Outdoor recreation benefits local economies, environmental education, and public health and wellbeing, but it can also adversely affect local ecosystems. Human presence in natural areas alters feeding and reproductive behaviors, physiology, and population structure in many wildlife species, often resulting in cascading effects through entire ecological communities. As outdoor recreation gains popularity, existing trails are becoming overcrowded and new trails are being built to accommodate increasing use. Many recreation impact studies have investigated effects of the presence or absence of humans while few have investigated recreation effects on wildlife using a gradient of disturbance intensity. We used camera traps to quantify trail use by humans and mid- to large-sized mammals in an area of intense outdoor recreation–the Upper East River Valley, Colorado, USA. We selected five trails with different types and intensities of human use and deployed six cameras on each trail for five weeks during a COVID-enhanced 2020 summer tourism season. We used occupancy models to estimate detectability and habitat use of the three most common mammal species in the study area and determined which human activities affect the habitat use patterns of each species. Human activities affected each species differently. Mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) tended to use areas with more vehicles, more predators, and greater distances from the trailhead, and they were more likely to be detected where there were more bikers. Coyotes (Canis latrans) and red foxes (Vulpes vulpes) were most likely to use areas where their prey species occurred, and foxes were more likely to be detected where the vegetation was shorter. Humans and their recreational activities differentially influence different species. More generally, these results reinforce that it is unlikely that a single management policy is suitable for all species and management should thus be tailored for each target species.

The COVID-19 pandemic shut down undergraduate research programs across the United States. A group of 23 colleges, universities, and research institutes hosted remote undergraduate research programs in the life sciences during Summer 2020. Given the unprecedented offering of remote programs, we carried out a study to describe and evaluate them. Using structured templates, we documented how programs were designed and implemented, including who participated. Through focus groups and surveys, we identified programmatic strengths and shortcomings as well as recommendations for improvements from students' perspectives. Strengths included the quality of mentorship, opportunities for learning and professional development, and a feeling of connection with a larger community. Weaknesses included limited cohort building, challenges with insufficient structure, and issues with technology. Although all programs had one or more activities related to diversity, equity, inclusion, and justice, these topics were largely absent from student reports even though programs coincided with a peak in national consciousness about racial inequities and structural racism. Our results provide evidence for designing remote Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REUs) that are experienced favorably by students. Our results also indicate that remote REUs are sufficiently positive to further investigate their affordances and constraints, including the potential to scale up offerings, with minimal concern about disenfranchising students.

In-person undergraduate research experiences (UREs) promote students integration into careers in life science research. In 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic prompted institutions hosting summer URE programs to offer them remotely, raising questions about whether undergraduates who participate in remote research can experience scientific integration and whether they might perceive doing research less favorably (i.e., not beneficial or too costly). To address these questions, we examined indicators of scientific integration and perceptions of the benefits and costs of doing research among students who participated in remote life science URE programs in Summer 2020. We found that students experienced gains in scientific self-efficacy pre- to post-URE, similar to results reported for in-person UREs. We also found that students experienced gains in scientific identity, graduate and career intentions, and perceptions of the benefits of doing research only if they started their remote UREs at lower levels on these variables. Collectively, students did not change in their perceptions of the costs of doing research despite the challenges of working remotely. Yet students who started with low cost perceptions increased in these perceptions. These findings indicate that remote UREs can support students self-efficacy development, but may otherwise be limited in their potential to promote scientific integration.