Although protected areas are the basis for many conservation efforts they are rarely of an adequate size for the long-term survival of populations of large, wide-roaming mammals. In the Maasai Mara, Kenya, communally owned wildlife conservancies have been developed to expand the area available for wildlife. As these continue to develop it is important to ensure that the areas chosen are beneficial to wildlife. Using presence data for cheetahs Acinonyx jubatus, elephants Loxodonta africana, spotted hyaenas Crocuta crocuta, leopards Panthera pardus, lions Panthera leo and wild dogs Lycaon pictus, collected through interviews with 648 people living outside protected areas, we identify key wildlife areas using false positive site-occupancy modelling. The probabilities of site use were first determined per species based on habitat, distance to protected area, human presence and rivers, and these probabilities were then combined to create a map to highlight key wildlife areas. All species, except hyaenas, preferred sites closer to the protected areas but site use varied by species depending on habitat type. All six species avoided human presence. Leopards, elephants, lions and wild dogs preferred sites closer to rivers. The resulting combined map highlights areas that could potentially benefit from conservation efforts, including the expansion of wildlife areas, and areas where human development, such as a newly tarmacked road, could have an impact on wildlife.

The molecular detection of predation is a fast growing field, allowing highly specific and sensitive detection of prey DNA within the gut contents or faeces of a predator. Like all molecular methods, this technique is prone to potential sources of error that can result in both false positive and false negative results. Here, we test the hypothesis that the use of suction samplers to collect predators from the field for later molecular analysis of predation will lead to high numbers of false positive results. We show that, contrary to previous published work, the use of suction samplers resulted in previously starved predators testing positive for aphid and collembolan DNA, either as a results of ectopic contamination or active predation in the collecting cup/bag. The contradictory evidence for false positive results, across different sampling protocols, sampling devices and different predator-prey systems, highlights the need for experimentation prior to mass field collections of predators to find techniques that minimise the risk of false positives.