were more active at dusk and during the night than at dawn and during the day. We found no evidence that wolf presence influenced bridge‐use by prey species, consistent with other tests of the prey‐trap hypothesis. Our results suggest that green bridges are used by wolves and prey species alike, and may foster connectivity and recolonization for these species in rewilding landscapes. In this study, we took the prominent example of wolves returning to Germany, and focused on the use of a major green highway bridge by wolves and their prey. First, we analyzed the temporal frequencies of wolf crossings, and second, we also analyzed wolf‐prey interactions for with red deer (Cervus elaphus), roe deer (Capreolus capreolus), and wild boar (Sus scrofa). We found that wolves were most active in winter, whereas prey species were most active in spring and summer. All species were more active at dusk and during the night than at dawn and during the day. We found no evidence that wolf presence on the bridge influenced bridge use by prey species. Our results suggest that green bridges can aid efforts to restore connectivity of the landscape and help foster recolonization of wolves and other species throughout the human‐dominated landscape.